Jump to content

      













Photo

RCAF Snowbirds events on Vancouver Island


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#101 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 4,094 posts
  • LocationGorge-Selkirk

Posted 06 August 2019 - 09:57 PM

Age in years doesn’t mean all that much when it comes to aircraft. Consider the B-52H, which is scheduled to remain in active service with the US military until sometime around 2050. (The H is the newest version, which entered service in 1961.) And NASA once declared the airframe of the Martin Mars to be practically “as-new”, thanks in part to having fewer flying hours than your average 10-year-old airliner.

Since my taxes help pay for the Snowbirds, I’m quite okay with using the Tutors for as long as it’s reasonably feasible. If it ain’t broke, don’t replace it with something stupidly expensive. And when the time comes, why not use Hawks or Alphas for the demo team, like others do?

Well why not use the Hawks or Alphas as possible replacements indeed; the BAE Hawk is a fine and nimble plane, well suited to an aerobatic role. Who exactly suggested otherwise? And who suggested anything "stupidly expensive" as a possible replacement for the Tutors? Certainly not me. Re: the F-18 i merely re-stated one possible and oft-suggested option...

 

Without checking with my air force pal I'm pretty confident in stating the Tutor airframes have a lot more flying hours on them than a 10 year airliner. Remember for their first decade of their life they were front line RCAF training aircraft, flying plenty of "regular" hours training Canadian and Allied/NATO aircrews, on top of the 45+ years now of extreme air demonstration flights.

 

And unlike a Tutor a B-52 doesn't pull off the same extreme manoeuvres, moreover unlike Canada the US has virtually unlimited funds for aircraft support and maintenance; if they wanted to I've no doubt they could trot out a fleet of model A cars with wings and make them fly successfully. The B-52 is a robust plane maintained by the best funded military establishment on the planet; which additionally has had far fewer demands put upon it in the last thirty years since the introduction of the B-1 and B-2 bombers starting in the 1980's.

 

The USAF spends more on maintaining and servicing their bomber fleet alone than we spend on our entire armed forces annually therefore I would expect all of the aircraft in their inventory to be in top condition. And besides as any good accountant will tell you the costs of maintaining depreciating assets, older aircraft in this case, skyrocket exponentially as the aircraft ages.


  • Mike K. and Wayne like this

#102 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,063 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:49 AM

...
The USAF spends more on maintaining and servicing their bomber fleet alone than we spend on our entire armed forces annually therefore I would expect all of the aircraft in their inventory to be in top condition...


I get that you’re not pleased with Canada’s small military budget. Despite it, the Tutors are in fine condition no matter what their age and usage, and I give full marks to the people who look after them. I’ll bet they’re just as good at their job as the B-52 mechanics. :-)

#103 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,063 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:01 PM

I’m not much of an aviation buff, but I found an interesting doc that indicates flight hours on Tutors. There are three former Snowbirds at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum, and they retired at 6853.1 hours, 9297.5 hours, and 7257.4 hours.

https://documents.te...rCL-41Tutor.pdf

And a quick bit of googling tells me some commercial airliners can fly as much as as 3000 hours or more per year.
  • Dr. Barillas and Victoria Watcher like this

#104 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,873 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM

And a quick bit of googling tells me some commercial airliners can fly as much as as 3000 hours or more per year.

 

yes.  believe it or not a jet engine is - in relative terms - not a complex machine.   it just took until the 40's and then beyond to develop the space-age materials and very exact machined tolerances required for it to be built.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM.


#105 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 51,405 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM

That does not sound like a lot of air time.

I looked at an ATV for sale today with over 2,700 hours running time. It was a 2007 model.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#106 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,659 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:31 PM

Apparently the average lifespan of a modern, western-built fighter jet is 4,000-6,000 hours of flight time. Also keep in mind that these days a US Air Force pilot averages only 150 hours flight time per year. via https://www.quora.co...expectancy-ends



#107 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 6,873 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:41 PM

Apparently the average lifespan of a modern, western-built fighter jet is 4,000-6,000 hours of flight time. Also keep in mind that these days a US Air Force pilot averages only 150 hours flight time per year. 

 

the other 1930 hours a year on duty they spend in the classroom learning how much trouble they will get in if they crash a plane.   :wave:


  • Mike K. likes this

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users