Delta 747-400 might be scrapped after encountering hailstorm in flight.

[Mickey1992]

The pictures of the damaged wings are really surprising.  Of course, the trashed nose is a little concerning.

Wouldn't a pilot try and avoid a storm like this in its path?



http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2015/06/30/hail-pummels-delta-747-over-china-nwas-spirit-of.html

[XxDaSTaRxx]

Some idiotic pilots.

Even with weather radar.

[Ripsnort]

Someone is assuming it would be scrap?
LOL!

In 1985 A team of Boeing Engineers and mechanics once flew over to Paki after a 747 ran off the runway and trashed it's landing gear (collapsed, or failure to put them down, I don't remember but there was severe damage to the belly) and managed to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

This would be a piece of cake to fix compared to that aforementioned endeavor in Paki !

[mikeWe9a]

The article states that the aircraft may not be returned to service, and notes that Delta is phasing out it's 747s over the next 2 years.  The aircraft would likely not NEED to be "scrapped," though it is possible that Delta would not find it financially sound to repair it with little time left to recoup the costs.  Based on an article linked from the first story, the aircraft's depreciated value is between $6 and $10 million, so it may not be worth it to repair even if it is possible (given the apparently severe turbulence it encountered, there may be damage to structure from over-stress as well).  The article suggests the engines could be sold for between $1 and $2.5 million each, though expecting the engines to be undamaged after going through that hail might be a stretch.

Mike

[PR3D4TOR]

Considering that a new one costs $200+ million a $6 million repair bill is well worth it. Even if Delta doesn't fix it they will sell the aircraft to someone who do.

[mbailey]

Or turn it into their insurance company, get their settlement and have the insurance company take it for salvage......expecially if they were looking to thin them out of the fleet anyway

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The aircraft was already 24 years old.

[Ripsnort]

The aircraft was already 24 years old.

That's very old in Airbus years. Just breaking it in with Boeing years...

[saggs]

The aircraft was already 24 years old.

Pshhh... ... 24 is just a young 'un. 

At my work we operate aircraft daily that are 50-70+ yrs old.

[Karnak]

Pshhh... ... 24 is just a young 'un. 

At my work we operate aircraft daily that are 50-70+ yrs old.

Probably not pressurized ones.  Pressurization limits an airframe's longevity whereas aircraft that are not pressurized can pretty much be flown forever so long as they are maintained.

[Curval]

Glad I wasn't on that plane.

I went to London last week and was in the back of the bus.  The woman in front of me had what I can only describe as a super reclining chair and her seat was so close I had to recline my chair just to be able to see the TV screen on the chair back because it was so close.

It made me feel claustrophobic badly.

At some point in the flight I drifted off and only woke up when the plane dropped like 100 feet out of the sky and then started being thrown about by the turbulence.   I woke up, grabbed the seat handles and both my feet shot up under her chair so hard she actually said "Ow".

No more sleep for me.  We ran into 3 of these weather incidents on the flight.  Scary as hell.

[mike8318]

We are supposed to be phasing them out anyway. Our 777's and 767ER's are much more fuel efficient. We are even making a few 757's usable for some international routes.

[Zimme83]

Probably not pressurized ones.  Pressurization limits an airframe's longevity whereas aircraft that are not pressurized can pretty much be flown forever so long as they are maintained.

yep, but a Boeing is on the ground so much that it dont get that many cykels in 24 years. 

(Sorry, could not resist it.)

A 24 year old 4-engine plane is prob not worth repairing even if the damage is moderate. It doesnt have that many years left as a passenger plane. B-747 is not excatly a money maker either so I fully understand if they scrap it.

[saggs]

Probably not pressurized ones.  Pressurization limits an airframe's longevity whereas aircraft that are not pressurized can pretty much be flown forever so long as they are maintained.

Right.  Our DC-6s where pressurized originally, but when we got 'em we pulled out the cabin superchargers, mixers and all the pressurization stuff.  Makes life much simpler maintenance wise.  But what's really stupid is even though we don't fly them pressurized any more, we still have to certain inspections to comply with ADs dealing with pressurization issues.

Our oldest planes (C-46s) where never pressurized, and where built in the war to only last 500 hours (they figured during the war, within 500 flight hours it would either be crashed or shot down).  We have some at over 30,000 hours now, but all the really poorly manufactured war-era parts have been replaced with better post war (1950s) manufactured parts.

We do however operate DC-9s, some of which are 40+ yrs old which are pressurized, the more cycles they have the more NDI stuff we have to do on the pressure vessel, but we've never encountered any problems in that area.

It's just funny to me.  24yrs old where I work would be considered practically brand new.

[Ripsnort]

I would have hated being a passenger in seat 1A or 1K on that flight!