Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Safe Is All Composite B787?  
User currently offlineHawker From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 105 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

I know very little about composite construction bit feel a little nervous about flying in such a plane. With metal it is possible to see cracks developing but are there any warning signs with composites? Have large composite sections been used previously in airliners, with the repeated pressurisation and landing cycles over a period of years, to demonstrate their durability?

Also all new airliners have teething problems but it seems that Boeing are taking a considerable risk with all the new technologies in the 787. If the plane has even minor technical problems which make it unreliable, won't Boeing be in serious trouble?

The A380 is an incremental technical advance, but is Boeing in the same position as De Havilland with the first Comet, which had fatigue problems which were outside the scope of all previous technical experience.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17036 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

Well, any aircraft has to pass exactly the same certification criteria whether it's made of titanium or toilet paper, so I think you should feel pretty safe. We've come a long way since the Comet.

Also composites have been used in various applications (not only aircraft) for decades so their characteristics are very well know.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

Hawker, sure you're not also using the handle "A380900"?  Wink

As Starlionblue said, it will have to pass exacting standards and tests in order to be certified, so I don't think I'd hesitate at all in flying that beautiful bird when it rolls out.


User currently offlineTrappedInMKG From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

First of all, the tail of the A300 is composite, and that's a pretty big structure. If there were major problems with this, I would think we would have known by now. This also means that mechanics and certification authorities (the FAA) have at least some experience dealing with this sort of thing.

Second, as Starlion said, the aircraft has to be certified. That means that it will go through extremely rigorous testing before any passengers come anywhere near it. The intent of this period is to uncover any problems BEFORE they become especially dangerous. Here's hoping this process works the way it's supposed to.

Third, although it's natural, this kind of fear is symptomatic of a larger problem rampant on A.net, the thinking that airliner manufacturers, airlines, etc. don't know what they're doing and haven't put tremendous amounts of thoughts into things. If composites weren't safe, Boeing wouldn't be using them.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

Composites can also be laid in a manner that there are no stress points at critical junctions or can also be set to flex in specific ways while not fatiguing. In this way, it could be argued that composites are stronger, therefore safer for this application.

There are a number of airplanes out there that have used a composite fuselage already. The Raytheon Premere business jet is one of them. Composites have also seen much heavier usage in military aircraft for years so this isn't as simple as slide rules making the comet. Aircraft manufacturing isn't some sort of black art like it once was (unless your Burt Rutan). The major manufacturers have tweaked present designs to the point that a new leap is needed because they can't get much more out of what's there. This aircraft, like the 777 and A380 before it will "fly" thousands of times in computer simulations and every major issue will be addressed before the thing even lifts off the ground. If the A380 were developed today using advances that weren't there five or ten years ago it would likely incorporate much more composite material.



DMI
User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

From a risk management point of view, you will be much safer in the 787 than in an aluminum bird. The aircraft will be held to the same test standards as current aircraft. Properly bonded, composite components are much stronger than their aluminum counterparts. Composite parts have several layers that are baked together at high temperature-strong as steel when they come out of the oven and being nonmetallic, they don't have the problem of corrosion that aluminum has. Composite parts have been out there long enough that there are already established inspection protocols.

As for taking significant risk-sometimes you have to do that to stay alive. What if Boeing had thought that either the 707 or 747 designs were too risky? Boeing had considerable experiance with jet bombers and large aircraft that made them feel that techonoligically, both airplanes were possible. When it came to the sales end of the business, they looked at their estimates and took the leap of faith. Aversion to reasonable risk creates stagnation.



"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineAR1300 From Argentina, joined Feb 2005, 1740 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting TrappedInMKG (Reply 3):
First of all, the tail of the A300 is composite, and that's a pretty big structure. If there were major problems with this, I would think we would have known by now.

Ask AA or Air Transat about this.They know a lot about A300/10 and tails and how safe it is and stuff.  Big grin (Those accidents had nothing to do with the material per se, if I'm not mistaking, they were due to the pilot's fault.At least with the AA one.)

I agree with Starlionblue.

Mike



They don't call us Continental for nothing.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8961 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3562 times:

Quoting Hawker (Thread starter):
Have large composite sections been used previously in airliners, with the repeated pressurisation and landing cycles over a period of years, to demonstrate their durability?

The B-2, built by Boeing. Plus numerous other military aircraft make extensive use of these materials.

BTW, it's not really a "plastic," it's a fiber, much more than just a plastic. Think kevlar (although Boeing isn't using any kevlar), they bullet proof everything with it nowadays.

With the little I know about these materials, I would feel safer in a composite aircraft then in a metal one.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineMilan320 From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 869 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

In that case, could someone englighten me on the apparent problems that the Mitsubishi built wing for the F-22, I believe, has had? I've read numerous times that cracks have been found in the composite wing, and it's Mitsubishi that's producing the wing for the 787 isn't it??
/milan320



I accept bribes ... :-)
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
The B-2, built by Boeing

Northrop built the B-2.

Quoting Milan320 (Reply 8):
Mitsubishi built wing for the F-22

Boeing builds the wing for the F-22. You are thinking about some Japanese fighter (F-5?) that had problems.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is from the Boeing info page for the 787
and is the percentage of the acft that is made from composites

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/programfacts.html

Material breakout on 787
Composites - 50%
Aluminum - 20%
Titanium - 15%
Steel - 10%
Other - 5%

It is NOT an all composite acft. It is 50% composites.



Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8239 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting TrappedInMKG (Reply 3):
First of all, the tail of the A300 is composite, and that's a pretty big structure

I wouldn't use the A300 tail as a positive example, given 2 incidents in recent years which have brought up serious questions about that particular empenage. However, Boeing's got alot of experiance building airplanes. If they think composites have come of age and it's time to build a jetliner out of them, then I'm willing to bet my life it's 100% safe. Boeing won't go about gambling people's lives just to have an edge in marketing.



This Website Censors Me
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Safe Is Booking Varig For October? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 12:11:09 by Glareskin
How Safe Is Lagos For Aircrew? posted Mon Feb 20 2006 17:35:30 by NG737PSR
"How Safe Is It To Fly In Africa?" (BBC) posted Wed Dec 14 2005 00:51:46 by Varig767
How Safe Is This? Or The Risks. posted Fri Jul 22 2005 03:54:15 by Blasphemystic
How Safe Is AMS? posted Mon Jan 3 2005 22:41:06 by Dlx737200
St. Maarten, How Safe Is Jet Blast? posted Fri Aug 6 2004 00:05:14 by Sspontak
How Safe Is KE? posted Tue Apr 20 2004 20:05:53 by BlueJet
How Safe Is AeroCalifornia posted Fri Sep 26 2003 19:36:16 by ElPelon
How Safe Is The Israeli posted Mon Dec 16 2002 21:36:03 by Wing
How Safe Is Airline Water? posted Sun Nov 3 2002 04:18:04 by Elal106