Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Composite Structure...Learning A New Trade  
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12284 times:

I thought I would open a discussion on the trials and tribulations of building a composite aircraft. It seems like this is a "new trade" for the major airplane manufacturers and as such has come with its own set of problems.

What can Airbus do to ensure a problem free construction from start to finish? Are they paying attention to its rival? Will they learn from the mistakes? Knowing about potential issues may not be enough. It may require a bit of old fashioned luck as well.

Lastly, I worry about the reliability of composite structures and hope both manufacturers get it right. In my opinion, these test pilots will be earning their wages on their first flight.


757: The last of the best
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2607 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12225 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
Lastly, I worry about the reliability of composite structures and hope both manufacturers get it right. In my opinion, these test pilots will be earning their wages on their first flight.

I am convinced that IF there will be problems with composite structures they will occur later during the operation, not during FF. We all know how planes are treated on busy airports. It remains to be seen if all damages will be detected early enough.

Another issue will be when a B 787 or a A 350 will be sold as "second-hand-plane" to a no-name-carrier as it happened with the DC 8s and B 707s. Will these operators be able to keep up the required level of maintenance?

When commenting in that way recently, I was being told that composite structures have proven well in the military aviation and in aerospace. Ok, but I still think that airport-day-to-day-business and no-name-operators are a different pair of shoes.

All I want to say (before I will be killed for this) is that these issues might occur later during operation, not during first flight.

Best regards
N14AZ


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12108 times:

Some of the activities at Airbus are described here:
http://elib.dlr.de/48672/01/9-ESACOMP_DLR_FA_SM_AK.pdf

At page 4 you can see that Airbus steadily increased the CFRP portion. From no Airbus plane to another the increase in CFRP usage was more than 20%.

Boeing on the other hand took the challenge to increase the CFRP portion from 10% to 50% in one step. Might be a factor why the 787 development went not so smooth.

I have a research report from 1986 that outlines the design of a Airbus CFRP fuselage so detailed that I really can not see a big step in any area for the real A350 fuselage.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11879 times:

As stated to another member, I'm still worried how difficult it is to work with composites on such a large scale. It's not a management issue as much as a "new technology" for both parties.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Ok, but I still think that airport-day-to-day-business and no-name-operators are a different pair of shoes.

Right, how about holes in the fuselage? How will they be fixed? We're dealing with a new set of trades here. Will they have to fly in a composites expert?

How do the periodic checks an aircraft is subject to differ with the new material vs. a "conventional aircraft?"



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11747 times:

From what I know, unlike the B-787, the A350XWB frame will not be entirely built out of composites. I think a major part of the frame will be "traditional" materials.


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11727 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 3):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 1):
Ok, but I still think that airport-day-to-day-business and no-name-operators are a different pair of shoes.

Right, how about holes in the fuselage? How will they be fixed? We're dealing with a new set of trades here. Will they have to fly in a composites expert?

I suspect the job market for airframe mechanics from the military forces flying composite airplanes now will be very good as airplanes like the B-787 and A0350 begin entering the airlines.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11693 times:



 airplane   veryhappy   airplane 



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11598 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
What can Airbus do to ensure a problem free construction from start to finish? Are they paying attention to its rival? Will they learn from the mistakes?

Yes, it seems.



http://www.slideshare.net/aergenium/b787-lessons-learnt-presentation


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2138 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11547 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
It seems like this is a "new trade"

New trade? Every time an A380-800 takes to the sky, it carries with it 35 tonnes of CFRP, including essentially the entire tail section and the center wing box. I know it's hard to believe, but that's about as much CFRP as you'll find in a fully finished 787-8.

So, a new trade this is not. Perhaps the bits having to do with cost optimization and mass production are new, but the technical stuff is not.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11344 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
New trade? Every time an A380-800 takes to the sky, it carries with it 35 tonnes of CFRP, including essentially the entire tail section and the center wing box. I

Is the 787 going to be the first commercial aircraft with a pressurized cabin made mostly of composites?

Tail sections are nothing new I'll admit, but what's the RATIO of CFRP on a 350 vs a 380? We're talking about significantly higher figures. As stated above I think the act of pressurizing a tube made of composites will come with it's own challenges.

IMHO it's a new trade when we start experimenting with parts not previously made from CFRP's. Aside from military aircraft, we don't truly know how they will react when applied to the civilian side (cycles, pressurization, size, etc.)



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 3):
I'm still worried how difficult it is to work with composites on such a large scale. It's not a management issue as much as a "new technology" for both parties.

I'll apologise, Manfred, but I still can't see where the major issues on the 787 programme have been "just because it's composites".
IMO
The fastener issue was a management issue.
The travelled work was a management issue
The brake software issue was, er, a brake software issue
The wing delamination, as far as I can see, was an engineering fault that just happens to be exhibited on a Composite part (because most of them are on the 787..)

Alenia's issue with the wrinkles in way of the stringers is a composite issue, but the solution is being put in place in a matter of weeks, with minimum product impact.

On the whole, the CFRP fuselage thing seems to have gone sweetly indeed for a programme of this magnitude.
So I still don't get the ongoing A-net fixation with "how hard and risky CFRP is".
I'll accept that a change in scale brings a change in complexity. i've said so myself. That's not unique to CFRP

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 9):
Tail sections are nothing new I'll admit

 redflag 
Er, yes they are.
Tails aren't. But the entire tailcone assembly, including the tail and horizontal stabilisers, ESPECIALLY the size of the A380's most certainly is new  yes 

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 9):
As stated above I think the act of pressurizing a tube made of composites will come with it's own challenges.

Just as well Airbus have already experienced this on the A380 I guess, then.  Wink

More seriously, have you the remotest idea how many CFRP pressurised tubes there are out in the big wide world?
Tens of thousands - we have them on our subs.
They're called pressure vessels

Quoting Manfredj (Thread starter):
What can Airbus do to ensure a problem free construction from start to finish? Are they paying attention to its rival? Will they learn from the mistakes? Knowing about potential issues may not be enough. It may require a bit of old fashioned luck as well.

My take....

Most of the A350's systems will be based on/developed from the A380's.
As the envelope will always continue to be pushed, there will always be an element of risk, but the supply process won't change from the A380, so there should be continuity there.

In terms of the "manufacturing strategy", it appears to be broadly similar to the A380. Airbus HAVE divested facilities, but these are essentially the same workforce, in the same factory, executing the same work portion to a large degree, so I don't see the A350 carrying quite the "programme management" risks that the B787 has.
This paradigm hasn't changed anything like the jump from 777 to 787


As for the fuselage CFRP panels, the A380 tailcone (which is huge) is already made from CFRP panels which include co-cured stringers, and are made using ATL with pre-preg tape. Only difference is on the A380 tailcone, these back onto Aluminium frames, but with a GRP insert to prevent corrosion.
So in principle, they have done something of this sort already, but not on that scale, and not CFRP panel to CFRP frame.
That said, there's nothing on the A350xwb that will require autoclaves the size of the ones they use for the A380's wings in Broughton..  no   biggrin 

The "new bit" has to be the CFRP wing, and the wing/body integration.
The A380 does have a (huge) CFRP centre wing box, but as I recall, it also includes an aluminium framework.
So if there is a risk due to "a new application" it will come here IMO.
Hopefully, GKN will have completed a CFRP A400M wing by then, though  Smile

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 4):
From what I know, unlike the B-787, the A350XWB frame will not be entirely built out of composites. I think a major part of the frame will be "traditional" materials.

IIRC Airbus moved away from the aluminium frame after much ado from the airlines about the CFRP/Al interface
(despite the fact that this interface is managed to their satisfaction in the tailcone of the A380..  confused  )
Like the 787, metal frames will be used only in heavily loaded areas.

Rgds


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2138 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11165 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
IIRC Airbus moved away from the aluminium frame

They did, but at the same time they decided to make the entire nose (section 11/12) out of aluminum. (see article). For what it's worth, the 787 also has some significant metallic framing in the nose area-- probably for the same reasons (bird strike)


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11075 times:

Okay, maybe I have a slight misconception based on what I have seen. Also I have perhaps a mis-association with my experience in the auto industry.

When I was at Embry Riddle, a friend of mine took a side job making carbon fiber bits for an experimental aircraft. He told me how daunting a task it was to make the stuff. (not to mention the cost) There a multiple layers/processes which need to be followed to exacting standards. Usually breakages/faults in the product appear only after the material has had a chance to set.

I saw the task first hand when I went to visit him. Off to the side were many pieces deemed unusable because of faults in the manufacture process. Yes, the material may be very RIGID, but can fault when made incorrectly.

In regards to the auto industry: The most difficult use of composites is when you bond them to metal/steel. You can't just attach composites to steel. A special process is required or else you get wrinkling or in some cases "buckling." Audi in particular, who has mastered the aluminum on steel process with a special weld is on the forefront of this technology.

A second concern is the way it will react in an accident/crash. Have you ever seen a Formula One car crash into a wall at 190mph? The carbon fiber turns into millions of little splinters. It takes clean-up crews a long time to clean the racetrack. The splinters are deadly to the drivers. What will be waiting for the NTSB on the scene of the first carbon fiber commercial aircraft?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
IIRC Airbus moved away from the aluminum frame after much ado from the airlines about the CFRP/Al interface
(despite the fact that this interface is managed to their satisfaction in the tail cone of the A380..

And a good reason to use a smiley with a question mark at the end. Again, can you or anyone say for certain how a solely CFRP fuselage will react when pressurized? Airbus couldn't, and for some reason didn't want to know.

I'm not trying to be dramatic, I'm not trying to create concern, I'm just curious as to this "new trade" and what problems manufacturers will face.

Is it possible Airbus aicraft are at a disadvantage in bad weather conditions because of their extensive use of CFRP on control surfaces? Do you have deformation like metal or just catastrophic failure/explosion of components?



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
Is it possible Airbus aicraft are at a disadvantage in bad weather conditions because of their extensive use of CFRP on control surfaces? Do you have deformation like metal or just catastrophic failure/explosion of components?

I very much doubt it. It could also be stated that all other airliners (including the older ones from Airbus themselves) are at a disadvantage.

But on the other hand there was the AA-587 crash (Airbus A300-605R) where the continues and enormously overdone rudder input during heave turbulence caused the rudder to break which resulted in this sad crash. No doubt all manufacturers have learned from such events, even if it was the incorrect usage of the rudder which was the cause of the accident.  

Then again, every very much regrettable accident in the aviation world makes flying even more safe. So to come back to your question, the materials will react differently by nature, but the the behavior as an airliner component can be modified by shape and constructing techniques making them at least as safe as the components we now know so well.  Wink

[Edited 2009-08-26 12:31:19]

User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
Again, can you or anyone say for certain how a solely CFRP fuselage will react when pressurized? Airbus couldn't,

Who says?

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
and for some reason didn't want to know.

There may be many reasons why they didn't want to go there. There are many trade-offs to be made in these sorts of decisions.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
Is it possible Airbus aicraft are at a disadvantage in bad weather conditions because of their extensive use of CFRP on control surfaces?

Most aircraft these days have CRFP control surfaces, Boeings included. They all would be similarly "disadvantaged".

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
There a multiple layers/processes which need to be followed to exacting standards. Usually breakages/faults in the product appear only after the material has had a chance to set.

There's no doubt that these are manufacturing techniques that demand exacting standards.
But there is a huge quantity of CFRP flying about our skies, much of it for a long time.
The techniques are generally known.
I suspect pushing the boundaries in terms of cost, or weight are where the risk comes in as far as commercial airliners are concerned.

Rgds


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2138 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10781 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
can you or anyone say for certain how a solely CFRP fuselage will react when pressurized? Airbus couldn't, and for some reason didn't want to know.

You seem to be implying that there was a technical obstacle... we've been through this a million times before: a CFRP part only cares about how it's stressed, not about why it's stressed... such as from cabin pressure. There is nothing magical about pressurized CFRP vs. non-pressurized--in the end it's all about stresses and strains. Indeed, the A380 has a 20-foot diameter CFRP rear pressure bulkhead, made by the same folks who build the 787 CRFP rear pressure bulkhead.

The reason they haven't gone to a full CFRP fuselage (yet) is an issue of cost, industrialization, and service environment.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
Is it possible Airbus aicraft are at a disadvantage

What are you fishing for? Confirmation of a preconceived notion?  scratchchin 


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10721 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 12):
He told me how daunting a task it was to make the stuff. (not to mention the cost) There a multiple layers/processes which need to be followed to exacting standards. Usually breakages/faults in the product appear only after the material has had a chance to set.

I was on company visit a few years ago where the company was almost finished building a room and installing machines for cfrp panel production for the F-35. they used lights to show where the next piece of carbon fiber should be placed which direction it was supposed to have andwhich piece should be put down.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10510 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
What are you fishing for? Confirmation of a preconceived notion?

Not at all, I also realize that Boeing has gone down the same road with CFRP control surfaces, but Airbus has more experience. I boil it down to my old school notions of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Carbon Fiber...it's just so plasticy  Smile

I'm not out of order here. The recent thread about the 318, only two years old, being withdrawl from service is proof aircraft aren't built like they used to be. Boeing or Airbus, I don't like it. I think it's irresponsible to change just for the sake of change.

There's something wrong when we have 40 year old DC-9's still in the air, and two year old aicraft being withdrawl from service. It doesn't matter that it's more useful as scrap...as a matter of fact it proves my point that they are not built like they used to be.

How many more millions of dollars has a NW DC-9 made them than a A318 bought for 30 million, used for 2 years and sold as parts for 5 million? This is lunacy. I think anyone with an iota of common sense would come to the conclusion that a "new build" aircraft isn't as robust as an old one. That's what we should be questioning. Cycles, take-off's and landing's aside, there's just something wrong here. What's next, one time use aircraft made from cotton?

Gimme an old 727/L10-11/A300 anyday over our new plastic airplanes.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10183 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
I'm not out of order here. The recent thread about the 318, only two years old, being withdrawl from service is proof aircraft aren't built like they used to be. Boeing or Airbus, I don't like it. I think it's irresponsible to change just for the sake of change.

Whats this got to do with CFRP ?

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
How many more millions of dollars has a NW DC-9 made them than a A318 bought for 30 million, used for 2 years and sold as parts for 5 million? This is lunacy. I think anyone with an iota of common sense would come to the conclusion that a "new build" aircraft isn't as robust as an old one. That's what we should be questioning. Cycles, take-off's and landing's aside, there's just something wrong here. What's next, one time use aircraft made from cotton?

The simple answer is that the DC9, is only worth how many beer cans you can make from it. The boneyards are full of them, take your pick.
The A318 appears to have fallen victim to a peculiar set of circumstances, its a not very popular sub series of a very popular airliner, basically its a store full of high value spare parts, where their sum exceeds the value of the complete item. Plus aviation is in recession and airlines aren't as desperate for planes as they were up until recently. Certainly worth far in excess of the $5 million you quote.
 banghead 

You seem to be trying to justify your notion that CFRP is unsafe, you mention how the crash investigators will find a heap of CFRP splinters; well they don't find many large pieces when an alloy fuselage hits the ground vertically either.


User currently offlinePITIngres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1087 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10136 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
I boil it down to my old school notions of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Carbon Fiber...it's just so plasticy

I bet that any engineer who has had to deal with fatigue, corrosion, and the resulting maintenance headaches on a metal airplane will tell you that it IS broke.

Many, many threads on a.net have convinced me at least that one of the prime benefits, if not THE prime benefit, of CFRP in an airplane is that you sweep away a whole raft of maintanance issues. Sure, you substitute some others, but they tend to be major-event things, not ongoing creeping problems.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
The recent thread about the 318, only two years old, being withdrawl from service is proof aircraft aren't built like they used to be

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with build quality whatsoever.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
as a matter of fact it proves my point that they are not built like they used to be.

No they're not. They're built better.
Today, like mass produced cars, these type of planes are so cheap to buy, that they're worth nearly as much as parts as they are as complete aircraft.
Quality, poor or otherwise, doesn't come in to it.

Rgds


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3475 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10026 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
as a matter of fact it proves my point that they are not built like they used to be.

No they're not. They're built better.
Today, like mass produced cars, these type of planes are so cheap to buy, that they're worth nearly as much as parts as they are as complete aircraft.
Quality, poor or otherwise, doesn't come in to it.

Rgds

Aircraft "falling apart" are now thankfully are rarity, it would be horrible to think what the volume of casualties would be if we flew the number of flights of present, using the build and design standards of 40 or 50 years ago.

To put the present 787 problems into perspective, 40 years ago it would have flown, probably as scheduled, and the defect would then have reared its head with tragic consequences at a later date.
Many of what we now consider to be highly successful designs had structure accidents in their early days.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9711 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 9):
Is the 787 going to be the first commercial aircraft with a pressurized cabin made mostly of composites?

They're not commercial airliners but Raytheon has extensive composite fuselage experience with its pressurized planes.

1. Beech Starship
2. Raytheon Premier I
3. Hawker 4000

They all have composite fuselages and are pressurized.


User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9696 times:

Airbus should have experience in fixing CFRP fuselage, although unpressurized, after the A380 tailstrike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwQMXz9PbrY



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24638 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17):
I'm not out of order here. The recent thread about the 318, only two years old, being withdrawl from service is proof aircraft aren't built like they used to be.

It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Older A318's are flying with the same airline.

That A318 was withdrawn from service for purely commercial reasons - the airline wanted an aircraft with greater capacity, the A320, with no great difference in cost.

It was the lessor's decision to scrap that A318, but the second one is to be sold on.

mariner



aeternum nauta
25 Ruscoe : In my opinion the biggest risk is that Airbus will not be able to meet the required weights to obtain the promised performance. (Well aware of the sam
26 Tdscanuck : The only part that's new is the scale. The testing, materials, design, and analysis are all old hat. Nothing. That's totally un-"ensurable" on a proj
27 StressedOut : Although this is certainly one viewpoint, there are plenty of people with a lot of expertise in this subject matter that would argue that there was a
28 Astuteman : I completely agree with you Ruscoe. Perhaps I should have put weight before cost in this sentence. Rgds
29 Greasemonkey : A quick glance at ANY SRM will tell you that the repair procedures and allowances are vastly different from pressurized to unpressurized areas. The i
30 N14AZ : Sorry, my question was not accurate enough. I was refering to that special defect detection procedures to control if there are cracks in the all-comp
31 Greasemonkey : I was referring more to the 787 in regards to the lack of panels to change out, but the A350 having panels will be closer to a more conventional stru
32 Soon7x7 : Manfred, your not out of line,...the second week in September I will be giving a seminar on just this topic along with a company that performs nondes
33 Astuteman : Or alternatively not damaged at all..... Which are aluminium..... none of which failed because they were CFRP (I'd ask "which 3 or 4" anyway) The vas
34 Rheinwaldner : Why that? That would mean that the 787 has excess strength. If I look at the real weight of the 787 I could subscribe to that conclusion but it is su
35 Soon7x7 : Some individuals misconstrue Carbon Fibre as totally indestructable...it is not...it's strength to weight ratio exceeds that of alloys but is more br
36 Astuteman : Such was not my intent. I know it isn't. You're right that many see it as such That may be true, but sticking to the 787 might be more productive. Mo
37 Soon7x7 : Do you remember when the 777 was in the design process Boeing toyed with Aluminum Lithium?...they desperately wanted it utilized as it was similar to
38 Astuteman : We can indeed. Although I'd be surprised if the intense product development and certification process allowed structures which were intrinsically any
39 Manfredj : In this case, the 318/DC-9 were built for the same purpose. Small to med. capacity short to med range aircraft. I'm not comparing a 747 to a cessna.
40 Post contains links Astuteman : I don't deny some of the management issues may well have been caused by the change in organisation and assembly process in moving from Aluminium to C
41 PITIngres : Maybe, but then would anyone really want the result? I agree with Astuteman that the majority of the 787 delays to date are properly classed as manag
42 Astuteman : That's pretty much exactly where I get to PITIngres. I don't think any sensible person would deny that the introduction of new materials brings compl
43 Soon7x7 : Either way, barrel or panel, the majors are going to have to prepare methods and procedures for acceptable repairs on CFRP's but before they can do th
44 FrmrCAPCADET : Couldn't let this slip by - it was not just marketing hoopla, the total death count on US roads has gone down in absolute numbers as population, numb
45 Soon7x7 : Don't get me wrong...I believe in the "crumple zone concept" or..."distribution of impact loads as aerospace considers it"...something metallic const
46 Mariner : Where is the evidence that it won't? If you are still referencing the Frontier A318, that happened for purely commercial reasons. There is very littl
47 Tdscanuck : Same way it is today. Fixing holes in laminates is hardly a new concept. If you have damage the size of a barrel (or the size of an Airbus panel) you
48 Astuteman : Would it have any bearing on the level of inspection/NDE of the repair? Or be called the A330 Great post as always, Tom. I don't have a problem with
49 Tdscanuck : That's a good question...if everybody sticks to normal repair practices, it shouldn't, because good repair design says a good permanent repair should
50 Dynamicsguy : ... that it has a single supplier (which is possibly part of the high cost), it isn't all that good in fatigue. In what way is repairing a CFRP part
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...
Composite Divide: Airbus, Boeing And The New A350 posted Fri May 12 2006 12:06:17 by A380900
New Building/Structure At Hkia Apron posted Tue Feb 10 2009 23:40:37 by CELESTAR
The New Alitalia Will Be An A350 Launch Customer posted Thu Jan 1 2009 07:55:18 by Airblue
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Hexcel To Supply Composite Materials For A350 XWB posted Wed Jun 4 2008 08:52:39 by Aviationbuff
New A350 XWB Cockpit Design Unveiled posted Tue Sep 25 2007 12:44:21 by Bells
A380,A350,748,787 Whats Next? & New Plane #'s? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 04:03:12 by BlueSkys
Confirmed: Composite Frame On A350 XWB posted Thu Sep 20 2007 11:53:57 by Keesje
New A350 Pages On Airbus.com posted Mon Jul 9 2007 00:15:54 by Shamrock350
Airbus Lowers National Flags In New Structure posted Thu Jun 7 2007 11:20:41 by Keesje