Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cargo X Plane By Lockheed Martin Takes Shape  
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7496 times:

As you may know Lockheed is currently building a demonstrator for a new Cargo plane with a composite fuselage based on the Dornier 328Jet
First Pictures of the plane -a new fuselage with the 328Jet Cockpit section - and a full article on this project are here to find:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...918845-aaa6-42f3-adb8-895b2b26d513


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 282 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7349 times:

Great, they're gonna use this little engineering dem/eval exercise to show how cost-effective their design/carbon barrel process is, on an irrelevant scale, without any constant spec changes from the DoD procurement process, which would make this a 72-month design that would be 10 tons over-weight, and 5x as expensive as advertised (aka, A400M).

The only other things missing are that they should be forced to buy from a conglomerate of Mexican engine component manufacturers who have never seen a Do-328 JET, and a fight between Ga. and Ft. Worth about where the wings get produced..


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 7061 times:

I musty say I am sceptical about the usefulness of this test. Dont get me wrong, i really like composites as a material. I think they are perfect for putting round civil airliners anywhere they wont get easily dented (i have no idea why people insist on putting composites near doors, on under wing nacelles etc), as they are a pain to fix, if indeed they are fixable as it dosent take much denting to need a new part.

What i'm not sure about is the 2 piece fuselage skin idea. It strikes me that it is fine as an x plane, just to test the theory, but to roll that out to a millitary transport? It strikes me that military transports will always face the possibility of catching a bullet (especially in places like afganistan or iraq where the air bases can only be secured to a certain distance. It seems senseless to me that a single bullet hole could force the replacement of an entire half of the fuselage skin (and if that is bonded to other componants with adhesives, that could be a monster job). Keep small panels secured in such a way as they can be easily replaced and reduce the risk of an aircraft taking damage that takes weeks to set right. Thats my 2 cents anyway.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

Will it be pressurized or not?

User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6986 times:

I like it. GDB your cncern about damage may not be well founded. The vacuum bag and mobile oven idea means that a repair can be done on the skin without disassembly. The complex contour of the rear fuselage would serve to increase strength and rigidity.

I'm actually quite suprised about the "OMG this is new KILL IT WITH FIRE" responses so far.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12064 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6887 times:

This could work out to be a very good idea for LM. After all, Boeing is building a full size composet airliner (B-787) and the process of building composit structures is maturing. Fighters have used composits since the F-15/F-16, and the Starship design worked very well, too (but there were other issues with the Starship, IIRC there were some 75 built by Ratheon).

User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6767 times:



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 4):

I'm actually quite suprised about the "OMG this is new KILL IT WITH FIRE" responses so far.

Whilst I do not doubt that composites are fantastic materials for aerostructures, and indeed I am actively excited and enthusiastically about the continued rollout of composites all over the industry, I just hope that in potential military transports to be built after this, that they make damned sure they are on the money with the repairability. Yes, the vaccuum bag and oven is as good as it gets for composite repairs, I was not aware it was portable enough to be used in an assembeld structure though. You learn something new every day. Bbut even if it is there will be places on any airframe where you cant get it to. Also I'm not convinced that any repair on a composite given the nature of its structure. 8+ axes of fibresin any composite, orientated specifically to carry the stresses of the component in that specific point. Try to put a patch in it, you need to make damned sure the fibres are in the right direction, and bonded to the fibres in the origional part. If theyre not lined up or connected, you just have the matrix that carries almost no stress at all. Composites are only strong in the directions we design them to be, unlike metals their material properties arent the same in every direction.

Dont get me wrong, I am eager to see sucess for this test bird, I just wouldnt like to see unecessary complication in down the line aircraft.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6636 times:

If CFRP repairs anything like fibre glass, patching shouldn't be much of an issue. Fibre glass repairs end up just as strong as the original.


What the...?
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 6542 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
If CFRP repairs anything like fibre glass, patching shouldn't be much of an issue. Fibre glass repairs end up just as strong as the original.

The fibreglass most people think of, FRP, is subtly different to CFRP. In FRP the glass fibres are often fed into a rotating drum, and centrifugal force is used to force them into a mat on the sides, to which the bonding matrix is applied and the whole sheet secured to the mould/fix point etc. The resulting structure of this is fibres randomly orientated in direction, making the material reasonably strong in all directions, and as flexible as the moulding shape allows.

In CFRP several planes of fibres are used. In one plane, all fibres are paralel. Often more than 8 planes are used, each with fibres in different directions carrying stresses in different directions. The orientation of these planes is specifically arranged to carry stresses present in the specific part. If a break is made, not only are a large number of fibres severed and made useless, but any fix must be made with planes of fibres pointing in exactly the same direction as those of the damaged part. If this is not done your fix will not be able carry the same forces transmitted to it by the part, and your fix will be purely aerodynamic. Structurally your break will still be there.

[Edited 2009-03-15 04:07:08]

User currently offlineBMIE70 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6507 times:



Quoting GST (Reply 6):
I just hope that in potential military transports to be built after this, that they make damned sure they are on the money with the repairability. Yes, the vaccuum bag and oven is as good as it gets for composite repairs, I was not aware it was portable enough to be used in an assembeld structure though. You learn something new every day. Bbut even if it is there will be places on any airframe where you cant get it to. Also I'm not convinced that any repair on a composite given the nature of its structure. 8+ axes of fibresin any composite, orientated specifically to carry the stresses of the component in that specific point. Try to put a patch in it, you need to make damned sure the fibres are in the right direction, and bonded to the fibres in the origional part. If theyre not lined up or connected, you just have the matrix that carries almost no stress at all. Composites are only strong in the directions we design them to be, unlike metals their material properties arent the same in every direction.

There are "repair units" (trying to remember the proper term) that can be used to repair damaged broken CFRP laminates in situ. These basically are a vacuum pump and heater mats that come in a flight case about the size of a large carry-on bag. The heater mats can be anything from 10cm2 to 1m2 depending on the area that needs to be repaired. Repairs of CFRP are relatively easy as long as the repair area has been properly prepared i.e. cleaned with solvent to remove contaminants and scarfed to give a smooth transition between the repaired section and the existing laminate (this reduce the risk of introducing any stress concentration). Aligning the fibres isn't too dificult as it is possible to align them with the fibres of the existing laminate at the scarfed edges.

In terms of there being places on the airframe that you can't access, surely this is also the case in alloy airframes (and possibly worse as there is more framing)?


User currently offlineTexl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 282 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

First, you really can't repair the carbon frames being built now by Boeing a la 787. Second, carbon frames shouldn't be just designed identically as with aluminum. Until engineers doing the design/CAD work understand how to maximize the material, the theoretical gains vs. real-world weight/cost gains delta will persist.

The simple truth is, that while LM has a ways to catch up in fabrication vs. EADS/Boeing here, this little exercise (in identical shape etc. vs. aluminum) is almost a demonstration of their competitor's design/mfg limitations at present vs. a competitive breakthrough.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5320 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6061 times:



Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 10):
First, you really can't repair the carbon frames being built now by Boeing a la 787

Really? i find that very surprising.



What the...?
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5964 times:

Pretty sure the carbon parts Boeing is using can be repaired... it is a FAA requirement, and a good selling point. What is the point if you cant even repair ramp rash?

User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5873 times:

Very interesting is the shell concept. I assume this will be the future.

My prediciton to play with the fire is that the 787 is the first and last airplane with the barrels. I am patiently waiting until the next comes to be disproved. Further info here:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/216974/

The Cargo X demonstrator realizes the following points from my proposal:
1) Using panels or shells
2) Integration of stringers into the shell without fasteners (in this case there are no stringers but the related strength is gained from the sandwich structure)
3) Structure elements bounded (=co cured) to the skin (here the pi-joints which hold the few frames)

Point 2 and 3 would not be possible with the 787 design.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5789 times:

Interesting devlopment, no doubt steap learning curves.

All financed by the DOD. This is the kind of massive subsidiezing the EC is using in their case..

IMO the absense of stringer and frames could make repairs easier. They don't break (being absent) and you can add them later when neccessary for a repair..The (no doubt thick) sandwich absorbs a lot of energy too, often preventing damage to the inner skin.



User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5771 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 14):
The (no doubt thick) sandwich absorbs a lot of energy too, often preventing damage to the inner skin.

Airbus developed a similar concept with a very thin outer skin. As long as visible inspection reveals no damage (e.g. dent) the structure can be considered intact. An intact fragile outer skin working as structure integrity confirmation.

Would solve the problem of detecting potential damages.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cargo X Plane By Lockheed Martin Takes Shape
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Multiple Kill Vehicle" - Lockheed Martin? posted Wed Dec 10 2008 02:15:53 by LNv22
Lockheed Martin To Build Mach 6 Aircarft posted Mon Jun 11 2007 22:51:51 by 474218
Lockheed Martin Delivers 2300th C-130 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 06:27:08 by DEVILFISH
Lockheed Martin Studies Lunar Lander Design posted Wed Oct 11 2006 15:30:47 by AerospaceFan
Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF Rolls Out Fully Assembled posted Wed Feb 22 2006 03:55:30 by Atmx2000
Lockheed Martin Offers C130J To Germany posted Thu Jun 2 2005 09:25:16 by Columba
US Military Cargo Plane Crashes In Korea, Kills 2 posted Tue Aug 12 2003 12:29:16 by Hoons90
B52 Takes Nuclear Missiles By Mistake posted Wed Sep 5 2007 16:44:38 by BuyantUkhaa
AF1 Has An Entrance By Cargo?(Pic) posted Sat Mar 4 2006 21:59:13 by JrMafia90
Rumsfeld Takes "doomsday Plane" Again 21 Hour N/s posted Thu Jun 3 2004 23:16:23 by SQ452

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format