Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Revisiting Composites  
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1826 times:

The 787 and A350 will obviously have more composites used than any other airliners ever, but is it worth it? Didn't Boeing say that 17% of the 20% gain in efficiency on the 787 would come from the new engines? With all the delays and difficulties it seems that the extra 3% efficiency gained form composites might not be worth it. Also, if only 3% is to be gained from the use of CFRP, does this not make it little more than a marketing gimmick?
Please, I'd like to know opinions as to whether these ideas are correct or incorrect and why.
Thanks!
 Smile


Airliners.net Moderator Team
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePlaneWasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Composites also have other advantages, such as maintenance costs, production costs and cabin comfort.

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1804 times:



Quoting PlaneWasted (Reply 1):
Composites also have other advantages, such as maintenance costs, production costs and cabin comfort.

You have point, it is all that and more, but what about the maintenence? What if an airline has to change a fastener more than once and the hole gets damaged and enlarged? Can it be backfilled and repaired or does it at some point become a major issue?



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1776 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
The 787 and A350 will obviously have more composites used than any other airliners ever, but is it worth it?

Yep.

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
Didn't Boeing say that 17% of the 20% gain in efficiency on the 787 would come from the new engines?

I believe it was 10%, not 17%. Or about half. But the major gain for CFRP was the maintenance cost, not the fuel burn...the 20% figure is specifically related to fuel burn.

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
With all the delays and difficulties it seems that the extra 3% efficiency gained form composites might not be worth it.

CFRP isn't there primarily to reduce fuel burn, it's there to greatly reduce maintenance and increase longevity. As a byproduct, it also enables some of the "softer" features like increased cabin altitude and humidity.

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
Also, if only 3% is to be gained from the use of CFRP, does this not make it little more than a marketing gimmick?

No.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
You have point, it is all that and more, but what about the maintenence? What if an airline has to change a fastener more than once and the hole gets damaged and enlarged? Can it be backfilled and repaired or does it at some point become a major issue?

You don't normally backfill, you oversize. Normal practice is to allow for one or two oversizes in any particular fastener, and I don't have any reason to believe the 787 is different on that score. If you run out of oversize, you can always go to a doubler. This problem occurs in aluminum too, so it's not like CFRP suddenly opened a can of worms on oversizing.

Tom.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1764 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
You don't normally backfill, you oversize. Normal practice is to allow for one or two oversizes in any particular fastener, and I don't have any reason to believe the 787 is different on that score. If you run out of oversize, you can always go to a doubler. This problem occurs in aluminum too, so it's not like CFRP suddenly opened a can of worms on oversizing.

Ah, I see, so it's akin to to using a larger bolt or a helicoil when you strip a bolt. So if the hole gets too big they'd just back it with a CFRP or metal plate?



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1708 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):

You believe that composite repairs will be less expensive that sheet metal repairs?...if so , how and why?...j


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1690 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4):

Ah, I see, so it's akin to to using a larger bolt or a helicoil when you strip a bolt. So if the hole gets too big they'd just back it with a CFRP or metal plate?

Basically, yes. The SRM (structural repair manual) normally specifies how many oversizes you can do an, if you go past that, there are standard doubler repairs. A doubler is a just a backing (or fronting, depending on your you assemble it) plate that carries the load over the area you can't repair. It's very commonly used for small dents, dings, puctures, bad holes, etc.

Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 5):

You believe that composite repairs will be less expensive that sheet metal repairs?...if so , how and why?...j

Not less expensive, less of them. CFRP is almost immune to corrosion and fatigue, which are two of your big drivers on structural repair. Ramp rash is obviously more of an even thing but there are some great impact-resistance demos for CFRP so I don't see this being particularly worse. Boeing has stated (several times) that they can use conventional repairs for ramp rash, so the cost should be the same.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Revisiting Composites
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops 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...
Boron Composites / Beryllium posted Mon Jan 7 2008 07:51:23 by Faro
Composites, Vibration & Aft-mounted Engines posted Sat Aug 12 2006 04:34:49 by PPVRA
Composites Mass Fraction Of Airliners posted Fri Mar 3 2006 04:54:37 by WingedMigrator
Composites And Higher Speed Flight posted Thu Feb 2 2006 20:12:03 by Lehpron
Will Composites Cause A T C Radar Problems? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 19:24:07 by Lumberton
Good Notes On Composites posted Sun Sep 18 2005 16:16:23 by HAWK21M
Composites Information posted Sun Mar 20 2005 08:34:08 by Pilotpip
787 Composites And Lightning Strikes posted Fri Feb 4 2005 15:03:08 by Tockeyhockey
GE90-94B Composites And Materials posted Sat Jan 15 2005 13:58:36 by TAP340
Disgustingly Technical Question About Composites posted Tue Aug 10 2004 04:17:12 by Jason McDowell

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format