bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1588 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
It really depends on where the lighting hit. I mean, if it hit the engine naccelle, the empenage, the radome, trailing surfaces, then the reaction wouldn't be any different than it would if the lightning hit a 777 because the construction of those items are the same (or almost the same).
It will be interesting to follow this development. I'm just tagging this to better track this discussion.
NoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 523 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
I am a little curious -- the article mentions that there were no signs of any damage. When an inspection is performed after a strike, how often are there no signs of damage vs. signs of some damage vs. serious damage. Would it be safe to say that most of the time there is little or no damage? Many modern planes have at least some parts made of composite -- is the incidence of damage for those parts comparable to more traditional material?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
I certainly find this encouraging-this was the biggest worry I had about the 787, even though I had confidence that the Boeing engineers had adequately provided for it. I had no fear that lightning would actually bring the plane down, but I was concerned that it might burn out some of the wire mesh embedded in the composite, which would be a very expensive thing to repair. But it is very good news to me that it actually encountered lightning and survived unscathed.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Planenutok From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 21 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3691 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5): Quoting NoWorries (Reply 3):
the article mentions that there were no signs of any damage
Thats odd,shouldn't there be an Entry & Exit point post lightening strike.
Every lightening strike that I have worked has had damage to some extend if it was actually hit. The damage varies from discolored paint at entry or exit, to holes in the airframe and blown off static wicks. Now a suspected lightening strike on the other hand may or may not have actually hit the airframe but the crews will still write up a strike if they see a bright flash close by. That's my 2 cents.
MrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1203 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
One would imagine this is tested extensively on the ground in controlled lightning generation facilities, no? I'd imagine the effects of a lightning discharge on these materials would be well known and documented, leaving the airborne proving runs for the FAA's requirements.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3167 times:
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 8): One would imagine this is tested extensively on the ground in controlled lightning generation facilities, no?
They are. Which is why it's so hilarious to watch so many people think this is some kind of huge unknown risk.
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 8): I'd imagine the effects of a lightning discharge on these materials would be well known and documented
They are. Have been for more than 25 years.
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 8): leaving the airborne proving runs for the FAA's requirements.
You don't have to prove lightning strike capability by flight test (that would be a stupid way to "prove" it anyway)...you never intentionally get the plane hit by lightning for commercial certification.