Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 107): Quoting NYC777 (Reply 85): Look again, I did source it: Quoting NYC777 (Reply 16): All those comments are archived on another site (www.fleetbuzz.com, in case you're interested). Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 102): You telling me you compiled these on your own and didn't just copy them from Orders/Fleetbuzz? You needed to source who compiled the list, not the sources for each individual clip. I never said such a thing. I told you (again) that I got it from Fleetbuzz. Don't start making false accusations against me. |
Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 74): Even when Boeing basically had the 757/767 market to itself, it's timing problems kept the plane from being the same runaway success as the 707, 727, 737 or 747. |
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 99): Use the SUGGEST DELETION button. The mod's are pretty good at cleaning up nonsense like Chiad's post. |
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11): "If the question is: if [Boeing] bring out the 7E7 what are we going to do? The answer is nothing. We are very content to stay with our A330-200." -- Reuters, 17-Dec-03. |
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11): '[Leahy] said Airbus isn't planning any moves or product changes to compete with the 7E7. "We don't feel that we need to do anything with the product right now." -- Dow Jones Newswires, 24-Mar-04. |
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11): "We have been listening to the airlines and going through the design loops. Our customers said we should have done this a year ago. But that's water over the dam." -- Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3-Jun-05. |
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 5): Or do you (as I suspect) just slam Airbus out of habit? |
Quoting WINGS (Reply 10): First of all I would like to express my disappointment in the way this thread has been turned up side down. While many have contributed in a respectful and informative and polite manner, others have done opposite. Regards, Wings |
Quoting Columba (Reply 68): Regarding this thread it is really weird how many people are bashing Leahy on everything he says but believe everything Randy Basler is writting in his blog. |
Quoting Ap305 (Reply 24): Hilarious to see people getting emotional and combative over a aircraft company and its chief salesman. |
Quoting Maperrin (Reply 82): Don't you uderstand that your obsession against AIRBUS is poluting these forums ? An destroying the insterest we have for this website ? You urgently need a Shrink, guy ! |
Quoting Laddb (Reply 60): I read the posts from some Americans and it makes me ashamed. I ask that you don't judge all Americans based on the few bad ones. Some of us respect our foreign friends and realize that all Americans' can trace their ancestors to some other country. Also, we are more similar than different, and that there is "arrogance and pride" in all nations. Just look how soccer (sorry - football) fans from the same country can beat each other up - verbally and physically. Some Americans treat Boeing as our home team and Airbus as the Visitors in this game of aircraft manufacturing. We can and should have heated debates over fact, but leave the mud slinging to the politicians. |
Quoting Iwok (Reply 108): Absolutely priceless! How come he wasn't ejected with his old crony old noel? Such arrogance, which ceded a good size of the market should have been punished. |
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): Although I've not often seen it explicitly, it almost always sounds as if many here would easily label him as and 'unpatriotic traitor', simply because he's working for Airbus! |
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 4): hope he'll recover soon from his hart surgery not only for airbus, but also for his family. |
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 5): When he admits to having been wrong, and changes his tone completely (pretty much exactly to what people here on a.net said he should change it to) you... SLAM HIM AGAIN and say he's Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1): desperately trying to pull his chestnuts out of the fire |
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 109): Maybe sometime he will make a ludicrous Blog like Randy so you all can express your meanings about his person. |
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 109): Maybe sometime he will make a ludicrous Blog like Randy so you all can express your meanings about his person. |
Quoting Katekebo (Reply 7): From engineering point of view, making a fuselage with composite panels attached to a conventional frame makes little sense. The beauty of composites is that you can build complex geometrical shapes that are fully integrated from the structural point of view, allowinig the designer to achieve greater strength in the desired directions with less material (weight). Using composite panels with bring little (if any) weight savings, but Airbus may be forced to do it to bring the same level of cabin humidity as Boeing. |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 74): He poached them from "orders" and then from "Fleetbuzz" and did not source either. He did none of this himself. Very disappointing performance IMO. |
Quoting Maperrin (Reply 82): Don't you uderstand that your obsession against AIRBUS is poluting these forums ? An destroying the insterest we have for this website ? You urgently need a Shrink, guy ! |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 95): You telling me you compiled these on your own and didn't just copy them from Orders/Fleetbuzz? You needed to source who compiled the list, not the sources for each individual clip. |
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 101): He's way out of line, no tick for him sir. |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 106): Absolute rubbish. In the original post there was no reference to where you sourced the material. That is where it should have been and that is clearly appropriate. You did not do that. I still can't find the mention of the fleetbuzz reference. |
Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 119): The Boeing fuselage might be so tough that repairs from ramp rash will essentially be cosmetic. |
Quoting Areopagus (Reply 122): have seen fiberglass gouged or cracked without being either shattered or fine. Why is CFRP different? |
Quoting Khobar (Reply 120): Did Leahy make those statements, YES or NO? If the answer is YES, then the source is Leahy, as NYC777 stated, no further sourcing is necessary, and NYC777 is owed an apology. If the answer is NO, then NYC777 owes us an apology. It's as simple as that. |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 117): I remember Astuteman commenting how getting rid of overlaps could reduce weight on a welded Al-Li fuse. So how will the plates be joined? |
Quoting Thorben (Reply 61): Thorben From Germany, joined Sep 2005, 1310 posts, RR: 2 Reply 61, posted Wed |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 124): Rubbish again. The list of Leahy quotes was first put on the "orders" forum some time ago, then it was put on "fleetbuzz" with permission. To post it here with no referencing is wrong. It's an open and shut case. |
Quoting Khobar (Reply 127): So, do you have a link to the "orders" forum where you say this list originated? If someone there is claiming copyright... |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 128): Do you get it? Copyright is not the issue. Proper decency and acknowledgement is the issue. |
Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 128): So, you say it's fine to swipe stuff if it isn't copyrighted and not acknowledge it? That's the way it sounds to me. |
Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 123): I think Osiris is saying that either its shattered, and requiring a section repair, or its only cosmetic, and requiring the equivalent of a tape job* |
Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 123): Cracking isn't common, and the stiffness tends to distribute impact loads over a wider area, thereby resisting damage. |
Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 123): It is a little brittle though, |
Quoting Micstatic (Reply 114): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17): You have to understand that in the US, being a sales person isn't exactly a respected occupation, no matter what you are hawking. That's funny. Didn't realize lawyers were up there either? |
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 116): Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 109): Maybe sometime he will make a ludicrous Blog like Randy so you all can express your meanings about his person. Ludicrous? I find Randy's blog quite interesting at times. I very much wish Leahy would post a blog. We might get his comments in a more thoughtful manner, with proper context. As it is, he seems to be the lone arrogant American who gets a pass from my European friends. Why is that? |
Quoting Baroque (Reply 117): Equally, anyone as apparently "bad" as Leahy must have something good going for him. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 125): The second comes from the fact that, where the metal is perforated, it is by definition weaker than the parent plate. Hence it has to be thicker than if it wasn't perforated........hence the entire plate has to be thicker, as the plate will invariably be uniform thickness. |
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 132): He's a great salesman - no one can contest that. It's the manner in which he operates that draws criticism. Are you suggesting that because he is a good salesman, his methods ought to be immune from scrutiny and comment? |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 131):
Exactly. A corner impacting AL might tear through the AL, but would require significantly more force to punch through the CFRP. For all the extreme examples folks are showing here, they are not the norm for aircraft. Things like wheels up belly landings should never happen and if they do the repairability of the plane is secondary to determining why it happened in the first place and prevent it in the future. FINALLY, if there is a slightly higher attrition rate of in service craft due to EXTREME accidents, that is likely to be offset but aircraft staying in the fleet longer due to higher cycle limits, so at worst it's a wash for the airlines from a dollars and cents perspective. (although I would have to say in all honesty it works out much much more in favor of the airline) |
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 133): The entire plate (skin) is not the same thickness (uniform). Skins today are much thinner in the areas where it is not attached to underlying structure. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 136): Metallic plates (steel OR aluminium) do not, in my experience, come from the mill with varying thicknesses on one plate. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 136): (Pretty much in the same way rivetted ships were built for a century or more, never mind "today". You think the SS Great Britain's "skin" is all one thickness? ... ) |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 131): That's largely dependant on the design of the component. I would argue that Airbus's proposed CFRP panels are likely to be significantly more brittle than Boeings 1 piece contruction due to the nature of where stress will and won't be loaded. |
Quoting Katekebo (Reply 7): From engineering point of view, making a fuselage with composite panels attached to a conventional frame makes little sense. The beauty of composites is that you can build complex geometrical shapes that are fully integrated from the structural point of view, allowinig the designer to achieve greater strength in the desired directions with less material (weight). |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 139): Of course I'm basing this on guesswork and I'm sure there's a loads/structures dude out there who can correct me. Personally, I find the panel thing a quite inelegant solution and the Boeing solution neater, but there might be more to the Airbus approach than meets the eye. |
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 137): Skins are chemically milled and have varying thicknesses on one part number. |
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 138): I was surprised to see just how much overlapping of panels there was, and how thick the overlaps were. I was so used to seeing the smooth cruise ships of today that it was really cool to see just how rough and crude the old designs really were |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 140): The entire point of the one piece approach is that loading is equally and evenly distributed as there are no joint to bear the brunt of the force. This hold true regardless of the type of material that is being used. Connection points are stress points. The more connection points you have the more areas you have that can fail. Because you have more of these points and they bear the brunt of all the stresses you have to over build them so they do not fail. That's the true shortcoming I see with the panel design. Not that composite panels are bad, just that single piece construction is better. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 141):
PROPER ships, not floating apartment blocks..... |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): True. I agree that introducing any form of joint is a bad thing - especially in a pressure vessel. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): But I wasn't really talking about interface or joint loads (leading to rupture damage). |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): a classic flat laminate panel with uniaxial composite fibres has a highly non-isotropic load character - ie great in one direction, very poor in the other - this gives you the flexibility of designing the 3-d ply orientation to suit the specific anticipated loads. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): Maybe there are helical spinning techniques which can run the fibres significantly more parallel to the axis of the fuselage and ways of designing in very localised fibre orientation to take into account local loads - it would be interesting to see. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): But I doubt you could 'tune' your in-ply loads as easily as you could for a composite panel made the much less sexy conventional way. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): Alternatively, perhaps the spun barrel is simply so strong that load variation isn't important. I'm not sure. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 144): This I will agree with, but I would assume some of the loading is transfered to the frame on the panel approach (yes I know skins are load bearing these days Wink ) . Similarly I would assume some of the loading on the 787 (from items such as wings and landing, gear, etc.) is transfered through non-fusalge (non-barrel) structures. Just because there is a single piece fusalge body component doesn't mean it can't and isn't being reinforced with additional load bearing members where needed to stiffen/strengthen the overall design (wingbox, hardened connection points, etc). I would be very surprised if there aren't additional components that are added after the fusalge is spun to reinforce it in various ways. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 144): PS: It's always a pleasure to discuss things with you (please overlook any typos/spelling mistakes I'm at the office and rushing my post LOL). Sorry if this isn't my most coherent post ever. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 145): If you get that 100% right, it'll be sweet. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 145): Remember, Airbus do have pretty fair long-standing experience in panel composites and bonding techniques have come a long way. So perhaps the interface issues might not be as problematic as one might intuitively think. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 145): Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how they compare over the life of the a/c and in service - assuming that the 350 is approved for launch of course! |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 145): but then it's friday and my brain is making the long slow wind-down to the weekend. |
Quoting Stitch (Reply 146): I wonder if Boeing's technique "counter-layers" the CFRP so that rigidity in one layer is designed for certain loads while the next layer is designed to take other loads, and so on |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 148): I'm not sure that wouldn't create more issues with internal sheering than it would solve. But again I don't know the specifics of their process to truly comment. |
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 148): Quoting Stitch (Reply 146): "I wonder if Boeing's technique "counter-layers" the CFRP so that rigidity in one layer is designed for certain loads while the next layer is designed to take other loads, and so on" I'm not sure that wouldn't create more issues with internal sheering than it would solve. But again I don't know the specifics of their process to truly comment. |
Quoting HB88 (Reply 142): Maybe there are helical spinning techniques which can run the fibres significantly more parallel to the axis of the fuselage and ways of designing in very localised fibre orientation to take into account local loads |
“First you wind it round, then you insert the stringers, then you wind it some more, then finally everything goes into the oven and is baked for eight hours like a turkey. Window and door openings can then be added afterwards, rather like cutting out biscuits,” Bair enthuses, rather like a chef. Only the frame assemblies are mechanically inserted at the end.
Quoting HB88 (Reply 150): Actually, I just checked and seems that they can lay individual tows at essentially any angle on the barrel by starting, stopping and cutting the laid tow discontinuously as the barrel is spun. So that may be how local load tailoring is done as the impregnated fibre bands are laid. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 136): Don't dispute that. It's why I said "plate" and not "skin". But if metal's your material, in order to increase thickness in way of the underlying structure, you have to "overlap" your "thin" plate onto a "thicker" one in way of the underlying structure. |
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 136): Metallic plates (steel OR aluminium) do not, in my experience, come from the mill with varying thicknesses on one plate. |
Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 137): Skins are chemically milled and have varying thicknesses on one part number. There are only a few overlapping (lap) splices, that run the length of the fuselage. All other skin splices would butt up against one another. |