CanukinUSA wrote:

No doubt that he is. He has a history of that with Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc... But unfortunately, some of the issues that seem to be developing with Carbon Composites as they are in service seem to give him that ability. It is the hazards of progress in using newer materials in Aircraft Structures that this brings out.

Newer materials? Composites have been used since the 1980s. If there was not confidence in these materials there would not be thousands of orders to date for frames with composite fuselages and wings.

In my opinion, from the technical and material side of the industry, this seems like a natural progression.

There were plenty of issues of metal fatigue brought to light through multiple incidents over time from multiple airframe and engine manufacturers.


The COMET brought to light the forces put on a fuselage with pressurization cycles.

The Aloha 243 incident led to plenty of B737s being re-skinned on the upper pressure vessel.

Composite material, while not new, is still in it's early stages for transport-category civil aircraft in the grand scheme of things. As aircraft build hours and cycles, we are going to see what corrective and progressive maintenance needs to be performed....and what design changes need to be incorporated into future aircraft being built and designed.

We are still finding new issues pop up on on 15, 20-year old, and older aircraft where the aircraft manufacturer needs to review the issue and release service bulletins to rectify it, it happens all the time.

I don't think this is a safety or operational issue, just another speed bump an aircraft goes through in its life cycle.

Composites have been around for decades, even the A300 has composites on flight control surfaces. But it's till B787/A350 where it's used on the fuselage so some new conditions will only appear as days pass by.

Even the 787 has issue with the paint adhesion on earlier line number aircraft... was a shocking scene seeing nearly 1/4 of wing surface has the paint gone.

celestar345 wrote:

Even the 787 has issue with the paint adhesion on earlier line number aircraft... was a shocking scene seeing nearly 1/4 of wing surface has the paint gone.

They still do. Resin sweeps are a joke.

extender wrote:

celestar345 wrote:

Even the 787 has issue with the paint adhesion on earlier line number aircraft... was a shocking scene seeing nearly 1/4 of wing surface has the paint gone.

They still do. Resin sweeps are a joke.

Ooh.....

There is no evidence that there is any problem with the fuselage. I know it what the abc article says in the OP however there is nothing to support that. The sad state of mainstream aviation journalism is they would not know the difference between a fuselage, wing, an Airbus or Boeing. We are always seeing the wrong type or wrong airline images used in these reports.

Composite parts have literally flown millions of flight hours, we had a thread on civav of an A320 entering 30 years of service, that aircraft is around 10% composite and fly by wire.

This thread should really get locked, nothing factual in it.

zeke wrote:

Composite parts have literally flown millions of flight hours, we had a thread on civav of an A320 entering 30 years of service, that aircraft is around 10% composite and fly by wire.

To be fair, the 777 had more composites in it (floor beams, for example), flight controls don't make it a composite aircraft. The 757 had the same amount of composites in it. We're talking about the fuselage. The 787 and 350 offer new challenges. I am not familiar with the 350 repair techniques, but the 787 is simple and straight forward; the 350 should be similar. We are working to get the 350 structures training to add it to our line maintenance certificate.

extender wrote:

To be fair, the 777 had more composites in it (floor beams, for example), flight controls don't make it a composite aircraft. The 757 had the same amount of composites in it. We're talking about the fuselage. The 787 and 350 offer new challenges. I am not familiar with the 350 repair techniques, but the 787 is simple and straight forward; the 350 should be similar. We are working to get the 350 structures training to add it to our line maintenance certificate.

777 has less composites in it by percentage of weight compared to the A310/320/330/380



From ching hao, Lee & Sapuan, S. & Hassan, Mohd Roshdi. (2014). A Review of the Flammability Factors of Kenaf and Allied Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2014. 10.1155/2014/514036.

Singapore airlines says it "has not experienced the issues reported in media articles". The airline have 55 A350s in its operating fleet and more on order.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... not-ground

zeke wrote:

777 has less composites in it by percentage of weight compared to the A310/320/330/380

Using the A320 as an example, have you ever seen the leading edge section for the horizontal stabilizer? There are three segments making up most of the leading edge. Just a guess, but each one weighs about twenty pounds. These leading edges have a solid CFRP skin, with CFRP formers, all bolted together with Hi-Loks. The Boeing equivalent is an almost full span, bonded aluminum skin with aluminum formers riveted together. The whole thing weighs about twenty pounds. One could argue that the Boeing equivalent is 1/3 the weight of the Airbus equivalent. Is that a wise use of the weight? It is their design philosophy, and they certified it. But IMO, that just increases the weight of the CFRP content on the airplane.

No idea what you are talking about

zeke wrote:

No idea what you are talking about

I think he was suggesting that Airbus deployment of composites does not always ensure weight savings in a given structure.

Aaron747 wrote:

I think he was suggesting that Airbus deployment of composites does not always ensure weight savings in a given structure.

I would guarantee you the overall sun assembly will be lighter, ie the HTP. You cannot compare parts within a sub assembly as that assumes the load paths are the same.

It is also assuming the certification basis is the same.

zeke wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I think he was suggesting that Airbus deployment of composites does not always ensure weight savings in a given structure.

I would guarantee you the overall sun assembly will be lighter, ie the HTP. You cannot compare parts within a sub assembly as that assumes the load paths are the same.

It is also assuming the certification basis is the same.

Exactly. Why would you use composites if it didn't give you a weight advantage?

Just using the leading edges of the A320 as an example. Just because you have a higher percentage by weight doesn't mean it is the most efficient use of the material. Same design as on the A330/A340 HS leading edges.

celestar345 wrote:

Composites have been around for decades, even the A300 has composites on flight control surfaces. But it's till B787/A350 where it's used on the fuselage so some new conditions will only appear as days pass by.

Even the 787 has issue with the paint adhesion on earlier line number aircraft... was a shocking scene seeing nearly 1/4 of wing surface has the paint gone.

Doesn't the A380 already have large parts of the fuselage made of GLARE? Granted it's not carbon fibre like the 787 and A350, but it's a composite.