NSTB ALERT Airbus A300 model

I think, this article from the magazine Flug-Revue might interest you:
Flug-Revue – March 2006 – COMPOSITES DOMINATE FUTURE AIRLINER DESIGN

Taken from: www.Airbus.com

This has resulted in an unprecedented 60 per cent of the A350 airframe being made from weight-saving composite materials such as carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) and aluminium lithium alloys.

Airbus believes that each aircraft should have the optimum combination of composites and metals to achieve the best possible performance in its market sector: using composite materials in areas where corrosion and fatigue resistance is essential and using the latest generation of advanced aluminium lithium alloys where ease and speed of repair is the key issue. This dual approach means Airbus can steadily introduce new materials as and when there is a sound commercial reason for doing so and when the expertise is already in place to ensure they are successfully applied.
For example, the decision to introduce an all-composite wing on the A350 – a first for Airbus civil aircraft – means that it will deliver exceptional low and high-speed efficiency thanks to cutting-edge design and manufacturing techniques. ‘Droop nose’ technology from the A380, whose airframe contains more composite material than any other commercial airliner flying today (25%), will also be integrated for this purpose. The A350 will also have a composite rear fuselage and tail cone, each being built for the first time in one “skin.”

Likewise, the intelligent use of third-generation aluminium lithium – which is being used in the forward and aft fuselage sections for the first time – not only delivers important weight savings due to reduced material density, but has the added advantage that repairs to these parts can be carried out using existing aluminium repair techniques and methods.

On the A350 the result is a stronger, more durable structure and an eight tonne (17,600lb) weight saving.

The Incidents that i cite were related, both were caused by the same problem electric cables which had corroded and shorted and operated the catch mechanisms on the cargo holds, and if it wasn’t for the Ramp rats vigilance there could have been a major disaster

Without becoming embroiled in this…it just wasnt the electrical wiring which was at fault..the complete door locking mechanism was floored, not made out of strong enough material…Boeing did issue an AD over the incident to test the doors, and it was only when Airlines b-tched to boeing that cargo doors were opening and ruining the locking bolts did boeing realise that they had a major design floor in the wiring and locking mechanism…unfortunatly it did take the loss of life on board the United 747 befor any action was taken. But that seems to be the case with most things today, “close the stable door after the horse has gone AWOL”

The Incidents that i cite were related, both were caused by the same problem electric cables which had corroded and shorted and operated the catch mechanisms on the cargo holds, and if it wasn’t for the Ramp rats vigilance there could have been a major disaster

back to topic, What I m say is Boeing are painting a very Rosy picture of this paper plane, there no problem that they have over looked ,but in the real world we all know this isn’t so
Airbus have had a lot of dealings with composites in their aircraft usually non critical parts , so why have they gone down the other road? to me this speaks volumes ,if composite Fuselages are so good you would expect every one else would follow suite
(look at the car industry for instance)

I do hope that Boeing can prove their design, because ,I think it will be a grate step forward, but I’m sceptical about it at the moment, I would be less sceptical if an other manufacturer was following in Boeing’s steps ,( and I don’t just mean Airbus)

Right now it is now clear Airbus have “gone down the other road”.
Infact, I put it to you that its unpreparedness that explains the lack of a composite fuselage at Airbus so far.
We all know, they got caught with their pants down with the 787. It seems they were too focused on patching their A340 and busy with the A380. Quite frankly I’m convinced they are basically too busy to start work on a composite fuselage.
It’s much like the situation with the A320 and 737NG. Boeing were busy with the 777. They were confident their current 737 was good enough to last (after all it was only about 8 years old at the time), but then they lost a lot of order and customers. Suddenly the penny dropped.

If you are using the A350 to assume Airbus are going a different direction, the consider this: The A350 is still metal as thats what the fuselage was engineered for. To re engineer the A300 cross section for composite would take a lot of time and money and would still only produce a less that optimal design that is basicaly a modification of an existing aircraft.

Airbus have said they are researching using composites for a fuselage (will most likely be the A320 replacement IMO!). So clearly they are not “going down the other road”. They just do not have the resources to jump on the same bandwagon at this time. Boeing on the other hand have been developing and researching Composites for fuselage use since the Sonic Cruiser, a lot of the initial ground work had been done by the time the first announcement of a composite hull design for the then 7e7 was made.

The Incidents that i cite were related, both were caused by the same problem electric cables which had corroded and shorted and operated the catch mechanisms on the cargo holds, and if it wasn’t for the Ramp rats vigilance there could have been a major disaster

back to topic, What I m say is Boeing are painting a very Rosy picture of this paper plane, there no problem that they have over looked ,but in the real world we all know this isn’t so
Airbus have had a lot of dealings with composites in their aircraft usually non critical parts , so why have they gone down the other road? to me this speaks volumes ,if composite Fuselages are so good you would expect every one else would follow suite
(look at the car industry for instance)

I do hope that Boeing can prove their design, because ,I think it will be a grate step forward, but I’m sceptical about it at the moment, I would be less sceptical if an other manufacturer was following in Boeing’s steps ,( and I don’t just mean Airbus)

I resent being called Ignorant, especially when A company may be trying to pull the wool over the general public’s eyes
all We gain is that fact If some at a airport decide to set about a composite fuselage with a hammer nothing visible will happen, we all know composite material are pretty resilient*but we are talking different forces and pressures on a new and untried design

“Is it so hard to beleive that Boeing DO know what they are doing and have it in hand?”

So we are not allowed to doubt Boeing’s say-so? There are examples from History were Boeing’s say-so wasn’t quite right Like the Forward hold on the 747 that cant open by it self , yet 1 United airlines aircraft was nearly lost because it did happen and it was only when it happened to a BA 747 on the ground That Boeing had to eat their words

I stand by the right to question either Boeing’s or Airbus facts

I view your post as ignorant. I did not call you ignorant, just that one post, chill.

No one says you cannot question Airbus or Boeing or any manufacturer, heck I do it myself plenty of times.
As for the issues you cite, both were singular accidents caused by several things, one being ramp rats. Its not quite fair to be taking these and using them as an argument to try and prove that maybe Boeing do not know what they are doing with the Composites.

For what its worth….. that 747 flew a good 20-30 minutes with a lot of bodywork missing, yet it still flew. If anything it IS a glaring example that Boeing know what they are doing when building aircraft.

All I’m saying is, neither of us know the research and development data Boeing has on using composites for fuselages. The fact that they’re going ahead after years of research and several test pieces of fuselage tells me, something is going as planned.

Boeing is going to have to prove to the FAA, CAA, JAA that the 787 is a viable aircraft, both in terms of operation and maintenance (and a whole load of other things). The Authorities are going to scrutinize the composites and will want to be completely satisfied with Boeings work.

Do you really think Boeing will forge ahead with the composite fuse when its going to be so inconvenient as you are trying to suggest?

As for Composites being untested in this use… 2 words: Beech Starship. Although its not on the same scale, it is a pressurised hull. The principle is the same.

I resent being called Ignorant, especially when A company may be trying to pull the wool over the general public’s eyes
all We gain is that fact If some at a airport decide to set about a composite fuselage with a hammer nothing visible will happen, we all know composite material are pretty resilient*but we are talking different forces and pressures on a new and untried design

“Is it so hard to beleive that Boeing DO know what they are doing and have it in hand?”

So we are not allowed to doubt Boeing’s say-so? There are examples from History were Boeing’s say-so wasn’t quite right Like the Forward hold on the 747 that cant open by it self , yet 1 United airlines aircraft was nearly lost because it did happen and it was only when it happened to a BA 747 on the ground That Boeing had to eat their words

I stand by the right to question either Boeing’s or Airbus facts

And it still to be proven, all we have is Boeing saying it will work, And whats the point of hitting a piece of composite material with a mash hammer? what dose that prove? nothing. In reality we are dealing with the unknown, Airbus have chosen not to go down the composite fuselage road why? maybe they see something that Boeing can’t
Ramp Rash , most common is for vehicles colliding with the fuselage, with the ally skin there is a chance to detect a potential problem. composite materials you wont see anything till maybe it’s to late

I’m sorry, but I view your post as being slightly ignorant, just my honest opinion.

The idea of hitting a piece of the test fuselage with a hammer was to show how resistant to damage the belly will be. It was just a public information video which showed how they looked for damage withing the fibers too.
Boeing have stated that they have given ramp rash a lot of thought and have it well in hand.

Is it so hard to beleive that Boeing DO know what they are doing and have it in hand?
Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason Airbus haven;t gone for an all comp fuse is that they are currently stretch with the A380 and ongoing A340 tweaks?

Airbus did recently announce a lot of investement in research on composites for fuselage.

I to, have misgivings about composite structure repairs, but there again I’m trained in tin and rivet repairs. I wonder if there was the same kind of discussion amongst the wood and fabric guys back in the old days?!!
Don’t worry though Boeing and Airbus know what they are doing, if they don’t as Matthew M hints, there will be plenty of overtime to sort it out!!!

Rgds Cking

all the bits you mention (noses, tails, flaps, gear doors, wing fairings etc), are non structural, repairing a pressurised, load bearing structure properly (even in aluminium) is a bit more involved.

And it still to be proven, all we have is Boeing saying it will work, And whats the point of hitting a piece of composite material with a mash hammer? what dose that prove? nothing. In reality we are dealing with the unknown, Airbus have chosen not to go down the composite fuselage road why? maybe they see something that Boeing can’t
Ramp Rash , most common is for vehicles colliding with the fuselage, with the ally skin there is a chance to detect a potential problem. composite materials you wont see anything till maybe it’s to late

all the bits you mention (noses, tails, flaps, gear doors, wing fairings etc), are non structural, repairing a pressurised, load bearing structure properly (even in aluminium) is a bit more involved.

Yes, obviously, but as PR, press statements and Boeing’s 787 website tend not to go into a full technical breakdown we’re limited as to what we can say. All that is known is that some sort of (relatively speaking) easier patch method is/was being developed; Apparently based partly on field repairs to fighter jets (including pressure hulls btw).

It all seems to be getting kept quite hush hush, obviously to avoid a certain manufacturer getting ideas before the 787 EIS.

All the current techniques are valid, and all comments here are valid. Let me make this clear, I am not saying otherwise.

I completely disagree! Composite repairs take longer, especially when you have to make your own carbon/metal tooling. In my experience, it takes at least one day to make a small dent repair. You have to assess, remove the damaged area, manafacture new plys, lay plys, cure, then restore the aerodynamic surface. That’s assuming you don’t find any other damage – oil ingress is popular. Then again, not “any” engineer can do composite repairs, you have to have gone through the courses to have the approval to do the repairs.

Overtime may head north with the B787 though 😀

I meant the process as a whole, using the “patches” Boeing is/was developing, which are designed to see the aircraft through to the next overhaul or opportunity to take it off the schedules. There apparently is not real ply to used. Someone suggest a prefab sheet that is glued and bolted into place. Seems a little crude methinks so I’m not takinig that all too seriously.

Besides, the areas most likely to receive ramp rash on the 787 are the belly, around doors, hatches and the pax doors. Boeing are beefing up these areas which will apparently add some weight (makes sense) but still will result in an overall lighter fuselage as opposed to one of the same dimensions contructed in the traditional metal way.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve seen a video of part of this beefed up composite being beaten with a hammer with no damage other than the paint work. (it was a piece cut out of one of the test fuselage sections.

Boeing have publicly stated that there is a 2 hour quick cure patch and a 8 hour (I think) permanent patch available to repair any dink in the fuselage of a 787. Both repair methods just need an engineer competent in composites. With many parts of airliners being of composite (noses, tails, flaps, gear doors, wing fairings etc), there are plenty engineers around that will require little additional training to complete the repair job. Either job can then be redone at the next scheduled overhaul.

The whole process should not take any longer than repairing a metal fuselage.

Clearly, Boeing and their customers are convinced this will work, with 300 plus orders proving the point.

all the bits you mention (noses, tails, flaps, gear doors, wing fairings etc), are non structural, repairing a pressurised, load bearing structure properly (even in aluminium) is a bit more involved.

oh, i only work on wing structure………whilst the 350 also has a copper mesh, apparantly, that is not the only consideration required, there are minimum edge clearances needed, and consideration of material proximity…..

its a shame the enlightened few are shouted down by the ignorant majority over there….

lightning arcing is an issue that raised its ugly head this week………

sandy, all this is tied up in risk management and assessment, you can do anything if you have enough money to spend on it……..i regularly despair at the a.net forums for their a vs b mentality.

Apparently Boeing are quite optimistic that a simple copper latice built into the fuselage should suffice. Though, I’ve yet to see anything official on that.

The AvB Mentality at A.net is laughable. Though it has to be said there are a few people there that really know their stuff and try to make sense of the crap. Ulitmately some big mouth comes along and tries to shoot them down.

lightning arcing is an issue that raised its ugly head this week………

sandy, all this is tied up in risk management and assessment, you can do anything if you have enough money to spend on it……..i regularly despair at the a.net forums for their a vs b mentality.

I was of course jesting on the debate stopping part 😉
Most of it is now shifting to repair methods and lightning conduction, rather than the safety/feasability of a composite fuselage.

Cool 🙂 – it always amazes me how many fully qualified composite engineers with access to all the files at Boeing there are on a.net :diablo:

It’s not quite like that… 🙂
But I do agree fundamentaly with what you say about Boeing knowing what they’re doing.

I was of course jesting on the debate stopping part 😉
Most of it is now shifting to repair methods and lightning conduction, rather than the safety/feasability of a composite fuselage.

I’ve watched with some amusement the forums on A.net, FL350 and Pprune where debates against the composites have been heated, with many trivial matters blown out of all proportion. Yet, all these fears and cons instantly disappeared when Airbus announced their own research into Composite hulls. Suddenly, it was acceptable and safe after all?!?

It’s not quite like that… 🙂
But I do agree fundamentaly with what you say about Boeing knowing what they’re doing.

I’ve read so much about these fears and possible drawbacks about using composites for a fuselage. Some points raised are very good.

I am under the belief that Boeing know what they’re doing. They have always been typically conservative when promising what one of their new toys will be able to do.
I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and I’m going to see what happens. They do have a lot of composite experience, in civilian and military spheres. You don;t go bulding a composite fighter unless you know what you’re doing.

Although the experience cannot be transitioned from fighters to commercial jets on a one to one basis, it does give Boeing a good sound knowledge of the intricacies and the do’s and dont’s of using Composites. This is why I think they’ll get the 787 spot on. Clearly whatever they have up their sleeves for maintenance and damage control/repair has quelled any doubts from the minds of the airlines that have order the 787.
I mean, You wouldn’t go buying a herd of jets if you didn’t know if they could be fixed, would you?

I’ve watched with some amusement the forums on A.net, FL350 and Pprune where debates against the composites have been heated, with many trivial matters blown out of all proportion. Yet, all these fears and cons instantly disappeared when Airbus announced their own research into Composite hulls. Suddenly, it was acceptable and safe after all?!?

In short, I don’t think Boeing are a bunch of fools. They know whats what and will come through just fine with the 787. I’ve seen a demonstration video where a peice of the 787 test hull was taken and repeatedly hit with good force with a mash hammer…. not even a single dent in it, and ultrasound found no problems. The belly and other sensative areas prone to damage will be re-enforced.