With Airbus sputtering, Boeing talks of new jet
Buoyed by the early success of its 787, and with Airbus finally on the defensive, The Boeing Co. is talking with some of its key suppliers about what’s likely to be its next new jet — a 737 replacement based on the technology of its coming super-efficient twin-aisle jetliner.
The aim of the preliminary talks, according to industry sources, is to better gauge how soon a new single-aisle jet could — or should — be brought to market. If possible, Boeing would like to move forward the development of a 737 replacement, the sources said.
Although such a plane would not be available until at least early in the next decade, industry analysts say Boeing has an opportunity to keep Airbus off balance and on the run by leveraging the technology on the 787 Dreamliner — the industry’s first commercial jetliner with a composite wing and fuselage.
“Boeing needs to strike while the iron is hot,” said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst with the Teal Group, an industry consulting firm.
After several years of getting battered by Airbus, the tide appears to be turning for Boeing. The more airlines learn about the Airbus A350, which will challenge the 787, the better the Boeing plane has been selling.
Aboulafia went so far as to predict the death of the A350 if the Boeing jet continues to do as well as it has in recent weeks.
…
Aboulafia said Airbus cannot afford many more setbacks like the Korean Air and expected Northwest decisions.
“If this trend continues and the 787 does extremely well, then the A350, as we know it, dies,” he said. “In Korean Air and Northwest, we are talking about two of the biggest A330 stakeholders. Airbus should have had a huge advantage there with the A350.”
Meanwhile, the development of an all-new jet rather than a derivative gives Boeing the upper hand over Airbus in using that 787 technology later for a 737 replacement.
Boeing has not said when it envisions a new single-aisle jet, but knowledgeable industry observers have put an entry-into-service date around 2013.
Speculation that Boeing might move forward development of a 737 replacement has been fueled partly by recent public comments from engine makers looking to develop a next-generation engine that would be needed for a 737 replacement.
That Boeing is talking with suppliers, principally those likely to provide the technology for a 737 replacement, suggests Boeing’s product development people are further along this road than previously believed.
Byron Callan, a Merrill Lynch analyst who closely follows Boeing, said he was recently told by one Boeing supplier that the company has completed an internal new study of a 737 replacement.
Boeing won’t comment, other than to say it is focused on winning many more orders for its hot-selling 737, and that the only new plane that has its attention is the 787, which will enter service in 2008.
“The 737 is doing very well in the marketplace,” Scott Carson, head of Boeing jetliner sales business, said when asked if there is pressure to move up development of a replacement plane. “There are a lot of legs left with the 737 family of aircraft and the market response this year certainly demonstrates that.”
Boeing has won several key 737 orders so far this year, with more likely.
…
Boeing’s current 737 backlog of nearly 800 planes, with more orders to come, is enough to keep production going in Renton until well after 2010.
But before Boeing can move on with the development of its next jet, it must get the 787 into service with airlines and find out if the plane performs as advertised.
“What we want to do is get some experience with the new airplane both in terms of its performance and manufacturing technologies and learn from that,” said Carson, Boeing’s sales chief.
“After we have learned the right lessons, then we can worry about a replacement airplane (for the 737).”
And the engine makers will have to come up with a new engine for a single-aisle jet that would offer the kind of performance improvements that the 787 will enjoy over today’s planes.
“To build a 737 replacement without a next-generation engine would be a dreadful mistake for us to make,” Carson said.
…
With the development effort for the A380 program winding down as production begins, Airbus has only recently turned its attention to the A350 and the challenge from the 787.
But in offering customers an A330 derivative rather than an all-new jet, Airbus is taking the less-expensive approach, much as Boeing has done in the past in response to Airbus threats.
It was not that long ago that some in the industry were calling Boeing “Derivatives ‘R’ Us.”
If Airbus were to change strategy and develop an all-new jet to match the 787, it would give Boeing a huge advantage.
“If Airbus has to start again with a clean sheet of paper and an all-new A350 rather than a derivative, that gives Boeing at least a couple extra years to have the 787 alone in that market and it gives Boeing a strong advantage in leveraging that technology for its next plane to replace the 737,” Aboulafia said.
“What you are seeing,” he added, “is possibly the biggest reversal of fortunes in aviation history, with Boeing taking back lost market share from Airbus. … This represents one of the biggest opportunities that any U.S. manufacturing company has ever enjoyed.”
By: bring_it_on - 7th August 2006 at 13:04
We all apreciate your contribution conada as you obviously know from the inside. However Atleast I can talk of BA and that they are quite happy with what the CF wing and fuesalage is getting them !!
By: coanda - 6th August 2006 at 22:25
since my last post on this topic, I’ve been working on the A350 project, and it has done nothing to convince me (and quite a few others) of the ‘benefits’ of carbon wings, as we are forced to design them at the moment.
As you have seen, the A350 comes in a number of versions suited to take on both the 787 and 777.
I’ve been through a concept trade-off between composite and metallic ribs, and seen composites loose, and I’ve seen the product of new machining technology that can reduce the weight of metallic parts making them truly favourable over composite components.
Still, if Steve Udvar-Hazy wants composite aircraft so will every other airline (as he appears to speak for the airline world (and be bezy mates with boeing)).
Having seen the photos that are out, on centre wingbox construction, there are a couple of differences between the A wing and the B wing.
Rumour has it that the B wing is not out of the woods yet…….and of course, they’ve had to scrap a whole fuselage section because of deficiencies in one small area that was not or could not be repaired (and this can still happen with whole wing skins given the manufacturing process (automated my ar*e).
My perspective and knowledge has changed and I would probably not write my previous posts like they are, if we went back and did it again, but the overall opinion I tried to put across still holds.
coanda
By: bring_it_on - 5th August 2006 at 11:09
Well since you have touched up on this old old thread , one just has to read the thread in toto to see how the trend has shifted towards boeing in the last year or so . From “Composites Are bull” and ” a380 will trump 787 we are now seeing even the A350 using more composites and trying to incorporate many of the technologies of the 787 , the 787 is a hot commodity and boeing apparently doesnt have enough production slots to get all the demand for the first few years (specially the -8 vareint ) . It is clear that airlines want the stuff and want it ASAP . Airbus has also realized this and have just launched the new XWB which it appears from the limited info they have released is more of a competitor to the 777 rather then the 787 .
By: daniee - 3rd August 2006 at 20:39
This is quite old topic, but I hope someone will respond so: Does anybody know something about B787 wing structure. I mean elements like airfoils, ribs or spar/spars, material used in it, any drawings etc… I will be grateful for any advice. Thanks
By: coanda - 22nd April 2005 at 20:35
WD said=>Your initial comment that stated that metals are superior to composites in all regards was a rather misdirected blanket statement, and wrong IMO.
I think if you read what i said, that, on a purely weight basis, composites are not superior to metallics, I guess I should have qualified that with somthing like
“given a useful part designed from metallic and composite ends of the materials spectrum, metallics have been proven numerous times to be superior designs than composites”
WD said =>Composites possess characteristics that metals can’t match which shouldn’t be too hard to believe.
I do believe, but those characteristics come at a number of costs, two main costs are axial loading chracteristics (which is not always a problem) and the brittle (next to no plastic range) nature. There is no inbuilt ‘safety catch’ that plastic extension gives the metallics (well the non-brittle durable metals in the 2000 series definitely and the 7000 series does well too)
WD said=> Once again, you frequently mention wing ribs which are only one component of a large aircraft.
Well yup, thats what i deal with on an every day basis so?
WD said=>If by switching in composites for metal in just about every other component manufacturers can not only save weight but create shapes previously cost prohibitive with metals.
Would love to hear your ideas on composite ribs/riblets and frames to attach leading edge/trailing edge/spoilers oh, and please design me a flap track fairing bracket or two from composites, and make it so that its not ‘hand-made’ because most complex shapes are HAND MADE which is seriously costly, and inefficient.
WD said => Bombardier cuts the majority of the CRJ wing from a solid block of aluminum which is incrediably wasteful and inefficient.
so what, they did that on the buccaneer? it is a prefferred method of construction for wing skins on boeing and airbus aircraft, do you know why its the preferred method?
An integrally machined rib / stringers-skin combination / spar
1.is stronger.
2. has a better fatigue life than other methods, such as the old way (and I have not yet seen anything on a similar composite product)
3.doesnt require auto-claves and such a large amount of human input as similar composite structure would (ribs and the smallest spars will fit in autoclaves but you wont get half an a380 wings worth of skin and stiffener in any autoclave ive seen nor can you use the J shape stiffener section, come to think of it, you wont be able to use many cross sections for stiffeners–oh dear…perhaps the metallic solution is more optimum with J shape than say I or just box section……..) I think on a par with the biggest has to be what boeing are doin with the 787 tech demo’s and the 787 fuselages, the new sub’s are being produced this way too…..hmm wonder where boeing picked the idea up from ?? 🙂
4.has a great deal less fixtures and fittings such as bolts which reduces weight/cost/time-to-produce/damage likelihood(oh and your brand new aircraft takes a beating on the assembly line to put it together! i think Brough process somthing like a 1000 concession reports from the wing assembly building a month, I see no reason why boeings would be lower (or higher!))
5.manufacturers get some of their money back as they ship the swarf back to the manufacturers for re-processing in stuff like drinks cans etc
6.as long as the billet is in good condition (which it almost always is) then the quality of the finished part is usually very high and can be checked quite quickly. The X-32 project knows to its cost that it only takes 1 slip on the lay up or one crinkle and you can waste a very large part and a great deal of money (oneof the wings had to be binned because QI showed up the crease in the middle of the fibres)
WD said =>Burt Rutan accomplished in a matter of years what NASA and other space agencies took decades to do with metal.
Nothing is impossible if you throw the money at it, he is a very talented designer, as is his staff and has mastered the art, now he has NASA eating out of his hand, good for him! And when his aircraft are re-entering the earth at somthing like mach 6 we’ll see how many ceramic tiles he’ll need….
WD said =>Dismissing the thought of such advances in Commerical aircraft is pretty narrowminded and perhaps a bit short sighted.
he has made no real advances so to speak, hes just a good engineer and a good engineer uses what he has available to get somthing done, he happenned to specialise in composites and there’s some stuff he cant or wont give out….if you look in the proteus cockpit you’ll see a grid like pattern of material which is apparantly a specially designed foam which adds to the structural integrity of the vehicle for buggerall weight increase, he cant or wont sell that idea!…….., and as the old saying goes, too many structures engineers can make somthing too heavy! he has his own well thought out way and its good, but its good for what it does (the beech starship isnt rutans greatest success…..everyone has an off day…….. it was a victim of its designers and the FAA argue amongst yourselves who’s really to blame). The main problem, in this discussion, is that burts structural solutions just dont apply to commerical airliners, he often makes it easy for himself in the way he does things, mainly by removing fuselages as much as possible and using boom for fuel, or other purposes, or twin wings, or other things that help in ways other than making the aircraft look cool (which the proteus seriously does in my humble opinion)
WD =>I’m not saying that I understand all the in’s and out’s of this complex topic but when there is a will, there is a way in aviation.
If i tell you how much it costs will you give me the money??? 🙂
coanda
By: Distiller - 22nd April 2005 at 19:28
You guys talk quite loosely about “composites”! You should really be more precise, although we all know you mean carbon fibre composites. But let’s not forget, there are others as well. And when you talk about fibres you also have to talk about resins!
Advanced composites (apart from glassfibre stuff) are how old? 15, 20 years? And how long do “we” build in aluminum and other metals? Sure we know better how to build metal structures, but the metal builders shouldn’t fell threatened, that is not a religious war, whatever is best suited for the task will be chosen.
It is unbecoming an engineer or anybody interested in technical matters to reject a new idea because it seem to come from an unwelcome side.
Boeing is taking a big risk right now, cause nobody really knows how the B787 will behave in everyday service, and how it will age. If that experiment is successful, Airbus will soon be forced to duplicate what Boeing did. But if it shows that Boeing’s approach is wrong or to early Boeing will propably more or less vanish as a builder of commerical airplane. Quite courageous, but I’m sure the way to go.
Airbus sure is the more conservative company right now (wasn’t so 20 years ago – remember the introduction of FBW and composite parts into commercial airplane business, without Airbus Boeing would still build 1960’s technology), and what they do with GLARE right now is a half-hearted approach to the load bearing non-metal structures question. And I also think one big reason for Airbus Industry right now sticking with metal is their lack of capacity to change, as the have fully concentrated on expanding their product family over the last decade using what technology they had, and not on the evolution of the commercial airplane as Boeing is forced to do now. The other big reason is of course politics, as every “partner” in Airbus tries to get as much milage out of his investments in existing tools and trained manpower, even when this is not technologically sensible in the big picture.
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 18:50
No, Sandy…..not what I meant at all.
Why not listen to what the people who work in the industry are telling you, mate? Horses for courses, and all that…….. 🙂
I know you didnt 😉
And I am listening
By: Grey Area - 22nd April 2005 at 18:48
No, Sandy…..not what I meant at all.
Why not listen to what the people who work in the industry are telling you, mate? Horses for courses, and all that…….. 🙂
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 18:45
The dinosaurs dominated the Earth’s landmass and oceans for over 6 million years and were only wiped out by a global catastrophe.
Just thought I’d mention that……… :D:D:D
A catastrophe they were unable to respond and adapt to 😉
Mammals existed back then and could adapt to the changing environment.
The situation is more alike than you think 🙂
Metal is the Dinosaur, Composite is the Mammal.
Great analagy Grey 🙂
By: Whiskey Delta - 22nd April 2005 at 18:34
So Coanda, you’re saying that composites have their place in an aircraft but perhaps not the whole frame? I don’t think anyone said that composites were the be-all/end-all of aircraft manufacturering. Your initial comment that stated that metals are superior to composites in all regards was a rather misdirected blanket statement, and wrong IMO. Composites possess characteristics that metals can’t match which shouldn’t be too hard to believe. Once again, you frequently mention wing ribs which are only one component of a large aircraft. If by switching in composites for metal in just about every other component manufacturers can not only save weight but create shapes previously cost prohibitive with metals. Bombardier cuts the majority of the CRJ wing from a solid block of aluminum which is incrediably wasteful and inefficient.
Burt Rutan accomplished in a matter of years what NASA and other space agencies took decades to do with metal. Obviously his “out of the box” approach to the task permitted composites to be used for space travel, not to mention his years of doing the same with aicraft (The Voyager, Long EZ). Dismissing the thought of such advances in Commerical aircraft is pretty narrowminded and perhaps a bit short sighted. I’m not saying that I understand all the in’s and out’s of this complex topic but when there is a will, there is a way in aviation.
By: Grey Area - 22nd April 2005 at 18:27
The dinosaurs dominated the Earth’s landmass and oceans for over 6 million years and were only wiped out by a global catastrophe.
Just thought I’d mention that……… :D:D:D
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 17:50
If the most recent and modern aircraft built is ‘already a dinosaur’ because of its metal construction, I wonder how should we describe models such as the 777 or the 737NG… :rolleyes: 😉
Well for one, the 737 fuselage is from the 60’s. Sure they’ve tweaked, nipped and tucked here and there, but thats it. They did this to keep a whole range of things common with the classic airframes. This is not a fair comparison, Period.
The 777 development program began in earnest in 1990 I think. A time when the technology for composited had not reached the level we are at today or even 10 years ago. At that time it was decided an aluminium aircraft was still the best way with the technology at hand.
But yes.. current composit technology make the 777 a dinosaur in terms of contruction, as it does the A300, A330 and A340 too.
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 17:46
Gentlemen.
Both comparisons with burt rutans aircraft and military fast jets do not hold against airliners. (for example burts aircraft have all of their strength mainly in their skins and spars, an interesting (and semi-novel) idea, which works well but is not suitable for airliners right now because burt rutans aircraft (and I am talking mainly about the current ones like the proteus etc) are designed for very specific tasks and one might expect that their designs are very weather conscious (doesnt he operate out of an airport with the best consistent weather in the world?? ) and thus do not have huge operating envelopes(in terms of what they would be happy flying in)….every case is different tho. spaceship one has different design points to the proteus etc etc…..and the proteus is not equipped with the systems that an airliner is.
A fast jet wing is different again with the ribs being very small, although quite wide, and because of the thickness issue the spars are many and small to absorb the bending moments which are generally higher than airliners (although if you look at the wing tip of the a380 it can have accelerations approaching 15G in a gust+rolling case)
These small areas, but many of them, are good for engineers who wish to use composites because the composite materials can be arranged in such a way that they work for you in strength and NOT against you in weight due to lay-up thickness.
so for fighters and one-offs with very specific missions great…..mainly because of the smaller volume of the individual part.
————————————————————————–
As I stated bmused, I see that there is a place for composites….in tubes. When I say tubes I mean spars and also fuselages, because I am well aware of the axial capability of modern composites, which would be ideal in fuselages since failure cases are usually due to ‘bursting’, and since tubes are wrapped lay-ups they play into the hands of the engineer for fuselages and spars because they always present the majority of the fibres in such a direction as any internal pressure forces tension up the structure.
remember. composites are only strong in the tensile direction along the axis of the fibres ONLY ONLY ONLY. so a part subject to torque, bending and shear (such as a wing rib!) will be required to be over-engineered in the weight category.
indeed airbus has its own composite studies such as TANGO and ALCAS which are based specifically on a total composite wing, with hand made wing sections. hand made frankly just isnt good enough for anything other than novel demonstrators.
I concentrate on wing ribs because that is where composites should not in my opinion (and others) be used, and yet we see them being used purely through political lobbying. And they do not present a good engineering solution. I would like to see (and thats actually see) what boeing does with the 787 because soo far nobody has been able to really prove the case for composite wing ribs (yup that is where most of my job revolves around-i will be stressing a380 freighter wing ribs and who knows? if my company gets a contract (which i do not think are out for tender yet), then the A350’s ribs)
I would say that composite spars are a good use for composites in wings because of their axial stregth, in resisting wing bending (although aero and structures have to work very closely so that the wing does what the aero guys want it to do) on the other hand their bearing strengths and pull-through strengths would be semi-based on the matrix structure which can be crushed/cracked exceptionally easily in comparison to the fibres (about 10% as strong usually).
I may have mentioned before that, if, for example, a spanner is dropped onto a composite wing cover (as is being suggested for lots of projects) then that wing cover will need to be thoroughly checked for cracks throughout the depth of the cover because those micro fractures will likely not be at the surface of the cover, but in some depth, and will need to be dealt with to stop them growing. you know what the proposed solution is?? a patch of composite on the outer and inner surface of the cover……..very dirty, and not even really going to fix it. Today ‘composite’ leading/trailing parts are just binned if they get damaged, because they cannot be effectively fixed.
so the solution??
use the right material in the right place. Composites will be good for fuselages for the aforementioned reasons, and who knows, the german are trying to nick the centre of excellence for wings and lump the brits with fuselages so we may be doing that in the near future.
My problem with all of this is that people read pr hype (and stuff off the internet) that does not explain the whole story. So what if composites are stronger? I am going to need it to be strong in multi-axis so i’ll need to have multiple layups….which probably will not meet airbus’ strong weight demands, which are set so that the airlines get what they are expecting.
its all down to weight………..and understanding the loading paths of the part (which many people actually are not sure about which leads to over-engineering)
Now, that is far more sensible an explination.
I agree with that 100%.
Thank you for explaining your exact standing.
By: Castor - 22nd April 2005 at 17:29
yes, composites are less dense, yes composites are stiff and YES THEY ARE AXIALLY STRONG. An airliner rib has forces acting on it in all 3 axes. which means at least 1 layup in the direction of the load (3xlayups) plus 1 lay up 45 degrees either side of the direction (a further 6x layups) totalling 12 layups. theres your weight and volume considerations out of the WINDOW. a metallic rib can do the same job lighter, and it will plastically deform before breaking for a composite rib so it WINS on an engineering viewpoint. not necessarily a political view point.
Here I must support Coanda for summing it up quite nicely. This is what it’s all about – knowing your load paths. In some structures composites are really superior – that’s the kind of problems where the structure is taking loads in a specific direction. But if your structure is exposed to loads from all kinds of directions you’ll end up having a design that is bigger and heavier than a lightweight metal construction.
regards,
Castor
By: 4 engines good - 22nd April 2005 at 17:22
The A380 is already a dinosaur because of its metal construction.
If the most recent and modern aircraft built is ‘already a dinosaur’ because of its metal construction, I wonder how should we describe models such as the 777 or the 737NG… :rolleyes: 😉
By: seahawk - 22nd April 2005 at 17:20
Spoken like a true BAe/Airbus employee.
Airbus seem to be unwilling to accept that Boeing are right… and their employees also it seems. Composite is here… heck Airbus is no stranger to it.
This situation reminds me of Boeings complacency in light of the A320 program. “FBW is not the way forward” I beleive they said….
The A380 is already a dinosaur because of its metal construction.
I am willing to bet that the next all new plane from Airbus will follow the 787’s footsteps.
No, I think Airbus went down another road has comitted itself more to the use of highly modern new metal alloys, that are lighter and stronger then conventional metal structures. At least for certain key areas them seem to prefer that solution.
Boeing however seem to go the composite path, which is not surprising considering the knowledge they gained from various military programs.
However it is not about the materials you use, it is about the right choice of materials for your design. Boeing has shown to be very clever when it comes to such things, which is proven by the longevity of their design. Airbus products however do age quicker. (A300 or A310)
In the end airlines will go for the overall better product. The product that suits their needs and the product offering more income for them.
And I doubt the A350 or the A380 will be that plane.
By: coanda - 22nd April 2005 at 17:19
Gentlemen.
Both comparisons with burt rutans aircraft and military fast jets do not hold against airliners. (for example burts aircraft have all of their strength mainly in their skins and spars, an interesting (and semi-novel) idea, which works well but is not suitable for airliners right now because burt rutans aircraft (and I am talking mainly about the current ones like the proteus etc) are designed for very specific tasks and one might expect that their designs are very weather conscious (doesnt he operate out of an airport with the best consistent weather in the world?? ) and thus do not have huge operating envelopes(in terms of what they would be happy flying in)….every case is different tho. spaceship one has different design points to the proteus etc etc…..and the proteus is not equipped with the systems that an airliner is.
A fast jet wing is different again with the ribs being very small, although quite wide, and because of the thickness issue the spars are many and small to absorb the bending moments which are generally higher than airliners (although if you look at the wing tip of the a380 it can have accelerations approaching 15G in a gust+rolling case)
These small areas, but many of them, are good for engineers who wish to use composites because the composite materials can be arranged in such a way that they work for you in strength and NOT against you in weight due to lay-up thickness.
so for fighters and one-offs with very specific missions great…..mainly because of the smaller volume of the individual part.
————————————————————————–
As I stated bmused, I see that there is a place for composites….in tubes. When I say tubes I mean spars and also fuselages, because I am well aware of the axial capability of modern composites, which would be ideal in fuselages since failure cases are usually due to ‘bursting’, and since tubes are wrapped lay-ups they play into the hands of the engineer for fuselages and spars because they always present the majority of the fibres in such a direction as any internal pressure forces tension up the structure.
remember. composites are only strong in the tensile direction along the axis of the fibres ONLY ONLY ONLY. so a part subject to torque, bending and shear (such as a wing rib!) will be required to be over-engineered in the weight category.
indeed airbus has its own composite studies such as TANGO and ALCAS which are based specifically on a total composite wing, with hand made wing sections. hand made frankly just isnt good enough for anything other than novel demonstrators.
I concentrate on wing ribs because that is where composites should not in my opinion (and others) be used, and yet we see them being used purely through political lobbying. And they do not present a good engineering solution. I would like to see (and thats actually see) what boeing does with the 787 because soo far nobody has been able to really prove the case for composite wing ribs (yup that is where most of my job revolves around-i will be stressing a380 freighter wing ribs and who knows? if my company gets a contract (which i do not think are out for tender yet), then the A350’s ribs)
I would say that composite spars are a good use for composites in wings because of their axial stregth, in resisting wing bending (although aero and structures have to work very closely so that the wing does what the aero guys want it to do) on the other hand their bearing strengths and pull-through strengths would be semi-based on the matrix structure which can be crushed/cracked exceptionally easily in comparison to the fibres (about 10% as strong usually).
I may have mentioned before that, if, for example, a spanner is dropped onto a composite wing cover (as is being suggested for lots of projects) then that wing cover will need to be thoroughly checked for cracks throughout the depth of the cover because those micro fractures will likely not be at the surface of the cover, but in some depth, and will need to be dealt with to stop them growing. you know what the proposed solution is?? a patch of composite on the outer and inner surface of the cover……..very dirty, and not even really going to fix it. Today ‘composite’ leading/trailing parts are just binned if they get damaged, because they cannot be effectively fixed.
so the solution??
use the right material in the right place. Composites will be good for fuselages for the aforementioned reasons, and who knows, the german are trying to nick the centre of excellence for wings and lump the brits with fuselages so we may be doing that in the near future.
My problem with all of this is that people read pr hype (and stuff off the internet) that does not explain the whole story. So what if composites are stronger? I am going to need it to be strong in multi-axis so i’ll need to have multiple layups….which probably will not meet airbus’ strong weight demands, which are set so that the airlines get what they are expecting.
its all down to weight………..and understanding the loading paths of the part (which many people actually are not sure about which leads to over-engineering)
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 16:52
Gentlemen!!!!
This is an extremely interesting thread, and I would hate to feel forced to close it simply because people who should know better cannot discuss the issue in a polite and civil manner.
Respect one another, please.
Sorry if I sound aggressive. Its not my intention. The words seem to fail me today. Anyhow my opinion is the same as WD and he’s put it much more eloquently than I
By: Grey Area - 22nd April 2005 at 16:40
A Moderation Moment.
Gentlemen!!!!
This is an extremely interesting thread, and I would hate to feel forced to close it simply because people who should know better cannot discuss the issue in a polite and civil manner.
Respect one another, please.
By: Bmused55 - 22nd April 2005 at 16:38
Coanda, I find it odd then that Boeing and Airbus are pursuing composites if they are as inferior as you say. Burt Rutan and his Scale Composites engineers have been pushing the envelope with their all composite aircraft especially with White Knight and SpaceShipOne. You mainly harping on aircraft ribs but obviously this can’t be as much of an obstacle as Mr. Rutan just sent a composite aircraft into space and back.
I’m sure you and your engineering coworkers are deeply involved in these topics but just because 1 engineering group doesn’t believe it can be done doesn’t mean that it can’t. It’ll similar as the change from wood to the all metal aircraft.
my point entirely. Only better stated.
Sign In
April 19, 2005 at 9:42 pm