do you know something about composite repairability then ? or (as usual) taking any opportunity to have a go at Airbus. If boeing made the same statement I bet you would be first in line to justify it.
Any damage to a metal skin panel can easily be patched or even the skin replaced (there are limits to the number / size of patch allowed) – how will a composite one piece fuselage cope with repairs that will need doing over a lifetime. There are numerous pictures on various sites showing aircraft damage from ground vehicles / other aircraft etc – composite aircraft will not be immune from such incidents.
If enough damage is caused (by whatever means) to a composite then there will come a point where it is not viable to repair it or its structural integrity is such that safety is compromised and that point will come much sooner than on a metal skinned aircraft.
How are signs of fatigue monitored on a composite ? – unlike metal there are few external signs that there is a problem internally and a problem may only be seen when something has failed and that could be too late.
Airbus are imho right to be cautious when dealing with composites – if boeing want to carry on then fine and they may pick up the rewards but they are also taking all of the risk.
History often repeats itself and I am thinking of the Dh comet which was a big jump in technology but initally flawed. By the time the problem was resolved – it was too late and the UK aircraft industry never really recovered.
The lessons learned from the comet have benefited aircraft design ever since.
Sign In
