Thread: Airliner chat

[quote=lardy;1001053]

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Despite the high percentage of Carbon Reinforced Plastic they reckon it passes all the lightening test standards.
I understood the fuselage was a ali fibre/glass resin layer.
5 0r 10 mm ali with fibre glass matting bonded by resin ....is that not so chief?

Look.. I only have info available to the public but I'd be very surprised if they were using fibreglass. It's my understanding that the a380 uses aluminium with fibreglass reinforcement though.

That's what makes the 787 so special and "new". It has a predominately CRP body and the worlds first (for an airliner) carbon fibre wings. From wiki...

"The 787 features lighter-weight construction. Its materials (by weight) are: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel, 5% other.[79] Composite materials are significantly lighter and stronger than traditional aircraft materials, making the 787 a very light aircraft for its capabilities.[80] The 787 will be 80% composite by volume.[81] Each 787 contains approximately 35 tons of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, made with 23 tons of carbon fiber.[82] Composites are used on fuselage, wings, tail, doors, and interior. Aluminum is used on wing and tail leading edges, titanium used mainly on engines with steel used in various places.[79]"


"Composite fuselage


Disassembled fuselage section of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner
The 787's all-composite fuselage makes it the first composite airliner in production. While the Boeing 777 contains 50% aluminum and 12% composites, the numbers for the new airplane are 15% aluminum, 50% composite (mostly carbon fiber reinforced plastic) and 12% titanium. Each fuselage barrel will be manufactured in one piece, and the barrel sections joined end to end to form the fuselage. This will eliminate the need for about 50,000 fasteners used in conventional airplane building. According to the manufacturer the composite is also stronger, allowing a higher cabin pressure during flight compared to aluminum"

You can read lots about it at [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787"] the wikipedia site.[/ame]

Big thanks at DB for the pics

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

.......... However I'd rather be Boeing pushing the most fuel efficient airliner ever than Airbus pushing the biggest airplane in the world. They have to be full or near full or your airline bleeds. I read that an empty 747 costs 75% as much to operate as a full 747
.......

This was the criticism of the 747 when it was introduced - but the 747 is the aircraft that made long distance air travel affordable for most people. And the same % figure is true for any aircraft, depending of course on the level of fares you can charge. The cost per seat comes down with increased size almost regardless of anything else. To give an example - simply because of size of aircraft (resulting from amount of traffic) it is cheaper to fly from Sydney to NZ than it is from Sydney to Dubbo.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

This was the criticism of the 747 when it was introduced - but the 747 is the aircraft that made long distance air travel affordable for most people. And the same % figure is true for any aircraft, depending of course on the level of fares you can charge. The cost per seat comes down with increased size almost regardless of anything else. To give an example - simply because of size of aircraft (resulting from amount of traffic) it is cheaper to fly from Sydney to NZ than it is from Sydney to Dubbo.

John

Last time I flew Brisbane-Winton I could have gone to Singapore for less.

Here is an excellent article on pitot icing which may be one of the causes of AF447.

It is looking increasingly as though this aeroplane broke up in flight. There is a good roundup here.

Well... it's been delayed as part of the body side requires reinforcement.

See here.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Well... it's been delayed as part of the body side requires reinforcement.

See here.

Actually, as I understand it, it is worse than that - it is the wing attachment. And what is even worse, testing on the actual structure has shown up errors in the structural design. (Software coding errors I wonder?) It is very late in the process to be finding this sort of problem, although obviously better than after it goes into service!

John

Originally Posted by lardy

I understood the fuselage was a ali fibre/glass resin layer.
5 0r 10 mm ali with fibre glass matting bonded by resin ....is that not so chief?

No, the 787 fuselage is almost 100% CFRP. There are Al parts used, but not much - only 20% of the entire aircraft. There's a video somewhere on the net of them making a fuselage section, from start (Carbon Fibre 'yarn') to the finished product.

Here's a pic of a fuselage section prior to removal of the mold:



I think the Airbus A350 will have similar construction, but I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Actually, as I understand it, it is worse than that - it is the wing attachment. And what is even worse, testing on the actual structure has shown up errors in the structural design. (Software coding errors I wonder?) It is very late in the process to be finding this sort of problem, although obviously better than after it goes into service!

John

Oh dear. It could be years until we see this thing in the air.