A composite 737 replacement will certainly be a game changer in the single aisle commercial field, just as the 787 will be in the larger aircraft market. It will offer much greater fuel efficiency, plus lower maintenance and inspection costs.
Whichever manufacturer (Airbus or Boeing) initiates a program earliest, they Will have an advantage over the competition.
737 Composite likely will be built in 787 plant
Moderator: Latest news team
Boeing has more composite experience than meets the eye
I think Boeing inherited substantial composite work experience from the C17, F22, F18E, Darkstar, Aurora, etc and B2 programs that we are not privy to as well.
I think Airbus di apply innovation with composites further to date with commercial aircraft.
I think Airbus di apply innovation with composites further to date with commercial aircraft.
-
cageyjames
- Posts: 514
- Joined: 03 Jun 2005, 00:00
- Location: On Lease to PHL
Re: Boeing has more composite experience than meets the eye
I would assume that the Dassault Mirage, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and even the Dassault Neuron would be enough to learn how to use composites since EADS has over 45% controlling interest in both Dassault Aviation and Eurofighter GmbH. *shrug*fleabyte wrote:I think Boeing inherited substantial composite work experience from the C17, F22, F18E, Darkstar, Aurora, etc and B2 programs that we are not privy to as well.
US Airways - Fly with US
Keep in mind that we are talking about filament wound composites, on the scale of which has never been done before.
8 years ago when I worked on designing launch vehicles, there was only one supplier in the US that could produce a winding machine on the scale of a wide-body aircraft fuselage (I can't say if there are manufacturers outside the US). The number of suppliers of giant autoclaves and the lead time would be another big challenge.
Point is that while composite experience on military programs count for something, both A and B have a learning curve. Boeing has an early start on that curve.
8 years ago when I worked on designing launch vehicles, there was only one supplier in the US that could produce a winding machine on the scale of a wide-body aircraft fuselage (I can't say if there are manufacturers outside the US). The number of suppliers of giant autoclaves and the lead time would be another big challenge.
Point is that while composite experience on military programs count for something, both A and B have a learning curve. Boeing has an early start on that curve.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
just thought I would post a link to a picture of a barrel section of the 787 fuselage produced at Spirit Aero Systems in Witchita Kansas.
http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/ph ... arrel.html
http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/ph ... arrel.html
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
Me anti Boeing you are well mistaken.......I love the whale, noisy but tons of space and spares all over the world so an aog is virtually impossible.
Now back to 1970 composte. The word used in 1960-1970 described GRP and not carbon composite. Airbus uses carbon composite for the whole empenage thats tail fin rudder, horizontal stabilizer, and elevators.
Come on guy you said the 727 had composte tails and in truth all it had was GRP fairings. Beleive me man GRP is heavy glass fibre paneling and not light like carbon composite.
Cant speak for the US military use of the boeing untrasound ndt/ndi all I know is its new to comercial aviation.
I do know that a rockwell B1 had to be ferried from Egypt after it hit a concrete building in a sandstorm incident and the factory team we flew in with were very nervous about the ferry because they had no real means vantage of determining the structural integrity. The aircraft was ferried back to usa with fuel cells in the weapons bay for the long haul. They had the advantage of parachutes if it went wrong........not so convenient for us in a comercila bird from either Boeing or Airbus if it cracks up.
For the record I am not convinced on Glare either, I dont trust the technique of welding a laminate to stringers and frames, only time and fatigue tests will tell. I certainly am not flying on an a380 for a few years yet, let the statistical dead prove it first.
Stay neutral and unbiassed.
Now back to 1970 composte. The word used in 1960-1970 described GRP and not carbon composite. Airbus uses carbon composite for the whole empenage thats tail fin rudder, horizontal stabilizer, and elevators.
Come on guy you said the 727 had composte tails and in truth all it had was GRP fairings. Beleive me man GRP is heavy glass fibre paneling and not light like carbon composite.
Cant speak for the US military use of the boeing untrasound ndt/ndi all I know is its new to comercial aviation.
I do know that a rockwell B1 had to be ferried from Egypt after it hit a concrete building in a sandstorm incident and the factory team we flew in with were very nervous about the ferry because they had no real means vantage of determining the structural integrity. The aircraft was ferried back to usa with fuel cells in the weapons bay for the long haul. They had the advantage of parachutes if it went wrong........not so convenient for us in a comercila bird from either Boeing or Airbus if it cracks up.
For the record I am not convinced on Glare either, I dont trust the technique of welding a laminate to stringers and frames, only time and fatigue tests will tell. I certainly am not flying on an a380 for a few years yet, let the statistical dead prove it first.
Stay neutral and unbiassed.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Airbus today announced that it will initiate planning for a composite replacement for the A-320 series of aircraft (formal announcement to be at some unspecified date). Boeing has a B-737 composite in the planning process now. I do not know who will announce first, but the future is spelled "composite".
Last year Southwest Airlines prodded Boeing to develop a composite 737 replacement and Boeing responded that it was under consideration with a possible introduction of 2013.
Once one of the airframe manufacturer starts to offer a composite single aisle plane, the other will be forced to match its offering. Let's see who moves out first!
Also, both manufacturers are experienced in the use of composites. Some military programs currently use composites for major structures, so the experience exists.
Last year Southwest Airlines prodded Boeing to develop a composite 737 replacement and Boeing responded that it was under consideration with a possible introduction of 2013.
Once one of the airframe manufacturer starts to offer a composite single aisle plane, the other will be forced to match its offering. Let's see who moves out first!
Also, both manufacturers are experienced in the use of composites. Some military programs currently use composites for major structures, so the experience exists.
Well I don't want to get into a big dialog about the whys are wherefores of composites. However, when I took aeronautics at University a composite was determined by its structure, which was any combination of materials used to form a single or multiple forms.
That material could consist of a combination of a multiplicity of substances, GRP,Carbon fibre,Titanium, Aluminum, or plain old Plastic, or anything else you could find in the lab.
The fact that Boeing will be the first to use a Carbon based complete fuselage in a commercial aircraft was the point of this posting. I might point out that Airbus indeed made early use of Hexcell construction on many control surfaces, however they have not enjoyed very good success rates with that form.
And before I go any further, welcome to Luchtzak! its always great to get a new point of view, specially from someone who appears to be active, or retired from the Military.
As far as my good old 727 you are partially correct, but if you check this NASA document page seven, you'll see a 727 composite section.
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/P ... pe-ceh.pdf
That material could consist of a combination of a multiplicity of substances, GRP,Carbon fibre,Titanium, Aluminum, or plain old Plastic, or anything else you could find in the lab.
The fact that Boeing will be the first to use a Carbon based complete fuselage in a commercial aircraft was the point of this posting. I might point out that Airbus indeed made early use of Hexcell construction on many control surfaces, however they have not enjoyed very good success rates with that form.
And before I go any further, welcome to Luchtzak! its always great to get a new point of view, specially from someone who appears to be active, or retired from the Military.
As far as my good old 727 you are partially correct, but if you check this NASA document page seven, you'll see a 727 composite section.
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/P ... pe-ceh.pdf
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
I like a good laugh and joke.
Why dont you admit your statement was wrong, quote "Hate to disagree with you but one of the first aircraft I flew was a 727 built in 1970, it had a composite tail and elevators. "unquote
Using your reference document, the 727 had the first developement of "composites" as part of a NASA program but the tail section is as shiny and solid as metal can be. I have seen enough of them stripped of paint and primer in hangars over the years.
No hard feelings its just it bugs me when stuff is taken out of context, and period as in years.
As it says in the document you referenced Airbus is the leader in the early use of modern carbon composites in structural items like stab boxes whole tail assembles and now partial wings etc not just elevators and fairing panels.
Boeing is clearly the leader in being the first all composite comercial airplane, so lets watch the skies and see who wins, my money is on Boeing.......now that surprised you! Unless Airbus gets the new Carbon Composite A320 family right.and beats Boeing................nah not a chance!
I am active in the industry, and not retired military, I just happened to be at that airfield when the B1 was ferried. Cant say as its the usual need to know stuff.
I look forward to a rewarding reading on more of this website. Cheers.
Why dont you admit your statement was wrong, quote "Hate to disagree with you but one of the first aircraft I flew was a 727 built in 1970, it had a composite tail and elevators. "unquote
Using your reference document, the 727 had the first developement of "composites" as part of a NASA program but the tail section is as shiny and solid as metal can be. I have seen enough of them stripped of paint and primer in hangars over the years.
No hard feelings its just it bugs me when stuff is taken out of context, and period as in years.
As it says in the document you referenced Airbus is the leader in the early use of modern carbon composites in structural items like stab boxes whole tail assembles and now partial wings etc not just elevators and fairing panels.
Boeing is clearly the leader in being the first all composite comercial airplane, so lets watch the skies and see who wins, my money is on Boeing.......now that surprised you! Unless Airbus gets the new Carbon Composite A320 family right.and beats Boeing................nah not a chance!
I am active in the industry, and not retired military, I just happened to be at that airfield when the B1 was ferried. Cant say as its the usual need to know stuff.
I look forward to a rewarding reading on more of this website. Cheers.
B1 Lancer damage
could you tell where it was damaged and how bad?
-
theaviator
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 00:00
I'm sure RR will have the opportunity to presentation their business case to Boeing. 
Keep in mind that we are talking about a REPLACEMENT for the 737, not a modified 737. A composite skin means a total redesign of the primary structures of the airplane. It might be possible to keep the existing wing (which allows keeping the existing engines). But I suspect Boeing will want to make incremental improvements anyways. If you're going to test certify, you might as well consider other engines.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, the fact that the 737 replacement is a new airplane means that Boeing is not tied to Renton, where the 737 plant is.
Keep in mind that we are talking about a REPLACEMENT for the 737, not a modified 737. A composite skin means a total redesign of the primary structures of the airplane. It might be possible to keep the existing wing (which allows keeping the existing engines). But I suspect Boeing will want to make incremental improvements anyways. If you're going to test certify, you might as well consider other engines.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, the fact that the 737 replacement is a new airplane means that Boeing is not tied to Renton, where the 737 plant is.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?