Boeing7E7 making the composite fuselage...Airbus stays metal

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 17 Apr 2005, 05:06

Boeing opens the doors and shows how they'll do it.....

http://www.sail-world.com/news.cfm?Nid=17059

But Airbus engineers have decided against extending the use of composites, which will make up about 37 per cent of the plane, into the fuselage shell.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co ... 49,00.html

"We cannot see how a composite fuselage delivers you the kind of durability that the airlines need," Mr Pardoe said, adding that the metallic skin allowed quicker, simpler repairs.

Post by **sn26567** » 17 Apr 2005, 09:17

Congratulations to Boeing for daring . It will be a big technological advance!

(PS: I have worked on composites in a previous life)

Togalock · Post by **Togalock** » 17 Apr 2005, 14:29

Repairing composites takes more time and effort before the A/C can be airborne again. Nice from Boeing they dare to take this step.
The belly of an aircraft is a vunerable part taking hits from ground equipment all to often.
I´m sure the Boeing engineers have thought about this.

MrAirbus · Post by **MrAirbus** » 17 Apr 2005, 16:20

This topic is really difficult!

If they can reduce the weight of the aluminium parts of the A350 they might be able to mach the composite material. Believe it ore not but that’s possible by adding other metals!

Boeing must explain why they where against using composite for so many year! And no suddenly the have to use so much of it!

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 17 Apr 2005, 17:08

Boeing must explain why they where against using composite for so many year! And no suddenly the have to use so much of it!

Take a look at what oil prices have done is the past 2-3 years!!! Though this doesn't explain why they were against it before, I have a few suggestions. One, the complexity of designing so much of the airplane structure in composite materials is a new concept, and a risky one (perhaps one that Boeing wasn't willing to take until it realized how much of an impact oil prices would have on the industry). The most risky move that I've seen Boeing made involving the 787 is that they are guaranteeing the fuel savings and the performance of the 787 without it even flying!!! They have stated that if it doesn't perform up to specifications that the airlines will be compensated. Very risky if you ask me.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 17 Apr 2005, 17:56

They really said that? I assume there are lots of ifs and buts in the contracts.. Or do they just give a discount on the purchase price then?

About composites: does Airbus actually count GLARE as a composite? Because it is NOT a composite, but a laminate, and in terms of maintenance and inspection it is quite similar to plain aluminum, whereas composites are a different beast altogether.

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 17 Apr 2005, 20:26

That is a very good question. GLARE (glass-reinforced...what??). If they did count it as a composite material, then their estimates as to how much of the A380 structure is "composite" would be dramatically overstated.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 17 Apr 2005, 22:30

GLARE is "GLAss-REinforced" Fibre Metal Laminate. Quite a far-fetched abbreviation, if you ask me.

Very nice stuff, here is more info about it.