* * Chas
12-31-1969, 08:00 PM
<mike.a.schwab@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183900115.395833.210480@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 7, 8:25 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Boeing is building it's new plane, the dreamliner, with carbon
fiber.
> > The wings, fuselage. The cf must be consiberably more impact
resistent than
> > bike frames, or this would be suicide for Boeing. Hell of a note, if
you
> > looked out the window and saw the wing suddenly break off in some
> > turbulence. Even though steel is real, I think Boeing skipped steel,
and
> > went straight to aluminum. Titanium, is too expensive and I think is
only
> > used in military planes. Boeing has sold a boat load of these
dreamliners
> > on contract already, but they still don't have a flying one yet. So
if you
> > fly a lot, you might have trouble finding a flight that isn't in a
> > dreamliner when they start filling the skies.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber
> The Airbus planes have been using CF for a while. In fact, the Nov
> 2001 Long Island Airbus crash had carbon fiber failure due to
> excessive rudder input.
>
The failure was not entirely due to the part being made of CFRP. American
Airlines did a cheap repair on that plane installing a used rudder from a
non FAA approved source outside the US (from France, I think). The rudder
was not properly inspected prior to installation or during it's short
usage before the unfortunate crash.
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011219_n.htm
At the time of the crash the FAA only required visual inspection of the
Airbus 300-600 rudders. After the accident a number of these planes were
inspected with ultrasound and found to have hidden defects in the CFRP
rudders.
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011210_lat.htm
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011119_nyt.htm
I've been told by folks at Boeing that for every 1000 Lbs. removed from a
commercial airliner there is a savings of $1 million during the plane's
lifetime. This figure probably includes increased earning power because of
more weight capacity.
CFRP decreases the overall weight of the plane but probably shortens it's
life expectancy.
Similar planes, the Boeing 737 were designed for a 35 year life span. This
plane was originally built for use in flights ranging up to 1500 miles.
It's the number of landings that take the toll on aircraft life. These
planes have been used mostly for short flights sometimes taking off and
landing 10 times a day. This is why many airlines are switching to the
smaller, cheaper regional jet liners.
I flew round trip once on the shortest scheduled flight in the country -
SFO to San Jose - 50 miles (AirCal). It was actually an SF to Burbank
flight with a stop at San Jose. We flew down to San Jose, had a lunch
meeting and flew back up to SFO on the next flight. I've also flown from
SFO to Oakland - 11 miles.
Chas.
news:1183900115.395833.210480@d55g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 7, 8:25 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Boeing is building it's new plane, the dreamliner, with carbon
fiber.
> > The wings, fuselage. The cf must be consiberably more impact
resistent than
> > bike frames, or this would be suicide for Boeing. Hell of a note, if
you
> > looked out the window and saw the wing suddenly break off in some
> > turbulence. Even though steel is real, I think Boeing skipped steel,
and
> > went straight to aluminum. Titanium, is too expensive and I think is
only
> > used in military planes. Boeing has sold a boat load of these
dreamliners
> > on contract already, but they still don't have a flying one yet. So
if you
> > fly a lot, you might have trouble finding a flight that isn't in a
> > dreamliner when they start filling the skies.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber
> The Airbus planes have been using CF for a while. In fact, the Nov
> 2001 Long Island Airbus crash had carbon fiber failure due to
> excessive rudder input.
>
The failure was not entirely due to the part being made of CFRP. American
Airlines did a cheap repair on that plane installing a used rudder from a
non FAA approved source outside the US (from France, I think). The rudder
was not properly inspected prior to installation or during it's short
usage before the unfortunate crash.
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011219_n.htm
At the time of the crash the FAA only required visual inspection of the
Airbus 300-600 rudders. After the accident a number of these planes were
inspected with ultrasound and found to have hidden defects in the CFRP
rudders.
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011210_lat.htm
http://www.globalaviationlaw.com/news_articles/2001/20011119_nyt.htm
I've been told by folks at Boeing that for every 1000 Lbs. removed from a
commercial airliner there is a savings of $1 million during the plane's
lifetime. This figure probably includes increased earning power because of
more weight capacity.
CFRP decreases the overall weight of the plane but probably shortens it's
life expectancy.
Similar planes, the Boeing 737 were designed for a 35 year life span. This
plane was originally built for use in flights ranging up to 1500 miles.
It's the number of landings that take the toll on aircraft life. These
planes have been used mostly for short flights sometimes taking off and
landing 10 times a day. This is why many airlines are switching to the
smaller, cheaper regional jet liners.
I flew round trip once on the shortest scheduled flight in the country -
SFO to San Jose - 50 miles (AirCal). It was actually an SF to Burbank
flight with a stop at San Jose. We flew down to San Jose, had a lunch
meeting and flew back up to SFO on the next flight. I've also flown from
SFO to Oakland - 11 miles.
Chas.