Flight 38 - most likely Computer Glitch
-
Trollslayer wrote:
exept the Dreamliner of course
Now there's an aircraft to avoid - it's got a carbon-fibre shell. Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
Considering the velocities involved (and high kinetic energies concomitant), I think it is mostly irrelevant as to whether the shell absorbs any kinetic energy or not. The energy left to be absorbed by passengers will still be fatal.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
Considering the velocities involved (and high kinetic energies concomitant), I think it is mostly irrelevant as to whether the shell absorbs any kinetic energy or not. The energy left to be absorbed by passengers will still be fatal.
Rob Graham wrote:
Considering the velocities involved (and high kinetic energies concomitant), I think it is mostly irrelevant as to whether the shell absorbs any kinetic energy or not.
Not necessarily when it involves crashes like the one at Heathrow - where the crash occurs on the runway on landing or takeoff. Basically what you want is for the fuselage to crumple rather than shatter - which is what carbon-fibre would do. Also the carbon-fibre would emit toxic fumes in the event of a fire (that's another story altogether).
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
Trollslayer wrote:
exept the Dreamliner of course
Now there's an aircraft to avoid - it's got a carbon-fibre shell. Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design
Hmm. I think I'd rather believe the engineers than the pilots. I don't think engineering materials is on their course list :)
GuyThiebaut wrote:
as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design
Hmm. I think I'd rather believe the engineers than the pilots. I don't think engineering materials is on their course list :)
GuyThiebaut wrote:
as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
I guess it could be a cheap shot at Boeing sponsored by Airbus as the article hints.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
I guess it could be a cheap shot at Boeing sponsored by Airbus as the article hints.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
it could be a cheap shot at Boeing sponsored by Airbus
I agree. Not just because both of my parents work at Boeing :rolleyes: The article states that cars are made out of the composite and it seems to hold up better than aluminum.
"I guess it's what separates the professionals from the drag and drop, girly wirly, namby pamby, wishy washy, can't code for crap types." - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Trollslayer wrote:
exept the Dreamliner of course
Now there's an aircraft to avoid - it's got a carbon-fibre shell. Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design
Pilot's being notorious material engineering safety experts of course. :rolleyes:
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy
Tell that to every modern era Formula 1 driver ever involved in a big crash who walked away. Sorry mate but that's utterly false.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Pilots say this is a really bad design
Hmm. I think I'd rather believe the engineers than the pilots. I don't think engineering materials is on their course list :)
GuyThiebaut wrote:
as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
The Google query (( Aptera Popular Mechanics )) will get you to the video of the Popular-Mechanics test-drive of the Aptera( which is kind of a "wingless" airplane ). It's nice to know that the safety-claims made towards the very end may prove out, of course Tesla also uses composites. Wouldn't it be nice to take your composite-ev out for a less-green-guilty day of hiking in the mountains ? I await the hill-climb-benchmarks, gravity is such a nasty topic, now that drag has been nicely reduced.
pg--az
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Considering the velocities involved (and high kinetic energies concomitant), I think it is mostly irrelevant as to whether the shell absorbs any kinetic energy or not.
Not necessarily when it involves crashes like the one at Heathrow - where the crash occurs on the runway on landing or takeoff. Basically what you want is for the fuselage to crumple rather than shatter - which is what carbon-fibre would do. Also the carbon-fibre would emit toxic fumes in the event of a fire (that's another story altogether).
You always pass failure on the way to success.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Also the carbon-fibre would emit toxic fumes in the event of a fire (that's another story altogether).
In the event of a crash I would emit far more toxic fumes than the carbon fibre...
-
GuyThiebaut wrote:
Also the carbon-fibre would emit toxic fumes in the event of a fire (that's another story altogether).
In the event of a crash I would emit far more toxic fumes than the carbon fibre...
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Considering the velocities involved (and high kinetic energies concomitant), I think it is mostly irrelevant as to whether the shell absorbs any kinetic energy or not.
Not necessarily when it involves crashes like the one at Heathrow - where the crash occurs on the runway on landing or takeoff. Basically what you want is for the fuselage to crumple rather than shatter - which is what carbon-fibre would do. Also the carbon-fibre would emit toxic fumes in the event of a fire (that's another story altogether).
You always pass failure on the way to success.
I think you need to do some research into the impact properties and burning of aluminium alloys and carbon fiber, and the structural design of airliners. And also, mud 300 meters short of the runway != "on the runway".
-
Trollslayer wrote:
exept the Dreamliner of course
Now there's an aircraft to avoid - it's got a carbon-fibre shell. Pilots say this is a really bad design as while other passenger aircraft with their metal shells crumple and absorb kinetic energy - the Dreamliner with it's carbon-shell will not absorb this kinetic energy.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
I am curious. Any info on the expansion/contraction of the shell when climbing/descending compared to current aircraft?
"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..." "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
-
I am curious. Any info on the expansion/contraction of the shell when climbing/descending compared to current aircraft?
"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..." "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
I was thinking about this myself. I googled and couldn't find much - it would not surprise me if Boeing want to keep it secret. As you mention the skin needs to be able to expand and contract, so the carbon-fibre shell will have this built into it somehow. My guess would be that as it can hold a lot more pressure than a metal skin.
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
I am curious. Any info on the expansion/contraction of the shell when climbing/descending compared to current aircraft?
"Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit..." "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."
>> expansion/contraction << Googling (( dreamliner pressure comfort )) finds as the fourth hit "How Boeing Put the Dream in Dreamliner" By Douglas Gantenbeinhttp://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/september/dreamliner.php?page=3[^] The 5th paragraph asserts "Also, because carbon fiber doesn’t flex nearly as much as aluminum during repeated pressurizations, the cabin can be kept at a higher pressure than is possible with older airliners." That's thinking one generation ahead of course, but anyway I just remembered reading that about the Dreamliner.
pg--az