THE AIRCRAFT COMPOSITES How MROs Can Keep Up
by James Careless
There is a revolution underway in commercial aircraft manufacturing today and it can be summed up in one word:
Composites. T
he mainline aircraft of years past were primarily made of steel and aluminum, new airliners like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350 XWB are incorporating large percentages of carbon fiber-reinforced composites in their airframes. “The Boeing 787 Dreamliner makes greater use of composite materials than any
previous commercial airliner,” says Ron Murray, Boeing’s 787 chief mechanic. “Roughly 50 percent of the airplane consists of carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites, mainly in the fuselage and wings.” See chart page 30.
The same is true for the Airbus A350 XWB. It has “53 per cent of composites utilized in the fuselage and wing,” according to the company.
A Matter of Money There are many good reasons for aircraft manufacturers to use composites and for airlines to want composites to be used in their fleets. Pound for pound, many composite materials achieve relatively greater strength characteristics compared with traditional metallic materials, reducing aircraft weight and thus reducing fuel cost per passenger carried. Composites are more resistant than metal to fatigue from repeated takeoff/landing cycles, resulting in fewer costly inspections over the aircraft’s lifespan and more time spent in the air making money. The composites and titanium also reduce the need for corrosion-related maintenance checks on the A350 XWB. These two factors reduce the new aircraft’s overall fatigue and corrosion maintenance tasks by 60 percent, according to Airbus. “The composite fuselage structure is designed to be more resistant to impact damage than its aluminum counterparts, as well as being easier to inspect and repair with common techniques,” adds Boeing’s Murray. “Experience with the Boeing 777, which has approximately 12 percent composite material, has proven that composite structures require less scheduled and less non-routine maintenance than non-composite structures.” Clearly, it makes business sense for airlines to move to composite-based aircraft. The problem is the impact of this revolution on MROs.
Aviation Maintenance |
avm-mag.com | August / September 2012 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72