Boeing bets the house on CF.....

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Jul 2007 01:25:00
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

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.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 17:15:23
From:
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 8, 5:37 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 7:25 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.
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >> Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
> >> tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
> >> choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
> >> flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
> >> _F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
> >> way to make these aircract light and strong and more
> >> efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
> >> to come down anytime soon.
>
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:> What needs to be done is to replace the short range flights with
> > high-speed rail. The high-speed rail would be more economically
> > efficient (especially an inter-modal system that could replace most
> > driving on freeways), have a lower environmental impact, and would avoid
> > the need to wait in line for hours to be examined by TSA goons [1].
>
> -snip-
>
> Then we can wait overnight on a train platform instead of an airport
> concourse. That'll be better.
>
> Or, as the CTA last week, sit in a 95-degree stopped train for an hour
> or two instead of waiting on the tarmac. I can see the improvement already!
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On the CTA you can open up the train's windows, at least on the older
ones!

Date: 09 Jul 2007 17:12:07
From:
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 11:37 pm, raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I am wondering about static buildup caused by all that carbon fibre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Carbon fiber does not cause static buildup, fast motion between
materials does. Static can build up due to motion between the air
molecules and the skin of an aircraft. Like a metallic-skin aircraft,
if the outer panels are electrically connected to each other the
static charge distributes over the entire aircraft surface without any
further discharges (sparks). Because carbon is a resistive conductor
it might even be better than alu skin, because as the charge flows its
energy will be at least partly dissipated to heat. If the skin panels
are not properly connected to each other, both aluminum and carbon
panels can show discharges.

Static concentration of electric charge doesn't cause aircraft
electronics problems, discharge of stored energy does. If the energy
distributes itself over the airframe without discharge, there should
be no problem with aircraft electronics, and hence with flight
integrity.

Ken

Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:40:10
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 8, 9:19 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:

> Don't you think plane porn exists?

The Museum of Modern Art in New York has on display a
CF+titanium fan blade from the engines used in the 777,
and it is the most curvaceous, sexy object you would
ever want to see.

http://www.geae.com/services/information/servicesolutions/pdf/v05i01.pdf

Tom Ace

Date: 09 Jul 2007 19:58:31
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Tom Ace wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:19 pm, Michael Warner wrote:
>
>> Don't you think plane porn exists?
>
> The Museum of Modern Art in New York has on display a
> CF+titanium fan blade from the engines used in the 777,
> and it is the most curvaceous, sexy object you would
> ever want to see.
>
> http://www.geae.com/services/information/servicesolutions/pdf/v05i01.pdf

I thought the nude Chinese girl that gene posted the link to was better
looking. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Jul 2007 23:24:46
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

China and Japan get work from this?

pass the clams?

Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:01:29
From: Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Hayfever Edition Ž
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:M1Xji.4766$rR.4715@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> 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.
>
>

Will the plane come in nude natural carbon?

Date: 08 Jul 2007 19:58:47
From: Peter Grange
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:25:00 GMT, "Callistus Valerius"
<jazzyboss@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.
>
IIRC, it was CF which bankrupted Rolls-Royce in the 70's, trying to
get it to work for turbine blades. The problem was it couldn't
withstand bird strikes. Hopefully CF has got better or the birds have
got worse since then....

Date: 09 Jul 2007 16:55:09
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:58:47 +0100, Peter Grange
<peter@plgrange.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>IIRC, it was CF which bankrupted Rolls-Royce in the 70's, trying to
>get it to work for turbine blades. The problem was it couldn't
>withstand bird strikes. Hopefully CF has got better or the birds have
>got worse since then....

Turbine blades are a lot harder on their materials than wings, though,
especially if you exclude the leading edge. Bird strikes or not.

Jasper

Date: 09 Jul 2007 20:59:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:58:47 +0100, Peter Grange
> <peter@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, it was CF which bankrupted Rolls-Royce in the 70's, trying to
>> get it to work for turbine blades. The problem was it couldn't
>> withstand bird strikes. Hopefully CF has got better or the birds have
>> got worse since then....
>
> Turbine blades are a lot harder on their materials than wings, though,

no kidding!

> especially if you exclude the leading edge. Bird strikes or not.
>
> Jasper

Date: 08 Jul 2007 08:57:06
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 6:25 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Titanium, is too expensive and I think is only
> used in military planes.

-from the Wikipedia article on titanium: "An estimated 58 tons
are used in the Boeing 777, 43 in the 747, 18 in the 737,
24 in the Airbus A340, 17 in the A330 and 12 in the A320."

Tom Ace

Date: 08 Jul 2007 08:55:11
From: Tom Ace
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 6:25 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Titanium, is too expensive and I think is only
>used in military planes.

>From the Wikipedia article on titanium: "An estimated 58 tons
are used in the Boeing 777, 43 in the 747, 18 in the 737,
24 in the Airbus A340, 17 in the A330 and 12 in the A320."

Tom Ace

Date: 08 Jul 2007 10:42:10
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

"Tom Ace" <tom239@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183910111.379246.3860@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 6:25 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Titanium, is too expensive and I think is only
> >used in military planes.
>
> >From the Wikipedia article on titanium: "An estimated 58 tons
> are used in the Boeing 777, 43 in the 747, 18 in the 737,
> 24 in the Airbus A340, 17 in the A330 and 12 in the A320."
>
>
> Tom Ace
>

Those figures may be the before manufacture weight of the titanium. I'll
check with one of my buddies who still does work with Boeing.

The flap tracks and engine mounts are the largest parts made of titanium
on an airliner.

Chas.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 14:36:46
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 7:25 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.

Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
_F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
way to make these aircract light and strong and more
efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
to come down anytime soon.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 09:50:52
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> On Jul 7, 7:25 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.
>
> Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
> tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
> choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
> flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
> _F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
> way to make these aircract light and strong and more
> efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
> to come down anytime soon.

What needs to be done is to replace the short range flights with
high-speed rail. The high-speed rail would be more economically
efficient (especially an inter-modal system that could replace most
driving on freeways), have a lower environmental impact, and would avoid
the need to wait in line for hours to be examined by TSA goons [1].

[1] Not to mention the use of the "watch" and "no fly" lists as weapons
to punish political opponents.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Jul 2007 02:43:30
From: Dennis Ferguson
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On 2007-07-08, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 7:25 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.
>>
>> Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
>> tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
>> choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
>> flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
>> _F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
>> way to make these aircract light and strong and more
>> efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
>> to come down anytime soon.
>
> What needs to be done is to replace the short range flights with
> high-speed rail.

I can't imagine that would effect the 787 at all, however. It is a
big, two-aisle plane and I doubt anyone would use one for short range
flights.

> The high-speed rail would be more economically
> efficient (especially an inter-modal system that could replace most
> driving on freeways), have a lower environmental impact, and would avoid
> the need to wait in line for hours to be examined by TSA goons [1].

So I guess no one ever blows up trains? The last train trip I took
(London to Paris) had a security check with a queue which would have
made the TSA proud.

Dennis Ferguson

Date: 09 Jul 2007 16:53:51
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:43:30 GMT, Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net >
wrote:

>So I guess no one ever blows up trains? The last train trip I took
>(London to Paris) had a security check with a queue which would have
>made the TSA proud.

That's not the train, it's the Channel Tunnel, which is both a higher
profile target and an easier one in terms of pounds of explosive per
casualty. The Madrid bombings were pretty damned bad, but the same bombs
inside the channel tunnel would have been a much bigger problem, with mugh
bigger economic impact and longer repair times, as well as higher
casualties.

Normal international train services are still metaldetector free.

Jasper

Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:37:03
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

>> On Jul 7, 7:25 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.

> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
>> tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
>> choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
>> flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
>> _F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
>> way to make these aircract light and strong and more
>> efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
>> to come down anytime soon.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> What needs to be done is to replace the short range flights with
> high-speed rail. The high-speed rail would be more economically
> efficient (especially an inter-modal system that could replace most
> driving on freeways), have a lower environmental impact, and would avoid
> the need to wait in line for hours to be examined by TSA goons [1].
-snip-

Then we can wait overnight on a train platform instead of an airport
concourse. That'll be better.

Or, as the CTA last week, sit in a 95-degree stopped train for an hour
or two instead of waiting on the tarmac. I can see the improvement already!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 08 Jul 2007 17:38:14
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 7:25 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.
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>> Not a lot of aircraft anything is steel..Too heavy. Titanium in some
>>> tubing and some high temp areas. Aluminum and carbon is just a better
>>> choice. Airbus has had an aircraft with a composite tail and other
>>> flight surfaces for a long time. Same for military aircraft like the
>>> _F-18 series. Carpet fiber on aircraft is old news and Boeing sees a
>>> way to make these aircract light and strong and more
>>> efficient..something that needs to happen cuz fuel prices aren't going
>>> to come down anytime soon.
>
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>> What needs to be done is to replace the short range flights with
>> high-speed rail. The high-speed rail would be more economically
>> efficient (especially an inter-modal system that could replace most
>> driving on freeways), have a lower environmental impact, and would
>> avoid the need to wait in line for hours to be examined by TSA goons [1].
> -snip-
>
> Then we can wait overnight on a train platform instead of an airport
> concourse. That'll be better.

You wouldn't have to smell everyone's stinky feet while TSA operatives
check shoes for explosives.

> Or, as the CTA last week, sit in a 95-degree stopped train for an hour
> or two instead of waiting on the tarmac. I can see the improvement already!

Why would the wait be so long? Other countries have national rail
services [1] where the trains run on time almost all the time. Is the US
inferior to these countries? Sorry, but "free market good", "government
bad" ideology does not work in the real world, as the supposed free
markets are invariably gamed by a few rich insiders to their own benefit.

[1] Like Great Britain before they mucked things up with privatization.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Jul 2007 13:08:35
From: mike.a.schwab@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

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.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 10:35:14
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

<mike.a.schwab@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183900115.395833.210480@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.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.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 10:08:24
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 9:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks
> all those years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the
> word.

I somehow doubt that fifty years from now, carbon forks and
Dreamliners will have displayed the longevity or earned the respect
that 531 forks and DC-3s have over the last two or three
generations.

Sooner or later, people's CFRP forks are going to go the way of all
plastic crap, with the inevitable failures carrying more serious
implications than the cracks in Chevrolet dashboards. And somebody--
maybe the future equivalent of today's African airlines that fly old
Soviet transports-- will figure out exactly how long it takes for the
plastic binders in Boeing's CFRP to degrade. Heck, it could be
American operators coping with the economic hardships yet to come.
But I am sure that the relative difficulty of inspecting CFRP
airframes will come home to roost in some way.

Chalo

Date: 09 Jul 2007 07:25:54
From: sl
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

In article <1183889304.398238.62420@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Jul 7, 9:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks
>> all those years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the
>> word.
>
>I somehow doubt that fifty years from now, carbon forks and
>Dreamliners will have displayed the longevity or earned the respect
>that 531 forks and DC-3s have over the last two or three
>generations.

Outside of the small bush planes like the Twin Otter (about to go
back in production after 20 years) longevity in big planes is not that
useful. There are boatloads of old big planes sitting in the Arizona
desert.

Too inefficent and noisy to be used in most of the civilized world.

Most likely future advances in avionics, engines and materials will
have these planes grounded well before they actually wear out.

Airlines will upgrade to newer designs based on operating costs as soon
as new designs are available. Possibly only limited to how fast Boeing
and Airbus can deliver.

The bigger impact (to this newsgroup) will be if there is sufficent
Carbon Fiber cloth production to allow us to keep buying carbon fiber
frames. Or will the entire world output get sucked up by Boeing and
Airbus :-)

Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:08:43
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

sl who? wrote:
> In article <1183889304.398238.62420@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks
>>> all those years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the
>>> word.
>> I somehow doubt that fifty years from now, carbon forks and
>> Dreamliners will have displayed the longevity or earned the respect
>> that 531 forks and DC-3s have over the last two or three
>> generations.
>
> Outside of the small bush planes like the Twin Otter (about to go
> back in production after 20 years) longevity in big planes is not that
> useful. There are boatloads of old big planes sitting in the Arizona
> desert.
>
> Too inefficent and noisy to be used in most of the civilized world.
>
> Most likely future advances in avionics, engines and materials will
> have these planes grounded well before they actually wear out.
>
> Airlines will upgrade to newer designs based on operating costs as soon
> as new designs are available. Possibly only limited to how fast Boeing
> and Airbus can deliver....

Do you really think there will be transport category aircraft flying in
50 years time, much less a society that can still afford such excess?
The last economically extractable barrel of petroleum will have been
pumped long before then.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 11 Jul 2007 06:10:47
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

In article <6qlki.99983$xq1.69880@pd7urf1no >,
sl@whiskey.enposte.net (sl) wrote:

> In article <1183889304.398238.62420@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 7, 9:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks
> >> all those years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the
> >> word.
> >
> >I somehow doubt that fifty years from now, carbon forks and
> >Dreamliners will have displayed the longevity or earned the respect
> >that 531 forks and DC-3s have over the last two or three
> >generations.
>
> Outside of the small bush planes like the Twin Otter (about to go
> back in production after 20 years) longevity in big planes is not that
> useful. There are boatloads of old big planes sitting in the Arizona
> desert.
>
> Too inefficent and noisy to be used in most of the civilized world.
>
> Most likely future advances in avionics, engines and materials will
> have these planes grounded well before they actually wear out.
>
> Airlines will upgrade to newer designs based on operating costs as soon
> as new designs are available. Possibly only limited to how fast Boeing
> and Airbus can deliver.
>
> The bigger impact (to this newsgroup) will be if there is sufficent
> Carbon Fiber cloth production to allow us to keep buying carbon fiber
> frames. Or will the entire world output get sucked up by Boeing and
> Airbus :-)

Because CF isn't an especially raw-materials-limited material, Any
production shortages are likely to be short term (well, short term as
long as you consider the amount of time it takes to build a CF
production facility short :). Supply and demand should take care of the
rest.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 08 Jul 2007 07:05:13
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:08:24 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com >
wrote:

>Sooner or later, people's CFRP forks are going to go the way of all
>plastic crap, with the inevitable failures carrying more serious
>implications than the cracks in Chevrolet dashboards.

Hahaha.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 07 Jul 2007 20:37:47
From:
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Jul 7, 10:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Callistus Valerius 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,
>
> what does that /mean/ exactly?
>
> > 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,
>
> still have competition from airbus though:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Competition_with_Boeing
>
> > 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.
>
> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks all those
> years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the word.

I am wondering about static buildup caused by all that carbon fibre

Date: 08 Jul 2007 06:46:44
From: me
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

<raamman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1183865867.133553.5670@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 10:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Callistus Valerius 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,
>>
>> what does that /mean/ exactly?
>>
>> > 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,
>>
>> still have competition from airbus
>> though:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Competition_with_Boeing
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks all those
>> years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the word.
>
> I am wondering about static buildup caused by all that carbon fibre
>

I'm worried about what the increased atmospheric carbon content from all
those Dreamliners flying around will do to global warming!

And, steel IS real. My steel-framed bike is as real as anything else.
It's natural, too. Unfortunately, though, it's not organic, but the paint
on it partially is so I guess I can still sleep at night.

Cal

Date: 07 Jul 2007 19:18:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Callistus Valerius 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,

what does that /mean/ exactly?

> 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,

still have competition from airbus though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Competition_with_Boeing

> 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.
>
>
why am i getting deja vu for all the bleating about cf forks all those
years ago? and where are we now? "ubiquity" is the word.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 21:28:36
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Date: 08 Jul 2007 14:42:41
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

> Callistus Valerius 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.

Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Don't count on that. Rumor I heard was that they can bend the
> prototype's wings so far above the fuselage that they almost touch.
> Simply incredible if true.

I can't find any reference on that.
? Sorta counterintuitive...

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 08 Jul 2007 15:47:19
From:
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:42:41 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

>> Callistus Valerius 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.
>
>Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>> Don't count on that. Rumor I heard was that they can bend the
>> prototype's wings so far above the fuselage that they almost touch.
>> Simply incredible if true.
>
>I can't find any reference on that.
>? Sorta counterintuitive...

Dear Andrew,

"Boeing has completed static testing of a three-quarter wingbox, but
engineers are still considering whether to limit testing of the full
wing to a 150% load limit held for 3 sec. of to continue bending it to
see when it breaks. "There's a raging debate within the engineering
team to see if we should break it or not," says [787 General Manager
Mike] Bair."

"Breaking it isn't necessary for certification, but Bair says the wing
is so strong and flexible that there's been talk that maybe it could
be bent far enough for the wingtips to touch above the fuselageor
come quite close."

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/the-new-boeing-.html

Or just google for boeing + wings + bend + carbon and browse through
132,000 hits.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 09 Jul 2007 12:57:29
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:47:19 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> Or just google for boeing + wings + bend + carbon and browse through
> 132,000 hits.

The results of any given google search are guaranteed to be 80% porn
sites, though.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 11:54:53
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

In article
<2mf0zi7vgnsq$.10cevd0xjgfv4.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:47:19 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Or just google for boeing + wings + bend + carbon and browse through
> > 132,000 hits.
>
> The results of any given google search are guaranteed to be 80% porn
> sites, though.

Maybe over all. The searches that I institute
do not turn them up at all.

Who else uses web searches to get the spelling of hard words like
acetaminophen and de rigeur?

--
Michael Press

Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:15:09
From:
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 12:57:29 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au >
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:47:19 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Or just google for boeing + wings + bend + carbon and browse through
>> 132,000 hits.
>
>The results of any given google search are guaranteed to be 80% porn
>sites, though.

Dear Michael,

Here's the search:

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=boeing++wings++bend++carbon&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Let us know when you find all that porn.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 09 Jul 2007 13:49:18
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:15:09 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

> Let us know when you find all that porn.

Don't you think plane porn exists? The relative unattainability
of the desired object makes it even better than the bike kind.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 22:40:05
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:47:19 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Or just google for boeing + wings + bend + carbon and browse through
>> 132,000 hits.
>
> The results of any given google search are guaranteed to be 80% porn
> sites, though.

Take that, Anthony Comstock!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Jul 2007 16:16:43
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: Boeing bets the house on CF.....

A Muzi wrote:
>> Callistus Valerius 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.
>
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>> Don't count on that. Rumor I heard was that they can bend the
>> prototype's wings so far above the fuselage that they almost touch.
>> Simply incredible if true.
>
> I can't find any reference on that.
> ? Sorta counterintuitive...
>

I qualified my statement as "rumor that I heard."

Point is, I seriously doubt Boeing will be manufacturing airplanes that
fall apart in turbulence (something that is ubiquitous in aviation).

\\aul