More cracks in scarebus wings

[Rob52240]

Polymers.  You can technically call plywood composite, but then you'd ahve to call riveted aluminum something similar too.

[MachFly]

You misunderstand, Tupac said "How many would be flying 40 yrs from now?" I answered a lot.

Roger, in that case I agree.

[nrshida]

Right. Composite is a rather broad description. I don't know what is included in the composite that modern aircraft are build out of but I'm pretty sure it's not wood.

He he yup, plywood is a composite too, so is the concrete in buildings  

The modern usage of composite implies one of the thousands of varieties of resins suspending one or a combination of aramids such as carbon fibre, Kevlar, Nomex etcetera. Some of those are trade names with slightly different attributes. It's not uncommon for airliners to have composite jackets around their engines to contain blades and so on. This wasn't feasible in the past because of the weight and has caused some fairly nasty disasters.

Usually the fibres are woven into matting which is layered at varying angles to give specific strengths.

Raw carbon fibre tow is very very flexible. It's almost miraculous when you inspect the finished part. This material is a gift for those who like to make strong light parts in small numbers.

[MachFly]

so is the concrete in buildings  

 

Yeah that word is misused a lot.

[Tupac]

I opened a big can of worms. My point in the OP is that I wouldnt fly in a plane with cracks in its wing.....but I like to be more preventative rather than reactive in my maintenance. Did they inspect the spar and carrythrough?

[nrshida]

Well if you fly 'aluminum' riveted aircraft you already are flying something more full of cracks than you realise, if you look closely enough. That's just the nature of working with certain materials. Perhaps I shouldn't mention that, I don't want to make you paranoid  

The point you should be focussing on is the likelihood of structural failure and I'm sure the inspectors and manufacturers are too. The Airbus cracks are naturally unwanted and seem to be part of the manufacturing process. I'm sure it will be resolved in short order.

[Vulcan]

Man if you watched half the episodes of Air Crash Investigation and applied the same train of though you'd never set foot in a 737 again.

[Tupac]

I realize that my plane has cracks in it, but I dare you to find an NTSB report of an in-flight breakup of a Cessna 172 operating within normal limits. As far as I know a Cessna 170 hasn't suffered one either. That's 64 years.

My 2,300 pound plane isn't exactly subject to the same forces as a 1.2 MILLION pound airplane. (or about 520x the weight)

[Tupac]

It sounds like they are going to keep letting these flawed airplanes fly until 2 year inspection. If it was a normal wear item that was known to be benign I would have no issue with what they are doing, but they are in new territory and THINK they know what will happen.

[nrshida]

I realize that my plane has cracks in it, but I dare you to find an NTSB report of an in-flight breakup of a Cessna 172 operating within normal limits. As far as I know a Cessna 170 hasn't suffered one either. That's 64 years.

My 2,300 pound plane isn't exactly subject to the same forces as a 1.2 MILLION pound airplane. (or about 520x the weight)

Nor was it subjected to the same magnitude of development programme.

I see you intend to proceed without being able to set aside your own subjective preferences and discrimination so I believe further discussion is pointless.

I bid you a good day.

[expat]

 Flawed ? Is that a personal opinion ? Or have you got something official from an aviation authority ? 

[Babalonian]

Your patriotism seems to exceed your critical objectivity by some considerable measure young man 

Airbuses keep talking, Boeings keep flying (and pointing to the log books. if you believe Boeing has been around and in use in aviation longer than log books, and Airbus' claims that they've reinvented the only way log books in aviation should be done, then you rightfuly should not care about which one you trust your family aboard and let them handle all of it.).

Kettle, meet pot.

[nrshida]

Yes you are right. No Boeing has ever crashed due to design flaws or maintenance issues resulting in mechanical failure.


 

[Dinan]

I opened a big can of worms.

"Oh golly gee whiz!"


You also compared a A380 to a 172 


what a troll
 

[PR3D4TOR]

Worldwide aircraft commercial passenger service as of 2009:

Percent of all aircraft:
Boeing 24.6%
Airbus 9.6%

Percent of seats:
Boeing 49.1%
Airbus 30.5%

Aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Percent of aircraft:
Boeing 49.9%
Airbus 32.4%

Percent of seats:
Boeing 54.1%
Airbus 33.6%

Accidents involving scheduled passenger operations:
1945 through 2008:
Boeing: 21.9%
Airbus: 4.3%

Last 5 years:
Boeing 25.0%
Airbus 13.8%
DeHaviland 10.5%
McDonnell-Douglas 8.9%

Last 5 years, aircraft with 75 seats or more:
Boeing 45.2%
Airbus 25.0%
McDonnell-Douglas 16.1%
Tupolev 4.8%
Fokker 4.8%
Avro 3.0%
Ilyushin 0.6%
Embraer 0.6%

Embraer has 2.7% of aircraft (1.4% of seats), and 2.6% of accidents in the last 5 years.

Boeing percentages exclude McDonnell-Douglas aircraft.
Accident counts exclude war risk claims (hijacking, shot down and sabotage).

Total accidents since 1945: 2,994 (891 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 years: 304 (49 with one or more pax fatality)
Total last 5 yrs, > 75 seats: 168 (26 with one or more pax fatality)

Source: Aircraft insurance industry database 1/4/09


Little known fact: Airbus is actually older than Boeing. Boeing has just kept the same name since 1916.