• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Missing Air France Jet over the Atlantic ...

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Just so's you boys 'get it' ... this phrase was coined for the CIVILIAN side of the operation -- it was 'catchy' and directed specifically the airlines ... as in the ol' days, Boeing was airline-centric and didn't do as much on the military aircraft side of the aisle ... at least not too much hardware that any of us would saddle up and ride to the sound of the guns ...

boeingnotgoing.jpg
 

rondebmar

Ron "Banty" Marron
pilot
Contributor
Recently rx'd the following "Forwarded" email from an old friend...(USN 0-6 Ret-1300 Desig)...edited to remove ID's...

-------------------------------------------------------------
As received. None of the comments are mine, but it seems that the AB that crashed in Queens, NYC, shortly after 9/11 had its vertical stabilizer come off!

===============================================================================================

More chilling information about the use and misuse of composite materials. The risks look bad.

Subject: Air France Accident: Smoking Gun Found


A Brazilian Naval unit reportedly found the complete vertical fin/rudder assembly of the doomed aircraft floating some 30 miles from the main debris field. The search for the flight recorders goes on, but given the failure history of the vertical fins on A300-series aircraft, an analysis of its structure at the point of failure will likely yield the primary cause factor in the breakup of the aircraft, with the flight recorder data (if found) providing only secondary contributing phenomena.

The fin-failure-leading-to-breakup sequence is strongly suggested in the attached (below) narrative report by George Larson, Editor emeritus of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine.

It's regrettable that these aircraft are permitted to continue in routine flight operations with this known structural defect. It appears that safety finishes last within Airbus Industries, behind national pride and economics. Hopefully, this accident will force the issue to be addressed, requiring at a minimum restricted operations of selected platforms, and grounding of some high-time aircraft until a re-engineered (strengthened) vertical fin/rudder attachment structure can be incorporated.

--------------------------(XXXXXX's Report)---------------------

This is an account of a discussion I had recently with a maintenance professional who salvages airliner airframes for a living. He has been at it for a while, dba BMI Salvage at Opa Locka Airport in Florida. In the process of stripping parts, he sees things few others are able to see. His observations confirm prior assessments of Airbus structural deficiencies within our flight test and aero structures communities by those who have seen the closely held reports of A3XX-series vertical fin failures.

His observations:

"I have scrapped just about every type of transport aircraft from A-310, A-320, B-747, 727, 737, 707, DC-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, MD-80, L-188, L1011 and various Martin, Convair and KC-97 aircraft.

Over a hundred of them.

Airbus products are the flimsiest and most poorly designed as far as airframe structure is concerned by an almost obsession to utilize composite materials.

I have one A310 vertical fin on the premises from a demonstration I just performed. It was pathetic to see the composite structure shatter as it did, something a Boeing product will not do.

The vertical fin along with the composite hinges on rudder and elevators is the worst example of structural use of composites I have ever seen and I am not surprised by the current pictures of rescue crews recovering the complete Vertical fin and rudder assembly at some distance from the crash site.

The Airbus line has a history of both multiple rudder losses and a vertical fin and rudder separation from the airframe as was the case in NY with AA.

As an old non-radar equipped DC4 pilot who flew through many a thunderstorm in Africa along the equator, I am quite familiar with their ferocity. It is not difficult to understand how such a storm might have stressed an aircraft structure to failure at its weakest point, and especially so in the presence of instrumentation problems.

I replied with this:

"I'm watching very carefully the orchestration of the inquiry by French officials and Airbus. I think I can smell a concerted effort to steer discussion away from structural issues and onto sensors, etc. Now Air France, at the behest of their pilots' union, is replacing all the air data sensors on the Airbus fleet, which creates a distraction and shifts the media's focus away from the real problem.

It's difficult to delve into the structural issue without wading into the Boeing vs. Airbus swamp, where any observation is instantly tainted by its origin. Americans noting any Airbus structural issues (A380 early failure of wing in static test; loss of vertical surfaces in Canadian fleet prior to AA A300, e.g.) will be attacked by the other side as partisan, biased, etc. "

His follow-up:

One gets a really unique insight into structural issues when one has first-hand experience in the dismantling process.

I am an A&P, FEJ and an ATP with 7000 flight hours and I was absolutely stunned, flabbergasted when I realized that the majority of internal airframe structural supports on the A 310 which appear to be aluminum are actually rolled composite material with aluminum rod ends. They shattered.

Three years ago we had a storm come through, with gusts up to 60-70 kts., catching several A320s tied down on the line, out in the open.

The A320 elevators and rudder hinges whose actuators had been removed shattered and the rudder and elevators came off.

Upon closer inspection I realized that not only were the rear spars composite but so were the hinges. While Boeing also uses composite material in its airfoil structures, the actual attach fittings for the elevators, rudder, vertical and horizontal stabilizers are all of machined aluminum."
-----------------(end of narrative)---------------
 

CumminsPilot

VA...not so bad
pilot
blaming composite materials for the airplane crashing is ludicrous. Fiberglass and carbon are as absolutely reliable as aluminum when it comes to structural integrity...design it correctly, and it all holds together the same.
 

Picaroon

Helos
pilot
Recently rx'd the following "Forwarded" email from an old friend...(USN 0-6 Ret-1300 Desig)...edited to remove ID's...

email body was here

Ah, the FWD: FWD: FWD: FWD: email.

It's the internet... I'm not saying what's in the email is patently untrue, but anonymous emails making big, bold claims are wrong more often than they are right.

I'd listen more to engineers and people who know their stuff, like the aviators here with engineering degrees, than an email like that. It's just too risky to take anonymous forwarded emails at face value.

And by the way, isn't the Dreamliner focusing heavily on composites? Last I heard that was one of Boeing's big selling points.

EDIT: Unless by editing out the IDs you mean the ones in the actual text of the email. In that case I'd give it more weight. But it still reads like something you'd see on Snopes... Just urging caution with this, that's all.
 

PropAddict

Now with even more awesome!
pilot
Contributor
blaming composite materials for the airplane crashing is ludicrous. Fiberglass and carbon are as absolutely reliable as aluminum when it comes to structural integrity...design it correctly, and it all holds together the same.


Yes and no.

Composites are safe and have a proven track record, for sure. But, when you start talking about fatiguing of fiberglass (and pretty much all amorphous solids), things become more of a statistics game. We can predict to within fairly tight tolerances that a piece of aluminum under repeated load X will last for Y cycles. With composites it's more like: "Well, if the load never exceeds X, it should be good for Y cycles at least 80% of the time. Let's check at Z cycles to make sure we're not in that 20%."
 

Junkball

"I believe in ammunition"
pilot
I know the wings are carbon fiber, but I'm not sure what total percentage of the plane is.

The wings, fuselage, and flight control surfaces are almost all of composite construction. Composites account for 50% of the aircraft according to this .pdf (5 MB). Conventional materials are used primarily on leading edges and major structural members.
 

C420sailor

Former Rhino Bro
pilot
Yes and no.

Composites are safe and have a proven track record, for sure. But, when you start talking about fatiguing of fiberglass (and pretty much all amorphous solids), things become more of a statistics game. We can predict to within fairly tight tolerances that a piece of aluminum under repeated load X will last for Y cycles. With composites it's more like: "Well, if the load never exceeds X, it should be good for Y cycles at least 80% of the time. Let's check at Z cycles to make sure we're not in that 20%."

I'd imagine that it's also easier to detect fatigue induced stress/cracking in aluminum?

When I bought my race bicycle (carbon fiber) I remember the salesman telling me to treat it very well because, unlike steel and aluminum bikes, it won't show signs of stress until structural failure. While the steel/aluminum bikes will develop stress cracks, the carbon bikes will just come apart, with catastrophic results.

Perhaps airplane carbon is different?
 

PropAddict

Now with even more awesome!
pilot
Contributor
I'd imagine that it's also easier to detect fatigue induced stress/cracking in aluminum?

We've just had longer to come up with non-destructive testing methods for metal fatigue, so more people are set up to do them in more places. Lockheed, in particular, is very good at testing composites, but their main process involves some fairly expensive lasers and Gucci cameras.

When you take your Huffy

Begs the question. . .if Huffy made a plane, would you fly it?:eek:
 
Top