Question about the Airbus planes

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Whatcott wrote:

Private wrote:
"a" wrote in message
...
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

snip

More at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14025

Happy landings,

snip
(And yes, I realize that there are certain differences between building
a 600-pound glider and a 200,000-pound airliner, and between engineering
something to be safe enough to carry a single dare-devilish pilot and
carrying hundreds of paying passengers. But four decades ought to be
enough to figure out how it works for the latter, and indeed things are
moving that way.)

snip

I do not disagree with much of your post, and also have personally enjoyed
many happy hours flying glass gliders and powered aircraft, but feel
compelled to submit that in addition to the obvious weight differences, most
gliders live in a (UV free) trailer or hanger, and IMHE few have accumulated
over 5000 hours (500-2000 hrs is more average) vs. 50,000 hours for
airliners. (I once flew in a 737-200 that had 70,000 hrs and a similar
number of cycles.) On most small powered and glider glass aircraft the
vertical stab is formed as an integral part of the fuselage vs. the airliner
where the weak point of the assembly seems to be the point of attachment to
the fuselage. I suspect you will also agree that in addition to the
increased loading and much higher speeds, the consequence of structural
failure of a commercial aircraft carrying large numbers of passengers is
greater than that of a much slower glider carrying 1 or 2 flyers who are
probably also wearing parachutes.

The real point of the article was that the materials technology, service
expectations and proper inspection procedures seem to still be under
development and that we still have much to learn. Older glass gliders often
display obvious deterioration of at least the gel coat and crashes have been
caused by structural failure or lightning strikes.

Happy landings,

Mike Ash wrote:
I particularly enjoy the derisive use of the word "plastic" to describe
the vertical stabilizer. As an owner of a composite aircraft, I can tell
you that I much prefer "plastic" to metal when given the choice. Yeah,
when you exceed its strength it fails in a completely unforgiving
manner, but composites make it a *lot* harder to get to that point in
the first place.

Perhaps there really is an engineering deficiency here, but to think
that it's the fault of the material itself and that airliner engineering
should just ignore new materials technology and stick to good ol'
aluminum forever is silly. Glider makers figured out how great
composites were forty years ago, it's about time for the rest to catch
up too.

(And yes, I realize that there are certain differences between building
a 600-pound glider and a 200,000-pound airliner, and between engineering
something to be safe enough to carry a single dare-devilish pilot and
carrying hundreds of paying passengers. But four decades ought to be
enough to figure out how it works for the latter, and indeed things are
moving that way.)


Gliders fly at lower altitudes, at lower speeds, in good weather
conditions...

Airliners fly in high altitude, high speed, low temperature, in
thunderstorms...

How good is composite when lightning strikes? Doesn't is explode or
something? I don't think it will conduct electricity, does it?

Please see that as questions, I really don't know much and I'm
wondering. I'm not trying to reduce your opinion in anyway.

Tom

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
...
Private wrote:
"a" wrote in message
...
One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read on:.

snip

More at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14025

Happy landings,



Dear Anonymous Poster,

the level of engineering insight of this URL is typified by this
paragraph:
"We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a lightning
storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot error. What
we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the plane fell almost
seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard."

If you don't realize the level of insight offered in this paragraph,
should you be spreading it?


IMHO the quoted passage is a fair statement of what we currently suspect,
hopefully further investigation will reveal more complete information.

The link was offered to stimulate thought and discussion and with the
qualifier "One has no idea how true this is, but for what it's worth, read
on:"

All pilots are (as always) encouraged to apply their own knowledge and
experience to form their own conclusions.

Happy landings,