2009-12-29 09:22:20 UTC
fuselage plug. These were taken back in august 2009.
I guess the 350 isn't all vapourware anymore...
I've put a copy of the hi-res images on my site for discussion.
Now, onto the questions.
On both images, you can see a lot of "black dots" on the fuselage. Are
all of those individual rivets to attach the composite skin to the metal
stringers and frames inside ?
Are the amount of rivets comparable to that use on aluminium skins or
are there more or less of them ?
In the Barrel 1 picture, on the right end of the fuselage, there is a
yellow ring on the fuselage. Does this denote the extent of penetration
when another fuselage plug is mated with this one ?
It is my understanding that on the 787, the stringers are an integral
part of the skin, layed at the same time, with their shape part of the
mandrel. Shouldn't that be a major advantage since, by being an
integral part of the skin, not only are rivets not needed, but it would
also be stronger ?
Also, is it correct to state that because of all the holes needed for
rivets, they need to make the skin thicker to have the same strength as
a skin that is without holes for rivets ?
Couldn't Airbus have made the large panels with integral carbon
stringers which would have removed the need for so many rivets and only
require metal frames/ribs inside to hold the "round" shape ?
In fact, perhaps they should have made panels that spanned the length of
the plug, so only 4 panels would be needed which would have reduced the
number of joints between panels and reduced weight.
It would be interesting to get some insight on what made the 787
overweight and whether the monocoque fuselage design ended up being a
weight advantage or a liability.
I guess we'll have to wait a couple of years before we know how
overweight the 350 will be and how it will compare with the 787.
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.