--- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, "dongeneda2000" <DonGeneda@. ..> wrote:
>
>
>
> You are correct of course, I was using the term spray into a mold as an oversimplication of making parts.
>
Yeah, an oversimplifiaction fer shure! :)
BUT... now you probably see why composite airplanes are still more expensive to develope and build... And why they are extremely expensive to own once you factor in a major repair or two into the lifetime of the plane.
Rick
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, "r" <lightflyer@ > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, "dongeneda2000" <DonGeneda@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And of course the Sport Cruiser is a conventional aluminum construction, FAR more labor intensive than say the very similar
> > > Stingsport, a composite "spray into a mold" that should be far cheaper, but it isn't.
> > > >
> >
> > "Spray into a mold" WOULD be cheep!
> > But we don't build airplanes with chop-guns like we used to do with boats. Thay are all laid-up by hand, paying close attention to the orientation of the plys, the number of layers, type of resins used, and frequently autclaves are needed to get that nice strong-yet-lightwei ght structure that composites promise.
> >
> > I've had quite a bit of experience doing composite repairs on a LARGE Carbon-fibre airplane. They are terribly time consuming, extremely precise in their execution, and required ultrasound equipment to verify that the repair was done properly. I wouldn't want to do it "in the field".
> >
> > I like the IDEA of composite airplanes, but they haven't proven to be as practical in real-life.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment