Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
1–10 of 109 posts
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#2Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterior coating can potentially render that whole aircraft unfit for safe use similar to how metal fatigue can lead to progressive cracking. What kind of exterior would be best for such a radical carbon fiber structure being exposed to extremes of heat and cold and pressure is wide open question, and how best to patch a damaged structure is also difficult to asses.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#3Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
Also if they didn't bother to test such relatively straight forward thing as paint for those conditions, what kind of confidence can one have that other parts have passed those kind of tests?
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#4Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
TFA argues that is not a safety issue.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#5It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates.
Whatever happened to the customer is always right?
Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#6I’m not even close to an aviation expert but I’m curious if we are reaching a point where aerospace tech is too complicated. Both major manufacturers are having issues with their latest generation of planes. I’m curious what someone with expertise thinks about Boeing and Airbus’ issues
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#7I'm not sure there exists a more complex set of requirements for paint than for aircraft. Extreme cold to surface temperatures, the requirement to flex with adhered surfaces without cracking, plus the desire for a paint job to last for years.
It looks like conductivity is also desired, to some degree, to help the metal surfaces dissipate lightning.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#8I'm not sure there exists a more complex set of requirements for paint than for aircraft. Extreme cold to surface temperatures, the requirement to flex with adhered surfaces without cracking, plus the desire for a paint job to last for years. It looks like conductivity is also desired, to some degree, to help the metal surfaces dissipate lightning.
>I'm not sure there exists a more complex set of requirements for paint than for aircraft. Extreme cold to surface temperatures, the requirement to flex with adhered surfaces without cracking, plus the desire for a paint job to last for years.
That's basically a walk in the park compared to anything that needs to deal with unearthly temperatures and harsh chemicals at the same time. Furthermore, air (and airborne water) isn't very abrasive which helps a lot even if you do go through it at hundreds of miles per hour.
You can more or less think most modern paint as a plastic coating. High speed air with the occasional water droplet or Canadaian goose, easy. Abrasives, hydrocarbons, high temperatures, not so easy.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#9Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…
> Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears
You can make the argument. Doesn't mean its true or has any relevance.
Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf
#10It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.
>> Whatever happened to the customer is always right?
Enough people worked retail to know that's a lie.
But yes, this is the sort of thing Airbus should have responded better to, even if it was without any real promise of making things right (i.e., "We are investigating fully as to what has happened here and will seek to make things right if we find this in any way weakens the structural stability of our planes, known the world over as some of the (insert whatever marketing speak)")