netwr

Is composite material replacing aluminum as the sole material used on future aircraft?

also, what material does the a380 use? the fuselage does not show any bare silver panels before gets painted...is it composite like the 787?

P.S. why do airlines only remove the paint off from cargo liners and not the passenger jets? Example, CX & JAL cargo, their cargo liners originally had paint on the fuselage, but most have been removed recently

if there's a really fuel-saving advantage, why don't the airlines get the paint off their pax jets as well?

gospodin

All of the airliners built in the last 20 years have used composites in much of their airframes. The 787 is the first to use it almost exclusively. Aluminum/magnesium and other metals still play a big role in the frame of the planes, but the use of epoxies and composites will take the place of the aluminum skin in future airliners. Airbus uses a different aluminum alloy, more prone to surface corrosion problems which dulls the finish on bare metal, so they paint all their airliners. AFA the A380, not sure about their skin, but it's not composite like the 787.
It's true that removing the base paint from a typical aircraft can save several hundred pounds of weight, but the fuel savings is negligible on smaller airliners, and the airlines and the passengers like the way the planes look painted. I think with the cargo planes, it might be a way to set them apart from the pax planes, but that's just a guess.

__________________
Steve


The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

Mystère

As the trend is toward more composite in aircrafts (25% in the A380, 50% in the 787, and probably more in the 737/A320 successors), yes I think bare metal liveries will quickly disappear. Now why painting pax planes and not cargo ? Maybe because cargo doesn't care which color is its a/c, but pax need to identify the airline they're flying on.

__________________

gospodin

[quote=Mystère;51906 Now why painting pax planes and not cargo ? Maybe because cargo doesn't care which color is its a/c, but pax need to identify the airline they're flying on. [/quote]
I thought that's what boarding gates were for...

__________________
Steve


The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

L-1011-Heavy

Airlines Save BUNDLES By Not Painting Aircraft. Did You Know On A 747 The Tail Alone Uses 50 Gallons Of Paint? At 300 Bucks A Gallon They Save Thousands By Having A Simpler Livery. But That's Not The Real Savings.
In A Complex Livery, The Masking/Painting/Drying Process Can Take Upwards Of 2 Weeks. That's A Few Hundred Thousand Per Day Of LOST Revenue Per Aircraft Due To Sophisticated Liveries.

Northwest For Example Saves 4.5 USD Million Per Year By Switching From The Classy Boeling Shoe Liverey To The Ugly All Silver NWA Livery.

Now CX Livery Is Not Quite As Sophisticated As The Boeling Shoe, But There Are Significant Savings With An All Metal Fuselage & Marginal Livery Highlights.

Another Possibility Is CX & JAL May Want A Separate Identity For Thier Cargo Division.
I Think ANA Did This By Naming Thier Cargo Arm NCA With A Modified Livery.

Though In The Past (Lettuce Sandwich Livery) CX Cargo & Pax Liveries Were The Same With The Exception Of Cargo Titles.

__________________

The Heavy Armada
"In The Absence Of Excellence, There Is Only Mediocrity."

gospodin

If you read the post, we were actually talking about fuel economy, not money saved. But yeah, there is a monetary consideration. The thing is, a flashy livery attracts customers, believe it or not. And it sets the planes apart from their competitors. Many times, graphics are applied, rather than painted on, which saves a ton of money, since they can be stripped and re-applied within a few days.

__________________
Steve


The one thing I've learned on this forum is "Don't argue with an idiot". Other people reading may not be able to tell the difference....

L-1011-Heavy

I Was Answering The Question. The Fuel Saving Was Secondary And Not Really A Question, But A Sub Question To Why Don't Airliners Remove Paint From All Thier Planes?

Interesting. Yes It's Flashy To Joe Public, But Do Cargo Customers Really Care? Harks Bact to The Days Of Flying Tigers. Damned Planes Were Not Flashy At All, But Very Dirty & Unkempt. I Doubt Half Thier Customers Even Knew Who Thier Freight Was Being Hauled By, Contracts, Sub Contracts, Ground Courier Interchange, etc.

[quote=netwr;519057]
P.S. why do airlines only remove the paint off from cargo liners and not the passenger jets? Example, CX & JAL cargo, their cargo liners originally had paint on the fuselage, but most have been removed recently
/QUOTE]

__________________

The Heavy Armada
"In The Absence Of Excellence, There Is Only Mediocrity."

netwr

Would this make a huge difference on efficiency? And would passenger care or airline care the way it looks? I don't see a significant difference on the these two, or would the silver unpainted body affect the way consumer look at this airline/its identity? because the logo and title are still there, everything is still there, and the only thing apart is the paint....

so if this is a $ saving, cost cutting way, why don't airlines do this on every single aircraft they own? and this is not just one or a few aircraft, but the total saving on the entire fleet

L-1011-Heavy

Oh I Will Disagree With You 150,000 Percent. Livery On An Airliner Plays A Big Part On Wether Passengers Fly On It Or Not.
The Eurowhite In Particular Became Very Popular With Airlines And Passengers Alike As A Clean White Aircraft With Beuatiful Colored Highlights Gives The Impression Of Safe Well Maintained, Reliable Aircraft. Plus Passengers Want To Be On Aesthetically Pleasing Aircraft/ Liveries, Just as They Want To Be In That Sharp Looking Sportscar.
Now Imagine If An Ocean Cruiseliner Looked Like A 1920s Rustbucket Ready To Sink At The First Sign of a 2 Foot Swell Think Any Passengers Would Book A Vacation? Airliners Are No Different Than An Immaculate Ferrari Or The Lastest Floating City From Carnival Cruise Lines In The Eyes Of Joe Public.

BTW There's a HUGE Difference In The Aircraft You Posted, To Me Anyway.

__________________

The Heavy Armada
"In The Absence Of Excellence, There Is Only Mediocrity."

Jboulin94

1011 is exactly right! Like for me, AA has one of the worst liveries IMO. I think this says that these planes are not cared for as much as those of SQ, or ANA, or even United. Even though AA's livery saves money, it does not igve the best impression. And it shows considering they are a 3 star airline.

__________________

CFTGEFAN

Actually i disagree with you here, it takes hell of lot of skill/s and time to actually polish bare metal fuselages and if not done right then yes you can say airplane looks crap or airline gives bad impression like Air Canada's B767 Fin# 613 when it had bare metal fuselage!!, but in case of AA there aircrafts looks awesome and stand out sharply!, i have taken countless pictures of AA airplanes and will continue to do so as long at they keep up with present livery!....

Bad polish job


Excellent polish job

D-AIHC

Also, if an aircraft is not painted, it weighs less. Although the savings in weight is insignificant if compared to the MTOW, but it can travel farther with the same amount fuel.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997