Potable water is still carried every flight in internal tanks. The A320 is somewhere around 45usg depending on configuration. This water is used for the coffee makers as well as lav sinks and toilet flushing. Typical transcon will see us use approximately 80% of that total potable water capacity. Dont forget, while the sink water is expelled overboard the toilet water is held in a different tank after use. That tank normally runs 80% full at the end of a transcon too...higher on "Burrito Fridays". . I would say its pretty much a wash on "non-aircraft consumable liquids". Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Not trying to be an ass...but dont quite understand what your goal is. This stuff is (and has been) so studied by the manufacturers that absent of some miracle metal, its all been calculated to death. To give you an idea...a friend of mine is part responsible for my airlines new plane deliveries. The acutually measure the paint thickness. If it is beyond a certain spec, they start to "bargain"'price with Airbus because over the life of the airplane, even several ten-thousanths of an inch translates to money.

Agian...curious in a "not-to-be-an-a-hole" way....

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Not trying to be an ass...but dont quite understand what your goal is.

As stated earlier, this is part of a National Science Foundation (NSF) program on commercializing research. By definition, I am not talking about stuff that has "been studied to death," I am looking at the value of commercializing the results of a research project. Part of the program is to come up with an estimate of the economic impact, i.e. market value, of the technology developed.

To the point. The majority of commercial aircraft are made out of an aluminum alloy. To varying degrees, a number of panels are made out of laminated composites (LC), due to their high strength to weight ratio. Since weight is at a premium, the goal is to expand the use of LC in more portions of the airframe. LC, while having many desirable properties, come at a steep cost. The manufacturing of them can be difficult and maintaining part quality is problematic. Designing with LC is also much more difficult, because the behavior of LC material systems is many orders of magnitude more difficult than metals. There is very little we do not know about metals, and we know less about LC than what we don't know about metals. This lack of knowledge all leads to great uncertainty in the design process, which leads to very significant reliance on testing and overly conservative designs. Boeing admits the 787 cost $35 billion to develop. A SWAG guess of mine is that of the $35B, they spent $15-20B on testing the LC parts. Even then, the full-scale load test of the wings of the 787 yielded a strength twice that predicted. This means that there is a lot of excess weight in the 787 that could be removed, if they had the knowledge, insight and confidence to do so. If fully realized, my research could make a significant inroad to the computational modeling of the LC structure shining light into the darkness, and allow manufacturers to reduce the weight of their airframes. Thus, one could trade cheap computer time for very expensive testing time. While Boeing, and presumably Airbus, can afford $35B for an aircraft design, the many smaller companies, Bombardier, Embraer, cannot. As far as my request in the OP goes, I am trying to come up with a rough estimate of the value to increasing the percentage of LC parts in an aircraft design. Certainly it will be wrong, but if it is at least justifiable, and within the ballpark, I have someplace to start.

Hope that answers your question.

I'll just toss this out there. Just because the 87 proved stronger than it's design spec doesn't necessarily mean it should be lightened even more. Carbon fiber has been in use for some time in aircraft assembly but it's relatively new the the pressurized fuselage and fuel tanks / wings. These resins being used today are of very recent development. How are they going to be holding up 10-20 years from now ? After being exposed to UV light as the surface finish deteriorates. Possible undetected damages and fluid ingress. I'm sure lots of testing went into accelerating the aging process but things always slip by.

Fascinating info here in the thread.

I would suggest that you look to the big picture, and public documents on existing aircraft. For example, the 787 in carbon fiber is much lighter than the 777. Read the public pronouncements and estimates on savings there. Real experts have run the numbers and lawyers have looked at the claims. Using those public numbers is far more "safe" for your investors (be they university or public venture capitalists). Take a look at the 737 and its variants over the years. A320 and its long service life may also prove to have numbers. Build a case on publicly accepted info if you need to spur capital inflow.

Although you are quite capable of calculating the value of 1 kg, you risk, in my view, practicing outside your area of expertise. If you were to convince a venture capitalist to invest based on your numbers, and for some reason you have overlooked something, there are possible penalties.

quote:

Originally posted by jlemmy:
I'll just toss this out there. Just because the 87 proved stronger than it's design spec doesn't necessarily mean it should be lightened even more. Carbon fiber has been in use for some time in aircraft assembly but it's relatively new the the pressurized fuselage and fuel tanks / wings. These resins being used today are of very recent development. How are they going to be holding up 10-20 years from now ? After being exposed to UV light as the surface finish deteriorates. Possible undetected damages and fluid ingress. I'm sure lots of testing went into accelerating the aging process but things always slip by.

This is the issue. The aging process and also Carbon fiber can only be flexed so many times over it's life and it snaps. Look at some of the around the world offshore racing sailboats where the carbon fiber mast snaps and other parts. These guys test these things to the limit. And sometimes building high stress items just to the limit doesn't work out so well for them.

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
...and just moved back up into a baby baron. ...

BE95? Now those can go slower than some Bonanzas on a little more fuel (and a little more maintenance), but having that second fan is definitely reassuring...

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
Word from my dad about his baby baron is that it's fairly heavy on the controls. That seemed odd to me, the duke was SOO light, like flying a bonanza. I've been wondering if his controls are balanced/rigged properly. Are the baron's heavy on the controls?

I wouldn't characterize my Travel Air (what most folks mean when they say baby baron) as heavy on the controls at all. The E55 Baron I got a little time in was heavier on the controls than the Travel Air, but not by much and it was a heavier airplane too.

All this talk of the Duke and no pics of such a sexy plane....

WELL



Though I hear the Royal Duke conversion really unlocks the potential this aircraft looks like it should have. Plus the Pratts just look cool.

Yup...beautiful bird, the B60. Just under 15 hours in one myself, with probably 5 or so unlogged hours. The problem with the PT-6 conversion is that by the time you spend all that money to bolt turboprops onto a Duke, you could have bought some variant of a very nice...VERY nice...King Air 90. [sorry to thread drift with B60 talk]

To the OP...I can appreciate your trying to skin the cat a different way. Please let us know what the results of your research is or if you're able to get it off the ground, as it were.

Dr Dan,

Freaking awesome concept except what is not taken into account appears to be the amount of labor required (and cost of the skill set) top do the lay ups for the composites.

My company's aircraft is nearly exclusively composite. Trust me, labor cost hours for a higher percentage of non rejected parts increases almost exponentially.

The parts you describe are VERY complex and not performed by entry level personal. It requires techs with at least 5 year's time in the industry.