is there any information available comparing the difference in crash resistance between composite mainly carbon or fiberglass polymers etc vs conventional metallic mainly aluminum aircraft structures.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
1$\begingroup$ "Crash resistance" is an interesting term... I'd think "crash resistance" has more to do with pilot skill than the aircraft's skin material. If, however, you're referring to the ability to withstand the forces applied after things have gone wrong, I doubt there's much difference between the two. Considering flights like Aloha 243, even aluminum is pretty darn strong. $\endgroup$– FreeManCommented Mar 22, 2019 at 17:17
-
$\begingroup$ I understood that was a widely used term to describe an airframe's ability to withstand impact forces resulting from a collision. Crash resistant fuel tanks are commonly used on rotorcraft for example. And I would wager that an Isotropic and highly ductile material such as aluminum would handle impact forces differently compared to an anisotropic and brittle material such as CFRP. $\endgroup$– Christophe PochariCommented Mar 23, 2019 at 0:01
-
1$\begingroup$ Interesting. As I read your response, I got to thinking about F1 cars and how the CF nose cones (and the rest of the car) are designed to splinter to absorb impact vs what the old aluminum honeycomb chassis construction used to do. Now that I think about it that way, that is a very interesting question, and I wonder if any research has been done in this area. "Crumple zones" are a rather curious idea on a commercial airliner, though fuel tanks being resistant to splitting on impact certainly makes sense and has been done. $\endgroup$– FreeManCommented Mar 25, 2019 at 12:19
Add a comment
|