"Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:slrng757qr.8ac.jmaynard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-07-07, Paul Hastings <p*nospam*hastings@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> The way I read it your saying that composite repair is not possible or
much
>> harder than aluminum repair.
>>
>> There are well established methods for repairing composite damage,
without
>> any annoying rivet bucking noise.
>
> Why, then, can't you get composite factory aircraft repaired short of
> sending the broken part back to the factory?
>
> Yes, I know the discussion is around homebuilts, but if composite
repairs
> are well understood, then there should be no reason to require all
repairs
> to be done at the factory.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com
http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)
Not knowing which factory you are speaking of, my guess is more of a
company
policy issue for liability reasons. I know Northwest(I live in MN too)
isn't
sending parts back to Airbus they are repairing them onsite.
So are many homebuilders with composite planes, imho composite repairs are
easier. Especially in your example of hangar rash, if you ding the leading
edge
in aluminum How many rivets do you have to drill and rebuck if it is a
single
piece leading edge. It gets even worse if you bend an aluminum spar.
Paul
|
