Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.72; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4831D740.5010507@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:38:40 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Self-repairing Aircraft
References: <list-2929302@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2929302@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Schemmel, Grant wrote:
> Self-repairing composite airframes anyone?
>
>
> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519105052.htm
>
>
>   
No.
Self damage reporting.  SURE!!

I don't think it would make sense to carry around extra epoxy to heal 
possible future damage.  All epoxies I've ever heard about have relative 
short shelf lifes, and the weight could be better spent beefing up the 
part in the first place.  I also don't care for the mindset that we can 
make the part thinner, because we'll know when it gets damaged.  I'd 
rather keep the mindset that we build the part stout enough that any 
damage severe enough to compromise the part will be discernable on a 
normal visual inspection.

A layer of "bleeding glass" in the layup schedule would be great (if not 
expensive) during the annual, but I would hate to think that I was 
depending on some oozing epoxy to keep the wings on when I hit the 
turbulent air.