Monday, April 30, 2012
ADVANCED COMPOSITE MANUFACTURING post by Joey Gonzalez
I
was watching The History Channel the other day and they showed a bit on the
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The main thing that struck me about it was
how much cheaper the new F-35 is to manufacture than the F-22 Raptor even
though the F-35 is nearly 40% composite. Yes, the F-22 is better in most
performance aspects (has twice the payload, twice the maneuverability, and can
control twice the battle space), however, the F-35 comes out on top when it
comes to manufacturing and maintenance.
The
F-35's airframe makes heavy use of composite materials, with much work placed
on reducing the cost of composite assemblies, which have traditionally been
extremely expensive. But using the latest computer-aided design and
manufacturing tools, the F-35 has been designed to be as cheap to manufacture
as possible. For example, a previous cutting tool that was used to trim
composites—a tool with PCD edges—would last for only 21 feet. After just this
distance, the change in force from tool wear would cause delamination (a major
failure mode in composite materials) to begin. The solution was a carbide tool
in which the geometry directs cutting forces in a way that compresses the
part’s layers together while they are being cut. The tool costs 1/3 the price
of the previous tool, he says, but it routinely last for 100 feet before wear
becomes a concern.
The
article below goes on about more ways Lockheed Martin rethought the
manufacturing process. This is a great example of how bringing fresh
perspective can yield drastic results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I find composites to be a very interesting field of materials. In fact, I have written both of my vision papers about how composites will become much more popular in the coming years.
ReplyDeleteComposites are becoming much more popular in the commercial airline industry as well. I have read that the Airbus A380 makes use of composite parts and the Boeing 787 is about 50% composite, and actually makes use of these materials in primary structural elements, something which has not been done before in large scale aircraft.
The fact that these materials can be made as strong as the heaviest metals but as light as thin aluminum alloys can allow designers to preserve the structural integrity of planes while drastically reducing fuel efficiency.
The irony about the F-35 being cheaper is that it has been FAR more expensive to develop. Cheaper materials and manufacturing? Sure. But the development costs thus far are projected to exceed $300 billion. So it begs the question: despite composites becoming an increasingly cost-effective alternative to traditional metals, is it worth all the extra testing procedures? Or is it going to be another decade or so before we become proficient enough with composite materials that we don't need to take so many extra steps for each step of the development phase?
ReplyDelete