Thoughts?

—-

FAA engineers objected to Boeing’s removal of some 787 lightning protection measures

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -measures/

Initial thought: "Rut-Row, Shaggy"

Secondary thought: Interested in seeing how this plays out.

Hi all,
I'm thinking I'll fly Airbus when I have to. At least the name is honest, a bus in the air!
Fly more,
Ralph

The rumor on the ground at Paine field is there are hundreds of engineers/employees there trying to figure out the blade stretch issue...

When it rains it pours.

Heat and shock generally degrades composite materials. Lightning is both, at extremely high levels, with no way of knowing how much power. The composite props I work on at work either have a an aluminum grid bonded to the airfoil or conductive paint applied to the airfoil. Both of which must be maintained for lightning protection. That being said, propellers get hit frequently. We work on one particular model blade that if struck by lightning the blade is to be retired/removed from service. We have other blades of the same construction and they are acceptable if not burned/de-bonded or damaged. Keep in mind Pratt has a way of testing these for Hamilton props. They must have seen something on the ones we throw away when hit by lightning.
Dowty's use a copper braid that runs the length of the airfoil that seems to work well.
Lightning can be extremely powerful. IMO keep the most protection you can or that is proven to work.
Not to start a Bus to Boeing battle, but the A350 has a composite wing. I wonder what they use?

When I went to composite school they informed us that copper wire is woven into the carbon fibers on the 787.

It is on the fuselage. I'm not sure how they originally did it for the wings. Different material systems between the two products, I believe.

At brand X 787 pilots say the airplane is a lightning magnet.

Some CA will not fly it with the fuel inserting system on MEL.