I’m a great supporter of Boeing and after working on the design of the A-310 I am a detractor of Airbus technology however regarding composites on any aircraft they have a very serious problem. Here is an example. During the production of a 767 which has a composite fin an overhead crane carrying a large jig hit the fin with a glancing blow. They went up to inspect the damage and found the surface to be slightly abraded and they (QC) were going to just pass if off. One of the technicians went up into the fin and found that the skin had “oil-canned” in about 8-10’ and sprung out again to the static position. However when being pushed inward quite a few stiffening members had been separated from the inside of the skin breaking the bond between the stiffeners and the supporting external skin.
Here is another problem discovered on the V-22. The methodology specified by the Navy required the use of specific repair compounds and the repair was to be verified by X-ray examination. The bonding turned out to be opaque to X-rays and the repairs could not be verified. Also because of the manufacturing technology large composite airframe parts must be returned to the manufacturer for re-manufacture in the same jigs and autoclaves that are used to produce the structural members. If a large section such as a composite spar suffers damage the aircraft must be grounded until a new wing can be installed. Granted, composites are stronger than their metal counterparts but when a metal part is damaged it can be repaired on aircraft. If a composite part fails it must be repaired off aircraft.
