Shirley I'm not the only reader of this thread to have ever burnt a fibreglass moulding on a bonfire?
A bath, a caravan roof , a dinghy and part of a vehicle body all exhibit the same characteristics,as regards burning.
Like any other plastics, lots of thick, black smoke is emitted and the flame front spreads rapidly across the surface, accompanied by a typical "sizzling" as the plastic in the heat-path of the flame-front bursts into tiny, popping bubbles which rapidly burst, releasing their inflammable gases and thus progressing the flame-front.
The plastic (resin) burns away completely, leaving a perfect armature of the original moulding....It is, however, more fragile than an eggshell and will often collapse under it's own weight.
Glass fibre /Carbon-fibre/ Kevlar....it doesn't really matter............................of itself, the fibre is soft and pliable, the resin impregnation gives the strength and rigidity...burn the resin and you've little more than a starched textile.
Many a fibreglass/Composite boat has been burnt to the waterline, I would not like to be in a burning Composite aircraft.
I'd take my chance in something like a Cirrus, but not in a commercial airliner with the mass of attendant electricals, water heaters,pax attempting a crafty puff etc. no, IMO there is a good case for composites in aircraft, but the Pax deserve a more robust survival-cell.
Self-extinguishing resins are readily available,their suitability in this application is another issue and if the flames or loss of strength don't get you, the fumes surely will!
Thanks, Amicus for your highly technical treatise. It leads one to believe the public have been hoodwinked by the vested interests.
The "screamliner" *could* have had a huge economic advantage over a conventional aircraft, albeit with a compromised level of safety.
We all take our chances weighing risk and gain in our daily lives.
Generation 2 of the "Plastic -Fantastics" may well bring the much-vaunted benefits, but I fear the 787 was too many steps too far, too soon.