COMAC C919 - China's first modern airliner

Quickie

Colonel
All material are susceptible to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
smaller the amount the larger the stress per unit amount when used at same point leading to material fatigue. It is known that For some materials, notably
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, there is a theoretical value for stress amplitude below which the material will not fail for any number of cycles, called a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but to go beyond this limit you need to make the parts bulky defeating the use of Titanium to replace Aluminum.

Are you sure? Using the same unit mass for both 2 metals, Titanium will have a higher strength over Aluminium. A higher atomic number for Titanium over Aluminium basically means that the former has a higher density over the latter, which means that not only Titanium offer higher strength, it also take up less volume and therefore saves space.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Are you sure? Using the same unit mass for both 2 metals, Titanium will have a higher strength over Aluminium. A higher atomic number for Titanium over Aluminium basically means that the former has a higher density over the latter, which means that not only Titanium offer higher strength, it also take up less volume and therefore saves space.
You'll need to clarify.
If you're asking if you need the same amount of Titanium as Aluminum then no since Titanium is much stronger against stress but if you're asking if the amount of Titanium is enough to match the strength when Aluminum is used in the same part then yes since the amount of stress per unit amount of Titanium would be more then Aluminum.
In other words how much unit amount of Titanium is able to withhold against compared to the unit amount of stress when Aluminum is used to support the same amount of cycle stress load?
Material stress occurs with fatigue after cycle loading of the material below the actual limit load.
This is the reason why a moving vehicle is placed under an endurance stress load test.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
All material are susceptible to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
,
smaller the amount the larger the stress per unit amount when used at same point leading to material fatigue. It is known that For some materials, notably
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, there is a theoretical value for stress amplitude below which the material will not fail for any number of cycles, called a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, but to go beyond this limit you need to make the parts bulky defeating the use of Titanium to replace Aluminum.

I understand what you are saying But whether the material will fail or not, is also based on the calculated stress higher or lower than allowable stress( limit)
What fatigue analysis does is basically derating the allowable stress by factor depending on the number of cycle.

Assuming you have 2 black box, one of them you inputted with your design condition like load, constraint, material,geometry etc then it will spit out the calculated stress
Then you have another box where you inputted the allowable stress and number of cycle It will spit out the limit stress.
You then compare the 2 If your calculated stress is lower than your limit you are okay

the last black box is reversible it also can spit out the number of cycle if you inputted the limit and the calculated stress

So if you have either low enough calculates stress or high enough limit stress It will spit 10 to the power of 6 or 7 cycle Which is basically infinite number of cycle or in other word indestructible. So it not true that all material will fail if subjected to cyclic load Depend on your design, material loading etc
 

Quickie

Colonel
You'll need to clarify.
If you're asking if you need the same amount of Titanium as Aluminum then no since Titanium is much stronger against stress but if you're asking if the amount of Titanium is enough to match the strength when Aluminum is used in the same part then yes since the amount of stress per unit amount of Titanium would be more then Aluminum.
In other words how much unit amount of Titanium is able to withhold against compared to the unit amount of stress when Aluminum is used to support the same amount of cycle stress load?
Material stress occurs with fatigue after cycle loading of the material below the actual limit load.
This is the reason why a moving vehicle is placed under an endurance stress load test.
Well I'm sure they must have done whatever stress/fatigue test on the 2 metals before deciding Titanium over Aluminium on certain structural parts of the aircraft to save weight.

The fact of the matter is Titanium has better strength and stress endurance over Aluminium for the same unit cross sectional area of material, meaning that less quantity of Titanium over that of Aluminium, can be used to withstand the same level of stress to save weight.
 
Last edited:

b787

Captain
while not about the C919, this video shows the manufacturing Technics used to build the CS-100/300 aircraft, which is pretty similar to the Chinese jet
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Well I'm sure they must have done whatever stress/fatigue test on the 2 metals before deciding Titanium over Aluminium on certain structural parts of the aircraft to save weight.

The fact of the matter is Titanium has better strength and stress endurance over Aluminium for the same unit cross sectional area of material, meaning that less quantity of Titanium over that of Aluminium, can be used to withstand the same level of stress to save weight.

Don't thinks so since I have not heard of computer simulated load endurance test and still done on actual physical models in which they place an actual built unit under cycle loading for thousands of time which equates to amount of time in actual flight. This is mandatory to obtain FAA certification I believe. I don't think 919 had gone though this test either since COMAC had only built one unit as of yet.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Don't thinks so since I have not heard of computer simulated load endurance test and still done on actual physical models in which they place an actual built unit under cycle loading for thousands of time which equates to amount of time in actual flight. This is mandatory to obtain FAA certification I believe. I don't think 919 had gone though this test either since COMAC had only built one unit as of yet.

No, the 919 has certainly not been certified by the FAA and we've also spent a dozen posts arguing about the properties of titanium.

While I do enjoy reading your posts, it does get old because they are always very negative in nature in regards to 'made in china' products. You always seem to nit pick every single variable in any product and while for the most part you are correct in your analysis, anyone can nitpick any product to death regardless of manufacturers.

Unless it is something obvious or some major flaw that has been uncovered, we should be happy for China's first indigenous big commercial bird. Who cares if it's some subsystem are foreign ? Even boeing products are not 100% US made and there are certainly issues with the products including our newest flagship.

A good aircraft manufacturer will find them, fix them and move on. I'm sure COMAC will do the same.. If not they will be out of business very soon.

... And I say all this as someone with ties to COMAC's competitor.
 

montyp165

Junior Member
Titanium and steel advantages for vehicle structure materials compared to aluminum is that aluminum can fail from repeated small stress fractures below the specific fatigue limits of titanium and steel, which is why aircraft such as the Mig-25 can be rebuilt due to their steel airframe whereas an equivalent aluminum-airframe aircraft would need to be written off after a certain number of flight cycles.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
While I do enjoy reading your posts, it does get old because they are always very negative in nature in regards to 'made in china' products. You always seem to nit pick every single variable in any product and while for the most part you are correct in your analysis, anyone can nitpick any product to death regardless of manufacturers.

Because that's what haters, doubters, and naysayers do. And if someone return the favor they will claim flame baiting and such.
 
Top