Replies

1. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 15, 2009 11:06pm | #1

   It can run $10-15m to outfit something large, like a G550 or a BBJ. The materials are expensive because of two requirements, the first being FAA fire ratings and the second is weight, which in any aircraft is the enemy of range, fuel economy, and payload.

   For the fire ratings the testing requirements are stringent. 3 samples of any material buildup are exposed to as 1,200 degree flame for 30 seconds and the materials have to self extinguish in no more than 45 seconds.

   That honeycomb material you reference is just that, a honeycomb Nomex and it's very very expensive.

   Kydex is another material used extensively in aircraft interiors.

1. 
   user-54856 | Jan 16, 2009 02:08am | #3

   Thanks for comments. I personally have no intention of getting into this business. I was only curious about some the materials used and whether they might have some application in more standard furniture making. I was hoping that their strength and special properties might allow joints, or constructions, or whatever that would not otherwise be practical with wood alone.

1. 
   adastra001 | Jan 16, 2009 02:21am | #4

   Try looking at Aircraft Spruce.There are core materials for composite construction that have light weight, flexibility, etc. Would need a first skin of bending poplar before final veneer I would think.How do you know Troost Avenue? KC refugee?

1. 
   user-54856 | Jan 16, 2009 03:05am | #6

   Born, or at least conceived, at 5516. Bought and restored building several years ago and now have shop in basement. You?

1. 
   adastra001 | Jan 16, 2009 05:21am | #7

   Nah, from Lawrence; grew up in central Kansas. But I worked in KC and was around the area long enough to know Troost; I have family that lives in Brookside.I'm now in Hawaii, its very different than most think. Imagine Western Kansas or Nebraska with palm trees. But thats the Big Island where I live. There are other islands that have a different vibe.I really miss JackStack barbeque, have some for me.

2. 
   user-54856 | Jan 16, 2009 05:28pm | #10

   A cold beer too.

2. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 16, 2009 02:46am | #5

   It's an interesting topic so thanks for posting, but given that the primary special property is fire retardation, probably no use in furniture making. The cost alone would be prohibitive. On a related topic, the observation of the honeycomb engineering is astute, made me wonder if heavy duty corrugated cardboard (the 1/2" and heavier) variety would be useful as a veneer substrate for panels, given that it is also a honeycomb.

2. 
   fatboy | Jan 15, 2009 11:29pm | #2

   It would be very difficult for a small shop to break into this business. If the aircraft interior is installed by the airframe manufacturer it is done so under the Manufacturers FAA Certificate

   If an interior is installed or modified subsequent to manufacture, then an FAA Repair Station Certificate is required. (Part 145, Code of Federal Regulations)

   A manufacturer or Repair Station can sub-contract work. However, they must have a system to ensure that the subcontractor complies with all applicable regulations.

   It can get very complicated very fast.

3. 
   Thorvald | Jan 16, 2009 06:00am | #8

   I don't know which article you saw, but for anyone interested, there was an article in May 2008 Archetectrual Digest about the interior of a private A-380.  Just the notion of a private A-380 is a tad overwhelming (for the non-aviation savy, this is the new super jumbo double decker that is typicaly configured for about 550 passengers), but the inside of this plane is a real jaw-dropper.  There is a single photo of it in the slide show at http://www.architecturaldigest.com/homes/spaces/2008/07/planes_slideshow .  The magazine spread is incredible.

   In terms of using the aviation grade materials, I'd say there probably isn't much point if you don't have to meet aviation specs.  And the cost of the stuff is certainly well beyond the curious hobbiest -- unless he's John Travolta and wants to re-do his own Gulfstream cabin.

   Verne

   If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to cut it up and make something with it . . . what a waste!

1. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 16, 2009 07:04am | #9

   With oil trading at $35 a barrel and global equity and bond markets off 40%, a few of these sheiks may find themselves downsizing their A-380 plans. At any rate, I've never understood the logic behind commercial jets for private use considering the scarcity of airports you can land at compared to sub 90,000 lb jets. With a G550 you could fly from 7,500 miles at 51k feet faster than any commercial jet, and still land at a mid-sized regional airport. Of course, this doesn't take into account the mine is bigger than yours theory.

1. 
   Thorvald | Jan 17, 2009 12:16am | #11

   It's particularly challenging with an A-380 given that there are only a handfull of airports in the world that have adequate pavement for them.  But I don't think it will be an issue that I'll have to address in my life.Verne

   If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to cut it up and make something with it . . . what a waste!<!----><!----><!---->

1. 
   user-54856 | Jan 17, 2009 01:09am | #14

   So, to this point we know that woodworkers think aircraft are really neat. To return to or even expand the original idea of super-fancy cabinetry, some of the woodworking techniques and materials used in specialty areas like aircraft and yacht building may be largely unknown to the average woodworker. And yes, they may require machines we wouldn't have and materials more expensive than and with properties beyond our usual needs. But surely, there must be at least a few things worth exploring, if just for the fun of it. Sort of like, but going beyond, my occasional use of nonferrous metals to give strength to something of unusual shape or size. That honeycomb panel, for example. I'll bet that scraps of that are available somewhere and that I could both work it with standard woodworking tools and find a fun use for it. Maybe we should just expand this whole topic to experience with the use of any kind of UNUSUAL MATERIALS or FOUND OBJECTS in cabinet making, but lets not get too artsy or impractical.

1. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 01:22am | #16

   I know that Boeing regularly sell off used tools. I wonder if they sell not quite up to standard (seconds?) honeycomb panels?Cheers,Peter 

   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

2. 
   adastra001 | Jan 17, 2009 02:16am | #17

   One of my first shop jobs was for a company building a prototype of a carbon fiber experimental aircraft. I've never had a reason to use any of the techniques in furnituremaking but thats not to say I won't. Building a very lightweight rigid structure does open up some possibilities, I've just never come up with an idea that required it. But my stuff isn't too Avant Garde or whimsical.I do remember thinking how cool it was to pick up a 20 foot tail boom and flip it onto my shoulder like it was a 8 foot 2x4.

   
3. 
   user-54856 | Jan 17, 2009 02:52am | #18

   Really neat I admit. But not a stick of wood in sight. I'd bet some of that carbon fiber fabric could be a very interesting veneer in the right piece.

4. 
   Thorvald | Jan 17, 2009 05:39am | #22

   " . . . some of that carbon fiber fabric could be a very interesting veneer in the right piece."

    That, my friend, is a very cool idea!  I've never worked with the fabric, but I've built a number of fly rods on graphite blanks.  If you could achive the same translucent effects in the right application in combination with wood, you might achieve quite the result.  This is worth contemplating.  Challenge is the source of material.  Verne

   If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to cut it up and make something with it . . . what a waste!<!----><!----><!---->

5. 
   adastra001 | Jan 17, 2009 05:40am | #23

   Actually I always thought that the carbon would make the substrate for the veneer. I'm not that into the "Fast & the Furious" carbon fiber look.But for very thin shelves or extreme cantilever, maybe oversize butterfly doors a foam or honeycomb core with skins of carbon and then veneered would be pretty cool. However as I said I've never designed anything that required the properties of carbon fiber composite construction.

6. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 17, 2009 05:45am | #24

   one thing carbon would be very useful for is curves and other intricate shapes that could be veneered.

2. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 01:17am | #15

   It is not so much the pavement as much as the airport infrastructure to load and unload 500+ people at the same time. And there is consideration for having 2-3 of those beasts arrive around the same time. It can land and take off on any runway that can accommodate a current wide body airliner. Taxiways around the congested terminal areas have to modified in some cases.I am sure that Mr. Moneybags and his harem would not be using the main terminal in any event.Man oh man, the very rich really are different from you and I.Cheers,Peter 

   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

1. 
   Thorvald | Jan 17, 2009 05:32am | #21

   Peter,

   You're right that terminal facilities are an issue; however, have to disagree regarding pavement.  I'm an airport planner by day, and while I don't fly for a living, I can tell you that pavement is an issue where the A-380 is concerned.  You can indeed land one on a lot of runways, but the airport owner won't appreciate what you do to the surface.  But then, as you say, the guy who owns one probably ain't too concerned about that either. 

   By the way, one of your colleagues just did a hell of a job in NY.Verne

   If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to cut it up and make something with it . . . what a waste!<!----><!----><!---->

2. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 07:37am | #25

   More tires to spread the load. Anywhere a 340, 777, 747 etc can use, it will accommodate the 380. Think about it. In airline use it will be restricted to the major airports due to the aforementioned reasons. London, NYC, LAX, CDG and so on. Have you heard that they are digging up and reinforcing the runways in all these places? Of course not. It is designed to operate at existing airports.BTW, the big Russian cargo carriers weigh as much as this thing and they have been operating at airports all over the world for a while.Re the recent ditching...holy sh*t. That was one hell of a feat of airmanship. We cannot practice that in a simulator due I suspect to the lack of data. Our manuals tell us the theory to achieve a successful water landing. One thing to read about it and another to do it successfully. Things degenerate very fast in these circumstances.Cheers,Peter 
   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...Edited 1/16/2009 11:44 pm by PeterDurand

   Edited 1/16/2009 11:45 pm by PeterDurand

3. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 17, 2009 08:14am | #26

   that's not entirely true. Many airports did widen and reinforce taxiways (JFK terminal 1 originally budgeted $120m in modifications to accommodate the A380) to meet FAA Engineering Brief No. 63B which mandates 75 ft taxiways. Most runways can accommodate the A380 for the reason you point out. The bigger issue is availability of service vehicles capable of reaching the height of the A380, gate modifications to allow for boarding processes at multiple points, and tractors that can move the heavier craft. The cost to airports was far lower than originally projected but the effort undertaken to handle this aircraft was still significant.

4. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 03:39pm | #27

   Your post 22 referred to runways. <<You can indeed land one on a lot of runways, but the airport owner won't appreciate what you do to the surface. >> That was the reason for my reply. I touched on the taxiway and gate issues in a previous post. It was my impression that service vehicles and tractors come under the general responsibility of the aircraft operator. Landing fees are based on weight. Which would lead me to believe that that factors into the upkeep for said facilities.Cheers,Peter 
   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

   Edited 1/17/2009 7:44 am by PeterDurand

2. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 01:06am | #13

   Big difference in elbow room in the airliner conversions compared to the G550. And, BTW, you really want to avoid flying higher than the low 40s for radiation reasons. Trust me on this. I just retired from flying airliners for the last 35 years.Cheers,Peter 

   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

1. 
   Woodman41 | Jan 17, 2009 04:09am | #20

   plus the toilets freeze at 51k.

2. 
   Jfrostjr | Jan 17, 2009 04:24pm | #28

   "you really want to avoid flying higher than the low 40s for radiation reasons."Have there been any studies on the Concorde pilots. That plane flew at 55,000' - 60,000' whenever supersonic.Frosty"I sometimes think we consider the good fortune of the early bird and overlook the bad fortune of the early worm." FDR - 1922

1. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 05:18pm | #29

   I recall reading somewhere that they did have some sort of radiation meter/counter in that aircraft. The exposure was relatively brief.There have been long term studies on more conventional (sub sonic) airline crew exposure. It is an ongoing thing. Rule of thumb is that anything below 33,000 feet is OK. 37K and higher is where the concern lies. Bear in mind I am talking about exposure over the long term. Flight crews and passengers who fly as much as (or more in a number of cases) them.It can also be a day to day concern. For example the North American to Asia true polar routes. Place a string on a globe from NY to Beijing for instance. You will see it is the shortest route. And there is little wind at altitude over the polar regions. That makes it the preferred way to go. Unfortunately solar radiation comes into play. Airline dispatchers (and pilots) monitor this on a daily and/or hourly basis through various space agencies. If it reaches a certain level of activity the flight simply will not go the high polar route and will be routed on a much more southerly route. It is because the higher north you go (at cruising altitudes) the less protection there is due to the way the earth's magnetic field works. Of course there are other considerations that come into play such as present temperatures and the effect of cold soaking of fuel etc.Hope this helps.Cheers,Peter 

   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

2. 
   Shoemaker1 | Jan 17, 2009 07:15pm | #30

   Interesting thread!
   Unbelievable how Sulley landed that plane. How the hell do you fish a plane out of a river, I envision a crane operator with a real tight sphincter.
   back to the point. look at "Wooden Boat" magazine. they have a lot of info on and advertisers on composites and the like. I have read about some wood and metal systems to make light weight panels.As for the carbon fiber!! very hard on the lungsAt our local Mega agricultural fair there is a dealer that buys aero-space drills bits and tools. They resharpen and resell. These are drills that have done X# of cycles and are replaced, most with the head made to fit into a CNC mill.
   My friend showed this one bit about 3/8 diameter with a weird double cut edge. he gave it to me and a cordless drill and said shoot some holes in that 2x2 1/4 wall steel tube. I said get some more batteries. He said shut up and drill. I did It was like a hot knife through butter. Could not believe how slick it was. and you can't break the buggers. I have a 1/8 inch I use to predrill holes in everything and I would have went threw 30 regular bits. a bag of assorted sizes 12 $ or individuals cost unsure. If I remember it's called" the bit lady" try Google.A friend of mine outfitted a bus as a mobile mammography unit. Had to cut weight on everything to accommodate for the radiation cage weight.Did you ever make a balsa wood airplane as a kid?

3. 
   PeterDurand | Jan 17, 2009 07:24pm | #31

   <<Did you ever make a balsa wood airplane as a kid?>>As a matter of fact, I did. :-) 

   Better life through Zoodles and poutine...

3. 
   RalphBarker | Jan 17, 2009 03:11am | #19

   I tend to agree. I find the G550 to be adequate most of the time, but the A-380 is handy for when I want to fly with a few hundred of my closest friends (or, all of the wives). ;-)

4. 
   gboot | Jan 17, 2009 12:36am | #12

   A few years back I purchased a sequential set of highly figured Cherry veneer from a person on Ebay who had access to the cast-offs from the airline industry.