Date: 06 Sep 97 02:55:09 From: "matt weber" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
iota <email@example.com> wrote in article <airliners.1997.2025@ohare.Chicago.COM>... > In article <airliners.1997.1998@ohare.Chicago.COM>, "Stefano P. Pagiola" <Spagiola@worldbank.org> wrote: > > >There is a weight penalty to painting, > > There is a weight penalty, but isn't this offset by the reduction of > dirty air over the fuselage? Actually only Airbus aircraft have to be painted, but I think even that is changing. Boeing was always very careful to make sure that body panels and external metal parts were always machined and finished in the same direction, so they all look the same. As a result many Boeing aircraft have minimal if any paint on them at all. Airbus didn't realize this was a problem until fairly late in the game. Airbus planes traditionally were machined and finished whichever way was most convenient, The result is the aircraft looked like the proverbial checkerboard (pretty awful) if it wasn't painted The difference direction of finishing causes each panel to appear slightly different in bright light. As a result Airbus aircraft almost never have any exposed metal, they look pretty awful if they do. I would add that while the appear looks lousy, it has no impact on the performance of the aircraft at all. It was strictly an appearance problem. There is indeed a weight penalty for paint, and on a wide body it is sizeable, however on an airbus, if you don't do it, it looks it was built by a bunch of rank amateurs, and that doesn't sit too well with the travelling public, so the PR cost would be higher than the weight penalty.