GLARE vs. Carbon Composites

A few days ago, I read about GLARE a material created by a Dutch company called TNO. It is a composite made of aluminium sandwiched is fibreglass. Airbus is said to use GLARE extensively on the A380, however there have reports that the material did not live up to its hype, and that it proved unsuccessful on the Beluga (Airbus cargo plane). The reports indicate that the material has been scraped from the A350. Does GLARE have a future?

From what you've said, no.

I know a couple of fellas did work with it in holland, they didn't indicate any big problems with it... although maybe there are problems and they didn't tell me.

If I get talking to them and remember to ask I'll post back.

Kaman Aerospace has been using aluminum sandwiched with fiberglass since the 1970's. When I worked for them in 1988 we were making the wing flaps for the C-5B cargo plane. The main structure of the flaps is an aluminum fiberglass bondment with aluminum foil honeycomb to give rigidity. Number 1 wing flap was 24 ft wide 22 ft long and 18 inches thick. Four men could pick it up and carry it.

That GLARe is nothing that a 70's composite. I don't know why Airbus makes such noise about it. Also it is very rare that they don'u use Carbon composites (carbon fibre, carbon carbon) and so on...

70's Tec is correct ,even as they were still laying that up there was
alot, building kevlar skins (were talking mid 80's to very early 91) we did
Boeing (Helicopters CH-47D in late 80's,most side skins and pontoons ) all
Kevlar (still very light ,way stonger still than that build of GLARE of today .
When composites debuted and took off in the early 90's (with AeroSpace(civillian)So I would have to go back and review alot of information from them to belive that they use that ? lol There AirCraft like our AirCraft is made out of the Best materials out there .

The nice thing about composits like carbon fiber and Kevlar is that if you orient the threads correctly you can eliminate fatigue cracking. You do run the risk of delamination but that is alot easier to check for, all you need is a quarter. I have seen where aluminum has been sandwiched with Kevlar in layers on components where fatigue cracking is a problem. The Kevlar acts kind of like ripstop cloth and prevents a crack from spreading. We placed panels like this when we enclosed the windows on a 747 that was being converted into a cargo aircraft.

Just picking up on the above, with composites depending on which way you lie up the plys you can tailor the strength in directions so weight is not wasted.

Glare was probably introduced as certification for full composites is very hard to obtain until the technology is mature, so Glare is a intrim measure until full composites are allowed extensively on commerical aircraft. Same reason smart materials are not used on commericall aircraft (yet).

Originally posted by carcharodon
That GLARe is nothing that a 70's composite. I don't know why Airbus makes such noise about it. Also it is very rare that they don'u use Carbon composites (carbon fibre, carbon carbon) and so on...

OK, can answer this now, learned this today:

Carbon Carbon composites are not used as they are too brittle. On bird strike tests on wing root leading edges, a bird will go straight through a carbon-carbon wing skin, but not through a glare skin, due to the aluminium.

Also, GLARE is out of there - Airbus are no longer gonna use it.

glare is meant to be better for impacts compared to carbon fibre which is why airbus used it on the leading edges etc

however there is the material CentrAl which is made from glare and other materials and is supposed to be even better.. any thoughts?

Hmm, lots of misconceptions in this thread.

Originally posted by carcharodon
A few days ago, I read about GLARE a material created by a Dutch company called TNO. It is a composite made of aluminium sandwiched is fibreglass. Airbus is said to use GLARE extensively on the A380, however there have reports that the material did not live up to its hype, and that it proved unsuccessful on the Beluga (Airbus cargo plane). The reports indicate that the material has been scraped from the A350. Does GLARE have a future?

Firstly, GLARE is well used on the A380, and its not yet had any issues -0 the problem Airbus has with GLARE, and the sole reason its not used on the A350, is because its more expensive than the alternatives, and the cost reduction that Airbus expected to happen when GLARE manufacturing went mainstream didnt happen, so it remained more expensive.

GLARE has passed all the tests thrown at it, and Airbus are very happy with it.

Secondly, the Beluga aircraft were built from 1995 onward, well before the A380 design was complete - if GLARE was not performing well on the Belugas, then it simply wouldnt have been used for the A380, since Airbus did afterall have 7 years of Beluga operational data to go over in that regard.

If the cost of GLARE comes down, then in many cases it will replace CFRP since it has better properties in some regards.

Originally posted by carcharodon
That GLARe is nothing that a 70's composite. I don't know why Airbus makes such noise about it. Also it is very rare that they don'u use Carbon composites (carbon fibre, carbon carbon) and so on...

Until the 787, Airbus used carbon composites much more than Boeing - and they will overtake Boeing again with the A350XWB. Airbus was using CFRP parts (even structural parts) back in the 1970s.

Oh, and your opinion about GLARE is ludicrous.

The goalposts for the argument are moving.

Dailytech

It looks like Carbon Nanotube based lamina are the future, the link above explains that using such reinforcements should result in laminate strength comparable to the best current carbon composites (IM7) by year end.

Obviously the potential is barely scratched with CNT composites.

glare is much denser than CFRP but is it lighter (less of the material is required as it has better properties)??

i think another reason GLARE wont be used is because of CentrAl.. why use GLARE when there is an improved version of it