> One area that's crying out for super-lightweight paints is the aviation sector. Airliners, according to Simple Flying, carry between 272-544 kg )600-1,200 lb) of paint – and everything an aircraft carries has a direct impact on fuel efficiency.
The vast majority of that weight is in the white paint on the body of the plane, which has to be thick because of mechanical abrasion in flight so that weight is largely unavoidable.
Also, "hundreds of kilograms" is not a lot if you consider how much the rest of the plane weighs --- a 737 MAX is ~100k lbs empty, so this is less than 1% of its empty weight, and a 747 is between 300-500k lbs empty.
Then again, given how airlines would cram in even 1 more passenger if they could, and the absolute minimum robustness of other mechanisms on a plane as a result of weight-saving, I think they will still chase after <1% gains.
Flying a jet at 600 mph through dusty air is abrasive. The paint protects the aluminum from corrosion and abrasion. If chemical and mechanical barrier is too thin, the metal will become damaged.
Is aircraft-grade Hemp Composite lighter than fiberglass?
Aircraft-grade hemp composite appears to have a lower density than fiberglass, and greater tensility.
How does the greater tensility of [hemp-based] biocomposite wings and fuselages change the flight characteristics?
.
I remember seeing a YouTube video about how there are newer ways of laying down a round fiberglass fuselage that are much more efficient than basically additive lathing?
.
Speaking of aerospace-grade HEMP biocomposites instead of paint on fiberglass,
"These machines tend to be operational for several decades – provided they don't have 'Boeing,' '737' and 'Max' written on them – so there could yet be a strong business case for these ultra-thin structural color inks once they're ready for production."
Readit News
The vast majority of that weight is in the white paint on the body of the plane, which has to be thick because of mechanical abrasion in flight so that weight is largely unavoidable.
Then again, given how airlines would cram in even 1 more passenger if they could, and the absolute minimum robustness of other mechanisms on a plane as a result of weight-saving, I think they will still chase after <1% gains.
It's a lot more than you'd think: https://www.kiwi.com/stories/united-prints-lighter-magazine-...
Reports annual savings of about $300k by shaving a few grams off each of the pamphlets they stick in the seats.
Being on a plane is the single safest place you could possible be at any time as a human.
Aircraft-grade hemp composite appears to have a lower density than fiberglass, and greater tensility.
How does the greater tensility of [hemp-based] biocomposite wings and fuselages change the flight characteristics?
.
I remember seeing a YouTube video about how there are newer ways of laying down a round fiberglass fuselage that are much more efficient than basically additive lathing?
.
Speaking of aerospace-grade HEMP biocomposites instead of paint on fiberglass,
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39064549 :
> Would there be advantages to a tensile biocomposite with Starlite and/or Firepaste e.g. as a coating or blended?
> Can Starlite be used as heat shielding for [biocomposite] civilian rockets, and how would the reentry emissions differ?
LOL. Becomes a meme.
Dead Comment