The structures area, for its character of integration of various systems, its weight and cost in the full aircraft is critical for the competitiveness of the aeronautical industry. The BetterSky project has increased the efficiency of the aero structures development process while reducing manufacturing costs, the qualification time and the components weight, with results far exceeding the initial objectives. The validation was obtained through the production and test of samplers which were studied in order to determine opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the aeronautical structures development process.
Overview
The BetterSky project, which took place between 2012 and 2015, proposed a new approach of aeronautical development, introducing new technologies and materials, new forms of testing, innovative monitoring systems and new methodologies for design and qualification of aerostructures on a "better design” environment.
BetterSky also contributed to the capacity building of the technological base to support the national aeronautical cluster.
Activities developed
BetterSky was developed by a consortium including CEiiA, EEA, PIEP and Critical Materials, in which CEiiA was responsible for integrating the technical expertise. The project increased the know-how of methodologies, materials, technologies, equipment and tests in aeronautics.
The BetterSky project was based on three innovation lines that have been implemented across the activities of design, structural analysis, material selection, prototyping and definition of testing methodologies, namely:
Methodologies of design and qualification of aerostructures;
Application and demonstration of new materials and more competitive manufacturing technologies;
New technologies and equipment integration in test benches, with special focus on multifunctionality of structures and systems integration and sensing for testing monitoring and inspection operations.
Results surpass initial goals
The results were extremely positive and exceeded the goals set at the beginning of the project. The following table compares the "before" and "after."
