NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4291 posts, RR: 46 Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 16091 times:
HEre are coupe of articles which go into more details about the trouble with the barrel test sections that had bubbles, why it occured and how it is being rectified. It also addresses the other issues in the 787 bought up by the BusinessWeek article.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16045 times:
Actually, this makes the problem seem much less dramatic. They appear to know exactly what went wrong and how to go about fixing it:
>>> "The problem was the mandrel, Bair said. It was built some time ago and was too big. The mandrel changes size as it is heated in the autoclave and this must be taken into account when the fuselage barrel is made. Some of the material on this mandrel had been machined off to get it back to the proper size, Bair said, but as a result there were places that leaked. That's why too many bubbles formed during the curing.
Bair said engineers knew there was some risk of this happening.
"We made a judgment that we could make this work," Bair said. "It turned out we didn't."
By making two more test barrels, Bair said, engineers can do the required certification testing on both barrels at the same time and keep to the schedule." <<<
I think a combination of sensationalist journalism and some irresponsible people itching to fulfill their own loyalties blew this issue a little out of proportion. The article does note that eight of the nine test sections performed as desired, including the more complicated nose and tail sections.
DAYflyer From United States, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16032 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): The article does note that eight of the nine test sections performed as desired, including the more complicated nose and tail sections.
That aint a bad batting average. Especially for something like this that has never been done on this scale before.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9773 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15908 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): I think a combination of sensationalist journalism and some irresponsible people itching to fulfill their own loyalties blew this issue a little out of proportion.
Dismissing, playing down, discrediting sources are text book procedures in these cases. People weren't/aren't so sensitive towards the A380 when any wild rumor / half quote is/was good enough to draw far reaching conclusions.
Personally I would not qualify Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter as sensationalist and irresponsible.
While Bair admitted the 787 is still about 2.5 percent over its target weight, he said that target includes an extra safety margin beyond what's needed to meet the fuel-efficiency promises made to airlines.
NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4291 posts, RR: 46 Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15800 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): Personally I would not qualify Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter as sensationalist and irresponsible.
DfwRevolution is not calling the Seattle Times author irresponsible or sensationalistic. He's talking about the BusinessWeek author of the original story.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): Dismissing, playing down, discrediting sources are text book procedures in these cases. People weren't/aren't so sensitive towards the A380 when any wild rumor / half quote is/was good enough to draw far reaching conclusions.
Leave it to Keesje to bring something totally irrelevent into the discussion.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): delays too, also at Boeing.
1) no one ever said Boeing is immune to problems during product development
2) As Mike Bair pointed out the 787 is still due to be delivered on time to ANA in early 2008.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15863 posts, RR: 64 Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 15766 times:
Keesje point is valid that many times when a negative article about Airbus or it's products is quoted here on airliners.net, many Airbus supporters attack the objectivity/nationality of the reporter/source. So when Boeing supporters do the same about negative articles about their company and products...
I also found the BusinessWeek article's title to be "sensationalist" since "on a wing and a prayer" is often used as a colloquealism (sic) in the US to mean "on luck alone".
Just as many of the issues reported about Airbus proved to be, after deeper and more critical examination, to not be as program-impacting as the headlines implied they were, so seems to be the case with the 787 on this particular issue.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15422 times:
"We have informed the [US Federal Aviation Administration] and they have approved the plan."
Boeing adds that "while this was a pop-up for sure, this is why we are doing it. It’s all about proving the technology at the development stage. If this was the first production barrel then we’d be very upset."
In the meantime other software integration issues have cropped up as part of the the development of a “software package that covers the lifecycle of the aircraft - from design to manufacturing to support”, the company acknowledges. “There have been cases when some software systems have had challenges talking to each other. We are developing solutions among the systems as we do more and more integration and the entire system is maturing...
PolymerPlane From United States, joined May 2006, 810 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15199 times:
I thought those sections are not even a flight worthy sections. They are sort of proof of concept sections and engineering trial. For an R&D section, 8 out of 9 is extremely successful. So where is the problem? It's not even in prototype phase yet. They still have almost a year to sort out the manufacturing problem and fine tune it to reduce the variance and get flight worthy parts.
Engineering is about trial and error. Especially working with polymer curing, you just never know which recipe will give you the least amount of defect and the best mechanical properties. If you ever work in R&D and found yourself is at 80% success rate, you will be the luckiest person in the world.
EbbUK From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 906 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15150 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): I think a combination of sensationalist journalism and some irresponsible people itching to fulfill their own loyalties blew this issue a little out of proportion.
So no problems then, so long as Seattle PI puts a call into to old chum Bair who says no problem, then there is no problem. I mean if there was a smidge of a problem, Bair would tell us in his honest blog.
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15150 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 10): Engineering is about trial and error. Especially working with polymer curing, you just never know which recipe will give you the least amount of defect and the best mechanical properties. If you ever work in R&D and found yourself is at 80% success rate, you will be the luckiest person in the world.
It sounds to me that the failed section was made on a new mandrel that was itself made in a different way. That is the source of the problem.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 2341 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15023 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 12): It sounds to me that the failed section was made on a new mandrel that was itself made in a different way. That is the source of the problem.
"The failure stemmed from a leak in the mold around which resin-soaked carbon fiber tape is wrapped in the initial stage of fabrication. The one that failed was made using a different drumlike mold, called a mandrel, adjusted in a bid to gain some improvements.
.
.
.
The mandrel that failed was made by Janicki Industries, a high-tech company in Sedro-Woolley. With 450 employees, the Skagit County company specializes in making tooling out of composite materials. It's a key player in the 787 manufacturing plan.
As an experiment with Boeing to try to improve durability, Janicki had changed the resin mix in the composite material it used to make the mandrel that failed.
In addition, said Bair, some final remachining of that mandrel, made necessary when Boeing changed the engineering specifications for the fuselage, had left it too thin in some areas.
Bair said Boeing will go back to the former resin mix, which had produced "very good and very consistent" results, and will make the two replacement barrels on a Janicki mandrel with that proven formula.
"We're completely confident we've got the processes we need in order to put this airplane into production," Bair said.
Beaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 40 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14944 times:
Tend to agree that one should not over-emphasize the Businessweek article.
PolymerPlane answer 10 sums it up quite correctly- it's all about proof of concept stage and not yet any production type assembly.
It remains a terrible challenge and outsourcing new key-technologies to third parties (who are often competitors among each other..) bears lot's of risc.
Looking forward to see the first 787 take to the skies with 100% admiration and expectation...
Dan2002 From United States, joined Dec 2002, 2049 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14672 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11): So no problems then, so long as Seattle PI puts a call into to old chum Bair who says no problem, then there is no problem. I mean if there was a smidge of a problem, Bair would tell us in his honest blog.
Seems to be exactly what he has done! Unlike Airbus, "Problems, no, hell, we are AHEAD of schedule!"
A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15863 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14234 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11): So no problems then, so long as Seattle PI puts a call into to old chum Bair who says no problem, then there is no problem.
Looks that way. Seems they tried a new process on a out-of-spec tool and it, somewhat unsurprisingly, didn't work. Since they do have a process and in-spec tool that they know does work (it's 8 for 8), they will move forward with that tool.
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11): I am satisfied that the 787 is fine.
797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14131 times:
Quoting 707lvr (Reply 9): Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 4):
Boeing is by no means immune from these issues. The first 747's had horrible problems with the engines as I recall.
Indeed! And that was only a bit less than forty years ago.
Could that be the reason why they have to sell such an old derivative one-by-one in the new version???
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9773 posts, RR: 51 Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13689 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 13): As an experiment with Boeing to try to improve durability, Janicki had changed the resin mix in the composite material it used to make the mandrel that failed
Composites issues (demanding production process control, damage detection, lightning, electro magnetic complications, unpredictable strenght, reliable repairs on the platform, etc.) have been known for decades with everybody who ever worked / studied composites.
The majority a.net however had to deny / dismiss because it was Boeing & the 7e7. With the 787 taking shapes reality is kicking in. Composites=composites. No room for miracles & propaganda. Prove the FAA/EASA.
Katekebo From United States, joined Apr 2001, 657 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13600 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Composites issues (demanding production process control, damage detection, lightning, electro magnetic complications, unpredictable strenght, reliable repairs on the platform, etc.) have been known for decades with everybody who ever worked / studied composites.
The majority a.net however had to deny / dismiss because it was Boeing & the 7e7. With the 787 taking shapes reality is kicking in. Composites=composites. No room for miracles & propaganda. Prove the FAA/EASA.
Keesje,
So what's your point? The article clearly states that they made 8 sections using a proven method, and all 8 sections were OK. Then they tried to experiment with new materials and the attempt was not successful. All they have to do to go back to the proven mix and make the 9th section again. A dissapointment? Yes. A failure? No. It's good to see them experimenting and pushing the envolope - some ideas will succed, most will fail. The final result will be a better airplane that will be even faster and cheaper to build than what Boeing and partners originally assumed.
Or shall they stick to outdated production methods and materials and make an uncompetitive airplane like the A350?
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9773 posts, RR: 51 Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13406 times:
Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 20): The only full composite airplane so far - Beechcraft Starship never had any *issues* with its composite structure.
This must be a joke, right? At the beginning of the Starship program the projected empty weight was 7,693 lbs. By the time the program was killed, empty weight had grown to 10,085 lbs. Probably for the same reason the 787 is gaining weight: "extra safety margin"
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18406 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13316 times:
Quoting 707lvr (Reply 9): Indeed! And that was only a bit less than forty years ago.
ROFL
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Glideslope From United States, joined May 2004, 1319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13316 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 18): Composites issues (demanding production process control, damage detection, lightning, electro magnetic complications, unpredictable strenght, reliable repairs on the platform, etc.) have been known for decades with everybody who ever worked / studied composites.
The majority a.net however had to deny / dismiss because it was Boeing & the 7e7. With the 787 taking shapes reality is kicking in. Composites=composites. No room for miracles & propaganda. Prove the FAA/EASA.
ROFLOL. Your a blast. Everyone knows their composite issues? So what's the problem in Talouse? A lack of engineering skill perhaps?
"He wins his battles by making no mistakes." Sun Tzu
No, it is not a joke. You clearly referred in your above post to problems with strength, repairs, lightning, damage detection, etc. But if you don't have any meaningful arguments the only thing remaining is to change the subject on the fly.
Remcor From United States, joined Feb 2006, 329 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13281 times:
Can anyone explain why the mandrel needs to be composite?
It's just a big piece of tooling, it doesn't need to go on the plane. I understand that a steel mandrel weighs 110,000 lbs, but who cares? Parts that heavy have been lifted and rotated before.
Hmm... could it be a heating issue? That's 110,000 lbs of steel that needs to be heated in the autoclave.
And why won't aluminum cut it? Not for the structural parts of the mandrel, but the parts that touch the cabin.
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1544 posts, RR: 47 Reply 25, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13281 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21): This must be a joke, right? At the beginning of the Starship program the projected empty weight was 7,693 lbs. By the time the program was killed, empty weight had grown to 10,085 lbs.
Comparing apples with grapes, Keesje? Hope that "at the beginning of the program" doesn't refer to the subscale prototype?!
The Starship program wasn't killed due to weight issues, anyway. The canard pusher configuration wasn't up to the task, hence overall performance was inferior to the KingAir, no to mention the Avanti. Certification was a protracted effort due to unfavorable stall characteristics IIRC, in the end arrays of vortex generators had to do the trick.
Keep On Doing What You're Doing But Make It Funky
26 Keesje: The original design was to be less than the FAA's 12,500 lb. limit for non type rated operation. But after the FAA was done beefing up the airframe th
27 Remcor: Ahh, it's explained in the 2nd article. It's a thermal expansion issue. That makes sense.
28 PolymerPlane: What does this have anything to do with B787?!?! The comet managed to implode mid air, yet the 707, DC-8 and A320 did not have the same fate. So, wha
29 Saturn5: Yes, Starship never met its design goals. It was the first aircraft of its kind and everyone was learning, including the FAA that was certifying the a
30 787engineer: No one's denying or dismissing these issues with composites, obviously there are disadvantages with any material, and that's where the engineering co
31 Baron95: That is exactly right. Why can't a publication with the resources of Business Week publish the nature of the problem instead of alluding to "wing and
32 JAL: At least they're being honest about it plus they do know what the problem is.
33 PolymerPlane: Yup, and not blaming it to customer for wanting an even bigger window Cheers, PP
34 LTBEWR: I would be worried if there were no reported problems with the building a new aircraft, especially one of such advanced structural technology. That Bo
35 Molykote: As far as the early 747 engine problems you are referring to, I can only assume that you are talking about the carcass bending issues encountered wit
37 HB88: Hmm. I don't know. I read both articles and while they didn't strike me as being particularly sensationalistic, they have obviously struck some fairly
39 Abba: There are certainly certain people here who are making great fools of themselves not being able to discuss the problems facing the 787 with some obje
40 Jacobin777: that's fine, but only where its warranted...some comments here are nothing more than 1/2 truths...which need to be pointed out...
41 HB88: One thing which IMO works against Airbus, and seems to be one of the root causes of a lot of complaint on a.net about the candour of Airbus, is that
42 Rheinbote: Absolutely. That's why Airbus should be just happy that Boeing is taking care of the required trail-blazing with the certification authorities. In te
43 Abba: Would you happily do the same when 1/2 truths....are presented about Airbus? Abba
44 Elvis777: Howdy Abba There are certainly certain people here who are making great fools of themselves not being able to discuss the problems facing the A380 wha
46 PolymerPlane: Not really, it is not about getting through too many bureaucracy. In fact when in comes to Boeing bashing, Airbus's management speaks very easily and
47 BoomBoom: Pertty lame excuse. Leahy is their biggest problem and English is his mother tongue. Furthermore, if "this geographic spread also means that messages
48 Abba: They are indeed few and far in between - and certainly does not include you!! eh? It seems to me that you are much more than happy to go for 1/3 trut
49 JayinKitsap: Boeing (as all US traded public stock companies) has been forced by laws like Sarbanes - Oxley et all to be much more transparent. This is exaberated
50 Glacote: I am glad and sad at the same time. Glad to see that people eventually come to understand that the major challenge for Boeing lies in these small bubb
51 RoseFlyer: Well this seems like a problem that can be dealt with. I've worked in testing of aerospace components and the point of testing is to find problems. Su
52 PolymerPlane: What does this have to do with maintenance? This is production defect, which involve presence of bubble inside a composite matrix. Of course it canno
53 Tugger: You can do that yourself as a reader of BW. Why does everyone always suggest that "someone else" do what they think should be done. They did "hide" t
54 Elvis777: Howdy Abba, are we in agreement? That there are many people in tghe EADS camp that are not objective when it comes to discusing the problems that affe
55 Jacobin777: well....I guess its time to put it to proof.... 1) 747-8: Boeing Not Worried About Lack Of Sales (by RedFlyer Jun 1 2006 in Civil Aviation) 2) RE: Ai
56 Hb88: Hmm. No. It's not an excuse, I was relating a personal observation from experience at Airbus - such as publicising progress on the A380, handling del
57 Stitch: Actually, they have, and Blair explained it when he said the barrels one through eight were fine. What people keep...conveniently...forgetting to not
58 Johnny: Does anybody know how many test-airplanes boeing will use? First-flight august 2007 and delivery early (whatever that meens) 2008 seems a bit to tight
59 Atmx2000: I seem to recall 8 or 9 being tossed around here.
60 PolymerPlane: Well, this piece is not meant to be presented to investors, regulators, and/or certifier. It was a test barrel. Read carefully in the article, the ba
61 A380900: This is clearly an attempt by Boeing to do some damage control after the Business Week article. The Seattle Times is their media outlet of choice for
62 Elvis777: Howdy A380900 You may very well be right. But just to satisfy my curiosity, as I've only heard the opposite of what you say and I am not a regular rea
63 Atmx2000: Of course it is damage control. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate to do so and the information is accurate and that the BusinessWeek a
64 Stitch: Not to mention isn't Business Week owned and published in the United States? If the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I cannot be trusted because they are i
65 Jacobin777: nah PolymerPlane...u're completely wrong.., this was THE barrel that was going to be shown to investors, tradshows, Farnborough... as well as the FAA
66 Tugger: You have no evidence of anything that should cause you to impugn the paper making the report. you are making an assumption because of where it is loc
67 PolymerPlane: Yes, yes and all customers will see the bubbles and decide to cancel all of their orders, which leave blue panorama as the sole launch airline. Just
69 BoomBoom: But you give credit to Business Week unless, of course, they say something bad about Airbus. Then they're just another pro-Boeing rag.
70 Leelaw: Some members of the forum are under the mistaken illusion that in order to "pander" to the local readership, the Seattle media outlets must ignore, s
71 Glacote: OK had missed this one. Why did they change the process? My point on the ultrasonic material was not for bubble - it was that to investigate the prop
72 Atmx2000: Compared to France, where the media is mostly either government owned or owned by defense contractors? Yep, they are controlled by Comintern.
73 Rheinbote: According to Aviation Leak Boeing is going to use 6 787-8, plus 2 each for the -3 and the -9 for flight testing. Another question is...how many of th
74 Abba: The question is what they mean by "fine". Fine might mean up to expectations at this stage - or airworthy. Note that they make this distinction conce
75 Joni: Well, they published information Boeing gave them. Boeing chose to concentrate on the part of the BW article they could credibly address and didn't (
76 Lumberton: Way OT, but you should qualify your source. Noam Chomsky is: If you want a counter opinion on all things U.S., Chomsky is right there. Sort of like R
77 Leelaw: IIRC, the last flight-test aircraft retained which was designed exclusively by Boeing, was a 752 (MSN 22212, L/N #1, first flight 18 Feb. 1982) which
78 Atmx2000: This was the most dramatic claim, the subcontractor and SW issues are to be expected, and Bair claimed they would meet guarantees as such, though the
79 Stitch: The article explained why - Boeing wanted to see if they could make the sections quicker and lighter, so they modified the production material. They
80 Joni: Well well, argumenta ad hominem? Truth be told, I didn't quite understand why certain people would so consistently criticize US foreign policy until
81 Baron95: The issue is not that complicated to understand (but hard to execute). The mandrel has to withstand very high pressures and temperatures on the autocl
82 Lumberton: Hit a nerve, huh? The man, his politics, and his arguments, cannot be taken in isloation of each other. OK, just for your schools!
83 Atmx2000: Of course that ignores the fact the North Vietnamese were the ones who supported the Khmer Rouge's ascent into power in Cambodia in the first place.
84 Abba: I do not think that they were experimenting with these alloys when they were building the plane.... Seems to me that they are doing research now on t
85 JayinKitsap: All fuse parts made at the Boeing Research center are being made on a line that is not the production line. As other posts noted, the new plants with
86 Atmx2000: The resin in question was the resin being used to make the tooling, specifically the composite mandrel around which carbon fiber is wrapped to make t
87 BoomBoom: Do you have ANY evidence to back that up? Is that like Finland backing the Nazis to harm the Soviet Union?
88 PolymerPlane: WTH are you talking about? Of course the resin has been tested. It was probably tested on an instron, in a form of cylinder to test the mechanical pr
89 SeJoWa: Joni, if you harbor some respect for your fellow aviation enthusiasts, how about opening a thread on your subject where it belongs? You don't really t
90 Keesje: Yeah, and Osama, Sadam too. History books can be sobering. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html The A380 central torsion bo
91 MCIGuy: Yet you question the viability of the same technology when it's used by Boeing?
92 PolymerPlane: No it's not, and it's not pressurized. Compare it yourself, A380 torsion box slide 9 http://library.corporate-ir.net/libr...5/75598/items/176135/HXL1
93 BoomBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US....html Perhaps I should have asked for any "credible evidence". Just because something appears o
94 Atmx2000: BS, Keesje. Osama himself said that wasn't true. Given the numerous obvious errors, calling that thing a history book is an insult to real history bo
95 SeJoWa: On topic: Precisely, Airbus was pretty innovative regarding the use of fibre reinforced composites. I'd say the center wing section of the A380 is qui
97 Zeke: Dont see any reason to fuss over this, its standard engineering development, problems will arise, so will solutions. Reading the comments above, in su
98 Abba: That's not how I understood the article... But you might be right. Though it is somewhat strange that this happens at about the same time as their ma
99 Glacote: As said before it's not pressurized and (most importantly) it's not weave-baked. It's an hexagonal (bee's nest). Plus its not the same material. Beoi
100 PolymerPlane: Did you check underneath your table? Maybe there's a rotten rat there . What's so strange? the dude will not get fired because of one barrel does not
101 Ikramerica: I am "sad" that you are willing to make a stupid claim like that. The bubble issues, have IN FACT, been addressed at this point in the programme. You
102 Stitch: Mr. Gilette is required by Boeing corporate law to retire at 65 and, as noted by PolymerPlane, he is within a few months of that birthday. If 787 dev
103 Jacobin777: don't worry, I have yet to be disappointed by the particular A.net poster..
104 Abba: I do indeed hope that you are all right on this and that the future will prove me wrong. However, until then.... Abba
105 Revelation: You forgot the part about where the crack lead investigative reporter of the Twolouse Times, Jacques Tutite, uncovered evidence of bribes paid by Boe
106 Rheinbote: Wrong on at least one account. NASA tried this extensively during Advanced Subsonic Transport and Advanced Composite Technology programs, with large-
107 Keesje: So we better change your statement: to : "nobody ever build a pressurized CFRP structure that big, that has to be airworthy" so that's all set then.
108 Keesje: A bad, ill informed journalist. Obviously didn't take notice on what Boeing said on it. Flaws in 787 turn dream into Boeing's nightmare http://www.tim
109 87dreamin: ... And don't forget that Boeing stock is at a huge price right now. There are actually a pretty good number of senior Boeing folks pulling the plug
110 Aerodog: Is the weight gain 2.5% of empty weight or 2.5% of gross weight? Why is the Starship program important to the 787? In the early development phase of t
111 Abba: Thank's for a very informative post! Abba
112 Rheinbote: Abba, talking to yourself using a shadow account, eh? While there are a few facts in Aerodog's story, it is one of the most heavily spin-doctored pie
113 Parabolica: Gentlemen, I agree in essense with Aerodog on one thing, the 787's composite story is the "whipping boy" now. It is a delacate and expensive technolog
114 Abba: Could be. I found the historical part of it rather enlightening. For me it was good to get some information of what went on before Boeing decided to
115 Aerodog: Rheinbote, Aerodog will admit to being the world's most severe critic of composite aircraft. For over 40 years, we have been hearing that composites
116 Glacote: The challenge is not to build a composite barrel. It is to build reliable barrels at reasonable costs. Yes Amstrong touched the moon. Now where can I
117 Khobar: True though I read that the weight of a 787 fuselage barrel is less than 1/2 the weight of a 744 tail fin. I don't think Boeing has been parsimonious
118 Baron95: Wrong!!!! Boeing is taking a big risk for: 1 - Gain some fuel efficiency, as you correctly point out (that alone will represent tens of millions over
119 Leelaw: On tour with the 787: Dreamliner is on schedule Friday June 16, 2006 Boeing denied reports that its 787 program schedule has been affected by a fault
120 PolymerPlane: Aircraft's aluminum cannot be recycled to everyday use. It contains toxic components. BTW, aluminum aircrafts has also been placed as coral reefs rep
121 Abba: If it wasn't more than that. We must note that it is through the press we know about this. But I find - relative to the available press reports - tha
122 Joni: What's your point? The B787 is also much heavier than the 318 - so are composites very heavy after all...
123 Abba: In fact the 787-8 is much heavier than the 767-400ER even if their load (fuel and payload) is about the same... These numbers - I believe - do not ma
124 Boeing7E7: And naturally you were spot on with the Singapore Air issue...
125 Brendows: Abba, stop posting things based on your "facts". Data from the ACAP for the 764ER and the 788: Usable fuel for the 788: Volume: 126903litres, Mass: 1
126 Rheinbote: Composite primary structures are an enabler for (a.o.) 1. lean manufacturing - lower tooling cost -> $$$ - lower manufacturing/assembly cost -> $$$ -
127 PolymerPlane: Well, sorry if you can't catch my point. For further clarity, B787 and A350 as we know right now is in the same size and distance class. B787 is much
128 Abba: Oh dear - oh dear!!! Here we go again! I have checked my number many times as most people do not believe them at first as they somehow goes against e
129 Rheinbote: Very interesting. Can you eloborate on this a little?
130 Abba: I do not know much about this, but I have read at some point that the 330 is more like a glider and that the 787 is emulating this philosophy. I have
131 Aerodog: The Japanese will build the composite wing for the 787. They have experience in building composite wings. In 1995, the JDA (Japanese Defence Agency) o
132 Saturn5: The only 'truth' is that both A330 and 787 are both airplanes that try to squeeze every drop of efficiency from its wings based on the technology avi
133 PolymerPlane: Now you are much smarter and has access to better information than Boeing on composite materials? Don't you think Boeing's R&D team did not have acce
134 Aerodog: Boeing's decision to build the 787 from composites has brought forth some heated but civil discussions on this thread, which is more than what may be
135 PolymerPlane: Yeah and the scrap aluminum will only worth about $50k assuming all OEW is aluminum if 787 were made of aluminum. That's a lot of money for $140milli
136 PolymerPlane: Abba, if you do not read articles and statements from Boeing, please do not throw something unsubstantiated just for the sake of Boeing bashing. Bair
137 Aerodog: PolymerPlane, Are you assuming there is unanimity at Boeing regarding the 787. Let's review the Starship program. When management elected to procede w
138 NorCal: You give all of these examples of composite failures, but what about composite successes? Cirrus, Diamond, and Lancair all have very successful aircr
139 Saturn5: There are only two possibilities - either Aerodog is full of hot air and have no clue or Boeing just shot himself in the foot and committed mass suic
140 Abba: No you cannot. It is plain nonsense!! The 350 (as untill lately) has a much lager wing than the 787 (and even larger than the 330). It simply trades
141 Rheinbote: Aerodog, you seem to be something like a Don Quixote fighting composites instead of windmills. While you may have apoint with small business airplane
142 PolymerPlane: How can you explain 787-9 is lighter than 350-800? Clearly 797-9 is a larger plane than 350-8, and 787-9 is some 10 tons lighter than A350-800. A350
143 2H4: Today's prophets of doom and disaster with regard to composite airframe technology are absolutely no different than past critics of EFIS, or FBW, or
144 Baroque: Aha, I wondered why they did that. You could be right because Thailand continued to support them long after Ben Kiernan wrote The Killing Fields (198
145 Aerodog: Keep in mind, the title of this thread is "787 Problems". The title is not, "Repeat the Carefully Crafted Boeing Party Line" so as not to depress the
146 Abba: The so called "structual efficiency" number (as it is usually defined here) says next to nothing about overall efficiency of an aircraft when compare
147 PolymerPlane: Yes yes, back to the failed business jet and not mentioning the successful one BTW, Lockheed failed to deliver L1011 on time, McDD failed to deliver
148 2H4: ...So then, you are of the opinion that if a pilot project is not successful, the technology should be abandoned entirely? That's how your above stat
149 Rheinbote: You seem to be fixated on wing span and area. There's a boatload of further metrics and characteristics that make up a wing design philosophy. Compar
150 Abba: That is not how I read it. Rather, if your pilot project do not work out you should make it work out before scaling it up. I absolutely agree! It is
151 2H4: Is Boeing simply scaling past composite airframes up using the same composite materials, methods, and technologies used in the past? Are they not add
152 Rheinbote: How do you conclude that??? Your logic is flawed. Every Chinese boy has parents - you have parents. Does it mean you are a Chinese boy? 'Structural e
153 Abba: No I am not - I am only saying that it seems to me that you are over-interpreting what Aerodog was trying to say. They sure are. But wing "design phi
155 PolymerPlane: I found this website through google, it might not be accurate, but at least it gives us some idea. It says there 787 wing area is 347 m2, or about 4%
156 Aerodog: Tooling for a wet layup airplane is pretty easy, about anybody can do the molds. The empty weights for these aircraft are all high but in my opinion,
157 NorCal: Actually I have heard rumors about this plane too. I forget how wide the cabin is supposed to be, I heard a number and I was really surprised by it.
158 Aerodog: [quote=NorCal (Reply 157): Actually I have heard rumors about this plane too. I forget how wide the cabin is supposed to be, I heard a number and I wa
159 Abba: Ok - I have not seen any convincing independent evaluation confirming the assessment that the 350 is less fuel efficient than the 787. The closest I
160 NorCal: For some reason 48" sticks out in my mind, but I could be completely off. One other thing, the wings won't have the wing supports that we see on curr
161 PolymerPlane: I think the sales book tells all the story. In the era of high fuel price, fuel economy has become number 1 factor in aircraft purchase. When QF sele
162 Atmx2000: I suspect fuel economy should be pretty similar for the two aircraft on a per seat basis due, as the weight advantages for the 787 should be offset p
163 Rheinbote: So why do you keep telling that composites don't work? AGATE ran something like 1995-2001. By that time, there were much larger single-piece (maybe c
164 Johnny: @Rheinbote That is exactly Boeings problem , they are not able to develop the most ambitious things, the most advanced technologies by themseves. They
165 AerospaceFan: Well, isn't cooperation part of the possible spectrum of alternatives as an overall business model? One might also argue that Franco-German-British c
166 Rheinbote: I don't see why it is a problem to have partners providing the best knowledge available to your program? And how do you conclude that Boeing doesn't
167 Abba: In fact it allows for combining the best of the best from many different sources! Boeing (or Airbus) can then concentrate on doing what they are best
168 ElGreco: Sorry, but A or B are not linked to "countries", they are "Worldwide Companies", they don't care from which country technology is coming from. They j
169 Saturn5: This is simply not true. They could if they wanted. But you spread the risk/financial cost if you give work to others. Plus it is wise politically be
170 Johnny: @Saturn5 "If Boeing was financed by taxpayers like Airbus is - no doubt they would try to keep everything in-house." IF... ?!? P.S. Nice nickname - i
171 PolymerPlane: BCA is not financed by federal government at all. State tax breaks were given to all big businesses so they keep their production site in the state,
172 Aerodog: Nobody in the world knows more about engineering large scale wings than Boeing. They did not need to go to Japan to find a "partner providing the bes
173 2H4: What technology will be given away that cannot be reverse-engineered by disassembling one from the field? Are the specific manufacturing techniques t
174 Aerodog: Remember that during the cold war, the Soviets tried to copy nearly every civilian and military airplane we built. They had couriers/translators in N
176 NorCal: I thought Boeing did all of the design work, but they are just giving the manufacturing work to the Japanese? How is this giving the trade secrets awa
177 Aerodog: aerodog says arf...no make that arf-arf!
178 Aerodog: I would suspect Boeing is using concurrent engineering whereby the manufacturing engineers (foreign partners) work closely with the design engineers.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2004, 4291 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9773 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 906 posts, 
From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 210 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1544 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
