Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Some Questions Regarding The 787....  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

The Boeing 787 is the most spoken aircraft in history -at least considering the media hype throughout the last months .
But when it comes to specific details of the current state of assembly,Boeing is very much low-profile .
Reading through specialised forums related to composite -materials,the hype is remarkably less present.It seems the underbelly-section will have a staggering small 2-4 mm thickness-while door-frames get up to 8 mm of composite structure.
The bleed-less engine concept is less than convincing to those who calculate energy consumption compared to non-bleedless techniques.The all electric,all composite model has another challenge to mount-the radiation/cosmic environment/electrical impact tests.While metal is a good insulator against electrical hazard,carbon-fiber is an rather non-protective environment.Questions ralated to repair remain rather unconvincing-riveted repairs for parts of the fuselage -bonded for others- leave an impresssion of difficult to predict maintenance and repair issues.
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16883 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8679 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....

Why the disappointment?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8678 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The Boeing 787 is the most spoken aircraft in history -at least considering the media hype throughout the last months .

That is not true at all. The 747 and Concorde were probably the most hyped planes in commercial production. Both were huge signs of technology and became symbols of national pride. The 707 was similar, but there was not the media in the 50s that there was in the late 60s and early 70s. Everyone in the United States knew what the 747 was when it first came out and everyone wanted to fly on it. The 787 has no where near that notoriety.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....

Of course there will be setbacks. There are always setbacks, but that won't stop a great design from being made. Proper planning can limit that.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The bleed-less engine concept is less than convincing to those who calculate energy consumption compared to non-bleedless techniques.

You are correct about the fact that electricity is not necessarily the most efficient way to do everything. A lot of energy is lost in producing heat for example, which is one thing that it will do on the plane. However you are overlooking the weight benefits. Even if in some cases a pneumatic system may be more efficient, it is heavier. Electricity is easy to transport and the avenues for transporting it are very lightweight. Mechanical power is the opposite. And where you save weight, you save energy!



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8660 times:

I wonder if 787 are up n flying in time for the Olympic Games in Beijing 2008?

No snags whatsoever on the product line at Ewerett?

Micke//  Wink



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8648 times:

...Part of the weight benefit will be swallowed by a metal coating that will have to be applied (as a non-forseen weight..) to the black-fuselage to comply with environmental issues...
This is a rather non-discussed topc here but once you start digging a little ,you'll discover some issues...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8644 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
The 747 and Concorde were probably the most hyped planes in commercial production.

Not to forget the fact how B747 changed the economics of flying for the masses!

Coming back to the original thread, composites present challenges due to its virgin use in commercial transports in this quantity. But, experience with it will mitigate the risks and normalize the procedures for the carriers. There will be ramp rashes and incidents, and I am certain that Boeing has done a good job using FMEA and other methods to decide which areas get the higher thickness and which areas lower thickness material. But as you pointed out, there will be cases and there will be solutions provided as they arise. We will have to wait till 2008 to see how they fair in real life operations.

Good questions that you raised however. Some thought provoking questions I must say.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8636 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
While metal is a good insulator against electrical hazard,carbon-fiber is an rather non-protective environment.Questions ralated to repair remain rather unconvincing-riveted repairs for parts of the fuselage -bonded for others- leave an impresssion of difficult to predict maintenance and repair issues.

Well I can't speak for Boeing's work on this, but Lancair aircraft have solved this problem. They build entirely composite aircraft as well and their solution to the lightning strike problem was to put Al mesh in the skin of the a/c. They actually had a customer take off from the factory and run into a thunderstorm. The plane suffered a lightning strike, but was able to return back to the factory and land successfully. The damage was minor to the airframe and the repairs were easy.

As for the strength of composite, when they were testing the Columbia, they actually crashed one. They conducted two identical tests, one with a Baron and one with a Columbia, the baron crumpled on impact while the Columbia survived largely intact. Based on the analysis of the crash test dummies, the occupants of the Columbia would have had a very good chance of surviving. Another incident happened when a freak hail storm rolled through while 80 planes were sitting out on the ramp. The planes had no noticeable damage (very small dimples that you can't see but can only barely feel if you run your hand over the structure) while the cars (made mostly of Al and steel) had golf ball sized dents. I also talked to the workers there and asked them about composite repair and they showed me someone working on one. It looked fairly simple and apparently when the repair is done that section is actually stronger than it was before the damage. You can't tell that a repair was ever done when they are finished with it.

While this isn't a commercial jet, the materials are essentially the same.


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8613 times:

Don't get me wrong- I do not intend to put questions into Boeing's capability to come up with a marvellous new flight-system.
But while we get used to hack and beat on the A380 and it's miseries,we tend to lose objectivity looking the other side of the Atlantic and start asking normal questions as aviation freaks...
The thickness of the hull is still a mystery to me and I still don't see how a 2 mm thick fuselage can provide all the necessary protection,stiffness and static required for an aircraft ,that has to handle thousands of hard landings .
Experience has shown that computer calculations can predict 95 % of all issues but there is a 5 % area of engineering-simulations that escapes computer run-time.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8553 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 7):
The thickness of the hull is still a mystery to me and I still don't see how a 2 mm thick fuselage can provide all the necessary protection,stiffness and static required for an aircraft ,that has to handle thousands of hard landings .
Experience has shown that computer calculations can predict 95 % of all issues but there is a 5 % area of engineering-simulations that escapes computer run-time.

How thick is the Al of a standard commercial aircraft?

I would also question the validity of the "experience percentages" that you cite.

Also, Al is not a good insulator as you claim it to be, it is actually such a good conductor that Airbus has wired the entire A 380 with it. CREF is an insulator, and as such a faraday cage of woven Al is matted into the skin of the 787 for lightning strike protection.

All these questions have been asked and answered in these forums multiple times (although not in the last 2 months). Being the avid poster you are, I have a hard time believing that you did not already know the answers to your questions. So why are you really asking? Let's have some honesty here!

Admit it that you just wanted to cast a shadow on the 787


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8505 times:

"Admit it that you just wanted to cast a shadow on the 787"

A380/WhaleJet etc.

Do I need to go on???

Micke//  Yeah sure



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5790 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8494 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 9):
A380/WhaleJet etc.

That's becasue the A380s problems were of Airbus' making and they should rightfully be raked over the coals for overpromising and underdelivering...as usual.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

Why is it ,that whenever someone starts asking critical questions about Boeing aircraft ,one is accused to put in invalid or dummy demands ,but any verbal B.S. towards Airbus are judged serious and valid participations to this forum....


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8416 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The bleed-less engine concept is less than convincing to those who calculate energy consumption compared to non-bleedless techniques

Boeing already run simulation of the energy consumption with bleedless engine, and has shown that in consume less energy compared to the bleed engine. It is mainly attributed to fluctuation of power needed across the different stage of flight. Source: FI

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
While metal is a good insulator against electrical hazard,carbon-fiber is an rather non-protective environment.

When you work with electrical circuit, do you work with metal gloves?

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
It seems the underbelly-section will have a staggering small 2-4 mm thickness-while door-frames get up to 8 mm of composite structure.

What is the industrial standard for regular plane? source for this info? Is it from one of the "expert" ?

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
But when it comes to specific details of the current state of assembly,Boeing is very much low-profile .

That means they are working on it. Not just blabbering.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
Part of the weight benefit will be swallowed by a metal coating that will have to be applied (as a non-forseen weight..) to the black-fuselage to comply with environmental issues

What environmental issue? Even from your statement, there's still going to be weight benefits. Regardless, if it's on weight guarantee, it's still going to lighter than Al plane.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
This is a rather non-discussed topc here but once you start digging a little ,you'll discover some issues...

If you dig sombody's garbage deep enough, you'll find a lot of issues.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 7):
I still don't see how a 2 mm thick fuselage can provide all the necessary protection,stiffness and static required for an aircraft ,that has to handle thousands of hard landings

Yet you still fly around the world with FAA/JAA certified airplanes. Don't worry, if it is not thick enough, FAA/JAA won't certify the airplanes. Simple as that.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 7):
But while we get used to hack and beat on the A380 and it's miseries,we tend to lose objectivity looking the other side of the Atlantic and start asking normal questions as aviation freaks...

What objectivity? A380 is a fiasco. 787 has not had any setback in the production and development as of now. Once it's out there you and your Airbus pom pom friends can start bashing it.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8383 times:

I would not have expected a different annswer from an a.netter with a logo "Polymer Plane.."
There is a fine line between "technically feasable" and commercially sustainable.Don't come back with arguments tied to the A380-the standard reply- but try to explain why Boeing is to quiet about work-progress on the 787 ?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
If you dig sombody's garbage deep enough, you'll find a lot of issues.

The German institute for "Luft und Raumfahrt" is not really an intellectual garbage dump -once you read some of their papers related to CF structures,you'll find there are issues tied to maintenance,repair,future cost of material,protection,material behavior,that are not all convincingly addressed.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8361 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 8):
Admit it that you just wanted to cast a shadow on the 787

Threads of this ilk seem to make some of the more fervent Airbus supporters on A.net feel better. There's plenty of bandwidth available, let them ask their questions and if they happen to credibly "cast a shadow," so be it. Ironically, Mr. Bair, vice-president and general manager of the 787 was criticized by some members for being "too cocky" about his recent assessment of the current state of the 787 program:
Boeing Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! (by Coelacanth Oct 20 2006 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2006-10-23 16:36:43]

[Edited 2006-10-23 16:39:11]

User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8310 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 14):
Threads of this ilk seem to make some of the more fervent Airbus supporters on A.net feel better.

Wrong statement - I am a fervent aviation fanatic regardless of make,nation,ideology or share-price related preference.I still think the 747 is my favoured aircraft...
What I try to understand is the biased ,one-sided "787 is the best" -hype without anyone having ever seen that plane taking off...
Engineers tend to have a less emotional approach to issues than non-engineers- actually most engineering-forums enjoy a quite open,friendly and non-imposing attitude when it come to fundamental material or philosophy related issues.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 13):
Don't come back with arguments tied to the A380-the standard reply- but try to explain why Boeing is to quiet about work-progress on the 787 ?

Last week they announced that everything was on time and humming along smoothly. What else is there?

Also, FYI, Airbus only uses 1.6mm thick Al on their fuselages. I did find the quote on Leeham where these "concerns" about the Fuse thickness were brought up....No suprise that these concerns were voiced by an Airbus employed "expert" and about 6 months before Mr. Foegard announced that Airbus's A320 replacement would have a composite fuselage.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 854 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8246 times:

Same old rubbish when questening 787 and its progress:

US:
Everything is going rosey, no snag, dont speak evil about this superior a/c then you´ll get flame for the 380 fiasco etc. etc.

Let´s see in early 2008 how B are doing, can´t wait...

Sandbox level when it comes to A vs B and I´m one of them, at least I admit it....

Micke//  mischievous 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8204 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The Boeing 787 is the most spoken aircraft in history -at least considering the media hype throughout the last months .

Have you paid attention to the A380 recently? (in particular, Chirac proclaiming the start of a new Space Age?) Or how about the Concorde? Or for frames that actually deserve it, How about the DC-3 and the 707?

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....

It's especially present in the arguments of those who view the A380 versus the 787 as some sort of nationalistic contest.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 7):
But while we get used to hack and beat on the A380 and it's miseries,we tend to lose objectivity looking the other side of the Atlantic and start asking normal questions as aviation freaks...

Of course.

The 787 is a amazingly complex and interesting project. Boeing has a huge chunk of risk associated with this project. In particular the composite fuselage, the bleedless systems, the incredible energy requirements etc. It's almost unthinkable that there will not be problems with this plane at some point. But that's the point where the similarities between the 787 and the A380 (and in fact, every new generation of jet aircraft) end.

The A380 is hacked upon not just because of the logistical problems, but because of the enormous fiscal impact of the program, and the very limited orders to date. The 787 is glorified because of the huge numbers of orders to this point, and because of the pure geek factor of a composite frame.

The risk factor is completely different between the two machines. The 787 has problems that are basically engineering. How do you deal with lightning strikes on a composite frame? How much electricity do you need to generate to replace bleed air, etc.

The risk factors for the A380 are commercial and production. Airbus has been unable to get a solid production line going, and is unable to provide orders leaving in doubt it's commercial viability. The A380 requires a completely new statistical trend to emerge to justify it's viability. That trend has not started to date.


User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8141 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 17):
US:
Everything is going rosey, no snag, dont speak evil about this superior a/c then you´ll get flame for the 380 fiasco etc. etc.

Let´s see in early 2008 how B are doing, can´t wait...

Micke, I don't know if you're aware of this, but we have lots of laws over here that prevent corporate officers from making materially misleading statements -- I know you guys have them over there too, but I don't know how ours are different. If Boeing had reasonable notice of some sort of material delay to the 787 program, they'd be required by law to disclose it -- or else they'd face a shitstorm from our Securites and Exchange Commission, Boeing shareholder lawsuits, and their customers.

Because Boeing hasn't announced anything yet about a delay means that the program is on-track as far as they know. Could they get hit by massive delays? Surely. But the public will know about it almost as soon as they do. Remember the barrel failure earlier this year? We heard about that very shortly after it happened.

I think most people of the Americans and/or Boeing supporters on this board will not be in a state of denial if 787 delays or setbacks are announced, just like most of the Europeans/Airbus supporters are cognizant that the A380 is having some issues right now. But the fact is, either everything with the 787 program is proceeding as Boeing expects, or Boeing is breaking the law and screwing their shareholders and the chickens are on their way home to roost.

[Edited 2006-10-23 17:47:23]


New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
Wrong statement - I am a fervent aviation fanatic regardless of make,nation,ideology or share-price related preference.I still think the 747 is my favoured aircraft...

As am I, which is why I have never called the A380 "Whalejet" or said it would not fly. I have only criticized the business case which has always been iffy at best. I don't have a favorite aircraft. I just hate regional jets for their lack of comfort (and this may change with come of the new ones comming out).


[quote=Beaucaire,reply=15]Engineers tend to have a less emotional approach to issues than non-engineers- actually most engineering-forums enjoy a quite open,friendly and non-imposing attitude when it come to fundamental material or philosophy related issues.

Yet the technical questions you asked have been answered numerous times on these forums and are non-issues. I cannot think of a good reason for the questions to be broached again.

Boeing publicly stated last week that everything is going well and there are no delays.

Granted that Airbus management has made the repeated mistake of denial of production problems, but just because Airbus is disingenious with their public releases does not mean that Boeing must be also.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8085 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 13):
but try to explain why Boeing is to quiet about work-progress on the 787

787's development is probably one of the most open aircraft development in the recent history. What more do you expect? Boeing publishing the blue print of the aircraft? Did you even read the news recently? There's an article detailing 787's design and development in FI. Mike Bair updates the media about the state of 787 right now, the weight problem and fuselage problem.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 13):
Don't come back with arguments tied to the A380-the standard reply

I've never tied A380 fiasco with 787 development. It's Airbus's pom pom boys that always say that 787 will be in trouble just like A380 are.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 15):
What I try to understand is the biased ,one-sided "787 is the best" -hype without anyone having ever seen that plane taking off...

Why don't we have this discussion next year when 787 is in the air?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 16):
Also, FYI, Airbus only uses 1.6mm thick Al on their fuselages. I did find the quote on Leeham where these "concerns" about the Fuse thickness were brought up

2-4mm does not look very bad anymore huh Beaucaire?

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineGabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8040 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 7):
But while we get used to hack and beat on the A380 and it's miseries,we tend to lose objectivity looking the other side of the Atlantic and start asking normal questions as aviation freaks...

Come on, a couple of years ago, when somebody questioned regarding possible delays or problems with the A380, all the Airbus lovers would come in attacking his questions accusing him of lack of objectivity and how he would love A to fail.

so this thread is going to that place, what a waste of time.

just my  twocents 


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 13):
There is a fine line between "technically feasible" and commercially sustainable. Don't come back with arguments tied to the A380-the standard reply, but try to explain why Boeing is to quiet about work-progress on the 787?

So the new paradigm is "no news is bad news"?

The A380 gets so much bad press on this board because it gets so much bad press in the media. Even though Airbus keeps mum on issues until they have to, the media is sniffing out problems and issues days, weeks, even months earlier.

That we're not hearing nearly as much "bad press" about the 787 now means that the program is in flames, but Boeing is better at hiding it?

Or maybe, just maybe, Boeing is executing mostly to plan at this time? After all, we are hearing issues like bubbles in test barrel #9, some contractors having issues ramping up, Boeing preparing their own workers to help bridge any work shortfalls in the early production frames, etc. So we know things are not all "rainbows and unicorns" over at PAE.

Production is starting to ramp up in earnest now, and if there are problems I am sure we're going to hear about them in the press and then the Airbus aficionados will make sure we hear about them in this forum.


User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (7 years 12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
What objectivity? A380 is a fiasco.

That statement shows how little you know about the industrialisation and associated problems of the 380. Fiasco it is not. Vulnerable to even the smallest screwup in production, it is. The 380 is on track for certification and may even be early in this milestone. Systems certification should follow once the harness issues are deal with. The flight-test results are excellent and almost all the problems which have burnt up so many column inches on a.net have been shown to be non-starters. However, the wiring harness issue is simply a deal-breaker and has many knock-on effects. It has to be 100% right and while it is being dealt with, nothing can be done in terms of the rest of the aircraft.

I'll happily admit I'm an Airbus pompom handler or whatever expression you seem to use, but I don't have an axe to grind against Boeing. I was flying on them long before I considered a career in aviation (actually flying on Boeing aircraft probably *caused* me to follow a career in aviation). Yes, I work for Airbus. Yes, more than half of the discussions on a.net derived from the delays are complete crap (on my totally objective scale of qualititative truthfulness).

On a.net the present 380 industrialisation problems have ballooned into a whackfest of absolutely jaw-dropping proportions. To the point where I usually don't bother to read or post on them any more due to a simple lack of any sort of objectivity on either side. People are kidding themselves when they deny that many Boeing boosters desparately want the 380 to fail. They do. Whether this is some sort of reaction to Boeings long-held leadership in civil aviation being challenged by a european upstart (good god, by the *french* even), I'm not sure, but it sure comes across that way IMO. In any case, any thread that turns into the usual A v B stuff should be locked, flogged whipped, spindled and mutilated.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Production is starting to ramp up in earnest now, and if there are problems I am sure we're going to hear about them in the press and then the Airbus aficionados will make sure we hear about them in this forum.

Absolutely. It's possible to interpret no news as good news. However given that Boeing historically handle PR and the media interface far better than Airbus, I'm not surprised that there has been very little bad news publically announced. It would be very surprising if all was sweetness and light in Boeing. But so what? They will deal with any problems even if it requires a delay in first flight/EIS. They are engineers. That's what they do. IMO, those who insist that the 787 is some sort of dream program as deluding themselves. There are a lot of challenges which still need to be met.

Swiping at either manufacturer on the basis of some half-assed patriotic zeal mixed with a good dose of ignorance is shameful and not the mark of a real aviation enthusiast IMO. They should be sent to bed with no dinner.


25 RoseFlyer : While I don't doubt that you may have technical expertise, you can't make an assumption about the performance of a material just from what sounds log
26 Post contains images N844AA : Forget Airbus or Boeing -- give me Grumman any day. It may not have been the earliest, but the LEM was probably the ugliest example of the truism tha
27 Post contains images Stitch : Especially when you are "flying" in a vacuum.
28 Leelaw : Achieving the milestone of "certification" nearly two-years after after the roll-out, and over 18-months after the maiden flight of MSN001, when deli
29 RedFlyer : $6 billion in cost over runs, a shutdown production line, two years (as of now) late to EIS...and you don't think that is a fiasco? I know we share a
30 Post contains images Beech19 : No. I have a personal contact in the procurment process of the fuesalages and they have no notice of any delays. Neither actively or forseen in the f
31 Hb88 : Perhaps. But I guess my point was that people insist on extrapolating the 380 program problems to Airbus as a whole - proposing everything from Airbu
32 AndesSMF : There could be setbacks, but till they actually happen, it is almost useless to talk about what they 'might' be. Boeing might actually get the plane
33 Hb88 : My perpspective is that of seeing the huge program problems as derived from an almost 'small' aspect of the aircraft systems as a whole. A consequenc
34 PolymerPlane : I have never said anything about extrapolating A380 problem to Airbus. Look at all my posts. I said A380 fiasco, not Airbus fiasco. I was answering t
35 Hb88 : yeah... sigh. Well, as an Airbus employee in the UK where the government interference is minimal, the European politicking is immensely frustrating.
36 AirSpare : Actually, Post-It from 3M was a failure. They were formulating a glue, it failed as it never properly cured. From what I read, it was discoverd secra
37 Rheinbote : Try calculating the benefit of higher operational reliability, of doing away with a whole 'branch' of trained mechanics, tools and test equipment, th
38 Zvezda : There is about an equal quantity of mindless bashing on both sides. I believe every commercial airliner ever built has a fuselage that is less than 2
39 RedFlyer : Perhaps it's a little too compartmentalized -- that kind of severe thinking no doubt leads to a "it's the other guys' problem" mentality, which you s
40 Rheinbote : It's clearly a fiasco so far as a program, but there's still a chance that in the long run it turns into something acceptable say between a partial f
41 Post contains images Glideslope : Everett.
42 Bohlman : EA 401 was good flight except for an extremely small issue, that ended up killing 103 people. Though the flight lasted 2 hours, a $12 light bulb caus
43 Zvezda : If we accept Hb88's reasoning, then one can't call EA401 a fiasco, only one small technical aspect of the flight was a fiasco. That 103 people are ki
44 Post contains images AutoThrust : Indeed, Boeing is the holy cow. And some Boeing die-hard fans dont want to accept constructive criticism.    Btw welcome on my RU-list. Couldnt agr
45 Post contains links SeJoWa : Here's a good example of why it pays to analyse this step change from a systems perspective rather than that of narrow incremental gains in efficienc
46 Vref5 : Not sure that's a fair attribution. The bulb was a contributing cause, but the root cause was (unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it) the flight
47 Joni : Could yo point us the these updates? I recall some rather vague comments from him, and rumours from inside Boeing that everyone is ordered to shut up
48 Thomson735 : Always turns into Airbus Vs boeing all the time, Both Companies are great manufactorers of acft, and there will always be delays boeing and airbus its
49 Post contains links and images PolymerPlane : WRONG! http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...81/787+special+Electric+dream.html Rumour has it that Germany and France are going to split and form th
50 Post contains images Beaucaire : I'd like to see those allegations substantiated ....
51 Joni : Ok, B apparently has claimed significant benefits, however their view isn't universally shared as evidenced even in the article you provided the link
52 PolymerPlane : Not only Boeing claimed significant benefits, but, Boeing has also shown through their simulation that the system extract less power from the engine.
53 Post contains images Stitch : Bingo, Vref5. If the L-1011's electrical design caused gear-down indicator bulbs to fail on a regular basis, requiring the FE to head down into the h
54 Parabolica : Calm down. Results speak. P-
55 Zvezda : The WhaleJet has 5000psi hydraulics, not 6000psi. 5000psi hydraulics are hardly new to aviation, though it is the first application in a commercial a
56 Rheinbote : Bleedless engines + more electric systems are part of a claimed 30% reduction in 787 maintenance cost vs 767-300ER. Pneumatics are in the top four sy
57 AADC10 : It does not matter. Airlines would not want to fly a smaller plane into a restricted airport. They would want to fly the biggest plane they have. The
58 Zvezda : The public will generally fly whatever offers the lowest fare.
59 TeamAmerica : ORD is slot restricted, and yet we see very few 747's and loads of 737's and A320's. I would guess that people will gravitate to price first and comf
60 Stitch : For the Chinese and Beijing 2008, it's more about prestige then capacity. Having both the 787 and the A380 in service for the Games was to be a symbo
61 N328KF : I've seen people pay more to go to ORD than MDW for several reasons:Proximity Safety (MDW is in a shady area) Airline preference
62 Post contains links Joni : Check out the entry on bleed-air on Wikipaedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed_air it shortly discusses the issue. What may well be true is that t
63 PolymerPlane : Yes, It's wikipedia, so? It says skeptics says bla bla bla... What does skeptics know without doing their own research. Cheers, PP
64 Post contains links Beaucaire : http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7fd86798-6420-11db-ab21-0000779e2340.html
65 DLPMMM : Yup, It says that Boeing is working on getting the weight down on the 787 (as announced previously) and they are having some problems with suppliers
66 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...3/Boeing+fights+war+on+weight.html
67 TeamAmerica : Isn't this exactly what Airbus is saying regarding the A380? Boeing may beat operating costs targets, but excess weight still means reduced payload.
68 MD-90 : What? There's nothing wrong with just painting it, preferably Euro-white.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Questions Regarding The "er" Designation posted Mon Mar 6 2006 23:25:03 by JakeOrion
A Few Questions About The 787! posted Thu Oct 20 2005 21:31:06 by RootsAir
Questions Regarding The Paris Air Show posted Tue Jun 7 2005 16:38:26 by Sabena332
Some Questions About The ERJ-135 And Chautauqua posted Mon Apr 25 2005 06:31:47 by IslipWN
Some Questions About The 747 posted Wed Apr 2 2003 20:53:19 by Marcus
Some Questions About The IL86 posted Mon Feb 4 2002 12:29:04 by AOMlover
Some Questions About The Shuttle At PHL posted Thu Nov 29 2001 11:21:41 by Lowfareair
Questions Regarding The New Airport At Bangkok posted Mon Feb 5 2001 19:54:34 by United Airline
Some Questions About The DC-10 Of ORBIS. posted Fri Dec 24 1999 08:42:38 by Orbis' friend
Some Questions About The Boeing 707 posted Thu Jul 8 1999 18:58:06 by American MD-80