Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 May Face 6 Mo. Delay, Vought Involved PT 2.  
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10274 times:

This is for continuing the discussion of the (now locked) thread on this topic.
787 may face 6 mo. delay, Vought involved (by KL911 Jun 8 2007 in Civil Aviation)

One last thing, this thread is for discussing the topic at hand, which is the issue with the 787 involving supplier Vought. Any off-topic discussions (like US Corporate Laws and moderator actions) will be deleted and user(s) possibly suspended.

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10146 times:

If I may be so bold as to ask, why are we bothering with Part 2? At the end of Part 1 someone debunked the entire rumor with a direct statement from a Boeing spokesperson stating that there is no anticipated delay in rollout or EIS, and if there MIGHT be a delay, Boeing would make it public immediately.

I will find the statement in the other thread and edit it into this post.

It was Khobar's post.

Here is the quote and link:

Also: "Contrary to growing rumors that the 787 will be delayed, she said nothing has been encountered so far during final assembly of the first plane -- or with Boeing's partners (the firing of the 787 Vought executive) -- that would delay the official rollout on July 8, first flight or first 787 delivery next May to All Nippon Airways of Japan."

And: "The 787 spokeswoman did say any serious issues that might delay the 787 would be quickly disclosed."

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/116545.asp

[Edited 2007-06-13 01:22:00]

User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 749 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10106 times:

From the previous thread....

Quote:
Determinant assembly is thought to be vastly superior, which is why I was very very surprised to see such an error in such a major assembly procedure

I have been saying for some time now that Boeing would encounter out of tolerance step issues. Laying the barrel from the inner mould line means that this step issue will probably be a long term headache for the FAL guys.

Quote:
IIRC, wasn't there an article sometime in the last year that suggested that some of the 737's arriving in Seattle were so out of tolerance that there was a fair amount of hammering and drilling needed to get them assembled?

You can hammer a metallic skin all you like, but a composite one is a very different beast.

I have seen the photos mentioned in that Seattle Times article and I'm very curious how they got it to fit.



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 817 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10095 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 1):
If I may be so bold as to ask, why are we bothering with Part 2? At the end of Part 1 someone debunked the entire rumor with a direct statement from a Boeing spokesperson stating that there is no anticipated delay in rollout or EIS, and if there MIGHT be a delay, Boeing would make it public immediately.

As I understand it, the thread relating to the fuselage barrel mismatch was deleted repeatedly and merged into this one (or rather the old thread), so the topic is intended to cover any manufacturing production issues with the 787, not just the rumoured delay.

The current discussion was over the significance of the relatively large mating mismatch in the two fuselage barrels and whether it actually mattered or not.

To me the more relevant issue is whether these sort of tolerance errors are acceptable (even with a recovery plan) in a determinant assembly context. IMO, this should produce much more exacting tolerances and jigging accuracy. However, that hasn't happened in this case and it all looks a bit pear-shaped (no pun intended).

Has anyone covered the pylon/wing interface issue yet?  Wink


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3602 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10059 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 3):
The current discussion was over the significance of the relatively large mating mismatch in the two fuselage barrels and whether it actually mattered or not.

To me the more relevant issue is whether these sort of tolerance errors are acceptable (even with a recovery plan) in a determinant assembly context. IMO, this should produce much more exacting tolerances and jigging accuracy. However, that hasn't happened in this case and it all looks a bit pear-shaped (no pun intended).

Then shouldn't this thread be moved to Tech-Ops and renamed "787 Barrel Tolerances", as the title of the thread has nothing to do with the subject matter?


User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 817 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10059 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 2):
Quote:HB88
"Determinant assembly is thought to be vastly superior, which is why I was very very surprised to see such an error in such a major assembly procedure"

I have been saying for some time now that Boeing would encounter out of tolerance step issues. Laying the barrel from the inner mould line means that this step issue will probably be a long term headache for the FAL guys.

From my review of the images the barrels weren't aligned on the IML in any case. So I don't think it was a layup thickness issue. My take is that the section was cured out-of-round and needed rejigging to the reference part. The problem was this involved pulling out a fair bit of equipping and "pulling" the blown out part into alignment where it was bulging out.

I don't think would be any prospect of machining the edge to fit. The characteristics of the resulting butt joint would be affected massively. Similarly, it's not an issue of filling it. When performance guarantees are as fine as needing specific paint on engine cowlings to achieve certain fuel burn (i'm not sure if this is the case, but such a hoo-ha was made over it I assume it probably is...), an aerodynamic discontinuity such as a fudged butt-joint line could render the airframe unfit for use.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9886 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 5):
I don't think would be any prospect of machining the edge to fit. The characteristics of the resulting butt joint would be affected massively. Similarly, it's not an issue of filling it. When performance guarantees are as fine as needing specific paint on engine cowlings to achieve certain fuel burn (i'm not sure if this is the case, but such a hoo-ha was made over it I assume it probably is...), an aerodynamic discontinuity such as a fudged butt-joint line could render the airframe unfit for use.

This quote is further evidence this should be moved to Tech/Ops. I understood not one piece of this statement (maybe I am stupid, but until this point I hadn't thought so.)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31382 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9845 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HB88 (Reply 5):
From my review of the images the barrels weren't aligned on the IML in any case. So I don't think it was a layup thickness issue. My take is that the section was cured out-of-round and needed rejigging to the reference part. The problem was this involved pulling out a fair bit of equipping and "pulling" the blown out part into alignment where it was bulging out.

Based on the pictures from the factory floor I have seen, I am inclined to agree. The pieces mated fine on the right-hand side, but there was a very noticeable gap on the left-hand side.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9685 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 3):
The current discussion was over the significance of the relatively large mating mismatch in the two fuselage barrels and whether it actually mattered or not.

This article gives a pretty fair account of the remedial measures taken which appeared to consist of removing and reinstalling some interior fittings (e.g. floor struts) to achieve a fit.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...chnology/2003744076_787gaps12.html

That would not appear to raise any strength or safety implications, if that's what you're thinking about. Given that the problem is now known it should be relatively simple to avoid it arising on anything like the same scale in the future.

It's also worth noting that this is just one of the fuselage joins - the one between the cockpit section and the forward fuselage. Most of the rest of the main fuselage is delivered to Everett after being pre-assembled at Charleston (see the very informative video on here) - so possibly the 'good news' is that the rest of the fuselage, and all the other parts, appear to be fitting together without problems?

http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/

Quoting HB88 (Reply 3):
Has anyone covered the pylon/wing interface issue yet?

Yes, HB88 - in fact it was 'covered' in the very article in which it was mentioned. The problem was that insufficient permanent fasteners were fitted in the first batch of components - so you can stop hoping that the pylons don't fit the wings or anything!  Smile:-

".......what I'm told is a delay in attaching the 787 engine pylons to the wings. My source said the delay is the result of about 8,000 temporary fasteners in the wings. The engine pylons can't be attached to the wings until the temporary fasteners are replaced. But the source also said the temporary fasteners are being replaced with permanent ones as they arrive."

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/116545.asp

I don't blame you in the least for watching for, and commenting on, any snags that may appear to be arising in the 787 programme. As you say, you copped - and continue to cop - enough flak over the continuing A380 delays. But please find some new snags soon - there are bound to be plenty, as there are in any new venture on this scale. Please don't keep re-hashing the ones that have already been covered and explained, none of which appear likely to involve anything approaching a 'six-month delay.' And in respect of which, moreover, Boeing have unequivocally stated that no delay is currently expected to the rollout, the first flight, or the first delivery.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9626 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
That would not appear to raise any strength or safety implications, if that's what you're thinking about. Given that the problem is now known it should be relatively simple to avoid it arising on anything like the same scale in the future.

This is quite simple, and yet it is not the "issue" as some had stated. The "issue" was that things weren't being stuffed at Vought. It morphed into a new issue by people who want to keep the thread alive, but this issue is not new either.

Anyway, the thread should be closed and LOCKED because Boeing has come out and answered the rumors with a categorical reaffirmation of their schedule.

Someone is free to open up an "is Boeing lying?" thread, but otherwise, this whole thing is now pointless.

Boeing can not legally make these statements if they know otherwise. Anyone continuing to claim the plane is late is calling the Boeing management criminals, and should understand the implications of claiming people to be criminals without any proof in a public forum...

Mods: close this thread.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9560 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Someone is free to open up an "is Boeing lying?" thread, but otherwise, this whole thing is now pointless.

Boeing can not legally make these statements if they know otherwise. Anyone continuing to claim the plane is late is calling the Boeing management criminals, and should understand the implications of claiming people to be criminals without any proof in a public forum...

Mods: close this thread.

I tend to agree Irkamerica. Boeing has answered it's critics here on A.net (Yes they do read this stuff too, according to Randy) and has, so far, put to rest rumors of significant delays. Geez people... This is the first 787 being built! There WILL be issues and they will be addressed. Some of the best people, in their respective professions, are involved with this program. If there are some here that are salivating at the prospect of major upheavals in 787 production schedules, then I'm afraid they'll be very disappointed.

[Edited 2007-06-13 04:50:04]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 969 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9546 times:

so, hypothetically mind you, suppose the circumferential length of the barrel was dead on. And "Ghost" wanting to move on to the next one, took the first barrel off the alignment "hoop" prior to attaching the frames at the aft end. Again still hypothetically, "Ghost" then set the barrel in a cradle and then fastened the frame to the skin with the barrel deformed under its own weight.... Hmmm.

That might perhaps cause a local deformation that would result in a "bubble" when joined. DA or no DA. Hmmmm. what could one do?... Break that frame loose perhaps? seems possible. Restore the barrel to its normal round contour? Seems likely. So replace the frame attachment to the skin, no mismatch at the joint, all is hunky dory... Just perhaps though, not knowing specifics, rumors might lead someone to jump to horrible conclusions instead of a fairly simple if irritating fix and a missive off to Ghost to never ever rush things again. Hypothetically of course.


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9547 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 4):
Then shouldn't this thread be moved to Tech-Ops and renamed "787 Barrel Tolerances", as the title of the thread has nothing to do with the subject matter?



Quoting Travelin man (Reply 6):
This quote is further evidence this should be moved to Tech/Ops

I tend to agree with above. May I suggest extend the name to: "Composite Barrel Tolerances and remedies if exceeded" ?

aminobwana


User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3715 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9437 times:

Don't know why they opened another thread about Vought and a rumor after closing the last one, but here's some more information about the interesting problems Boeing is overcoming.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/116584.asp

James Wallace

"787 fuselage gap was bigger than newspaper photos show....

Initially, my source says, the gap was 1.750 inches."


User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9142 times:

The block states,that:

Quote:
Those photos were taken during the process of fixing the mismatch, after internal structure had been removed from the composite barrels to make them more flexible, and after some hydraulic pressure had been applied

I will not comment this and simply agree with a comment sent to Mr. Wallace by EPSILON, one of his readers (see blog):

Quote:
Dear Mr. Wallace !!

Do you want an answer, even before Mr. Bair tells you so ??

Somebody screwed up !!!

But as you write, this problem affecting the first unit and which certainly will not repeat itself, is already fixed, so why
all the hoopla ? Mistakes anybody makes, the difference between a good management and a bad one is how and whwn they are corrected !!

Epsilon

aminobwana

[Edited 2007-06-13 09:50:05]

User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9106 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 14):
I will not comment this and simply agree with a comment sent to Mr. Wallace by EPSILON, one of his readers (see blog):

Am I guessing right that you are EPSILON?


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8798 times:

As your previous thread stated, there will be no delays with this program. Good grief, have you nothing else to talk about?


One Nation Under God
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8532 times:

I an totally confused, is it the gap between the two sections of the fuselage they are worried about, or is the mismatch in diameters at a certain point (bulge in fuselage)?

The pictures shows someone holding a rule next to a straight edge showing a mismatch between the the two sections. Then it goes on to describe a gap that you can see the lights in the ceiling through.


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8508 times:

The issue seems a difference in diamter of the barrels ,indicatded by the different levels of the gauge..


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8508 times:

The issue seems a difference in diameter of the barrels ,indicatded by the different levels of the gauge..


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3715 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8462 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17):
I an totally confused, is it the gap between the two sections of the fuselage they are worried about, or is the mismatch in diameters at a certain point (bulge in fuselage)?

Me too. Is it a difference in the total circumference or simply out-of-round?

If a difference in circumference, it is a total screwup and I'd wonder if there is some problem with the shrinkage they get when its baked.

Also, how are these sections connected? I would have thought they overlap but it appears they just butt together. What holds them together?


User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 749 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 20):
Me too. Is it a difference in the total circumference or simply out-of-round?

It seems like one barrel was out of shape. The two sections were joined without any problems on the top, bottom and right hand side, but there was a very obvious gap on the left hand side.



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5770 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8324 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 11):
so, hypothetically mind you, suppose the circumferential length of the barrel was dead on. And "Ghost" wanting to move on to the next one, took the first barrel off the alignment "hoop" prior to attaching the frames at the aft end. Again still hypothetically, "Ghost" then set the barrel in a cradle and then fastened the frame to the skin with the barrel deformed under its own weight.... Hmmm.

That might perhaps cause a local deformation that would result in a "bubble" when joined. DA or no DA. Hmmmm. what could one do?... Break that frame loose perhaps? seems possible. Restore the barrel to its normal round contour? Seems likely. So replace the frame attachment to the skin, no mismatch at the joint, all is hunky dory... Just perhaps though, not knowing specifics, rumors might lead someone to jump to horrible conclusions instead of a fairly simple if irritating fix and a missive off to Ghost to never ever rush things again. Hypothetically of course.

Knowing what I have read of some of your other posts, and your occasional insight to things Boeing, I am surprised that everyone here has completely ignored your post.

I envsion the whole problem as similar to the "squashed toiletpaper roll" sure in may be out of round but that the nature of a hollow tube and it is easily addressed by pulling/pushing it back into round.

Speaking hypothetically of course.  Smile

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3715 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8256 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 21):
It seems like one barrel was out of shape. The two sections were joined without any problems on the top, bottom and right hand side, but there was a very obvious gap on the left hand side.

Thats what I gathered as well, but wouldn't that imply a difference in total circumference?


User currently offlineEatmybologna From France, joined Apr 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 22):
I envsion the whole problem as similar to the "squashed toiletpaper roll" sure in may be out of round but that the nature of a hollow tube and it is easily addressed by pulling/pushing it back into round.

O.K. , I understand that the out of round barrel can be manipulated back to a more tolerant round shape with the help of hydraulic jacks, etc. but wouldn't you think that the cured barrel had memory and its shape would return to its out of spec state once the forces were removed?

E-M-B



Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
25 Post contains images Stitch : I suppose it could try, but all those fasteners and internal bracing would prevent it from accomplishing that goal. This, of course, assumes the CFRP
26 Mham001 : But we've been told that 3 sides met the way they were supposed to. Take two rolls of toilet paper, squish one and at least two sides will not match.
27 Eatmybologna : So perhaps one way to avoid this problem for future fuselage sections is to surround them each in an outside circumference sleeve prior to, and during
28 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Out of round, keeping in mind that the B787 fuselage cross-section is not actually round at all. A titanium splice plate on the inner surfaces. Ah...
29 Stitch : The gap was more then just along the left-hand side "vertical plane". The right "half" mated properly from the pictures I have seen and the gap was o
30 Post contains images Bbobbo : But what caused the barrel to go out of spec? Was it cured that way, or did it become that way during finishing, transporting, etc.? If it was cured
31 HB88 : That's a fairly mean-spirited response there NAV20 and I find your implications about my motivation personally quite, well, disgusting. You don't kno
32 Post contains images RedFlyer : Perhaps people don't like what Pymalion had to say, since his reasoning may in fact be correct.   Maybe the cured barrel was already in an out-of-sp
33 TeamAmerica : Ideally, the internals are installed such that it tends to hold the structure in shape. If you use a sleeve to force the structure into shape, you ca
34 HB88 : My guess is that it might have been because the images of the barrel mismatch were "out in the wild" almost immediately. They had no choice but to re
35 Post contains images Glideslope : They are not worried. This is what makes Boeing, well, Boeing.
36 Bbobbo : Something must have caused the shape to go out-of-spec (whether during curing, transport, assembly, etc.), otherwise the two pieces would have joined
37 RedFlyer : Respond quickly, yes. To admit quickly the problem occurred, yes. But to reiterate just as quickly that the program schedule remains on track is some
38 Post contains images HB88 : I think you're right here. One thing which did seem strange is that installing the internal equipping should have revealed the barrels being incorrec
39 Kaneporta1 : That, I don't know, but I assume that at some point there was a very big gap since the two sections were in different continents... In this day and a
40 Eatmybologna : True Bbobbo, The CFRP fuselage, if simply resting in a saddle, could have easily sagged a little from the pull of gravity during the autoclave and no
41 Srbmod : Since this thread has gone off-topic like the previous one, it is being locked. This thread was not for talking about the fit issues with barrel secti
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...
787 may face 6 mo. delay, Vought involved posted Fri Jun 8 2007 21:11:42 by KL911
787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought posted Mon Nov 19 2007 10:10:56 by EI321
Bangkok Airport May Face Further Delays.. posted Tue Sep 19 2006 17:59:08 by Djw030468
AMR CEO Says Boeing 787 May Fit With Fleet Plan posted Wed Apr 20 2005 21:17:43 by AeroWesty
Sabena May Face Bankruptcy As Result Of Attack! posted Tue Sep 18 2001 17:55:52 by TR
<News>China Guilin Airport May Face Closure posted Wed Aug 2 2000 08:46:02 by Senliture
Leeham:787 Delay May Affect 777F, Concern Over 748 posted Fri Oct 26 2007 04:43:59 by 797charter
China Southern May Scrap 787 Orders Amid Delays posted Tue Oct 18 2011 06:26:51 by sofianec
Is Boeing Stalling Announcement Of 787 Delay? posted Tue Dec 21 2010 18:14:29 by tullamarine
China Eastern May Cancel 787 Order. posted Mon Nov 29 2010 08:44:28 by JoeCanuck