worldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13227 times:
after hearing about electrical and engine glitches with AI 787s, along with misassembled parts and
fuel leaks that could lead to fire or engine shutdowns i'm surprised to see the topic has been avoided here on a.net
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5383 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13205 times:
Um, we've discussed it.
The general consensus is that all aircraft have teething problems; show us an Airbus, Douglas, or Boeing that doesn't have any AD's or service letters against it...
The A380's wings crack during assembly, don't forget; even with the most modern computerized design, there are still issues related to both design AND assembly.
And, while some on here were having mind spasms over the UA 787 generator failure and subsequent diversion to MSY, any reasonable person would peruse avherald.com for ten minutes and find dozens of similar failures on the worldwide fleet of Boeing, Airbusses, Embraers, Bombardiers... to say nothing of the Russian products still flying.
macsog6 From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 484 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13143 times:
I worked on the 757, 767, and 777 programs at various times and they ALL had teething problems. The A380 and 787 are just the most recent examples and our ability to communicate differently now has made us more aware of them. Keep in mind that a few of Boeing's most admired aircraft - the B-17 and B-29 - both had massive issues in their early models.
Anything, in any industry, as complex as an aircraft has issues like these.
Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2816 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13091 times:
Quoting worldrider (Thread starter): i'm surprised to see the topic has been avoided here on a.net
Because you'll get guys like me that believe the aircraft to be a White Elephant. I'll bet future types designed and produced by Boeing will not go down the same road as the 787. More conventional building practices and materials will be utilized like the good ole' days. Bet my words will already start an "Anti-Boeing" flaming contest towards me. I still stand firm...Boeing puts out the largest and best product America produces, Big fan here however this 51% plastic airplane has yet to prove itself. While new ventures in design and building are not without their growing pains...this one appears to have torn ligaments and sprains. I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years. It is just my opinion.
The production of the 747-8 started well after the beginning of the 787, yet the 747 is in full service. With its more conventional construction by design the aircraft experienced many upgrades and some burps are expected but to my knowledge, she if flying fairly successfully. Looks real good as well...always "the Queen!"
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6304 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12465 times:
The advantages of CFRP construction are significant enough that I believe no more aluminum airliners will be launched as clean-sheet designs. The problem is that, while CFRP components have been used more and more extensively in aircraft, the 787 is the first airliner with the primary structure built of CFRP. This means totally new methods of construction, and with a product as complicated as an airliner, there are guaranteed to be unexpected issues and problems. I have no doubt that both Boeing and Airbus WILL have this issues, and the both WILL overcome them. I'm sure there were very similar issues when aluminum replaced wood and fabric (but on a much smaller scale, as planes were much simpler then.)
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
xjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2352 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12437 times:
Quoting worldrider (Reply 4): AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults, how long are
supposed to be away?
As been discussed many, many times on here before, take anything you read or hear from AI with a grain of salt. They have had more problems than any other airline flying. With the small exception regarding the UA diversion, the other operators of the 787 have been pleased with the lack of mx issues and great performance of the bird.
starrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1083 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12336 times:
Quoting worldrider (Reply 4): AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults, how long are
supposed to be away?
Have they? Of the three that were delivered, which one(s) have been flown back to the US?
Or is AI publicly complaining about the planes to provide a shred of cover to the fact that AI isn't able to pay for that which they have ordered? It's a lot easier to complain about 'defects' than it is respond to questions about when your company can find someone (anyone) willing to lend it money.
To put it modestly, the article looks like the kind of thing someone puts out to trash a company when they have a short position on the stock. Equating the fuel coupling issue and a bad generator to somethng serious enough to ground 40 planes strikes me as either misinformed or malicious
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4290 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12152 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years.
The life of that wing will likely be longer than one made of aluminum. CFRP is much less prone to fatigue than aluminum. Unless it is cracked or shattered by impact it should last for a very long time.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 11849 times:
Quoting worldrider (Thread starter): after hearing about electrical and engine glitches with AI 787s
I missed the engine glitches...are you talking about the engine failure in Charleston?
Quoting macsog6 (Reply 2): I worked on the 757, 767, and 777 programs at various times and they ALL had teething problems.
All aircraft have build problems all the time...it's not "teething", it's normal. They are still dropping AD's on the 737 and A320, which have been in stable production for decades. Although theoretically possible to build a perfect airplane, I've never seen one that even got out of final assembly without documented discrepancies, let alone stayed that way once in service.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I'll bet future types designed and produced by Boeing will not go down the same road as the 787.
Can you be more specific?
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years.
The material and analysis is already well proven, and the distance of flex has nothing to do with the lifetime (that's tied to the stress and the fatigue resistance, not the displacement). There are A300 fins and 737 control surfaces that have been out there, just fine, for way more than 25 years.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): The production of the 747-8 started well after the beginning of the 787, yet the 747 is in full service.
I'm not following you...the 787 is also in full service.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6): the 787 is the first airliner with the primary structure built of CFRP.
It's the first airliner with *majority* primary structure built of CFRP. There have been airliners with CFRP primary structure since the 80's.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6): This means totally new methods of construction
There are no new construction methods on the 787 that I can think of. The scale is much larger but the material is the same CFRP used on the 777 and the layup methods have been around for a long time.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9): CFRP is much less prone to fatigue than aluminum. Unless it is cracked or shattered by impact it should last for a very long time.
Agreed but more succeptable to other injuries so to speak. Both materials have good and bad. We have a fair idea of the life span of an alloy airframe but only a speculated idea of an airframe that now is constructed of plastics in it's primary structures. I am very well aware that composites have been flying for a long time but only as secondary structures.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10): I'm not following you...the 787 is also in full service.
How can I...they have not proposed anything new from the ground up since the 787. However I have read about other manufacturers choosing to remain with conventional construction after understanding the complexities and issues of tooling, testing and the expense of CFRP production. Time will tell and when Boeing announces a complete new airframe to replace a current model, it is then I will be curious to see which road they will travel. Hey, I hope the 787 works out great...pretty ship. The "glitches" to date appear to be appliance matters and construction issues but so far none that I know of that could potentially be considered a flaw of CFRP construction.
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11324 times:
Quoting worldrider (Thread starter): after hearing about electrical and engine glitches with AI 787s, along with misassembled parts and fuel leaks that could lead to fire or engine shutdowns i'm surprised to see the topic has been avoided here on a.net
While no problems are welcomed, it is a reality that some level of problems are expected, even in very mature aircraft types. The 777-300ER/-200ER went many years without a IFSD of the GE90-115B, then suffered several in a very short period of time. All aircraft also occasionally have workmanship or assembly issues, often addressed with an AD. The reason you do not see people getting worked up about these issues on the 787 is they are common in this industry, even when we work hard to avoid them.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years. It is just my opinion.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 11): We have a fair idea of the life span of an alloy airframe but only a speculated idea of an airframe that now is constructed of plastics in it's primary structures. I am very well aware that composites have been flying for a long time but only as secondary structures.
Tom hinted at this but did not elaborate... The longevity and durability of CFRP, even in very high strain primary structure applications, has been demonstrated in this industry for more than 2 decades. The best example is on the 6 ACEE 737 Classic aircraft which flew for their entire lives with CFRP stabilizers. These retired specimens have been dissected and studied, both by Boeing, as well as NASA and universities. The summary of the findings is this: These parts quantifiably outperformed equivalent metal structures in every way measurable. This includes everything from lightning strike, to moisture ingress, to chemical and UV exposure, to fatigue.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I'll bet future types designed and produced by Boeing will not go down the same road as the 787. More conventional building practices and materials will be utilized like the good ole' days.
You've already lost your bet. All OEMs with the capability to do so are pursuing CFRP over metal for primary structure in their newest products. Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc. The fact derivative aircraft are not using these materials reflects the challenging business case CFRP represents for the non-recurring portion of a project. The infrastructure for building with CFRP is capital intensive, so it will not make a good material choice in every instance, even if it will benefit the performance of an aircraft. The A320 and 737 would be lighter with a CFRP wing, but Airbus and Boeing would never see enough performance difference to justify the non-recurring investment. The 748-8 would see a nice performance delta from CFRP, but it was never going to sell enough units to pay back the non-recurring costs. The 777X, however, is defined with a CFRP wing, which blows massive holes in your theory that Boeing will avoid the material in future aircraft.
SavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9695 times:
Love how the author of the linked piece speculates that the hyperbole used when describing the issues attached to the Dreamliner is nothing more than a way of attracting readers yet entitles his rather inane article "How Many More Problems Before the Boeing 787 Dreamliner Is Grounded?"
Is this some more of that hyperbole he was referring to?
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9552 times:
Quoting SavannahMark (Reply 13): Love how the author of the linked piece speculates that the hyperbole used when describing the issues attached to the Dreamliner is nothing more than a way of attracting readers yet entitles his rather inane article "How Many More Problems Before the Boeing 787 Dreamliner Is Grounded?"
Is this some more of that hyperbole he was referring to?
I was about to point that out, that the author gives his entire point away in his own piece. But you beat me to it. All the "issues" he brought up are already known about, and being dealt with by Boeing/GE/RR/etc. At least he did give Boeing et. al. full credit for "Boeing has been quick to acknowledge them and to suggest repairs."
Quoting worldrider (Reply 4): AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults
Source?
AFAIK, AI has not "returned" anything. They've merely asked Boeing for more assistance on working out their teething issues with the new type.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9531 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 12): The best example is on the 6 ACEE 737 Classic aircraft which flew for their entire lives with CFRP stabilizers. These retired specimens have been dissected and studied, both by Boeing, as well as NASA and universities. The summary of the findings is this: These parts quantifiably outperformed equivalent metal structures in every way measurable. This includes everything from lightning strike, to moisture ingress, to chemical and UV exposure, to fatigue.
This sounds interesting. Where could I find out more about this?
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1144 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9182 times:
Quoting xjramper (Reply 7): With the small exception regarding the UA diversion
I've only been keeping tabs on their fleet since the 902 diversion and, amongst the various other substitutions, 906 went tech on the 8th and hasn't been in service since then.
I'm not even sure UA is flying any 787s tomorrow, as the current schedule shows they've all been substituted by 767/777s.
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8467 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 15): This sounds interesting. Where could I find out more about this?
ACEE stands for AirCraft Energy Efficiency. It was a NASA program launched in 1976 during the global oil crisis. The focus of the program was to help the industry develop technologies which would reduce aircraft fuel consumption. The program studied everything from unducted fan engines to super-critical airfoils, laminar flow wings and crazy looking winglets. Composite structures were also one of the focus technologies. Before this program, all the US aircraft OEMs had some composites capability, but composite structures had been used only in limited applications due to the prohibitive costs. The ACEE program was designed to help advance both the industrialization of composites for commercial aircraft and also to prove them in various applications.
Initially, Douglas, Boeing and Lockheed were asked to change one piece of secondary structure to composite on a limited production run of aircraft.
Douglas chose the upper rudder on the DC-10
Boeing chose the spoilers and elevators on the 727
Lockheed chose the ailerons on the L-1011
A requirement of the program was that all data related to the development, testing and in-service performance of these parts be made publicly available. The OEMs were happy for the support in developing the technologies and the whole industry benefited from the effort.
In 1977, a similar exercise was undertaken but for primary structure. I don't know what other OEMs did for primary structure, but Boeing changed the horizontal stabilizer on a limited number of 737s into laminate CFRP structure. You can read about that program and the post-mortem on the stabilizers at the link below. Start at page 21.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1736 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7528 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years. It is just my opinion.
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 11): Agreed but more succeptable to other injuries so to speak. Both materials have good and bad. We have a fair idea of the life span of an alloy airframe but only a speculated idea of an airframe that now is constructed of plastics in it's primary structures. I am very well aware that composites have been flying for a long time but only as secondary structures.
I would then strogly suggest you taking a good and careful look at some of the Open Class carbon and glass fibre gliders, flying out there. Some of them are *GASP* nearly 40 years old and are doing just fine. All use plastics as primary load bearing structure.
And yes, they DO incur similar, if not heavier, loads through their life time than 787 ever will - especially those, which are used for mountain wave flying on a regular basis.
Composites are the future, whether you like it or not.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, RR: 27 Reply 19, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7363 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I just can't for the life of me believe that the anticipated life of a wing that flexes some 26 feet at the tip, one that is produced from threads and catalyzed liquids, to last 25 years. It is just my opinion.
Belief often clashes with hard science. In the case of the latter, the strength and service life yields of CFRP materials are proven by mountains of data.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
jetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 53 Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6765 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 11): I am very well aware that composites have been flying for a long time but only as secondary structures.
Possibly. The A300 vertical stabiliser is CFRP, as are the vertical and horizontal stabilisers of the A320 (and A330 / A340, A380, B777). These are all primary structures. Wings and fuselages primarily made of CFRP are new for commercial types however.
Regards, JetMech
[Edited 2012-12-12 23:35:54]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
garpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2343 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6257 times:
Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3): I'll bet future types designed and produced by Boeing will not go down the same road as the 787. More conventional building practices and materials will be utilized like the good ole' days. Bet my words will already start an "Anti-Boeing" flaming contest towards me. I still stand firm...Boeing puts out the largest and best product America produces, Big fan here however this 51% plastic airplane has yet to prove itself.
Yadda yadda.....
The exact same statements were made when metal was first used for the aircraft frame, then for the wings.
Then, when someone had the audacity to skin aircraft in metal, the same old arguments came out again.
Progress is what it is.
History is littered with experts and know-it-alls predicting doom and gloom for new technologies. From the doctors at the advent of steam locomotion who said travelling at more than 30 MPH will kill you by heart attack, to those who said flying would prove to dangerous and wouldn't be more than "this years fad".
packsonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5797 times:
Quoting jetmech (Reply 20): Possibly. The A300 vertical stabiliser is CFRP, as are the vertical and horizontal stabilisers of the A320 (and A330 / A340, A380, B777). These are all primary structures. Wings and fuselages primarily made of CFRP are new for commercial types however.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19): Belief often clashes with hard science. In the case of the latter, the strength and service life yields of CFRP materials are proven by mountains of data.
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 18): I would then strogly suggest you taking a good and careful look at some of the Open Class carbon and glass fibre gliders, flying out there. Some of them are *GASP* nearly 40 years old and are doing just fine. All use plastics as primary load bearing structure.
This thread is not about weather CFRP is good or bad, it is about the service record of the 787 so please stay on topic.
It is about weather it is normal that UA 906 is still on the ground, or ANA temporarily abandoning the FRA service du to tech problems or JAL 787 sitting on the ground in BOS last summer because they could not dispatch the aircraft.
By the way, any hard numbers on dispatch reliability of the 787 fleet so far?
worldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5499 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 14):
Quoting worldrider (Reply 4):
AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults
Source?
can't find the article i have some read 10 days ago. According to this one an "interim" sollution has been found for the electrical system and te plane has been returned, for now, till first quarter 2013 where final modifications are expected to be applied: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/...2_p0-525323.xml&p=1&printView=true
jetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5341 times:
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22): This thread is not about weather CFRP is good or bad, it is about the service record of the 787 so please stay on topic.
I made no comment whatsoever on the "good" or "bad" of CFRP. I merely corrected the assertion that there was no primary structure experience with the material on commercial types.
Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
25 worldrider: it's still not the article had first read but this one is giving it some "decor" to the ongoing snags http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/...2_p0-5253
26 tdscanuck: We have a very good idea of the life span of primary CFRP structures, based on hard in-service data. As many others have corrected, this simply isn't
27 United787: Thank you, well said. BTW, you should use the word whether (not weather). I am not in the aviation industry but I wonder if some are too quick to dis
28 jetmech: Apparently, the vertical fin torque box and lugs are CFRP. GFRP is used for the leading edge and tip. Check out page 15 of the following; http://www.
29 starrion: You were missing a couple of important words there. You said: "te plane has been returned, for now, till first quarter 2013" The article says The pla
30 hb88: Hey, don't forget classic club class! My Cirrus is 38 years old and still flying like a dream... Glass-fibre construction is great. She does get a bi
31 worldrider: and another one grounded today, again due generator failure. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...with-same-fault-as-united-jet.html Al BAker says:
32 Roseflyer: I am not sure the author of the article knows what grounding an airplane means and how unreliable airplanes actually are. If you want to see a disastr
33 rwessel: To be fair, sailplanes don't see the same number of flight hours over their lifetimes, although it's possible the cycle counts on some are similar to
34 Roseflyer: Airplanes have a U shaped reliability curve over time. Any single airplane is likely to have reliability problems early in service. Once the initial
35 flood: Maybe you're thinking of 902, which had diverted to MSY? Ship 906 hasn't been in service since returning from SFO the morning of the 8th and going te
36 bikerthai: Don't forget the 777 floor beams. While those beams are not as sexy as a wing box, they are considered primary structures and have been CFRP since th
37 tdscanuck: Yep, my bad, I was thinking of 902 (I'm not used to thinking in terms of airline ship numbers). What's wrong with 906? And they're absurdly bullet pr
38 garpd: Ooooo, now I'd take one of those any day!
39 flood: Dunno, but they yanked her off the second route as well and subbed it with a 777. Come tomorrow morning, she won't have flown for 7 days. 902 is en r
40 tdscanuck: This was the office admin's desk at Evergreen in Marana, AZ: Tom.
41 flood: Damn... now that's a desk! Glenn Farley of Seattle's King5 tweets: "KING 5 has learned that a second United 787 has an electrical panel problem. " "Th
42 Stitch: Maybe it's something related to using GEnx engines. (And yes, I know ZA002 had Trents, but that incident appears to be different than the incidents w
43 flood: Another one of QR's 787s also had its panel replaced after a test flight, according to JonO at the WSJ. Unfortunately, the article is behind their pa
44 seabosdca: That looks to me like an early JT9D nacelle. If so, the "Dependable Engines" tag is amusing.
45 Stitch: Enter the headline into Google News and it bypasses the paywall. It appears two UA and two QR birds are currently affected. They replaced a generator
46 aeroblogger: At one point, 2 aircraft were grounded due to electrical issues. One was returned to service last week, the other is still parked in DEL pending a fi
47 worldrider: good to know AI is enjoying the ride. things apart, how come the FRA-DEL flight has been downgraded from the 77W to 787? couldnt they fill up the 77W
48 aeroblogger: FRA has AI's European dispatch center, LH Technik (tech support already versed in 787 for NH), and is the right length for stage II familiarization f
49 sweair: Only GE engined frames that have issues?
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 267 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5383 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2010, 484 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1408 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2744 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1736 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2589 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2343 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 328 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
