Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ongoing Manufacturing Issues With The 787  
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15162 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

here is a confirmation link:
http://247wallst.com/2012/12/11/how-...-dreamliner-is-grounded/?link=mktw

any new news on these "minor" issues?

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5944 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 15140 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.


User currently offlinemacsog6 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15078 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 15026 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!"


User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 14986 times:

AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults, how long are
supposed to be away?


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14632 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 3):
Because you'll get guys like me that believe the aircraft to be a White Elephant.

Are you prepared to admit you were wrong in a few years?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7113 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14400 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
User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 14372 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.



Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 14271 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



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5834 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 14087 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.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13784 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.

Tom.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13364 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
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.

Yeh,...was not a good analogie...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Can you be more specific?

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.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13259 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.

[Edited 2012-12-12 14:44:52]

User currently offlineSavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11630 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?


User currently onlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2750 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 days ago) and read 11487 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.


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2980 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 days ago) and read 11466 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?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 days ago) and read 11117 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.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10402 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.

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/NIARWork...KxCXpo%3D&tabid=99&mid=537

The NASA report on the 737 stab development program (the foreword includes a good background on the program):

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA302551

Info on 3rd party testing:

http://www.wingsoverkansas.com/news/article.asp?id=374

You can also find lots of information about other ACEE projects by doing a web search on "NASA ACEE"


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 9463 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.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently onlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8285 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9298 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
User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8700 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.
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8192 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".



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7732 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?


User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7434 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


User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7276 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.
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7380 times:

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_p0-525323.xml&p=1&printView=true


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6961 times:

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.

We have a very good idea of the life span of primary CFRP structures, based on hard in-service data.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 11):
I am very well aware that composites have been flying for a long time but only as secondary structures.

As many others have corrected, this simply isn't true. In addition to commercial primary structure for 3+ decades, the military has been running composite primary structure for just as long and the GA business for even longer. Now, it's clearly true that military and GA are different operating environments than commercial, but the key is that *the CFRP doesn't know that*. All it sees is stress, and we can examine real world structures that have been through decades of service and match what we see in the material to what they've seen in service.

Quoting jetmech (Reply 20):
The A300 vertical stabiliser is CFRP

I thought it was GFRP...or was that just the lugs?

Quoting jetmech (Reply 20):
Wings and fuselages primarily made of CFRP are new for commercial types however.

Definitely true, but it's also important to note that the commercial guys didn't go into this blind...the military has been running CFRP wings and fuselages for 30+ years.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22):
It is about weather it is normal that UA 906 is still on the ground

It's not still on the ground. But yes, it's normal for new types.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22):
ANA temporarily abandoning the FRA service du to tech problems

Did they abandon the service (i.e. stop the route) or just put a 777 on it? I hadn't heard about this one.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22):
JAL 787 sitting on the ground in BOS last summer because they could not dispatch the aircraft.

Yes, that's normal. If you can't dispatch, the airplane sits on the ground.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22):
By the way, any hard numbers on dispatch reliability of the 787 fleet so far?

Various operators, and Boeing, have all said "above 99%" in various outlets basically since entry to service. They conspicuously don't mention the decimal point, which is where the differences lie, but 99+ is still very good for new type EIS.

Tom.


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7020 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.

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?

Thank you, well said. BTW, you should use the word whether (not weather).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Various operators, and Boeing, have all said "above 99%" in various outlets basically since entry to service. They conspicuously don't mention the decimal point, which is where the differences lie, but 99+ is still very good for new type EIS.

I am not in the aviation industry but I wonder if some are too quick to dismiss some of the latest reports as normal teething problems. The 787 has been in service for over a year now. It seems as though NH has had fairly good realibility, but not sure about JL. Since August, we have 6 airlines that have become operators and I would guess that the 99% doesn't include them. IMHO, it seems the have barely had enough time or aircraft to start measuring the reliability with any kind of substance.

This next quote is from a different thread: 787 Production/Delivery Thread Part 12 (by SA7700 Dec 7 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting flood (Reply 39):
Came across this tweet this morning by Max K-J of Flightglobal:
"Qatar" very disappointed" with Boeing as 3rd #B787 diverted on del flight due to tech and is grounded"

Anyone know where it diverted to or what the issue was?

I know to take everything AI says with a grain of salt and QR has a reputation for constantly slamming A & B...but a diversion on a delivery flight is bad PR to say the least...


User currently offlinejetmech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6937 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
I thought it was GFRP...or was that just the lugs?

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.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf

Has there been any GFRP primary structure on commercial types to your knowledge?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Definitely true, but it's also important to note that the commercial guys didn't go into this blind...the military has been running CFRP wings and fuselages for 30+ years

No doubt. I think military types were also the precursor to FBW in commercial types.

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2012-12-13 07:05:48]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting worldrider (Reply 23):
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:

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 plane has been returned TO SERVICE

Your wording implies it has been returned to Boeing. Air India is not only working to resolve the issues, but are taking a 4th aircraft shortly. Somebody at AI must have come up lucky when searching the couch cushions in the executive offices....



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlinehb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 817 posts, RR: 31
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6810 times:

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.

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.

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 bit of hangar-rash, but nothing I can't fix with some gel repair.

Mind you, a glider doesn't have an onboard electrical system which has to sink very high failure currents and a structure which needs to withstand lightning strike and EMI.

That, and non-visible damage from ramp rash etc, is the biggest problem with non-metallics imo.


User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6600 times:

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:
“These problems are unacceptable because this aircraft has been flying for the last 14 months,” Al Baker said in an interview. “They have to get their act together very fast because we at Qatar Airways will not accept any more defects

and:
“Two aircraft having the same problem -- the same major problem -- so quickly is a cause of concern,” Al Baker said, adding that Doha-based Qatar Air will ask Boeing to cover its losses. “Definitely we will demand compensation. We are not buying airplanes from them to put in a museum.”


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9810 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6508 times:

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 disastrous entry into service look at the Sukhoi Superjet. Fatal crash, delays in certification, utilization rates averaging less than 5 hours, etc

I see comments about UA’s 787 diversion or Air India grounding some 787s and people act like this is a huge problem. At an airline the size of United, on any given day, you’d expect about 6-12 airplanes out of service for a variety of maintenance or damage problems. Again at the airline the size of United diversions, air turn backs and rejected takeoffs are an almost daily occurrence. The media love the A380 and 787 and make news out of events that would never be news on a 777.

The 787 and A380 have had some teething problems. There have been some more notable ones. We were spoilt by how good the 777 was upon entry into service we forgot about what the two airplanes launched prior to the 777 were like. Before the 777 was the launch of the A330/A340 and A320. Both the A320 and A330 had fatal crashes within 6 months of entry into service. If we go back earlier in the jet era it is even worse.

Comparatively, while not as good as the 777, I wouldn’t consider the 787 on the verge of being grounded.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

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.

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 those of long range airliners. And the first generation of 'glass ships were all retired fairly quickly, mostly due to (de)lamination problems. That's all been fixed for decades now, of course.


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9810 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

Quoting worldrider (Reply 31):
Quoting worldrider (Reply 25):
Quoting worldrider (Reply 23):

Airplanes have a U shaped reliability curve over time. Any single airplane is likely to have reliability problems early in service. Once the initial wear and break in period is accomplished (6months to 3 years is typically warranty period), reliability improves. The best reliability is then achieved. When airplanes get older and higher cycles, reliability starts to drop again and heavier maintenance checks including the corrosion program become factors.

For a new airplane model, there is low reliability to start. It gets better as design fixes and attrition take their toll. Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins and Service Letters are normal. As more airplanes are delivered, more potential problems are discovered. The Service Bulletins never really stop until after an airplane is out of production.

Part of the reason Airbus and Boeing don’t want to go clean sheet with the A320 or 737 is that these airplanes have been perfected. The designs are mature and everything has been fixed that likely needs reliability improvement. When you start with a new clean sheet design, all sorts of problems will be entered into the airframe. This is the exact reason why the Air Force wanted a 767 tanker. They want a mature proven design where all the glitches have been fixed. A new derivative would have low dispatch reliability. The A320 and 737 have amazing utilization and dispatch numbers which would take years of perfecting to get a new airplane to match. The 767 and 777 are similar. You can’t expect the 787 to have equal reliability to start. In 5 years, one would hope that the 787 has better numbers than the 777 since Boeing should have built a better design.

Any analysis based on single events, especially what is reported in the news is pointless. Unless you show me an article from ANA comparing 767 and 787 fleet reliability numbers, I am not going to give much credibility to the sources.

Quoting worldrider (Reply 31):
Al BAker says:
“These problems are unacceptable because this aircraft has been flying for the last 14 months,” Al Baker said in an interview. “They have to get their act together very fast because we at Qatar Airways will not accept any more defects

and:
“Two aircraft having the same problem -- the same major problem -- so quickly is a cause of concern,” Al Baker said, adding that Doha-based Qatar Air will ask Boeing to cover its losses. “Definitely we will demand compensation. We are not buying airplanes from them to put in a museum.”

Al Bakar pontificating about poor reliability is just him blowing smoke and trying to cut a deal in my opinion. He can expect zero defects, but he will never get that in aviation. The closest airlines to zero defects are ANA and JAL who lead the world in reliability numbers, but also have atrociously expensive maintenance programs that hurt their profitability. Al Bakar claims to be a leader in aviation and at the forefront of design, yet if you ask people in the industry, Qatar is not really a leader in maintenance technology and development. The airlines leading the world with maintenance and reliability are the ones who have worked to build the latest maintenance steering group standards with Boeing and Airbus. Industry leaders are well established airlines with large fleets that have launched airplanes before like United, Southwest, American, Delta, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, ANA, JAL, Singapore, Cathay Pacific etc. When I see executives from those airlines pointing out reliability problems, then I listen. Air India and Qatar are known to publicly speak, but not necessarily tell the whole story.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 22):
It is about weather it is normal that UA 906 is still on the ground
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
It's not still on the ground.

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 tech later that day. She was scheduled to fly this morning but with less than an hour to go, I just took another look and they've substituted the morning flight with a 767 again. Still on for later today though... hopefully she'll be back in the air.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 26):
Various operators, and Boeing, have all said "above 99%" in various outlets basically since entry to service.

Which operators are you referring to? I'm rather skeptical of this figure, to say the least. I've only seen numbers from ANA a few weeks ago where they indicated a 99.3% flight "operation rate", meaning 0.7% of their 787 flights had been cancelled. We simply don't know how many were delayed (ie 15+ mins due to MX), and one would expect a higher rate of MX delays as opposed to outright cancellations.

LOT's first 787 just entered revenue service and AI has apparently been having issues with theirs, while UA can't be anywhere near 99% either. JAL was said to be having problems early on as well (Aspire, citing Boeing people) and they're only operating 6 frames on international routes - resulting in comparatively few flights with every MX delay having a considerably higher impact. I'd rather not rely on flightaware, so in checking their flight status via their website (which only lets you go back two days) they show a MX delay on the 12th and another on the 13th. Those two instances alone would probably already put them under 98% for the week - and that's assuming the other 4 days are flawless. Reports on flyertalk point to other delays and FA suggests the same. I don't know how Ethiopian is doing, but when I clicked on one their 787 crossing my screen on FR24 a few hours ago it happened to be a flight out of ADD with an almost 3 hour delay. Don't know how QR's two frames are doing either... have they claimed 99%? This figure remains a mystery to me. At the beginning of October, Aspire quoted Boeing as indicating an average 787 dispatch reliability rate in "the high 90s". That, to me, is PR-speak for perhaps 97%. And if we're talking about "basically since EIS", a rate of 99% simply doesn't add up IMO.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2195 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (2 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting jetmech (Reply 20):
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.

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 the beginning of the 777 program.

I guess here is a point when an overall philosophical interjection may be needed.

A design cycle of an airframe may be in the 10+ years time frame. Considering the time I have been working in this industry (20+ years), I have seen just 2 all new airframe design from Boeing, the 777 and the 787. (I'm not considering the 737 and all it's iteration). And Airbus is not that much different. Within that 20+ years I have seen many old timer retire and many new technology get incorporated. If you think that all the knowledge from the old timer get transferred and that the new technology get incorporated without glitches, then you are living in an fantasy world.

Even when we talk about primary CFRP in primary structures usage in the 777, it can not be treated as equal to the primary structure in the 787. Though the material is more or less the same, the intricacies of skin-stringer-frame-shear tie interface is very much different. So we can learn from previous experience on the performance of the material and some aspect of the design, there are much that is new and much that will need to be learned when we expand our design envelope in CFRP design - example: the wing to body joint in the 787. Even with metal, you will face the same issue when you try to push the envelope in design an manufacturing - Example A380 wing shear ties.

But push the envelope we must, and glitches we must endure . . . otherwise our planes would be too heavy and burn too much gas to be of any use in this new world we live in.

bt

[Edited 2012-12-14 06:10:40]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 37, posted (2 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5804 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 35):
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 tech later that day.

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?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 36):
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 the beginning of the 777 program.

And they're absurdly bullet proof (and wickedly expensive). Compared to past aluminum floor beams that took the brunt of nasty liquids from the galleys and lavs (along with the bilge), the CFRP beams are positively boring, which is a wonderful thing.

I have a coffee coaster made from a cutout of a 777 vertical fin spar...it's about 10mm thick CFRP. I've been trying to break it for about 4 years with no success whatsover.

Tom.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 37):
I have a coffee coaster made from a cutout of a 777 vertical fin spar...it's about 10mm thick CFRP. I've been trying to break it for about 4 years with no success whatsover.

Ooooo, now I'd take one of those any day!



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (2 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 37):
What's wrong with 906?

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 route to EWR after a 30min delay, whereas 904 to DEN was delayed almost 2 hrs.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 37):
I have a coffee coaster made from a cutout of a 777 vertical fin spar...

Nice. I recall some 20 years ago LH was offering office desks in their catalog, made from used aircraft alu. The legs were used fan blades. Didn't come cheap though  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 40, posted (2 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5460 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 39):
I recall some 20 years ago LH was offering office desks in their catalog, made from used aircraft alu. The legs were used fan blades.

This was the office admin's desk at Evergreen in Marana, AZ:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5853/p1010833ox.jpg

Tom.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (2 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5105 times:

Damn... now that's a desk!  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 37):
What's wrong with 906?

Glenn Farley of Seattle's King5 tweets:

"KING 5 has learned that a second United 787 has an electrical panel problem. "
"That makes three affected Dreamliners. I'll have more tonight on KING 5 News at 5"

Not surprising, given the amount of time 906 has been on the ground. What does surprise me is that ANA hasn't seen this issue - as first operator and given the size of their fleet.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31393 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (2 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 41):
Not surprising, given the amount of time 906 has been on the ground. What does surprise me is that ANA hasn't seen this issue - as first operator and given the size of their fleet.

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 with UA and QR - and maybe AI).


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (2 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5035 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 42):
Maybe it's something related to using GEnx engines.

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 paywall: http://tinyurl.com/cl74zy4


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5834 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (2 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4994 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
This was the office admin's desk at Evergreen in Marana, AZ:

That looks to me like an early JT9D nacelle. If so, the "Dependable Engines" tag is amusing.  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31393 posts, RR: 85
Reply 45, posted (2 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4902 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 43):
Unfortunately, the article is behind their paywall...

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 and a power panel on the second UA bird and just the power panel on the second QR bird.

United Technologies Aerospace Systems unit makes the panels, so they are working with Boeing, UA and QR (as well as the FAA).

[Edited 2012-12-14 17:23:42]

User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4853 times:

Quoting worldrider (Reply 4):
AI has returned some of their 787s due to power systhem defaults, how long are supposed to be away?

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 fix.

QR faced a similar issue on their 787 early this week. A UA 787 has also been grounded due to some electrical issues, although I'm not sure about specifics so I can't tell you if they are related.

Despite these teething issues, AI has expressed happiness with the way the aircraft is performing when it is actually in the air, and the teething issues will get fixed up soon enough. The 787 is going to be a great workhorse for the fleet in the coming few years  



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlineworldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4586 times:

Quoting aeroblogger (Reply 46):

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?


User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

Quoting worldrider (Reply 47):
things apart, how come the FRA-DEL flight has been downgraded from the 77W to 787? couldnt they fill up
the 77W?

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 flights.

In the long run, the 787 might not stay on this route.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

Only GE engined frames that have issues?

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...
What's The Update With The 787 At Farnborough? posted Wed Jun 30 2010 10:09:50 by virginblue4
What's Going On With The 787? posted Mon Dec 24 2007 09:49:47 by Boeingluvr
AF Or KL First With The 787 posted Wed Jan 10 2007 21:52:53 by Blast
Should Airbus Compete Directly With The 787-3&8? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:34:13 by MotorHussy
On Tour With The 787: Dreamliner Is On Schedule posted Fri Jun 16 2006 14:59:40 by NYC777
Will LAN "share" The 787 With TAM? posted Sat Sep 1 2012 17:48:41 by Gonzalo
Airbus Challenges The 787-10X With A330-300S posted Mon Jan 30 2012 02:51:25 by ferpe
Will Boeing Replace The 787-9/777 With A New Line? posted Mon Aug 16 2010 22:43:11 by panais
787 Issue With The Composite Materials In Wings posted Fri Nov 13 2009 05:53:08 by PlaneAdmirer
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR