Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:49 pm

The Boeing 787 is the most spoken aircraft in history -at least considering the media hype throughout the last months .
But when it comes to specific details of the current state of assembly,Boeing is very much low-profile .
Reading through specialised forums related to composite -materials,the hype is remarkably less present.It seems the underbelly-section will have a staggering small 2-4 mm thickness-while door-frames get up to 8 mm of composite structure.
The bleed-less engine concept is less than convincing to those who calculate energy consumption compared to non-bleedless techniques.The all electric,all composite model has another challenge to mount-the radiation/cosmic environment/electrical impact tests.While metal is a good insulator against electrical hazard,carbon-fiber is an rather non-protective environment.Questions ralated to repair remain rather unconvincing-riveted repairs for parts of the fuselage -bonded for others- leave an impresssion of difficult to predict maintenance and repair issues.
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:58 pm

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

Why the disappointment?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:59 pm

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct about the fact that electricity is not necessarily the most efficient way to do everything. A lot of energy is lost in producing heat for example, which is one thing that it will do on the plane. However you are overlooking the weight benefits. Even if in some cases a pneumatic system may be more efficient, it is heavier. Electricity is easy to transport and the avenues for transporting it are very lightweight. Mechanical power is the opposite. And where you save weight, you save energy!
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:01 pm

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

No snags whatsoever on the product line at Ewerett?

Micke//  Wink
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:07 pm

...Part of the weight benefit will be swallowed by a metal coating that will have to be applied (as a non-forseen weight..) to the black-fuselage to comply with environmental issues...
This is a rather non-discussed topc here but once you start digging a little ,you'll discover some issues...
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
mptpa
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:08 pm

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

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

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

Good questions that you raised however. Some thought provoking questions I must say.
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:11 pm

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

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

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

While this isn't a commercial jet, the materials are essentially the same.
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:16 pm

Don't get me wrong- I do not intend to put questions into Boeing's capability to come up with a marvellous new flight-system.
But while we get used to hack and beat on the A380 and it's miseries,we tend to lose objectivity looking the other side of the Atlantic and start asking normal questions as aviation freaks...
The thickness of the hull is still a mystery to me and I still don't see how a 2 mm thick fuselage can provide all the necessary protection,stiffness and static required for an aircraft ,that has to handle thousands of hard landings .
Experience has shown that computer calculations can predict 95 % of all issues but there is a 5 % area of engineering-simulations that escapes computer run-time.
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2121
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:37 pm

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

How thick is the Al of a standard commercial aircraft?

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

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

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

Admit it that you just wanted to cast a shadow on the 787
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:53 pm

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

A380/WhaleJet etc.

Do I need to go on???

Micke//  Yeah sure
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
NYC777
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:55 pm

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

That's becasue the A380s problems were of Airbus' making and they should rightfully be raked over the coals for overpromising and underdelivering...as usual.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Why is it ,that whenever someone starts asking critical questions about Boeing aircraft ,one is accused to put in invalid or dummy demands ,but any verbal B.S. towards Airbus are judged serious and valid participations to this forum....
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:12 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:26 pm

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

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

The German institute for "Luft und Raumfahrt" is not really an intellectual garbage dump -once you read some of their papers related to CF structures,you'll find there are issues tied to maintenance,repair,future cost of material,protection,material behavior,that are not all convincingly addressed.
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:34 pm

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-10-23 16:39:11]
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
Beaucaire
Topic Author
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:50 pm

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

Wrong statement - I am a fervent aviation fanatic regardless of make,nation,ideology or share-price related preference.I still think the 747 is my favoured aircraft...
What I try to understand is the biased ,one-sided "787 is the best" -hype without anyone having ever seen that plane taking off...
Engineers tend to have a less emotional approach to issues than non-engineers- actually most engineering-forums enjoy a quite open,friendly and non-imposing attitude when it come to fundamental material or philosophy related issues.
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2121
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:54 pm

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

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

Also, FYI, Airbus only uses 1.6mm thick Al on their fuselages. I did find the quote on Leeham where these "concerns" about the Fuse thickness were brought up....No suprise that these concerns were voiced by an Airbus employed "expert" and about 6 months before Mr. Foegard announced that Airbus's A320 replacement would have a composite fuselage.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5015
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:05 am

Same old rubbish when questening 787 and its progress:

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

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

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

Micke//  mischievous 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:17 am

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

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

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

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

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

Of course.

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

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

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

The risk factors for the A380 are commercial and production. Airbus has been unable to get a solid production line going, and is unable to provide orders leaving in doubt it's commercial viability. The A380 requires a completely new statistical trend to emerge to justify it's viability. That trend has not started to date.
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:43 am

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2006-10-23 17:47:23]
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2121
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:45 am

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

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


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

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

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

Granted that Airbus management has made the repeated mistake of denial of production problems, but just because Airbus is disingenious with their public releases does not mean that Boeing must be also.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:52 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
gabo787
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:24 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:08 am

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

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

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

just my  twocents 
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:19 am

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

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

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

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

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

Production is starting to ramp up in earnest now, and if there are problems I am sure we're going to hear about them in the press and then the Airbus aficionados will make sure we hear about them in this forum.
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:55 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swiping at either manufacturer on the basis of some half-assed patriotic zeal mixed with a good dose of ignorance is shameful and not the mark of a real aviation enthusiast IMO. They should be sent to bed with no dinner.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:04 am

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

While I don't doubt that you may have technical expertise, you can't make an assumption about the performance of a material just from what sounds logical. One of the first lessons I was taught in college while pursuing my engineering degree is that intuition sucks. You can't trust it. Engineering is about coming to conclusions based on information. You can't guess. It doesn't work.

The Lunar Excursion Module that brought the astronauts to the moon 35 years ago had material that was only as thick as approximately 4 sheets of standard aluminum foil in places. We are talking about thousanths of an inch.

Materials have amazing capabilities. I'm not a materials specialist, but don't deny that carbon fibre composites can withstand such forces even when they are so thin. All of the strength in carbon fibre composites come from little strands that are about a thousanth of an inch thick. These are just sewn together in a matrix structure. The A380 is made out of a composite structure that is just as thin as the 787's composite structure, but the difference is that the parts are heavier since they are using glass fibers in an aluminum matrix. Believe it or not, but glass is what is holding the A380 together and giving its fuselage strength. Aluminum is only there to keep the glass fibers in place. Now is that intuitive?

Also, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about computer calculations predicting 95% of the problems. They are no where near that good. There is a reason why everything is tested. Each component of the 787 is being tested. Yes there will be some final problems with integration and unforseen problems when the plane enters service, but this happens with every engineered product down to things as simple as a paper clip or a post it note (the first post-it notes failed in field testing).
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
n844aa
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 10:38 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:07 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 26):
The Lunar Excursion Module that brought the astronauts to the moon 35 years ago had material that was only as thick as approximately 4 sheets of standard aluminum foil in places. We are talking about thousanths of an inch.

Forget Airbus or Boeing -- give me Grumman any day.  Smile

It may not have been the earliest, but the LEM was probably the ugliest example of the truism that you don't need looks to be a superb flying machine.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:12 am

Quoting N844AA (Reply 27):
It may not have been the earliest, but the LEM was probably the ugliest example of the truism that you don't need looks to be a superb flying machine.

Especially when you are "flying" in a vacuum.  duck 
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:25 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
The 380 is on track for certification and may even be early in this milestone. Systems certification should follow once the harness issues are deal with. The flight-test results are excellent and almost all the problems which have burnt up so many column inches on a.net have been shown to be non-starters. However, the wiring harness issue is simply a deal-breaker and has many knock-on effects. It has to be 100% right and while it is being dealt with, nothing can be done in terms of the rest of the aircraft.

Achieving the milestone of "certification" nearly two-years after after the roll-out, and over 18-months after the maiden flight of MSN001, when deliveries of production aircraft to customers in any kind of meaningful numbers will not commence until more than a year-to-18-months after "certification," seems like a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:30 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
Fiasco it is not.

$6 billion in cost over runs, a shutdown production line, two years (as of now) late to EIS...and you don't think that is a fiasco? I know we share a common language so I have no doubt "fiasco" means the same where you are as it does here so I can't understand what it would take before you would label something as a "fiasco".

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
However given that Boeing historically handle PR and the media interface far better than Airbus,

Really? What was your impression of Boeing's PR machine for 7 years during the period 1998 (when their production lines came to a halt) and May, 2005, when the last of the bad news (Stonecipher's departure) seemed to have finally stopped? They had nothing but a string of bad news in between, one right after the other, and their stock traded continuously in the low $30 range. (In fact, Phil Condit at one time pointed out that they might be ripe for a takeover unless their stock value improved.)
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:37 am

Quoting N844AA (Reply 19):
If Boeing had reasonable notice of some sort of material delay to the 787 program, they'd be required by law to disclose it -- or else they'd face a shitstorm from our Securites and Exchange Commission, Boeing shareholder lawsuits, and their customers.



Quoting Solnabo (Reply 3):
No snags whatsoever on the product line at Ewerett?

No. I have a personal contact in the procurment process of the fuesalages and they have no notice of any delays. Neither actively or forseen in the future. Not to say it couldn't happen... but everything is going very smoothly.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
Boeing already run simulation of the energy consumption with bleedless engine, and has shown that in consume less energy compared to the bleed engine.

 checkmark 

Quoting N844AA (Reply 27):
It may not have been the earliest, but the LEM was probably the ugliest example of the truism that you don't need looks to be a superb flying machine.

Good thing it didn't need to fly. Thats like saying a satellite is a "flying machine."  Wink
KPAE via KBVY
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:42 am

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 29):
Achieving the milestone of "certification" nearly two-years after after the roll-out, and over 18-months after the maiden flight of MSN001, when deliveries of production aircraft to customers in any kind of meaningful numbers will not commence until more than a year-to-18-months after "certification," seems like a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Perhaps. But I guess my point was that people insist on extrapolating the 380 program problems to Airbus as a whole - proposing everything from Airbus vanishing, to asking Boeing for help. This, in my opinion, is misinformed and ignorant.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:47 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The 787 will come as a great commercial success- no doubt- but some people wonder when and what will be the set-backs....

Of course there will be setbacks

There could be setbacks, but till they actually happen, it is almost useless to talk about what they 'might' be. Boeing might actually get the plane delivered on time, with the setbacks coming later in the required learning curves for the maintenance requirements.

Or they might be no significant delays or problems at all.
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 30):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
"Fiasco it is not."

$6 billion in cost over runs, a shutdown production line, two years (as of now) late to EIS...and you don't think that is a fiasco? I know we share a common language so I have no doubt "fiasco" means the same where you are as it does here so I can't understand what it would take before you would label something as a "fiasco".

My perpspective is that of seeing the huge program problems as derived from an almost 'small' aspect of the aircraft systems as a whole. A consequence of this has been the penalty payments, halted production and late EIS. For sure, you can call the relevant technical domain which is at fault a fiasco. But the whole program - no. I'm not sure you appreciate how compartmentalised Airbus and the 380 program is.

In any case, I think you would find a bunch of engineers in flight physics, systems and other domains outside the wiring area justifiably annoyed with you if you called their efforts a fiasco. It's a good word if you're trying to paint Airbus with a nice broad tarbrush, but in my view, it's not accurate.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 30):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
"However given that Boeing historically handle PR and the media interface far better than Airbus,"

Really? What was your impression of Boeing's PR machine for 7 years during the period 1998 (when their production lines came to a halt) and May, 2005, when the last of the bad news (Stonecipher's departure) seemed to have finally stopped? They had nothing but a string of bad news in between, one right after the other, and their stock traded continuously in the low $30 range. (In fact, Phil Condit at one time pointed out that they might be ripe for a takeover unless their stock value improved.)

I still think Boeing generally communicate in a clearer manner. I've seen a few Airbus press releases suffering from what I'm sure are translation artifacts as well as expressions derived from the multiligual habits of Airbus employees. These can be ambiguous and, in cases where difficult issues are being discussed, potentially adverse if not absolutely clear.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:05 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 32):
Perhaps. But I guess my point was that people insist on extrapolating the 380 program problems to Airbus as a whole - proposing everything from Airbus vanishing, to asking Boeing for help. This, in my opinion, is misinformed and ignorant.

I have never said anything about extrapolating A380 problem to Airbus. Look at all my posts. I said A380 fiasco, not Airbus fiasco. I was answering to a statement of A380 program vs. B787. It's not about Airbus vs. Boeing.

By the way, not that I want to start any bashing, but just looking at the facts that Airbus has had 3 CEOs in the last year, and countries fighting over the share of jobs, while it incurs heavy hit on the revenue prediction.

It has communication problems between different divisions, while nobody took charge of proper networking between them, which results in the A380 fiasco.

I think Airbus has a problem, and the first thing they do is admitting the problem. Boeing did have problem, and it costed them money. But they pulled through it. Airbus will, but if somebody says that Airbus does not have a problem, he is in his own world.

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
hb88
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:23 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 34):
By the way, not that I want to start any bashing, but just looking at the facts that Airbus has had 3 CEOs in the last year, and countries fighting over the share of jobs, while it incurs heavy hit on the revenue prediction.

yeah... sigh. Well, as an Airbus employee in the UK where the government interference is minimal, the European politicking is immensely frustrating.
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:56 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 25):
(the first post-it notes failed in field testing).

Actually, Post-It from 3M was a failure. They were formulating a glue, it failed as it never properly cured. From what I read, it was discoverd secrataries using the failed formulation to post notes, a marketing guy had a paradigm shift, the rest is history.

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 33):
In any case, I think you would find a bunch of engineers in flight physics, systems and other domains outside the wiring area justifiably annoyed with you if you called their efforts a fiasco. It's a good word if you're trying to paint Airbus with a nice broad tarbrush, but in my view, it's not accurate.

Hb88, Airbus is a fiasco. A350, 1, 2, 3, XWB, A floats everything from black panels to titamium, Al-Li, Glare to the press, a 40% Market Cap loss...Now massive layoffs loom and a company wide reorganization, even A talking of moving some production to the US.

No, it's certainly not the engineers, scientists, technicians or the poor line schmucks like me that did it. It's the management that does not have the same talent of the people (and previous managers) that built the 320, 330, etc.

A or B bashers are tiresome to read, however speculation is fun, such as the thread starter here.

For me? Carl Zeiss designed the Biogon lens formula pre war, the Hologon in about 1962. The Mars Rover's Navcams use a Biogon/Hologon hybrid. The scientists got it right, a Biogon made in 1950 is still a great performing lens.

So where is Airbus management? They have trashed the company, when you have a series of German States swearing financial support for A, it makes them an even bigger laughing stock on this side of the pond.

A leasing company (IFLC) in reality killed the A350ver X. Huh?

Not one person on this board would call A engineer's efforts a fiasco, but many (me included) and the financial markets call Airbus a fiasco.

With respect-
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:03 am

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

Try calculating the benefit of higher operational reliability, of doing away with a whole 'branch' of trained mechanics, tools and test equipment, the elimination of some non-predictable failure cases, the prospects of building slimmer pylons...just to mention a few. Maybe hot bleed-air failure cases are something you really don't want to deal with in a CFRP wing? Did you base your assessment on a life cycle trade at system architecture level, or did you base it on a plain weight, drag and sfc analysis?
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:10 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 11):
Why is it ,that whenever someone starts asking critical questions about Boeing aircraft ,one is accused to put in invalid or dummy demands ,but any verbal B.S. towards Airbus are judged serious and valid participations to this forum....

There is about an equal quantity of mindless bashing on both sides.

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

I believe every commercial airliner ever built has a fuselage that is less than 2mm in some places.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 18):
The 787 is a amazingly complex and interesting project. Boeing has a huge chunk of risk associated with this project. In particular the composite fuselage, the bleedless systems, the incredible energy requirements etc. It's almost unthinkable that there will not be problems with this plane at some point. But that's the point where the similarities between the 787 and the A380 (and in fact, every new generation of jet aircraft) end.

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

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

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

Actually, the B787 has tremendously more production risk than the WhaleJet ever had. The WhaleJet's risk was nearly all a question of the size of the market. The technical and production risk was minimal. The B787 always had a clear market. The risk was primarily technical and, especially, production.

Quoting N844AA (Reply 19):
Micke, I don't know if you're aware of this, but we have lots of laws over here that prevent corporate officers from making materially misleading statements -- I know you guys have them over there too, but I don't know how ours are different. If Boeing had reasonable notice of some sort of material delay to the 787 program, they'd be required by law to disclose it -- or else they'd face a shitstorm from our Securites and Exchange Commission, Boeing shareholder lawsuits, and their customers.

Both the US and EU have such laws but they are stricter (and more strictly enforced) in the States.

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 24):
The 380 is on track for certification and may even be early in this milestone.

How on earth might the WhaleJet be early in certification when the first delivery to SQ was scheduled for March 2006 with EIS expected in April 2006?!?!? The truth is certification was supposed to be in 2005 and now it looks like it will be in 2007. How is that early?

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 29):
$6 billion in cost over runs, a shutdown production line, two years (as of now) late to EIS...and you don't think that is a fiasco? I know we share a common language so I have no doubt "fiasco" means the same where you are as it does here so I can't understand what it would take before you would label something as a "fiasco".

If the WhaleJet program is not a fiasco, then there has never been a fiasco in the history of commercial aviation. That doesn't mean that everyone involved screwed up -- nearly everone did their job well. However, that was not enough to save the program from being a fiasco due to the gross management error of using incompatible versions of CATIA.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:14 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 33):
I'm not sure you appreciate how compartmentalised Airbus and the 380 program is.

Perhaps it's a little too compartmentalized -- that kind of severe thinking no doubt leads to a "it's the other guys' problem" mentality, which you seem to reflect. Of course no one thinks the wings or other systems are a "fiasco". Indeed, they are probably an engineering marvel. But they are part of the overall project. And right now, the overall project does not look too healthy.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:27 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
If the WhaleJet program is not a fiasco, then there has never been a fiasco in the history of commercial aviation.

It's clearly a fiasco so far as a program, but there's still a chance that in the long run it turns into something acceptable say between a partial failure and a respectable success.
As an aircraft and product design, it certainly doesn't deserve to be put into the same league with true fiascos like the Bristol Brabazon or the Saunders-Roe Princess, the Baade 152 or the Chinese copy of the 707 to name a few.

[Edited 2006-10-23 22:39:55]
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:46 am

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 3):
No snags whatsoever on the product line at Ewerett?

Everett.  embarrassed 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
Bohlman
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:31 pm

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 33):

My perpspective is that of seeing the huge program problems as derived from an almost 'small' aspect of the aircraft systems as a whole. A consequence of this has been the penalty payments, halted production and late EIS. For sure, you can call the relevant technical domain which is at fault a fiasco. But the whole program - no.

EA 401 was good flight except for an extremely small issue, that ended up killing 103 people. Though the flight lasted 2 hours, a $12 light bulb caused a 10 minute sequence that caused what people could easily refer to as a "fiasco".

Nobody here (well, none of the reasonable people here) thinks that there's anything at all wrong with Airbus' engineers, or even most of their managers, but clearly something was done very very wrong with the A380 program, but beyond that, and even worse, is that once these issues were highlighted, Airbus has (to this point) continuously denied any problem at all, and even reacting with borderline hostility to any suggestion that there might be a problem.

Don't get me wrong. I genuinely love Airbus aircraft, after all, if it has two wings (or four), it would honor me to fly it. However, it cannot be argued that this particular incident was handled tactfully or skillfully, despite the hard work of all the brilliant people who work at Airbus.
I'm not pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus, I'm pro-crew all the way.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:56 pm

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 42):
EA 401 was good flight except for an extremely small issue, that ended up killing 103 people. Though the flight lasted 2 hours, a $12 light bulb caused a 10 minute sequence that caused what people could easily refer to as a "fiasco".

If we accept Hb88's reasoning, then one can't call EA401 a fiasco, only one small technical aspect of the flight was a fiasco. That 103 people are killed or an EIS is two years late does not reflect badly on the flight overall or the program overall, only on one small technical aspect of the flight or program.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1458
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:16 pm

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 11):
Why is it ,that whenever someone starts asking critical questions about Boeing aircraft ,one is accused to put in invalid or dummy demands ,but any verbal B.S. towards Airbus are judged serious and valid participations to this forum....

Indeed, Boeing is the holy cow. And some Boeing die-hard fans dont want to accept constructive criticism.    Btw welcome on my RU-list.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 13):
I would not have expected a different annswer from an a.netter with a logo "Polymer Plane.."
There is a fine line between "technically feasable" and commercially sustainable.Don't come back with arguments tied to the A380-the standard reply- but try to explain why Boeing is to quiet about work-progress on the 787 ?

Couldnt agree more.

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 17):
Sandbox level when it comes to A vs B and I´m one of them, at least I admit it.

Yes thats really sad, its like the kindergarden. Airliners needs more Moderators.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 38):
The technical and production risk was minimal.

Untrue, its not that easy to build a plane in this magnitude, even Boeing confirmed it. Also the A380 has a lot new technologys. Sure the 787 has bigger risk, but to call the A380 technical and production risk minimal is just bad.   

6000psi Hydraulics, GLARE, Composite Wingbox, 500km wiring, power by wire,IMA, Production process with gigantic parts ,etc...

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 10):
That's becasue the A380s problems were of Airbus' making and they should rightfully be raked over the coals for overpromising and underdelivering...as usual.

Yeah.... as usual silly bashing, the A380 meet all the performance guarantees and some beyond as EK,SA,QA confirmed. Yes thats really underdelivering.
Only because managament was a disaster, doesnt mean Airbus or the A380 failed.  
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 34):
By the way, not that I want to start any bashing

Rofl, its not that you didnt started....
  


I also like Beoing and i love the 757 and 748, but this Airbus bashing all day long is really getting booring.   

[Edited 2006-10-24 11:19:53]
“Faliure is not an option.”
 
SeJoWa
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:34 pm

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 37):
Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
The bleed-less engine concept is less than convincing to those who calculate energy consumption compared to non-bleedless techniques.

Try calculating the benefit of higher operational reliability, of doing away with a whole 'branch' of trained mechanics, tools and test equipment, the elimination of some non-predictable failure cases, the prospects of building slimmer pylons...just to mention a few. Maybe hot bleed-air failure cases are something you really don't want to deal with in a CFRP wing? Did you base your assessment on a life cycle trade at system architecture level, or did you base it on a plain weight, drag and sfc analysis?

Here's a good example of why it pays to analyse this step change from a systems perspective rather than that of narrow incremental gains in efficiency:

...
Simpler systems

One way Cessna sought to reduce the Mustang's cost was to simplify its systems. In the hydraulics, the usual engine-driven pumps have been eliminated and replaced with an electric pump that operates intermittently to charge an accumulator that provides hydraulic pressure to operate the landing gear and power the brakes. Two independent pneumatic systems provide for emergency gear extension and braking.
...

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...g+the+spot+The+cessna+Mustang.html

In my experience, gains in flexibility are precious not only regarding the finished product and its 'ecosystem', but also improve the design work involved to get there.
 
Vref5
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:55 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:57 pm

Quoting Bohlman (Reply 42):
EA 401 was good flight except for an extremely small issue, that ended up killing 103 people. Though the flight lasted 2 hours, a $12 light bulb caused a 10 minute sequence that caused what people could easily refer to as a "fiasco".

Not sure that's a fair attribution. The bulb was a contributing cause, but the root cause was (unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it) the flight crew members' loss of situational awareness. In training, one is drilled to always 'fly the plane' first and foremost. This, they lost track of, with deadly results.

Or let's look at it another way... if you go ten-pin bowling, you might have someone in an adjacent lane step forward just as you're about to begin your wind-up and delivery of the ball.

Do you blame a bad roll on the other person? Well, with experience, I would say no. I would say one blames himself/herself for allowing anything else to break their concentration on the delivery.

FAA DE (designated examiner) of today will intentionally try to distract a pilot on a general aviation private pilot flying exam to see if they fall for a situation where they effectively cease to continue to fly the airplane despite whatever sudden and unexpected distractions may come up.

If uncorrected in very short order, that will be an immediate fail of the exam and thus, the private pilot certificate will NOT be granted. Also further reinforced in other training as well as airline line flying training.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:16 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 21):
Mike Bair updates the media about the state of 787 right now, the weight problem and fuselage problem.


Could yo point us the these updates? I recall some rather vague comments from him, and rumours from inside Boeing that everyone is ordered to shut up about any problems.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 37):

Try calculating the benefit of higher operational reliability, of doing away with a whole 'branch' of trained mechanics, tools and test equipment, the elimination of some non-predictable failure cases, the prospects of building slimmer pylons...just to mention a few. Maybe hot bleed-air failure cases are something you really don't want to deal with in a CFRP wing? Did you base your assessment on a life cycle trade at system architecture level, or did you base it on a plain weight, drag and sfc analysis?

Using bleedless engines on civil aircraft has been pondered for decades, but until Boeing decided to apply them on B787 the benefits have been considered minimal to none on a net basis. Also Boeing IIRC doesn't claim any significant gains from doing so.
 
Thomson735
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:37 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:38 pm

Always turns into Airbus Vs boeing all the time,

Both Companies are great manufactorers of acft, and there will always be delays boeing and airbus its kinda like the facts of building there will be delays

Im sure the acft are delayed for a reason, so i also think its better this problem gets fixed before its released, then not so many issues afterwards
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Some Questions Regarding The 787....

Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:06 pm

Quoting Joni (Reply 47):
Using bleedless engines on civil aircraft has been pondered for decades, but until Boeing decided to apply them on B787 the benefits have been considered minimal to none on a net basis. Also Boeing IIRC doesn't claim any significant gains from doing so.

WRONG!

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...81/787+special+Electric+dream.html

Quoting Joni (Reply 47):
Could yo point us the these updates? I recall some rather vague comments from him, and rumours from inside Boeing that everyone is ordered to shut up about any problems.

Rumour has it that Germany and France are going to split and form their own Airbus. Soon, Airlines will have 2 choices, Airbus Germany and Airbus France. Of course, that's only rumour  Yeah sure

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adamh8297, Aesma, Amiga500, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], KLA389, NZ1, piciuuu, PM, Qantas16, qfflyer, The777Man, uta999, wolbo and 218 guests