Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:52 am

Ben Sandilands has produced another interesting article.

The Boeing use of large single piece composite sections was more challenging to manufacture and check, and was in his opinion ‘a bridge too far’.

It seems Airbus is definately taking lessons learned from the Boeing 787 developments and "continually examining alternative materials, regardless of whether they were composite in nature or incorporated exotic alloys" in its pursuit of weight savings in general in its designs.



As I've said before I wouldn't be surprised if the A350XWB turns out to have 50% composites instead of the previously foreseen 53%..

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ght-savings-havent-eventuated-but/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15104
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:09 am

AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.

Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
AirNZ
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:03 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:25 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem

The production of the single barrels are not a problem??? Interesting then that for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design

Justify to whom exactly?
Flown:F27/TU134/Viscount/Trident/BAC111/727/737/747/757/767/777/300/310/320/321/330/340/DC9/DC10/Dash8/Shorts330/BAe146
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4196
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:33 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
less efficient large panel design

Well, I think it remains to be seen how both design concepts will work in practice during operation in the long run.

Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding.  Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.
 
User avatar
teme82
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:38 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:44 am

I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired. This might mean that if a panel needs repairing it can be taken of and replaced with a new one and the old to be repaired. In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.
Flying high and low
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:50 am

[quote=Ikramerica,reply=1]AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.

Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design.[quote]

don't think you read the article my American friend. Ben writes quite clearly that it was anything but what you state.

Quote from source
"But at the outset, he made it clear he [Leahy] wasn’t offering a judgement on whether they were better or worse than the use of aluminium alloys, nor announcing a metal A350 XWB or launching into a detailed critique of the Boeing experience with the 787 Dreamliner project."
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:54 am

This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years - I see some here posting that they already said so whern they were young.

Seriously, both approaches are very valid. It isn't the fraction of composites that decides in the end, but the total weight, and both look indeed near to each other.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:09 am

Personally I think it was a big mistake (by Airbus) to follow Boeing with composite skins.They seemed pushed into it by the constant criticism by one "Rental" plane owner!

One cannot help noticing that the route that Airbus has followed would allow a late change of heart re skin choice.I hope they go for AlLi.It would be far better all round.Frankly it may not even weigh any more than plastics.

They (via 380) have huge experience in this material and of course "GLARE". We have seen Boeings own manufacturing partner in Japan go away from plastic skin for its own new aircraft- what does that tell you?

Be bold Airbus (swallow your pride) and save yourself a 787 problem!
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2863
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:12 am



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):
This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years - I see some here posting that they already said so whern they were young.

I think you are 100% correct.

I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.

Brian.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:37 am

In my opinion the barrels are clearly the beginning of a new era, as oppossed to the Airbus panels which are the ultimate product of a previous era.

One being very highly developed old and the other a very early developed new, means they will probably be about equal.

However as time goes on, Boeing will be able to extract more out of the barells than Airbus can out of the panels, and Airbus will be forced to follow.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:44 am

Aahh... good ole' John "The Mouth" came out from hiding! The best sign that Dubai Air Show is just around the corner.  Smile

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Leahy is blowing smoke to justify the less efficient large panel design.

Whether the large panel design is less efficient or not still remains to be determined.
Proudly avoiding 737 MAX since 18.11.2020.
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To

Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:00 am



Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 9):
In my opinion the barrels are clearly the beginning of a new era

Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.

The added risk of the barrel over panel is that if one of the pieces is out of tolerance, any degradation in performance would be induced by the whole barrel rather than localized from the particular panel. And if any scrappage is necessary then it will also be for the whole barrel as opposed to a small panel.

I'm still not convinced the weight saved can justify the risks that come with the barrel. In any case I believe the B787 is still overweight anyway. Someone remind me by how much?
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:16 am



Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
They (via 380) have huge experience in this material and of course "GLARE". We have seen Boeings own manufacturing partner in Japan go away from plastic skin for its own new aircraft- what does that tell you?

I think they wanted the ability to optimize the wing for two different size variants.

In this case I think the benefits of being able to optimize the wing outweighed the benefits of using the lighter material. Horses for courses!  Smile
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:46 am



Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 8):
I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.

Bear in mind the size of the panels of the A350. It's a quarter of the diameter of the fuselage, and most panels will be quite a bit longer than the one you see at the photo in Keesje's thread starter. So it's not

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 11):
a small panel

that you can replace like the aluminum panels which are used today. In fact, due to the complexity of replacing a large panel, I expect most skin damages on a A350 will be repaired the same was it will be on a 787....
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:58 pm



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!

- you were reading some different a.net then. Nobody was talking about barrels specifically being a problem. Nor did Airbus decide to go with something more conservative after these problems started to appear - it was decided way before that.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:19 pm

Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
Be bold Airbus (swallow your pride) and save yourself a 787 problem!

And start all over again with a metal-alloy A350-XWB?         

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):
This is a topic we can discuss very long, since the answer which way is the better will be known in 10-15 years

Maybe it will take even longer then those 10 to 15 years.   

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 9):
However as time goes on, Boeing will be able to extract more out of the barells than Airbus can out of the panels, and Airbus will be forced to follow.

Rubbish. The usage of panels (of whatever material they are fabricated  ) can evolve just as much, or even more than single barrels. At least there you do not have a wider selection of materials to be used for the fabrication. Panels will give you more flexibility in that department. But all of this is academic.

I personally highly doubt that Airbus will have to follow Boeing in this department. So far Boeing is following Airbus with items like the higher usage of composites and the FBW controls.   So let us wait at least 15 years and see what happens.  

[Edited 2009-11-04 05:28:06]
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:40 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
AFAIK, the single barrels are NOT the problem. Problems have come from brakes, wingbox, wing to body join, avionics and poor management.



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
The production of the single barrels are not a problem??

The problem with the 787 is that Boeing did one massive outsourcing job to vendors who did not have the experience in this new construction method (no one in the world did). On top of it all, Boeing did a very poor job managing the program as a whole. Add to it the miscommunications between their marketing and engineering people. The problems with the 787 is not a saga about "The barrel construction method is F'd up", but, rather "How not to manage a new engineering program in the aerospace industry."

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.

Probably the same since, I believe, the 787 will have aluminum frames around the doors.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 4):
I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired. This might mean that if a panel needs repairing it can be taken of and replaced with a new one and the old to be repaired. In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.

Airbus' panels may be replacable, but they won't be replaced any easier than a 787 having to have a barrel changed.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
Personally I think it was a big mistake (by Airbus) to follow Boeing with composite skins.They seemed pushed into it by the constant criticism by one "Rental" plane owner!

In hindsight it may have been a mistake because they could have been selling the A350 Mk1 like hotcakes by now had they stuck with the original concept to challenge the 787.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:56 pm

I suggest that any thread, from any point of view, in which the term "fanboy" is used has already degraded in the ability to conduct an educational discussion, and qualifies as "childish". We lasted as long as post #2 before hearing it on this thread. Put away the playground hostilities, people.

-Rampart
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:09 pm



Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.

Hard to tell. Carbon fibre is quite resilient and compliant. It's one of the reasons it's so strong. Hardened aluminum is more easily dented. It's another story if you strike it so hard so as to crack it, but that would require a very large blow.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
tarheelwings
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:44 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:13 pm



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
Interesting then that for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!

And for the last 2 years you have consistently hammered Boeing and its supporters here a.net for their faith in the eventual success of the 787. I would venture to guess that even the most rabid Boeing supporters here on a.net have come to the realization that even a great company like Boeing can and will make mistakes. Mistakes that in the case of the 787 have impacted Boeing's credibility and have led some to lose faith in the company's ability to recover from the 787 debacle. FWIW, I am not one of them.....I believe Boeing will prevail and the 787 will turn out to be a great plane.

As far as Ikramerica's comment, isn't it pretty straightforward? "As far as he knows, the barrell approach has not been a problem", he then goes on to mention the other areas that have been a problem. What's wrong with that? How does that turn him into a fanboy?
 
manfredj
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:16 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 11):
Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.

But the fruits of labor will pay off in the long run when the technology is perfected. Aren't you being a little harsh to a first timer like Boeing who is at least trying to make this work. "Failed miserably is hardly conceivable when they have solidified as many orders as they have.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 15):
And start all over again with a metal-alloy A350-XWB?

Even if they wanted to take no chances and go with a metal body, they wouldn't be doing themselves justice in the long run. I just hope people don't start saying Airbus "failed miserably" if they start running into some problems developing their 350. This is a teething process for both parties and they deserve a bit of breathing room until they get it perfected.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
The production of the single barrels are not a problem??

The problem with the 787 is that Boeing did one massive outsourcing job to vendors who did not have the experience in this new construction method (no one in the world did).

I think we're talking about two different things. The delays in getting the barrels completed is a different issue than (their) long term durability.



It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.
757: The last of the best
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:40 pm

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):
It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.

I do not think they are questioning Boeing about that at all. The only thing JL stated was that the single barrel approach might have been a bridge too far. Nothing is said about Boeing using too much CFRP. JL states that Airbus is not focusing on CFRP alone to achieve weight reductions and to create new airplanes with low maintenance costs over their economic lifetime. Which in the end could mean they find better solutions by using different materials to obtain their goals, or they come to the conclusion that CFRP is for some (or most) parts of new airplanes "the way to go" to get weight reductions and low maintenance.

They leave all their options open. With the single barrel approach (mostly fabricated out of CFRP) you have less flexibility in this department.   Nothing more, but also nothing less.  

[Edited 2009-11-04 06:41:33]
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:04 pm



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):


Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 11):
Any technology revolution comes with risks and needs to be well managed to be successful. In this regard Boeing failed miserably.

But the fruits of labor will pay off in the long run when the technology is perfected. Aren't you being a little harsh to a first timer like Boeing who is at least trying to make this work. "Failed miserably is hardly conceivable when they have solidified as many orders as they have.

Project Management is nothing new for Boeing, so they can be fully blamed for the mess they made of it. Cloudyapple's qualification that they failed miserably in this regard is very much appropriate.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25266
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:10 pm



Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal).

Why would the World Wrestling Foundation care if you hurt an animal?  Smile

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame. There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.

It would have bounced back without leaving a dent.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 8):

I do wonder though about repairing the barrels on the 787. Im sure Boeing have investigated damage repair extensively, but the option to remove and install a new panel on the A350 must be somewhat attractive - removal of the panel and getting a new one from TLS is always an option - an options are never a bad thing, IMHO.

That's about as likely as someone getting a new nose section from Spirit Wichita to fix their dinged 787.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 10):
Whether the large panel design is less efficient or not still remains to be determined.

Well the slide in the thread starter shows Airbus is trying to make hay, and it's laughable. Look at the "empty weight per seat" graph. First of all, "per seat" is always a topic for debate. Second there is no label of the Y axis other than the implied percentage of some 777, model unstated. They could have had a little table showing model, number of seats and weight per seat if they really wanted to make a fair comparison. In absence of this, I can't judge what kind of comparison is being made.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:12 pm



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):

It's interesting because Boeing has been slow to the composites vs Airbus in the past. Now, we have Airbus questioning Boeing, suggesting they are using "too much" in their designs. Whose is right time will only tell.

Airbus has certainly been an innovator in airplane technology, but no more so than Boeing. Boeing may be slower to the composites game than Airbus, but remember the 777 is 10% composite. It's not as if Boeing has no experience with it. Boeing is the first, however, to build a commercial airliner that's 50% composite, and until Airbus came out with the A350XWB, they hadn't used so much composites in one plane. While I know some on here talk about the A380 by weight using as much composites as the 787, that's not a fair comparison, because we're talking percentage of aircraft and it's structures, not weight of composite usage. As far as FBW, kudos to Airbus for using it successfully first with limited use in the A310, and fully in the A320/330/340/380/350, but again this is not new tech nor Boeing either. They've been using it for nearly 15 years with their 777.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15104
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:58 pm



Quoting Tarheelwings (Reply 19):

And I forgot one. Shortage of fasteners.

But you still might chalk that up bad management.

As for why airnz calls me names? He contradicts everything I write. You'd have to ask him why he has such personal hatred toward me vive given up on responding to him.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
starrion
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:07 pm

So far I haven't seen anything that suggests that the technology was too hard.

There has been lots of issues regarding poor project management and wretched overall management.

Major issues that led to delays:


Outsourcing: The new model has been a disaster. If Boeing had bitten the bullet and done more of the work themselves, they wouldn't have found themselves having to reinvent the wheel repeatedly.

Travel work: Boeing shouldn't have had segments shipped to Everett requireing massive rework.

Fasteners: Management was notified that there would be delays, non-approved fasteners were used instead, and design control was lost. Fasteners that shouldn't have been put in to begin with then had to be removed and replaced.

The side body issue was seen in design software reportedly but no one took the lead to find out if the concern was valid.

None of these things is tech. It is all management. Whether you make airplanes, cars or software you assess risks to the schedule and sometimes you adjust the sched. for reality. Boeing tried to force the roll out and it bit them.

How much time would Boeing had saved if instead of building and rebuilding ZA001 if they had shifted it aside and went ahead with ZA003 instead?
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:17 pm



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 20):
The problem with the 787 is that Boeing did one massive outsourcing job to vendors who did not have the experience in this new construction method (no one in the world did).

I think we're talking about two different things. The delays in getting the barrels completed is a different issue than (their) long term durability.

Maybe I missed it when I read the article referenced by Keesje, but I'm not sure any problems that have been incurred by Boeing in getting the barrels completed is NOT related to basic project management issues. In the article it states:

"The Boeing use of large single piece composite sections was more challenging to manufacture and check, and was in his opinion ‘a bridge too far’."

Looking at it another way, would Mr. Leahy have even bothered to make these comments had the 787 been put into scheduled airline service on its original time schedule? I think all of the problems faced by Boeing on the 787 are directly related to their method of construction, vis a vis outsourcing the majority of design and construction to their risk-sharing partners.

Mr. Leahy is a renowned basher of the competition so if he's implying that Airbus' panel approach is better and the proof is in the fact that Boeing is stumbling badly because of the construction issues on their barrel approach then his argument is hollow. We know that Boeing's problems are related to a myriad of issues, but I don't think any of them had to do with the barrel construction method per se. I'd even be willing to bet Boeing would have had these same problems - quality control problems included - had they endorsed the panel approach on their global production concept.

But all of this is just my 2-cents.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
ArabAirX
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:38 pm



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Ben Sandilands has produced another interesting article.

The Boeing use of large single piece composite sections was more challenging to manufacture and check, and was in his opinion ‘a bridge too far’.

Actually, Ben Sandilands produced another lopsided, wafer thin "article".

Ikramerica is absolutely right in his post (#1). Where is Ben's examination of the fact that the reason Airbus has the panel approach is because it couldn't circumvent the patents Boeing had for the one-piece fuselage design used on the 787?

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9184

(Cant find the original ATW link, seems to have been removed).

Thats why Leahy is saying what he is - he's promoting his product and demoting the rival, (which on its own merits is slightly funny given Leahy's initial opposition to a composite fuselage for an airplane!)

Randy Tinsth does the same about the so called added weight of the four-shell concept on the A350 family.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:02 pm

This timing in intersting; Leahy has not spoken up it seems in years, and he is doing so now as the 787 launch seems imminent, which is odd.

I conclude there might be some mutual respect among Boeing and Airbus not to kick a man when he is down. Boeing was also somewhat restrained during Airbus's 380 launch often saying things like "Large New Airplanes are hard to realize...etc."

Now, however, the 787 product is firming up, so it's time for the gloves to come off again, which is as it should be.....

Hence we can now once again enjoy Mr. Leahy's charming insights on a regular basis  Smile
 
rcair1
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:39 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:00 pm



Quoting EbbUK (Reply 5):
don't think you read the article my American friend. Ben writes quite clearly that it was anything but what you state.

Quote from source
"But at the outset, he made it clear he [Leahy] wasn’t offering a judgement on whether they were better or worse than the use of aluminium alloys, nor announcing a metal A350 XWB or launching into a detailed critique of the Boeing experience with the 787 Dreamliner project."

 coffee  Pfffftt... That made me spit out my coffee. It is like the two ladies leaning on their fence saying

"I certainly don't want to gossip, but that new boyfriend of ....."

Of course he is offering opinions/judgements and, while not a detailed critique - critisizing Boeing.

Of course he should be. Boeing will do the same. This is marketing.

Putting statements like this in an article tell me more about the author/journalist(?) than the subject of the article. It tells me I should be careful about interpretations.

At this point, we have no clue (based on the data here), which approach will be better, or that either will actually BE clearly better. Engineering and design is a series of trade offs and those outside that process rarely have the insight of those inside.

I hope both Boeing and Airbus are successful, as well as the smaller players. I can think of nothing I would like less than having even fewer choices in aircraft.
rcair1
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:16 pm



Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding.   (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal). When entering the aircraft with my aluminium briefcase (about 5 kilo) I missjudged the distance between me and the door frame and smashed my briefcase against the frame.

I found it quite funny that the FA had the OH NOESS face, LOL.

Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
Be bold Airbus (swallow your pride) and save yourself a 787 problem!

Better yet Dont promise what you cant deliver.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
In hindsight it may have been a mistake because they could have been selling the A350 Mk1 like hotcakes by now had they stuck with the original concept to challenge the 787.

Maybe, but in the current financial climate I bet a lot of Boeing customers would sink with the ship instead of changing brands (and paying for the change). Also the economy has lowered the flying pax.

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 29):
Hence we can now once again enjoy Mr. Leahy's charming insights on a regular basis  

Yes and see how he follows the old saying: "never kick a man unless he is down" and I guess some people do not learn from past mistakes.

Best Regards TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To

Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:58 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
In hindsight it may have been a mistake because they could have been selling the A350 Mk1 like hotcakes by now had they stuck with the original concept to challenge the 787.

  

I was one of those who believed at he time they should have stayed with the original A350.

The pressures were extraordinary, though, from Stephen Udvar-Hazy spitting the dummy at ISTAT to then Airbus CEO Humbert's remark: "Airbus listens to its customers."

He didn't last, of course, and I've often wondered if a different, stronger, CEO would have made a different decision.

It is also interesting to read Richard Aboulafia now, of course, referring to the "drug like rush" of the 787.  Smile

mariner

[Edited 2009-11-04 12:03:03 by mariner]
aeternum nauta
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14127
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:02 pm



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 28):
Where is Ben's examination of the fact that the reason Airbus has the panel approach is because it couldn't circumvent the patents Boeing had for the one-piece fuselage design used on the 787?

I'm not sure. The technology is not that new. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...r4000CRFPfusealge.jpg?t=1257364317
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:12 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
I'm not sure. The technology is not that new.

There are certainly scaling issues though, which would probably require a different process, so there may be patents involved. I have no idea whether they would be held by Boeing or their subcontractors and for that matter, it probably wouldn't be too difficult for Airbus to get around those.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To

Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:47 pm



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 29):



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 29):
This timing in intersting; Leahy has not spoken up it seems in years, and he is doing so now as the 787 launch seems imminent, which is odd.

I conclude there might be some mutual respect among Boeing and Airbus not to kick a man when he is down. Boeing was also somewhat restrained during Airbus's 380 launch often saying things like "Large New Airplanes are hard to realize...etc."

Now, however, the 787 product is firming up, so it's time for the gloves to come off again, which is as it should be.....

Hence we can now once again enjoy Mr. Leahy's charming insights on a regular basis

LOL, how true. Perhaps the pending GECAS order for the 787 is bringing out Mr. Mouth.
No question Boeing has blow several critical procedures. However, IMO things will start moving very quickly now. VERY quickly.
"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7136
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:29 am



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 4):
I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired. This might mean that if a panel needs repairing it can be taken of and replaced with a new one and the old to be repaired. In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.

No, it means that a panel can be removed, replaced with a new one, while the old one is scrapped. That's an option in addition to repair work when the damage is only very minor..

On the barrel design the fuselage can only be repaired, or the whole fuselage replaced. A major repair work has the potential to ground the plane for a long time, and to add considerable empty weight to the plane.

It may be possible to exchange a single barrel, nose or tail on a barrel fuselage. But it has to be done on an substantially disassembled plane, and the rejoint will be done on factory jigs only. It will be very costly and time consuming.

There is no doubt that from a repair point of view the panel design only has advantages. After substantial damage the plane can be put back in service faster and cheaper, and it will be as good as new after repair. But I find it hard to believe when Airbus claims that it also has a very minor weight advantage.

When things are cleverly designed (and both the 787 and the 350 will turn out as some of the most fantastic structure designs in the world), then every joint will add weight. And the barrel design simply has fewer joints.

I'm not sure we have heard the real truth why Airbus chose panels over barrels. I think that their major resaon was cheaper R&D and cheaper development of manufacturing hardware. While they judge the overall product quality roughly equal with some advantages and disadvantages to both.

Airbus could be right. At least when looking at events some two or two and a half years back in time it seems like Boeing underestimated their barrel related R&D including manufacturing capabilities at subcontractors. Since then other events have certainly given Boeing plenty of time to learn to produce and mate those barrels. (Or Airbus could be wrong).

But who cares? In the end both planes will haul us along to nice places, one of them maybe with a fraction of a percent better overall operational efficiency than the other giving that airline an advantage of one dollar an 35 cent or whatever. Since that sum is per seat per sector, it all adds up. But it doesn't make or break airlines. What makes airlines is that they fly to the right places at the right times and provide the overall service from booking to baggage retrieval in a way which pleases us, the passengers.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2734
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:19 am



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
No, it means that a panel can be removed, replaced with a new one, while the old one is scrapped. That's an option in addition to repair work when the damage is only very minor..

No, Its been explained to people here time and time again that replacing a panel is *NOT* like replacing a fender on a car. To properly replace a panel you will have to iron maiden the plane so that its fully structurally braced while the panel is out. This you might note is exactly the same thing you have to do to replace a barrel.

The panel also has some issues with access to fasteners and removing all the stuff in the way of removing the panel. Then you get into any hit bad enough to require the structural replacement of a panel will require the repair or replacement of many internal structural items.

Looking at the whole aspect of replacement, the panel has a tiny advantage in a D check situation where you might want to replace an extensively patched (and thus heavy) panel with a new one while the plane is gutted.

The barrel has the advantage that massive damage contained to one barrel is far easier and cheaper to repair given the ability to build and stuff a whole new barrel section to swap in. If Boeing invests the time into developing a program for this, planes that once would be write-offs due to extensive structural and component damage would be very economical to repair.

In the end we haven't heard *any* whispered development for the replacement of barrels or panels. Airbus talks about it being easier, but where is the massive amount of specialized equipment, planning and support for it?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:50 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
No, Its been explained to people here time and time again that replacing a panel is *NOT* like replacing a fender on a car. To properly replace a panel you will have to iron maiden the plane so that its fully structurally braced while the panel is out. This you might note is exactly the same thing you have to do to replace a barrel.

Exactly. Just look at all of the equipment, time, and money that goes into freighter conversions. That is probably the closest thing to replacing a panel that we have seen.

Which raises an interesting question. When eventually 787s start to age, will we see freighter conversions and how difficult would it be compared to traditional aluminum panel aircraft?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
jbernie
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:09 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:54 am

As is normally the case when something that has been done one way for so long gets done a very different way there are always issues. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say and maybe in 20 years we might actually see who is really correct.

Boeing is taking a lot of risks and hopefully with that risk comes reward. Airbus has shot itself in the foot many a time just trying to get the A350 beyond a computer model (it still is just that right?), not forgetting the mess Airbus got itself into with the A380 by having designers working on different versions of the same software at the same time and having holes not lining up etc.

Leahy can have his headline quote, but he lives in a glass house in the same way Boeing does. This kind of talk isn't very useful and is harder to believe given Leahy's reputation and the well documented issues Airbus has had themselves. Maybe he is just hoping to make Boeing look as bad as Airbus when in reality Boeing can do it themselves quite well with the 787 delays.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:06 am



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 2):
The production of the single barrels are not a problem??? Interesting then that for the last two years Boeing and their fanboys here on a.net have been blaming all the suppliers for 'problems' in producing them!

Which problems have been related to *barrels*, specifically? All the problems I've seen discussed, either by Boeing or Airbus fans, have nothing to do with panels vs. barrels.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
There was a huge bang and the stewardess looked to me in horror instead of smiling and saying hello. I wondered later what would be the consequences if this would have happened in a 787 or A350.

Nothing. The skin around an aircraft door frame isn't structural, it's just a sealing surface for the door. The door surround is what carries the load and, as a passenger, you have no access to that.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 4):
I found it interesting that the Airbus states that their panels can be removed so that they can be repaired.

I find it hilarious. Replacing an aluminum panel today is a *huge* deal, and very rarely undertaken. To claim that it's an "advantage" on the A350 (which has panels far larger than anything currently flying) is the pinacle of irony.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 4):
In the 787 you need to repair the barrel without removing it thus making repairs a bit harder to complete.

A repair is far (far far far) easier to accomlish than a replacement when you're talking about skins. That's why SRM's are stuffed full of repairs, and you don't find instructions for skin replacement anywhere (except dedicated replacement Service Bulletins, which operators have been known to scrap airplanes rather than accomplish).

Quoting Parapente (Reply 7):
We have seen Boeings own manufacturing partner in Japan go away from plastic skin for its own new aircraft- what does that tell you?

That CFRP doesn't scale down well for fuselages. Which is what Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer have all been saying for several years.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
It may be possible to exchange a single barrel, nose or tail on a barrel fuselage. But it has to be done on an substantially disassembled plane, and the rejoint will be done on factory jigs only. It will be very costly and time consuming.

This is all true for a panel as well, only aggravated by the fact that a barrel is mostly self-supporting where a panel is not. The jigs are worse with a panel.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
There is no doubt that from a repair point of view the panel design only has advantages. After substantial damage the plane can be put back in service faster and cheaper, and it will be as good as new after repair.

From a repair point of view, a panel is exactly on par with a barrel.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
But I find it hard to believe when Airbus claims that it also has a very minor weight advantage.

I do to...I've never figured this one out. I don't understand the A350 weight estimates at all...if Airbus achieves them, it will be the aircraft engineering coup of the century.

Tom.
 
ArabAirX
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:32 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
The technology is not that new.

Who cares about technology, I referred to the patents!

Just seems odd you give Sandilands "credence" on topics like this with a totally junk article off the back of Leahys comments (not even a 1-on-1 interview!) and rebuke more learned people like Aboulafia.

Weird.
 
Part147
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:13 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:15 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 3):
Recently, I damaged a plane during boarding. Wow! (I hope I will not get banned because stating this is like posting on WWF.org to have tortured an animal).

Why would the World Wrestling Foundation care if you hurt an animal?

Nothing to do with wrestlers at all! - "World Wildlife Fund" otherwise known as Panda.org

Interestingly enough, the wrestlers wanted this web address a few years ago and went to court for it...
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/31/britain.wwf/

Guess who won!?   http://www.wwf.org/

erm, I better add in something about the 787 or this reply wil get deleted eh?

I think that it's too early to say if the barrel design is a 'bridge too far' - it's certainly probably not the most economic option for airlines if they need to replace a whole B787 barrel section rather than the smaller A350 panel thanks to ramp rash.

Maybe Boeing is ultimately planning to design out and remove all human ramp crews and automate ground equipment thus ensuring ramp rash cannot occur and so avoid expensive barrel replacements. Remember you heard it here first - No human involvement on the ramps means no ramps rash - GAS or Ground Automation Services is the way of the future! Cuts down on stolen bags too.  

Edit: typo

[Edited 2009-11-05 01:42:26]
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:31 am



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 29):
This timing in intersting; Leahy has not spoken up it seems in years, and he is doing so now as the 787 launch seems imminent, which is odd.

I conclude there might be some mutual respect among Boeing and Airbus not to kick a man when he is down. Boeing was also somewhat restrained during Airbus's 380 launch often saying things like "Large New Airplanes are hard to realize...etc."

An interesting view. Leahy might be one of the best informed persons about the 787 program, for sure better than the Boeing management that only gets filtered official reports...
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:31 am



Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 30):
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 5):
don't think you read the article my American friend. Ben writes quite clearly that it was anything but what you state.

Quote from source
"But at the outset, he made it clear he [Leahy] wasn’t offering a judgement on whether they were better or worse than the use of aluminium alloys, nor announcing a metal A350 XWB or launching into a detailed critique of the Boeing experience with the 787 Dreamliner project."

   Pfffftt... That made me spit out my coffee. It is like the two ladies leaning on their fence saying

"I certainly don't want to gossip, but that new boyfriend of ....."

Of course he is offering opinions/judgements and, while not a detailed critique - critisizing Boeing.

another one who didn't read the article. If you did, your judgement stopped you from understanding. Leahy talks about composites not realising the weight savings envisaged. With the Airbus panel approach they can incorporate metal and alloy IF it proves lighter. The Boeing single barrel does not allow such a combination. Hence a bridge too far.
Nothing more
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:40 am



Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 41):
seems odd you give Sandilands "credence" on topics like this with a totally junk article off the back of Leahys comments (not even a 1-on-1 interview!) and rebuke more learned people like Aboulafia

As EbbUK writes:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 44):
another one who didn't read the article. If you did, your judgment stopped you from understanding. Leahy talks about composites not realising the weight savings envisaged. With the Airbus panel approach they can incorporate metal and alloy IF it proves lighter. The Boeing single barrel does not allow such a combination. Hence a bridge too far.

JL still seems more keen on wondering how much of an advantage plastic is in that particular app and Sandilands, bless his little cotton socks, appears to be doing an FAQ job of reportage, and it is not Sandilands role to mount a new analysis of either the 787 or the 350 engineering.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 43):
An interesting view. Leahy might be one of the best informed persons about the 787 program, for sure better than the Boeing management that only gets filtered official reports...

Well he could indeed be one of the better informed folk and arguably more free to tell others about the state of things with the 787. More free, it is probable than to tell us about the A350.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 pm



Quoting EbbUK (Reply 44):
another one who didn't read the article. If you did, your judgement stopped you from understanding. Leahy talks about composites not realising the weight savings envisaged. With the Airbus panel approach they can incorporate metal and alloy IF it proves lighter. The Boeing single barrel does not allow such a combination. Hence a bridge too far.
Nothing more

That is exactly what is stated in the article. As I also posted already:  Wink

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 21):
The only thing JL stated was that the single barrel approach might have been a bridge too far. Nothing is said about Boeing using too much CFRP. JL states that Airbus is not focusing on CFRP alone to achieve weight reductions and to create new airplanes with low maintenance costs over their economic lifetime. Which in the end could mean they find better solutions by using different materials to obtain their goals, or they come to the conclusion that CFRP is for some (or most) parts of new airplanes "the way to go" to get weight reductions and low maintenance.

They leave all their options open. With the single barrel approach (mostly fabricated out of CFRP) you have less flexibility in this department. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

But you are absolutely right EbbUK, some out here read only what they want to read.  Sad
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:16 pm

May I add my agreement to the above posts.People must "read" what is being said. Having said that one may ask the question as to why he said what he said at all.Indeed this was the articles overall tack.Just what was he implying?

If Airbus is to continue developing "thin" walled plastic skins then there is no story at all -is there?

So why say it at all? The answer must be in the keeping options open element. From this it possibly can be inferred that the statement was issued as a possible forrunner- change in tack. The way the plane is being built a change can be made to the skin.No company knows more about AlLi and Glare than Airbus.

Of course they may not.But they clearly want the option to do so without it being seen as some sort of mistake/climb down.

Following this announcement it can be said "we were keeping our options open all along".
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:18 pm



Quoting Parapente (Reply 47):
Following this announcement it can be said "we were keeping our options open all along".

Interesting viewpoint Pp. It certainly could be interpreted under the heading of something might happen. but he certainly ain't about to spell it out in too much detail.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Leahy: Boeing 787 Single Barrels "A Bridge To Far"

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:28 pm



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 36):
When things are cleverly designed (and both the 787 and the 350 will turn out as some of the most fantastic structure designs in the world), then every joint will add weight. And the barrel design simply has fewer joints.

Where are the joints?

http://www.premium-aerotec.com/Binaries/Binary4181/IMG_8171.jpg

Nobody can claim that the actual A350 barrel has more fasteners than the 787.

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 28):
Where is Ben's examination of the fact that the reason Airbus has the panel approach is because it couldn't circumvent the patents Boeing had for the one-piece fuselage design used on the 787?

Where is your demonstration that this is a fact? Until you present sources please spare us with your facts...

Very few patents prevent competitors really to do something very similar or something as effective. Normally the patented solution can be improved or slightly changed to overcome the patent protection. Even the Airbus patent for a CFRP bulkhead did not prevent Boeing from using one for the 787 (even built by EADS!). See: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=kTQDAAAAEBAJ

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
No, Its been explained to people here time and time again that replacing a panel is *NOT* like replacing a fender on a car.

This is correct. Replacing a barrel or a panel would only be the last measure barring scrapping.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
Looking at the whole aspect of replacement, the panel has a tiny advantage in a D check situation where you might want to replace an extensively patched (and thus heavy) panel with a new one while the plane is gutted.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
The barrel has the advantage that massive damage contained to one barrel is far easier and cheaper to repair given the ability to build and stuff a whole new barrel section to swap in.

No. Normally you want to reuse a lot of the existing undamaged material (interior, ducts, systems, sensors, avionics). And just there any cost advantage goes. With a barrel it means that you empty the existing barrel completely.

You go from this:



to this...



to this...



and if you don't want to throw away the floor to this...



(probably you have to throw away the floor anyway because otherwise the barrel's self supporting capability is no longer given).

After that you separate the barrels, rejoin the barrels (b.t.w. joining barrels requires skills that some people claim can nowhere be found unless in Seattle WA!).

You then install the inner life of that barrel again (consult above picture series in reverse order).

........ or ........

You throw away all the inner life of the damaged barrel and simply fit in a new one! If that's what you proposed there goes any cost advantage too.


How would it work with panels:
75% of the inner stuff can stay in place... The advantage is obvious. No need to explain more.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
Airbus talks about it being easier, but where is the massive amount of specialized equipment, planning and support for it?

Do you still think that in the light of above picture? Just check the facts: replacing barrels requires more infrastructure that currently is in place in Boeings Final Assembly Line (FAL) in Everett. Simply because the FAL "only" joins pre-stuffed barrels. Replacing barrels on the other hand means considerable dealing with systems and interior unstuffing&stuffing.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40):
To claim that it's an "advantage" on the A350 (which has panels far larger than anything currently flying) is the pinacle of irony.

Nobody said it would be a everyday solution. It would only be an option to not scrap the plane. But in that case the panel offers advantages. I am convinced that my prediction will turn out true:
- The first written off 787 will be very premature and a case that would have been repaired in case of a metal or composite-panel plane.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 40):
The jigs are worse with a panel.

But not impossible. I would say flying in the jigs is easier than to deal with the interior. At least the A350 will stay in one piece while the panel is replaced.

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 41):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 33):
The technology is not that new.

Who cares about technology, I referred to the patents!

Which is meaningless because in fact technology gives the pace. Once a technology exists it can no longer be patented. Simple public evidence of a technology excludes a future patent because the solution fails to give the "new" aspect. From the day I present "new" technology (unproteced by patent or a application for a patent) to the public realm this technology can never be patented anymore by anyone. It is just free.

Sometimes it is better not to issue a patent anyway because the patent reveals:
- What you are researching
- Contains an exact description how you achieve something
- Reveals aspects about product strategy
- A patent delivers freely your current state of know how to the competition
- A patent allows the competition to leapfrog you by starting at your knowledge level with improvements that overcome (a.) the protection and the (b.) shortcommings of your patent.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armadillo1, Drucocu, Lemmy, meecrob and 40 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos