Boeing plans 787 increase

reply to post by Mikeultra



Outsourcing did play a role, but nowhere near what you ate trying to portray. Boeing was WAY too ambitious on announcement to entry times. They didn't give any time for problems to be soothed out in their plan.

Comparing cars to planes is beyond asinine. Planes are a thousand times more complicated, and there has never been a modern commercial aircraft introduced without at least as many problems as this one has.

reply to post by C0bzz

It was clearly merely an aerodynamic fairing that wasn't fitting properly rather than a problem with composites.

What a creepy statement.

Module11: Engineering Applications of Composite Materials

Airbus Industries used advanced composites on the Airbus A300 aircraft which first flew in 1972. The composite material was used in fin leading edge and other glass fibre fairing panels (as shown in Figure M11.2).

Page 10 gives a table listing A300 composite materials.

Page 22 gives a table of composite defects including fairings.

In electrical and electronic engineering we don't simulate every electron either.

The general structural design and certification requirements apply to both composites and metal aircraft structures. However, there are variations associated with the intrinsic differences between the structural behaviour of metals and composites. Although the design requirements are applicable to both metal and composite structures, certification of composite structures is more extensive and requires many more tests. The manufacturer must fabricate and testthousands of specimens and hundreds of sub-components to qualify a single new carbon/epoxy system and associated structural details.

Advanced composites are not electricity. (I don't even believe I'm having to say this!) Or do your electrons sometimes need repair?

reply to post by luxordelphi


And you completely miss his point.

Composites had NOTHING to do with the panel coming off. An inspection was performed and the panel was open shortly before the flight it separated on. Anyone with any experience would safely put money on the mechanic screwing up.

And with 587 the portion that failed was aluminum. The composite on the tail delaminating wouldn't cause that no matter how hard you try.

reply to post by luxordelphi

This is such a cutely put statement that I'm reluctant to even debate it.

Ultimate loads and betas don't mean a lot to me but you must have read some of the NTSB report in order to come up with excessive rudder inputs.

It's not that cute, really, to convict someone who's dead and can't retort. This guy's current pilot and long time friend gave glowing reports sans excessive rudder inputs.

The investigative team had to dig around and look under some rocks (you know, looking for the slimy albino things that dwell there) in order to come up with a "history" of excessive rudder inputs.

It's a reason...sure...but it's far from conclusive. It's kind of like the 787 batteries. They're fixed but we don't know the cause.

This is an incredibly inane and weak argument. Provide evidence that the composite material in AA 587 did not behave appropriately.

You cannot.

Because it didn't happen. Your argument is about as complex as:

"Composites are different to metals! Therefore composites caused a V-stab failure!".

Also rather than solely blame the accident on the pilot, I also noted that some of the blame could be shared by many factors: the rudder control system of the A300, certification standards, as well as pilot error. The point was that it was not composites not behaving as expected or as they were designed.

You on the other hand are using the deaths of 265 people to justify your stupid personal agenda. You are starting to prove only that you are a warped human being who is utterly incapable of accepting that you are wrong.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Why are you going on a tangent about the A300 when I'm talking about the 787? The panel that fell off the 787 was clearly a removable aerodynamic fairing over an area that obviously requires access for maintenance, not a control surface (or other part) that holds large loads like the vertical stabilizer.

The general structural design and certification requirements apply to both composites and metal aircraft structures. However, there are variations associated with the intrinsic differences between the structural behaviour of metals and composites. Although the design requirements are applicable to both metal and composite structures, certification of composite structures is more extensive and requires many more tests. The manufacturer must fabricate and testthousands of specimens and hundreds of sub-components to qualify a single new carbon/epoxy system and associated structural details.

Of course composites are unique and require many more tests! I don't see a problem here? Also you don't need to simulate every single fibre of a CFRP part - all that is required is an accurate model which can be verified through the many tests that composites have to go through. Which is entirely what is done.


Also:

AI blames engineer for Dreamliner panel fall, suspends him

An aircraft maintenance engineer, who was the last to handle the panel which fell off a Delhi-Bangalore Air India flight last Saturday, has been suspended. In all probability, this engineer “forgot to screw back this panel”, an airline official told Firstpost. This official also said though the incident was regrettable, it never had “any safety implications since the panel fell off when the aircraft had already landed on the runway.

www.firstpost.com...

And also:

Parts break off aeroplanes mid-flight

On dozens of occasions, panels, wheels and even entire doors have detached from aircraft mid-flight, in some cases forcing planes to jettison tonnes of fuel or make an emergency landing.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has recorded 187 incidents from 2005-2012 where sections of aeroplane have broken free and fallen to earth, according to a set of records seen by the Telegraph. In some cases debris from aircraft has damaged property.

The records reveal that on March 3 2011 at Exeter airport the right wheel of a Bombardier Dash 8 fell off mid-flight, prompting a ‘full emergency’ and the return of the aircraft, which eventually touched down without injury to any passengers.

In a similarly dramatic incident, 75 tonnes of fuel had to be dumped from a Boeing 747 jumbo jet in mid-air on June 25 2009, after panelling started coming away from a wing mid-flight.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Delta investigates panel falling from plane during flight

Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines is investigating an incident over Denmark in which a panel fell off a plane toward the end of a flight.

The flight, Delta 118 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, was flying in for arrival at Copenhagen Airport on the morning of Nov. 20 when a hydraulic access panel came off of the aircraft, said Delta spokesman Anthony Black.

The hydraulic access panel is a small door on the underside of the aircraft to access avionics and equipment in the wing, and is roughly 2.5 feet-by-2.5 feet, Black said.

The seven crew members and 161 passengers on the Boeing 757 were not aware of what happened, and the plane landed normally at the airport and taxied to the gate under its own power, Black said.

www.ajc.com...

As I have stated previously, you will tie anything and everything to composites whereas any reasonable person would see that these incidents have nothing to do with composites.

Japanese Pilots Worry About Repaired Boeing 787 Jets

"As Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner returns to the skies, Japanese pilots are nervous about whether they would receive enough warning about any hazards with the jetliner’s new battery system."
www.nytimes.com...

If the pilots are worried, then passengers should ask themselves if they should be flying on these 787's.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And pilots were worried about the DC-10, A380, and any number of other aircraft.

Posting articles doesn't prove a damn thing. The fact that they've safely flown thousands of flights on the other hand says a lot.

Qantas cancels orders for 15 Boeing 787s

"The 787 is the first commercial jet made mostly of light, sturdy carbon-fiber composites instead of aluminum. Large parts of the plane, such as the fuselage sections and wings, are made in factories around the world and flown in a huge modified 747 to Boeing's widebody plant in the Seattle area, where they are essentially snapped together."

"Boeing said Tuesday that it needed to reinforce small areas near the connection of the wings and fuselage before conducting a test flight of the jet."
seattletimes.com...

Sections are essentially snapped together? Need to reinforce small areas where the wings connect to the fuselage?
Sounds like lego.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Are you just planning on posting article after article that you think proves you right, or are you going to bother to try to learn something?

Did you bother to see the date in that article? That was right after another delay was announced.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Qantas Group is now flying 787s. Also Qantas hasn't been doing particularly well recently, their international division has been losing money for many years.

reply to post by Mikeultra

I bet those 2 groups of people that were let go were long time workers too. They brought in these new plastic-tech people with little or no experience in aircraft construction, and now their new plane is a lemon. I see parts on my truck that are now plastic, that should be some type of metal. Plastic=cheap! They are trying to eliminate the jobs needed to assemble a traditional aluminum aircraft.
747 - 1,000,000 fasteners
787 - 10,000 fasteners

I fail to see how design simplification (in certain areas at least) is a bad thing? The amount of wiring in each successive generation of aircraft has actually decreased hugely as well. Less parts to maintain. Lighter. Easier to produce. Boeing is in the business of making commercial aircraft. It is not in the business of giving people jobs for the sake of giving people jobs.

Also the 787 has almost 1000 orders which is rather successful. And is giving better than expected fuel burn. Hardly a lemon. Reliability is an issue which needs time to be fixed.

Also CFRP is not plastic (as has been pointed out to you (Ad nauseam) nor is it cheap.

Dan Rather reports on the 787.
He's not impressed.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Is there an actual point somewhere around here?

A bit like chemtrails, concern and pontificating from people who don't know what they are talking about somehow trumps actual knowledge, experience and training.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Boeing has worked with composites for years prior to the 787. The military has used composites in stealth aircraft without any problems for decades.

But suddenly they have no idea what they're doing. It's amazing how that eureka

Studies on advanced composites abound on the internet. Almost monthly, new, improved ways of making them are described. The problems with previous manufacture are also described and the studies detail how some of these problems are now solved or propose to be solved. The whole thing evolves.

But in the news - there are no problems with these materials. They are in use. And their problems are being solved in the lab/manufacturing facilities. But the news says pilot error, assembly person error, bolt error, wind error, vortex forces error, birds, ice etc.

IMHO, that's not right. Experiments belong in a lab, not on a passenger filled jet.

I read an article recently where a group of Chinese construction workers in China were berated and reprimanded for a bridge that fell down. Advanced composites had been used and these construction persons had complied with some sort of rebar-like spacing. The spacing that was dictated was kind of far apart compared to normal spacing for previous materials. But the math and modeled stress tests had shown that this was right and the workers had followed the specs. The stuff had been sold, partially, as a money saver because of less material needed. So the bridge fell down and the construction persons were blamed and called imcompetent.

What had actually happened, you could read about in the studies that came out of these situations. But officially, it remained the fault of the personnel.

Very rare is the manufacturer who cares enough about public safety and who actually believes in a future for their product and who will be responsible and render a true cause.

One such instance happened in a wind turbine facility in Ohio. The manufacturer determined that the ultimate cause for failure was a wrinkle that had developed during manufacture of fiber used for a blade. There is a company I would trust. They didn't sweep it under the rug.

Bolt failure, operator failure, cracks etc. were all causes and have been the causes assigned in many other wind turbine failures. These all happened BUT they were not the original cause.

Broken turbine blade problem found

PAYNE – After an investigation lasting more than a month, the manufacturer of the wind turbine blades which failed at the Timber Road Wind Farm in Paulding County has determined a cause.

Documents filed Friday with the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) by Vestas and by EDP Renewables show the cause of the failure of one of the blades to be a defect in the manufacturing of that single blade.

What a courageous manufacturer for acknowledging the truth and what a courageous news media for reporting the truth.

It almost takes my breath away. Going forward there, will be easy because, it's all out in the open and we all know what we're solving.

reply to post by luxordelphi


And bridges, and wind turbines have nothing to do with aircraft. The composites used in them are different, as is the process to make them. Now you're saying all composites are the same, and they're made the same.

I don't care if it's composite, aluminum, or paper, the biggest cause of problems with aircraft is human error. Maintenance techs not following checklists, not doing tool checks, and not checking their work.

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Because we all know that aluminum aircraft don't burn. Composites are no more combustible than aluminum. Just because it's composite doesn't mean it's suddenly going to burst into flame.

I'm not sure what statement of mine you were responding to so I'll just put up this study by Australia from 2006:

Fire Safety of Advanced Composites for Aircraft

Fire contributes to aircraft accidents and many fatalities. The growing use of polymer composite materials in aircraft has the potential to increase the fire hazard due to the flammable nature of the organic matrix.

The composite most often used in pressurised aircraft cabins is glass/phenolic, and the database shows that this material has excellent fire reaction performance and that very few next-generation composites display superior properties. The most used structural composite is carbon/epoxy, and this material has poor fire resistance and can pose a serious fire hazard.

Combustibility of advanced composites is not a one liner response. There are different minute combinations that require thousands of tests every time one minute portion is changed. There are contentions with the criteria for these tests, particularly when modeled, because, at large, in the environment, events unfold differently.

Cardboard box ignites in accidental fire at high school

It was a very small fire...No one was injured. ...The fire broke out in a paint booth where a composite project in a cardboard box was drying...The project was too close to a heating source — a heat gun — and it caught fire...Composite manufacturing teacher John MacDonald used a hand-held fire extinguisher to quell the fire...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Saudi Arabian Flight 163: 301 people died due to fire on board an L1011.

Air Canada 797: 23 people died in a fire on a DC-9.

BOAC 712: 5 people died in a post emergency landing fire on a Boeing 707.

British Air Tours 28M: 54 people died when a Boeing 737 aborted take off, and the crew failed to notice an engine fire.

All of those and more were non-composite aircraft, all suffered extensive damage due to fire on board. There are many more examples I could find if I really looked. You are in more danger of dying from the toxic fumes of the seats and wiring burning than you are from the composite catching fire.