Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing 787 may not fly this year
Seattle Times ^ | 07/22/09 | Dominic Gates

Posted on 07/22/2009 1:10:26 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway

The structural flaw that delayed the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner is more complex than originally described by the company, and the plane's inaugural takeoff is likely at least four to six months away, say two engineers with knowledge of Boeing's problem.

"It's got to take at least three to four months just to get something installed on an airplane," said a structures engineer who has been briefed on the issue. "It's definitely a costly fix to go and do this work."

(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: 787; aerospace; boeing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
Looks like a major flaw.....The wing to the fuselage?....high stress point and all....How many take off's and landings before the wing seperates?....Gaak!
1 posted on 07/22/2009 1:10:27 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Boy, I’m sure glad we won’t ever again need to produce aircraft at the rate we did in World War II!


2 posted on 07/22/2009 1:16:20 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Texan. Monarchist. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Don’t buy (fly) the union label


3 posted on 07/22/2009 1:17:50 PM PDT by stubernx98 (cranky, but reasonable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Yep, looks like a big problem and very costly to fix.

And not that long ago we were all laughing at Airbus.

4 posted on 07/22/2009 1:19:00 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

This is a complicated machine. Kudos to Boeing for finding and fixing this preproduction, even if it delays the release.

Far better than finding the problem after producing scores of flawed aircraft and having them fall out of the sky due to structural failure.


5 posted on 07/22/2009 1:22:04 PM PDT by chrisser (Jim Thompson is the the finest, bravest, most honorable American I have ever known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

You must have seen the charts on cost of a defect vs. stage detected? Costs grow exponentially with time. Like by a factor of ten with each stage.

You’re right, if it had gone into production (never mind test) with this defect it would have costs 100X more.


6 posted on 07/22/2009 1:26:59 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (AGWT is very robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% confidence level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Better believe it - but not at all surprising.

Garbage company, garbage design, garbage aircraft.

Boeing used to be a solid engineering firm. This 787 debacle is the perfect example of how gov't-sponsored corporate welfare and excessive liberal work policies just wastes a company away to a hollowed shell of it's former glory.

What a shame... /sigh

7 posted on 07/22/2009 1:30:41 PM PDT by liberty_lvr (In the history of mankind, never have so many been so proud of doing so little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway; Aeronaut

A major flaw, like the composite tails snapping off Airbusses?


8 posted on 07/22/2009 1:31:03 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
How in the hell did they screw-up like that in that area??? Composite engineering is not black magic we know full well the physicals involved and Boeing has more Knowledge than anyone of the forces on that section of the wing.

and Why is that not built here by us instead of the Japanese? Way Too many that's!

9 posted on 07/22/2009 1:31:25 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

Yeah, a wing falling off could really ruin your day. :-))


10 posted on 07/22/2009 1:31:46 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
And not that long ago we were all laughing at Airbus.

At least the 787 is a plane that customers want, if it ever gets off the ground.

11 posted on 07/22/2009 1:35:09 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Oh, I still like the Boeing plane much better than that dinosaur Airbus came up with. They just seem to have gone to a really flawed business model to build and engineer the wings.

I imagine they'll get it all straightened out.

12 posted on 07/22/2009 1:40:37 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: liberty_lvr

Boeing is reminding me a lot of NASA these days.


13 posted on 07/22/2009 1:40:43 PM PDT by mgstarr ("Some of us drink because we're not poets." Arthur (1981))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Pretty...but will it fly?


14 posted on 07/22/2009 1:42:51 PM PDT by PeteePie (Antique firearms - still deadly after all these years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberty_lvr

It serves Boeing right, a full 70% of this aircraft is being produced overseas by multitudes of foreign “suppliers”. Boeing no longer supports “Made in America” so now their policy is coming back to bite them on the butt.


15 posted on 07/22/2009 1:43:45 PM PDT by Jmouse007 (tot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PeteePie

Pretty...but will it fly?....

Not if a wing falls off....


16 posted on 07/22/2009 1:48:45 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jmouse007

I agree.....some sticky rice is not going to fix this....


17 posted on 07/22/2009 1:49:54 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Boeing is starting to look a whole lot like NASA. From a can do outfit to a can’t do company. At least GM can still build good cars!

What’s that?

Oh, never mind.


18 posted on 07/22/2009 2:27:35 PM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

“Far better than finding the problem after producing scores of flawed aircraft and having them fall out of the sky due to structural failure.”

More BS!

There has only been one Airbus that crashed due to a “structural” failure and the part failed FAR IN EXCESS of design and certification specs.

But there have been far more Boeings that have had structural failures to include one of the deadliest crashes in history involving a JAL 747 where the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off most of the tail killing 520 of the 524 on board.

Oh and then there was United flight 811.

El Al Cargo flight 1862

Aloha Airlines flight 243

Lauda Air flight 004

BOAC flight 911

BOAC 911 is interesting because it broke up in light “clear air” turbulance

That’s just a small example since I could add dozens more when including avionics failures, as well as uncommanded rudder deflections.


19 posted on 07/22/2009 2:30:32 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
“Far better than finding the problem after producing scores of flawed aircraft and having them fall out of the sky due to structural failure.”

More BS!

There has only been one Airbus that crashed due to a “structural” failure and the part failed FAR IN EXCESS of design and certification specs.

But there have been far more Boeing's that have had structural failures to include one of the deadliest crashes in history involving a JAL 747 where the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off most of the tail killing 520 of the 524 on board.

Oh and then there was United flight 811.

El Al Cargo flight 1862

Aloha Airlines flight 243

Lauda Air flight 004

BOAC flight 911

BOAC 911 is interesting because it broke up in light “clear air” turbulance

That’s just a small example since I could add dozens more when including avionics failures, as well as uncommanded rudder deflections.

Ok but Boeing has had a lot of planes up for many years so the law of probability says there would be a hell of a lot more mishaps with Boeing than the handfull Airbus has flying around.

20 posted on 07/22/2009 2:56:37 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

This article is unusually well written. I commend the author/editor and publisher.

It appears to me that this is more a problem of an engineering detail that was detected in design phase that fell through the cracks than any major design flaw. It was not expected to EVER result in a catastrophic failure, if the article was written correctly. It was only discovered by virtue of the plane being put through a very high stress test that exercised the wing to 150% of the “maximum” stress an aircraft was expected to encounter. If this failure (delamination) had occurred in flight, it would have been noticed upon refueling, and the plane taken out of service for VERY COSTLY repair (or perhaps even junking). I suspect replacing the wing would have constituted the repair which would have been done.

It certainly is not good for Boeing’s bottom line, but in fact it seems that their testing regimen worked to identify a problem that would possibly have shown up sometime in the future and cost them customer confidence then. As it is, Boeing seems to have done precisely what they ought to do.

This all said, if the minor modification that is described works, and it is the only remaining problem that needs to be addressed, it sounds very good. If that modification doesn’t work... well, I am sure that no one at Boeing wants to even think about this one. It sounds like their modeling caught with the earlier design, and the mod has certainly been run through the wringer by now, so I would wager chances are good that it works.

(It has always been amazing to me how wings “flap” on large aircraft to begin with... a bit scary in a way, but thrilling for the daredevil in me, too!)


21 posted on 07/22/2009 3:08:02 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
More BS!

Uh, maybe you need to reread my post.

I didn't say, nor did I infer, anything about Airbus. I was simply pointing out that, bad as this problem is, it's far better to find it now, preproduction, than later.

This is true in terms of cost, in reputation, and most importantly, in lives saved. Praising Boeing doesn't somehow criticise Airbus.

Perhaps your assumption that I was talking about Airbus says something about Airbus - I don't know. I only know about production processes, I'm not an aircraft industry expert. The sooner you find design problems, the better, no matter what the product.

With airplanes, failure has a few more dire consequences than toasters.
22 posted on 07/22/2009 3:12:13 PM PDT by chrisser (Jim Thompson is the the finest, bravest, most honorable American I have ever known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jmouse007

When you get held hostage by the IAW, you’ll chew your own leg off to get out.

Four strikes in 20 years. Sorry, but the engineers are union too. It was designed by the engineers in WA.


23 posted on 07/22/2009 3:15:01 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
Uh, maybe you need to reread my post.

I didn't say, nor did I infer, anything about Airbus. I was simply pointing out that, bad as this problem is, it's far better to find it now, preproduction, than later.

This is true in terms of cost, in reputation, and most importantly, in lives saved. Praising Boeing doesn't “somehow criticise Airbus.

Perhaps your assumption that I was talking about Airbus says something about Airbus - I don't know. I only know about production processes, I'm not an aircraft industry expert. The sooner you find design problems, the better, no matter what the product.

With airplanes, failure has a few more dire consequences than toasters.”

No Sir When you put up the numbers I was pointing my thought on that subject! Now since airbus is Boeing's competition and again they are the NEW kids on the block and the great master Time has yet to play into this and was just pointing out that it looked kinda one sided!

24 posted on 07/22/2009 3:21:03 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys

My understanding is the wings were being produced by another supplier. If my memory is correct, did the fact two different companies were building the fuselage and wings have something to do with not catching this error?


25 posted on 07/22/2009 3:23:44 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
one of the deadliest crashes in history involving a JAL 747 where the rear pressure bulkhead ruptured and the resulting explosive decompression ripped off most of the tail killing 520 of the 524 on board.

 

That's extremely misleading 

True there was structural failure but the reason for the failure was not Boeing but unapproved repairs performed by the carrier

 

The official cause of the crash according to the report published by Japan's then Aircraft Accidents Investigation Commission is as follows:

  1. The aircraft was involved in a tailstrike incident at Osaka International Airport on 2 June 1978, which damaged the aircraft's rear pressure bulkhead.
  2. The subsequent repair of the bulkhead did not conform to Boeing's approved repair methods. Their procedure calls for one continuous doubler plate with three rows of rivets to reinforce the damaged bulkhead, but the Boeing technicians fixing the aircraft used two separate doubler plates, one with two rows of rivets and one with only one row.[11] This reduced the part's resistance to metal fatigue by 70%. According to the FAA, the one "doubler plate" which was specified for the job (the FAA calls it a "splice plate" - essentially a patch) was cut into two pieces parallel to the stress crack it was intended to reinforce, "to make it fit".[12] This negated the effectiveness of two of the rows of rivets. During the investigation Boeing calculated that this incorrect installation would fail after approximately 10,000 pressurizations; the aircraft accomplished 12,319 take-offs between the installation of the new plate and the final accident.
  3. When the bulkhead gave way, the resulting explosive decompression ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic systems. With the aircraft's control surfaces disabled, the aircraft became uncontrollable.

26 posted on 07/22/2009 3:25:25 PM PDT by grjr21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

“That’s extremely misleading

True there was structural failure but the reason for the failure was not Boeing but unapproved repairs performed by the carrier

The official cause of the crash according to the report published by Japan’s then Aircraft Accidents Investigation Commission is as follows:

The aircraft was involved in a tailstrike incident at Osaka International Airport on 2 June 1978, which damaged the aircraft’s rear pressure bulkhead.
The subsequent repair of the bulkhead did not conform to Boeing’s approved repair methods. Their procedure calls for one continuous doubler plate with three rows of rivets to reinforce the damaged bulkhead, but the Boeing technicians fixing the aircraft used two separate doubler plates, one with two rows of rivets and one with only one row.[11] This reduced the part’s resistance to metal fatigue by 70%. According to the FAA, the one “doubler plate” which was specified for the job (the FAA calls it a “splice plate” - essentially a patch) was cut into two pieces parallel to the stress crack it was intended to reinforce, “to make it fit”.[12] This negated the effectiveness of two of the rows of rivets. During the investigation Boeing calculated that this incorrect installation would fail after approximately 10,000 pressurizations; the aircraft accomplished 12,319 take-offs between the installation of the new plate and the final accident.
When the bulkhead gave way, the resulting explosive decompression ruptured the lines of all four hydraulic systems. With the aircraft’s control surfaces disabled, the aircraft became uncontrollable.”

Yes I remember this it flew for a while before crashing.Thank you for the post.


27 posted on 07/22/2009 3:36:42 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
than the handfull(sic) Airbus has flying around.

Define a "handful"?

28 posted on 07/22/2009 4:23:26 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
“Define a “handful”?”

Alright in comparing them too Boeing a Small child like Handful OK?

29 posted on 07/22/2009 4:59:38 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
A month later, Boeing continues work developing 787 wing fix

By Jon Ostrower on July 21, 2009 6:52 PM

With almost a month since Boeing announced it was forced to ground its 787s for structural reinforcement, the company continues to work to develop, install and test a fix that can get its troubled Dreamliner into the sky after more than two years of delays.

According to a senior program source: "There is good news and bad news. The good news is we know what to fix, and how to fix it. The bad news is the location is a [expletive] to get to."

Boeing says that revised schedules for first flight and delivery remain under review, as they have been since the company's June 23rd news conference.

DIAGNOSIS & DEVELOPMENT

While the fix is being developed and a fully revised schedule finalized for airlines, sources at both Boeing and partner suppliers indicate that the existing production plan has slid roughly one and a half to three months for the delivery of Airplane Ten's components to Everett, even as suppliers continue to prep parts for shipment.

The slip, the sources say, allows Boeing to finalize and test the fix and limit the number of aircraft in final assembly required to undergo the fix in Everett. Boeing previously stated that any fix developed would be able to be installed no matter the location of the parts in the supply chain.

Airplane Eight, ZA101, is expected to begin final assembly operations before the month is out, with parts for Airplane Nine, ZA102, believed to be arriving beginning in early August. The slip, one supplier sources say, could mean that structural components for Airplane Ten, ZA104, may not arrive until October. The customer ZA-designations are non-sequential.

The side-of-body issue was first discovered in late-May during a test that saw lower wing loads than the April 21st test of 120-130% of limit load. The test revealed the weakness in the upper section on the stringer caps of the wing to body join at the side of body of the aircraft.

A corps of Boeing engineers are working 80-hour weeks to design the fix that allows the 787 to fly with a robust flight envelope and achieve FAA certification with 150% of limit load on the wing, sources say.

For the development of the remedial fix, widely believed to be made of titanium, engineers have to design a modification that avoids two potential challenges down the road.

Veteran structural engineers tell FlightBlogger that the key to developing a reinforcement centers around ensuring that the loads that caused the initial problem at the site of the wing stringer caps are not redistributed elsewhere causing a further structural issue.

Second, as the area is stiffened Boeing engineers must take great care to develop a fix that isn't susceptible to long term fatigue issues that come from the normal structural aging of the aircraft.

These challenges aren't unique to structural engineering on the 787, in fact, they are part of the normal checklist that comes with developing the solution that is the 3-dimensional puzzle of designing aircraft. This is not to say, however, that solving the problem is any less complex, difficult or time consuming.

INSTALLATION

Several program sources indicate that August is a crucial month for the wing fix as the development phase moves into the installation phase.

Boeing reiterated that its engineers are "working with urgency", and no internal timeline has been finalized for the testing or duration of the installation of the fix.

Sources say the area that will be reinforced at the side of body is extremely tight and difficult to reach as the installation area of the fix will provide very little room to install the fasteners to secure the reinforcement.

The installation of the fix may begin as early as the middle of August, with installation times around one month for each already assembled airplane, sources estimate.

Boeing has nine 787s at its Everett facility (6 flight test, 1 production, 2 ground test) that have gone through, or continue to undergo, final assembly operations, and structural sections for a 10th (Airplane 8) continue to arrive.

ZA001 is expected to leave the flight line for Paint Hangar 45-03 where the first 787 will undergo installation of the fix.

ZA002 will remain on the Everett flight line and the area around the side of body will be covered with a specially ordered tent to protect the aircraft.

In addition, Boeing has moved the approximately 50-foot long, two-thirds span test wing box, known as the "Dash 18" wing, from the company's Seattle Development Center to Building 40-23 where 787 static testing has been taking place in Everett.

The company is considering using the test wing box, which was formally broken in November 2008 above 150% of limit load, to test installation methods as a dress rehearsal before modifying the static test airframe and ZA001.

PERMANENCE & PRODUCTION

Even with the remedial fix in the works, a key discussion centers on the future of 787 production and when the permanent fix is designed into the wing to body join.

Sources say a revision of the upper part of the wing to body join is almost certainly necessary to create a permanent long-term solution and eliminate the time consuming installation of the remedial fix.

Boeing says there are about 40 787s in process throughout the global supply chain and a question yet to be answered is the timing of incorporation for the permanent fix.

Boeing has already planned a series of blockpoint changes to incorporate weight reduction and performance improvements into the design of the aircraft. The first major blockpoint was for ZA100, the first production 787 (Airplane 7), with the next expected to follow around Airplane 20.

Airbus faced a similar challenge when the A380 wing ruptured below the 150% mark in 2006 forcing the European airframer to modify aircraft already in final assembly. Airbus eventually incorporated its own remedial fix into A380 production before the wings were delivered to Toulouse, however the company has had to redesign the effected area as a long-term solution.

30 posted on 07/23/2009 4:30:20 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
More on the subject....Richard Aboulafia.com
31 posted on 07/23/2009 5:28:54 AM PDT by domeika (Who is Jim Thompson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

5000+ aircraft isn’t a handful.


32 posted on 07/23/2009 6:48:45 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham
“5000+ aircraft isn’t a handful.”

Really compared to who? Not Boeing!

33 posted on 07/23/2009 9:35:35 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

“Ok but Boeing has had a lot of planes up for many years so the law of probability says there would be a hell of a lot more mishaps with Boeing than the handfull Airbus has flying around.”

Excuses excuses.


34 posted on 07/23/2009 10:07:28 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

I was reading an article over at Leeham, and the talk there is that the 787 isn’t living up to it’s range expectations.

Knowing how Boeing operates, they’re probably using the excuse of “structural flaw” to buy enough time to cook their figures again.


35 posted on 07/23/2009 10:10:32 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
“Excuses excuses.”

Yeah I am trying to find all the war planes they built also. new kids on the block using technology lifted from the real guys.

36 posted on 07/23/2009 10:34:26 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

“new kids on the block using technology lifted from the real guys.”

Oh really?

And what technology is that?


37 posted on 07/23/2009 2:11:45 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

And what technology is that?

Gee adhesive metal bonding and testing ,fasteners, Panel assembly techniques, Fly by wire.When were they setup 1970??


38 posted on 07/23/2009 2:48:08 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

It doesn’t seem to be the case that the wings being produced by another entity would have anything to do with this. The root cause is that the composites have no “flex” as metals previously used for large wing skins, such as aluminum and steel. The internal struts MUST flex as the wing flaps. The dissimilar characteristics of the two adjoining materials is the cause. The problem apparently showed up as a “hot spot” (Certainly graphed in red) in their CAD modeling and virtual testing to very high stress levels. In many ways, it is amazing to me that it did show up there. For some reason (shrug) that discovery wasn’t followed up the way the company now wishes it had been. I have an impression (with some of my mechanical and materials engineering training) that this “fix” has been used in the past, though I didn’t see that claim anywhere. It is a logical change to a strut, in any event. It could well be that since it was a well known mod (in their business) that everyone who noticed the hot spot knew that someone else would specify that change to the struts, and no one followed through. I can see that happening easily, in a super-sized project like this where everyone is looking at so many detailed bits of data.

A dozen years ago, the types of modeling that caught this weren’t even close to being able to be done, to say nothing about the materials that are being used. Such a “hot spot” wouldn’t have shown up in the design process and would only have been located by “stress to failure” testing or some such process. I call to mind the way the F-111’s wings started failing due to needing a different heat treatment for the pivots. For quite a while, that plane’s losses were entirely blamed on the Terrain Following Radar, though cracking wing pivots were certainly cause of some of those crashes. No one even considered those to be the problem, and that project was much less difficult than the current technology. I’m not sure that the model testing now done would have caught that “mass metal” flaw in the F-111, though it might have at least reported a similar hot spot. Crashed airplanes may still have been what finally revealed the flaw.

To me this isn’t any real fundamental flaw with the science, the engineering, the design process, or the management. It is simply part of the reason we build prototypes and test them, and a consequence of our being human. Despite all the computer modeling, such testing still often reveals things that have to be modified. This particular item simply is more costly than most mods due to it being so difficult to do on an existing prototype.


39 posted on 07/23/2009 5:26:06 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AFPhys
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Interesting information.

I'm sure Boeing wishes the delay never happened, but it sounds like a good fix.

40 posted on 07/23/2009 6:01:57 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Ah guess I talked stupidly when I said the officer acted stupidly.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Saying this was a major flaw is a completely false characterization. It was not a major flaw. It was found in testing only at 150% of the maximum stresses that the aircraft was expected to encounter. It is expensive to modify the prototype only due to the area that it is located, and the construction sequence. For the aircraft itself, any added cost will be minimal, if any. In addition, the “flaw” would not have resulted in catastrophic failures, and the creeping deterioration would be discovered during refueling and cursory external inspection well before any major failure occurred. Look at my other posts, above, too, and critically read the whole article.


41 posted on 07/23/2009 9:13:55 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
"Gee adhesive metal bonding and testing ,fasteners, Panel assembly techniques, Fly by wire." And HOW was that technology "stolen"? Do you have any proof? And using your juvinile train of "thought", if they stole the technology as you claim, then that means that GM, Dodge, and Ford stole the technology for automobiles, and the internal combustion engine. And Boeing stole the technology for jet aircraft, and winglets since it was the Europeans who developed them too. 1879: Karl Benz, working independently, was granted a patent for his internal combustion engine, a reliable two-stroke gas engine, based on the same technology as Nikolaus Otto's design of the four-stroke engine. Later, Benz designed and built his own four-stroke engine that was used in his automobiles, which were developed in 1885, patented in 1886, and became the first automobiles in production. 1885: German engineer Gottlieb Daimler received a German patent for a supercharger 1893 February 23: Rudolf Diesel received a patent for his compression ignition (diesel) engine. 1897 English engineer Frederick W. Lanchester patented wing end-plates as a method for controlling wingtip vortices. 1903 - Konstantin Tsiolkovsky begins a series of theoretical papers discussing the use of rocketry to reach outer space. A major point in his work is liquid fueled rockets. 1903: Ægidius Elling builds a gas turbine using a centrifugal compressor which runs under its own power. By most definitions, this is the first working gas turbine. 1908: René Lorin patents a design for the ramjet engine. 1910: Henri Coandă builds and flies the world's first jet powered aircraft, 1916: Auguste Rateau suggests using exhaust-powered compressors to improve high-altitude performance, the first example of the turbocharger. 1921: Maxime Guillaume patents the axial-flow gas turbine engine. It uses multiple stages in both the compressor and turbine, combined with a single very large combustion chamber. 1926: Alan Arnold Griffith publishes his groundbreaking paper Aerodynamic Theory of Turbine Design, changing the low confidence in jet engines. In it he demonstrates that existing compressors are "flying stalled", and that major improvements can be made by redesigning the blades from a flat profile into an airfoil, going on to mathematically demonstrate that a practical engine is definitely possible and showing how to build a turboprop. Oh, and you forget that the europeans have been developing aircraft for just as long if not longer than Boeing has been around. Let's see, Boeing was incorporated in 1916 Fokker: 1912 Armstrong-Whitworth: 1912 Breguet Aviation: 1911 Bristol Aeroplane Company: 1910 Dornier: 1914 Flugzeubau Friedrichshafen (Arado): 1912 Junkers: 1914 Bayerische Flugzeugwerk (Messersmitt): 1916 Looking at the histories of the above companies, they've all merged and passed on their knowhow over the years to BAE Systems and EADS.
42 posted on 07/24/2009 10:03:56 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

Dude you miss the point by a Mile or a 100, Boeing was doing it first and better put Jet air travel into everyday life with the 707 and BTW the B-52 in its 5th generation of service Boeing engineers were in launch control Apollo 11 for christ sakes.


43 posted on 07/24/2009 10:21:28 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

No, YOU and your fellow Boeing cheerleaders are the ones who miss the point.

And where is the PROOF that supports YOUR CLAIM that Airbus “stole” technology from Boeing?


44 posted on 07/24/2009 11:08:54 AM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
“And where is the PROOF that supports YOUR CLAIM that Airbus “stole” technology from Boeing?”

OK what Jetliners were they building in the 1950's and how many?

45 posted on 07/24/2009 11:29:26 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

Deflecting the issue again?

YOU made the claim that Airbus stole technology, and you can’t back up your claim.

“OK what Jetliners were they building in the 1950’s and how many?”

The predecessor to Airbus was De Havilland who was incorporated into Hawker Siddeley, who merged with British Aircraft Corporation and Scottish Aviation. This new company became British Aerospace which later joined Airbus to build airliners.

The De Havilland Comet’s first flight was in 1949 and first entered service in 1952 or 5 years before the Boeing 707 ever flew.

I could do this all day, while you keep stalling because you can’t back up your claim that Airbus “stole” technology.


46 posted on 07/24/2009 12:04:11 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
"And not that long ago we were all laughing at Airbus."

Airbust is too sad for a laugh. Fly at your own risk. - At least Boeing fixes their problems.

47 posted on 07/24/2009 12:19:30 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: liberty_lvr
"Boeing used to be a solid engineering firm. This 787 debacle is the perfect example of how gov't-sponsored corporate welfare and excessive liberal work policies just wastes a company away to a hollowed shell"

So Boeing is becoming Airbust?

48 posted on 07/24/2009 12:21:42 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
“The De Havilland Comet’s first flight was in 1949 and first entered service in 1952 or 5 years before the Boeing 707 ever flew.”

Right LOL talking real working aircraft here. try again roll out was 1954 and Boeing DID not go with the Break here Square windows and managed to keep the engines out of the wing structure BTW why did that De Havilland thing stop flying eer scrapped and 707’s put in its place?.1010 707’s were built then the 720’s variants.. Try Again

49 posted on 07/24/2009 12:22:40 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

This is now the 4th time where you refused to back up the claim you made here:

“new kids on the block using technology lifted from the real guys.
36 posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:34:26 PM by Cheetahcat”

You claimed that Airbus stole the technologies of “adhesive metal bonding and testing ,fasteners, Panel assembly techniques, Fly by wire” from Boeing.

So now is the put up or shut up moment for you......

Show us (meaning everyone who reads this thread) where Boeing holds the patents for those processes and technologies that YOU CLAIM Airbus “stole”.


50 posted on 07/24/2009 1:04:15 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson