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 ...
Boy, I’m sure glad we won’t ever again need to produce aircraft at the rate we did in World War II!
Don’t buy (fly) the union label
And not that long ago we were all laughing at Airbus.
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.
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.
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
A major flaw, like the composite tails snapping off Airbusses?
and Why is that not built here by us instead of the Japanese? Way Too many that's!
Yeah, a wing falling off could really ruin your day. :-))
At least the 787 is a plane that customers want, if it ever gets off the ground.
I imagine they'll get it all straightened out.
Boeing is reminding me a lot of NASA these days.
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.
Pretty...but will it fly?....
Not if a wing falls off....
I agree.....some sticky rice is not going to fix this....
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.
“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.
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.
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.