Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boeing plans 787 increase

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Boeing has announced plans to increase 787 production to 12 a month by 2016, and by the end of the decade up to 14 a month.

Meanwhile efforts to increase the reliability of the fleet (which really isn't that bad overall) are continuing. There are currently 96 787s in service, making around 200 flights a day. Overall fleet reliability stands at 97%, with some customers below that. One of the big problems being seen is apparently old software messages.

As for the expansion, they plan to increase production at Charleston, and Everett, based on suggestions brought forward by employees. The Everett facility has already added a place for wing join earlier on the line.

Production increase




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just wondering if you've heard anything about why the fuselage panel fell off in flight and what the fix is going to be for that going forward with escalated production and such? Is there, perhaps, a glitch in the software that holds the plane together?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just another thought: wasn't there a rudder that fell off in flight (that was an Airbus) and was blamed on pilot error? Excessive rudder use was the official culprit, I believe. Maybe this panel was pilot error? Excessive fuselage panel use? And that's why escalated production is ok because no fix for this is possible except better training for pilots in fuselage panel use?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Probably wasn't secured properly at assembly. It happens. A lot.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Probably wasn't secured properly at assembly. It happens. A lot.


Well, ok then...disgruntled assembly workers. It happens. lol

Still...gonna have to continue with this ill-advised escalated production because the plane that smoked up while parked at Heathrow hasn't been fixed yet. Its' fix hasn't been certified. Whether or not it even can be fixed is debatable. Patches for advanced composites??!! - we were all born yesterday I guess.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Is it true that the wings are made of plastic? They can call it composite, but it's really plastic isn't it? Look at the wings, flimsy looking things. You won't catch me flying in that! It looks nice, but cheaply made.

Photo from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...:Boeing_787_Roll-out.jpg

edit on 24-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: Photo



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Flimsy?



Doesn't look very flimsy to me. The wing flexed over 26 feet without breaking. The equivalent of 150% of the maximum load they are expected to handle.

And no, they're not plastic. They're composite. There really IS a difference. There is some plastic but it also uses a lot of carbon fiber. The carbon fiber is actually stronger than other materials, by a large margin.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Nothing disgruntled about them. People make mistakes. As I've said in other posts, I've seen planes come out of the depot with large, major pieces not attached properly. These have led to crashes, and damn near crashes.

As for the fix, Boeing has several plans in place, from adding stringers, and laying new skin over them, to replacing the entire plug. They won't know what needs to be done until they get into the structure. The fire just happened in July or so. It's not like ANY aircraft fix this size is going to be done in less than six months to a year anyway. An aft bulkhead, which is a straightforward replacement, takes 30 days minimum to do.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Why are you telling that other person it's not plastic? The bulk of it is some kind of resin, isn't it? Carbon nanotubes are very very tiny. The matrix they're set in is a plastic. Or is it more like fiberglass? Tell me true. Let's put this plastic thing to rest once and for all. Is it mostly carbon or is it mostly plastic with a hint of carbon?




...laying new skin over them...


I beg to differ, Mr. Semantical, that's a patch. And a patch is a patch is a patch...by any other name.

And it's not like any experimental aircraft this size was patched before...I agree. But there's plenty of internet buzz on patching advanced composite bikes. It can't be done. The whole enchillada needs replacing in order to be trail worthy going forward.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


It is partly plastic, with carbon fiber (who said anything about carbon nanotubes?). Carbon fiber has been used in aircraft since the beginning of Airbus. The plastic is some of the outer portion, but the stringers, and the ribs, and the portions that provide the actual strength are carbon fiber.

One of the plans put forth by Boeing would not require a replacement of the plug (unless you're saying you're smarter than their engineers). They would remove the skin that was damaged, and run stringers to stiffen the fuselage through that area, and re-lay the carbon fiber skin around it.

The big advantage of carbon fiber is that they can re-lay sections of skin over the existing skin, or even remove it, and replace it, without having to replace the entire plug.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

luxordelphi
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just another thought: wasn't there a rudder that fell off in flight (that was an Airbus) and was blamed on pilot error? Excessive rudder use was the official culprit, I believe. Maybe this panel was pilot error? Excessive fuselage panel use? And that's why escalated production is ok because no fix for this is possible except better training for pilots in fuselage panel use?


That incident was the dreaded (since it was shortly after 9/11) Flight 587. The actual cause was not only pilot error, but also training. American Airlines was still teaching in their simulators to input aggressive rudder movements during turbulent flight not realizing that such inputs on a fly-by wire system would cause the rudder to violently move side to side with each input.

I believe that incident also had some questions in regards to the composite lugs attaching the vertical stabilizer.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

luxordelphi
Just another thought: wasn't there a rudder that fell off in flight (that was an Airbus) and was blamed on pilot error? Excessive rudder use was the official culprit, I believe. Maybe this panel was pilot error? Excessive fuselage panel use? And that's why escalated production is ok because no fix for this is possible except better training for pilots in fuselage panel use?


Seriously? Excessive panel use? Wow. And how exactly do you manage to accomplish that?

The rudder with Airbus is an interesting one, because the faster you go, the less rudder input you require. Flight 587 was climbing out, at best climb speed, and the copilot was using full rudder deflection. That led to pilot induced oscillations, which led to the entire vertical fin separating. The pilot in question had been counselled repeatedly on rudder use.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Where to begin with your post??!! I'm going to focus on this statement of yours:





The big advantage of carbon fiber is that they can re-lay sections of skin over the existing skin, or even remove it, and replace it, without having to replace the entire plug.


which is essentially the description of a patch. Why, then should it not be patched? Why does a patch, in this case, compromise the integrity of the whole? These are the questions on anticipatory lips.

Visual integrity in an advanced composite is meaningless. An electron microscope or better is required in order to determine whether or not an advanced composite is ready to fracture or has already begun the fracture process. The point where you secure the patch and all the points where you overlay the patch, unless it is done with an electron microscope facilitating the re-structuring of ultra-microscopic areas, is a fracture. This area can then, through take-off and landing, more pressure and less pressure, facilitate condensation. Condensation, in advanced carbon composites, leads to heat that cannot dissipate. Heat leads to...all sorts of problems. Disintegration, crumbling, implosion, explosion etc.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Here we see the 787 wing as it flys through weird cloud cover. It looks flimsy and similar to a plastic butter knife. Same shiny appearance and characteristics.
edit on 24-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2013 by Mikeultra because: embed problems



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


And do you seriously think that Boeing is not aware of this? And they haven't taken all of that into consideration?

The only factor that they can't take into consideration is the amount of actual damage caused by the fire. Which is what they are starting to investigate now. They have made several plans, based on the amount of actual damage, which they can't know until they remove the interior fixtures, and get into the structure of the aircraft.

Which is why they can't certify a fix yet. They don't know how much actual damage was done, so they can't say which route they're going to have to go.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Mikeultra
Here we see the 787 wing as it flys through weird cloud cover. It looks flimsy and similar to a plastic butter knife. Same shiny appearance and characteristics.


I shouldn't even respond to this..."weird cloud cover"? "Flimsy and similar to a plastic butter knife"? My guess is you have have no ideas in the materials used in the construction of the 787 wing and its wing-box.

Advanced composite materials were utilized in conjunction with titanium and aluminum. This doesn't include the fiber reinforcement that is most likely woven in and the end result is a material that has a greater strength than titanium but the flexibility of what you call a "plastic butter knife"...

Can your typical plastic butter knife withstand the forces that those wings are; given the loads that are exerted upon them?
edit on 24-10-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


The 787 maximum take off weight is 553,000 pounds. The wings are capable of handing 150% of the maximum stress that will ever be placed on them, which is the equivalent of falling straight down in flight, from 40,000 feet, to less than 10,000 feet in a matter of seconds.

I don't care if they look like a piece of paper. They are stronger than you can imagine.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

ownbestenemy

luxordelphi
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just another thought: wasn't there a rudder that fell off in flight (that was an Airbus) and was blamed on pilot error? Excessive rudder use was the official culprit, I believe. Maybe this panel was pilot error? Excessive fuselage panel use? And that's why escalated production is ok because no fix for this is possible except better training for pilots in fuselage panel use?


That incident was the dreaded (since it was shortly after 9/11) Flight 587. The actual cause was not only pilot error, but also training. American Airlines was still teaching in their simulators to input aggressive rudder movements during turbulent flight not realizing that such inputs on a fly-by wire system would cause the rudder to violently move side to side with each input.

I believe that incident also had some questions in regards to the composite lugs attaching the vertical stabilizer.


Please, if you have something handy, a link or brief explanation of fly by wire/rudder systems.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


And do you seriously think that Boeing is not aware of this? And they haven't taken all of that into consideration?

The only factor that they can't take into consideration is the amount of actual damage caused by the fire. Which is what they are starting to investigate now. They have made several plans, based on the amount of actual damage, which they can't know until they remove the interior fixtures, and get into the structure of the aircraft.

Which is why they can't certify a fix yet. They don't know how much actual damage was done, so they can't say which route they're going to have to go.


Hype is what?? It's the ad age we live in. Everything is hype. Boeing doesn't seem to have been aware of a lot of things on the 787 because they decided to outsource every component and then assemble it like prefab housing. Really, it's not out of line to do ones' own checking on where the hype ends and the safety begins.

It's ludicrous to even talk about certification here - the FAA is so out of its' depth with this plane. Boeing is in the profit making business. They are certifying their own plane. They will be certifying their own fix for the plane. Connect the dots.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


ieeecss.org...
www.nasa.gov...
sapilot.com/a320/otherfile/Airbus_FBY_Overview.ppsx (this one will download)
www.davi.ws...





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join