Boeing plans 787 increase

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.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And that fire had nothing to do with composites. The emergency transmitter, that is in use on something like 4,000 aircraft shorted and started the fire inside the aircraft. It would have happened if it was aluminum or composite.

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

What about this B-2? Totaled, not repairable, burned.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Because, and stay with me here, it crashed.


Look at all the aluminum planes, that didn't crash, that burned to the ground.

Here's a look at the Ethiopian 787 at Heathrow Airport. The fuselage is melted in front of the tail.

ownbestenemy

luxordelphi
Unbelievable. So you're telling this person that if the rudder falls off, the engines will too? My question is legit because I didn't know about the engine falling till the other poster said it. Is it like "hip bone connected to the thigh bone"? or...are you saying there was a vortex? Please explain.

How is that unbelievable? The stress applied to the engine mounts is tested for "normal" flight; take-off, level flight, and landing; not abnormal flight such as an aircraft losing a vertical stabilizer (the tail fin) and going into a flat-spin.

They may or may not come off in the event that an aircraft loses its complete vertical stabilizer, but it isn't a stretch that the mounts would fail under such stress.

So...kind of stuck here on the spin created vortex wherein engines fall off planes. You all have not been helpful so far but I have hope. Some bolts, fasteners, mounts, whatever are composite...some are titanium reinforced composite. Reading jet engine schematics is not my idea of bedtime (although I will do it if I have to) - hoping it is yours. To the engine that fell off the Airbus and to the reason it fell off (sorry - not ready to buy the vortex thing yet):

Airwor thiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 Turbofan Engines/Rule proposed 12/13/2006

The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require replacing certain installed part number (P/N) and serial number (SN) cast titanium weld-repaired forward engine mount platforms and cast titanium forward mount yokes, with a forged titanium or a non-welded cast titanium part. This proposed AD results from the discovery of cracks, in a weld-repaired area on a forward engine mount platform and a forward engine mount yoke, found during a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI). These parts were weld-repaired during manufacture. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracks in the forward engine mount platform and forward engine mount yoke that could result in possible separation of the engine from the airplane.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Which would have happened to an aluminum plane too.

reply to post by luxordelphi


In Desert Storm, a KC-135 using engine mounts from the 1980s, long before composite bolts or mounts were used (they still aren't used on that pane), went into a Dutch Roll situation due to wake turbulence. The engines were stressed, just like 587, in a way they weren't meant to be, and two engines separated, and the other two suffered extensive damage, but held up long enough to get on the ground.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That proves 4 engines are better than 2! I read today that the end of the production line is in sight for Boeing's 747. Because of these inferior 2 engined aircraft. Better to have back-ups to back-ups. What was the other 787 battery fires. I can't find the info, it's hidden.

reply to post by Mikeultra


There was one battery fire. Nothing is hidden. It was Japan in Boston.

With the reliability, and efficiency of new engines, it doesn't make sense to build four engine aircraft anymore. The -135 in question would have landed on one engine, had it been a twin engined aircraft, with modern engines.

reply to post by Zaphod58

You acknowledge that you have no experience, and then sit there and basically act like an expert going on about things you don't know about. So yes, I'm going to respond like that to someone that says that, and acts like that.

I acknowledge nothing of the kind...one way or the other. I appreciate your expertise, not because you are an expert, but rather because you are passionate about aircraft and passion goes a long way toward knowledge. The only thing I acknowledged was that I relied on you all's expertise. That's dead now that I have to check your work. Still...it is more enjoyable to dialogue with someone passionate about their material. I don't enjoy dialogue with dead fish.

As for the tail delamination, delamination would have no relation to the tail separating. The tail separated due to the bolt holes (which were made out of aluminum, not composites) failing, due to stress applied to the tail.

The tail peeled. Have you ever seen mica? It's sometimes called fool's gold. It kind of flakes off. This is what delamination experts liken advanced composite catastrophic failure to. This flaking mica. I don't know where you'd find this where you are because I don't know where you are. My brothers and I used to find it at Folsom Lake, outside Sacramento. You kind of have to see it to get a good idea of what this failure looks like because in advanced composites the beginnings of failure are ultra microscopic.

If the tail pealed into peels, which it did, what do aluminum bolts have to do with separation? What does a vortex have to do with separation? Are you saying that this peeling was caused by the vortex? These advanced composites pass unbelievable stress tests. And I'm just going to say right now that there's another problem here. A tiny problem. Not a wind problem.

Looks like Boeing's Rube Goldberg repair job to Ethiopian Air 787 is not going as originally planned. The entire tail has been removed. It was spotted behind Boeing's secretive scaffolding by a passenger taking off in another aircraft.

twitter.com...
Tail now detached from fire damaged Dreamliner 787
blogs.crikey.com.au...
That is not a good sign, it means Boeing has no idea how to properly fix this lemon.
Boeing readies patch for fire-damaged 787
seattletimes.com...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Like three pages ago you said flat out, you have no experience with aircraft.

The tail peeling had NOTHING to do with it separating. The aluminum mounting brackets failed. If they hadn't turn the tail would have remained attached. If the wake turbulence hadn't been there, the rudder movement wouldn't have stressed the tail to the point of failure.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

There was one battery fire. Nothing is hidden. It was Japan in Boston.

With the reliability, and efficiency of new engines, it doesn't make sense to build four engine aircraft anymore. The -135 in question would have landed on one engine, had it been a twin engined aircraft, with modern engines.

What does a twin engine plane do if both engines fail? That's my point, 4 is better than 2. 3 is better than 2. I liked the DC-10 even though it was troubled.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And you're an expert now? The tail was ALWAYS going to have to be removed, because of how close to the leading edge the damage was.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And four engines fall too. New engines are more than capable of keeping a plane airborne with one engine.

The point of four engines had less to do with safety than it did efficiency. Engines when the 747 were built were nowhere near as powerful or efficient as today, so they needed more of them.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

And you're an expert now? The tail was ALWAYS going to have to be removed, because of how close to the leading edge the damage was.

No, I'm not an expert. Far from it, I'm just going by what this report said. Boeing intended on making a patch without having to remove the tail. Here it is in black and white.

"Behind a scaffolding erected more than a week ago at London’s Heathrow Airport, where the Ethiopian Airlines plane has been idled since summer, a repair team will glue a giant composite plastic skin patch into the burned crown of the fuselage, said two people with knowledge of the details. Boeing has scheduled five weeks for the repair, one said.

It’s a very complicated procedure, but less so than the alternative option that was suggested by some observers: pulling out and replacing the entire aft fuselage section, which Boeing fabricates as a single-piece barrel."
seattletimes.com...

reply to post by Mikeultra


I didn't see anything that said they didn't plan on removing the tail. There is no way to put any kind of repair in place with it on. The repair will have to go right up to the leading edge of the tail.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

I didn't see anything that said they didn't plan on removing the tail. There is no way to put any kind of repair in place with it on. The repair will have to go right up to the leading edge of the tail.

"Boeing has begun the delicate, expensive and crucial process of repairing the 787 Dreamliner that was badly damaged by a fire last July, approaching the fix in a way that will be closely tracked by its customers and competitors.

Behind a scaffolding erected more than a week ago at London’s Heathrow Airport, where the Ethiopian Airlines plane has been idled since summer, a repair team will glue a giant composite plastic skin patch into the burned crown of the fuselage, said two people with knowledge of the details. Boeing has scheduled five weeks for the repair, one said.

It’s a very complicated procedure, but less so than the alternative option that was suggested by some observers: pulling out and replacing the entire aft fuselage section, which Boeing fabricates as a single-piece barrel."
seattletimes.com...

So it looks like they now realize they can't simply cut the burned section out and replace with a patch made from a new barrel section. They have removed the entire aft section of the fuselage with tail attached.

reply to post by Mikeultra


No. They. Didn't.

Try this again. The tail detaches from the plane. It's held on by a few bolts. THAT is what was removed. That was ALWAYS going to have to be removed as step one, no matter how they chose to fix it.