Boeing plans 787 increase

From the New York Times:
New Challenges for the Fixers of Boeing’s 787
" Aviation experts say Boeing will cut out the damaged areas and glue or, probably, bolt a large patch, made of overlapping panels of composite materials, onto the shiny new plane, which is less than a year old. “That’s a little like ‘Phantom of the Opera,’ where the guy had this mask to cover the fact that half his face was missing,” said Hans W. Weber, an aviation consultant in San Diego.

Boeing will also need to install new composite supports, and possibly some made of stronger titanium, to hold that mask in place and shore up the structural integrity of the plane, owned by Ethiopian Airlines. If the damage were more extreme, the plane maker could remove the entire 23-foot-long barrel containing most of the jet’s rear fuselage and snap in another one, though composite experts doubt that it will do so in this case."
www.nytimes.com...

There is nothing in their "plan A" that mentions they intended to remove the tail or the aft section of the fuselage with tail attached. They were trying to avoid doing so, which is worrisome. That is why I called it a Rube Goldberg repair job. You do know who Rube Goldberg was don't you?

After zooming in on the photo, I see that you are probably right about it being just the tail. I still think it's a hokey repair job. Hypothetically now, if that was your brand new personal 787, would you be satisfied with how they are trying to fix it? I wouldn't be. It's too risky Boeing should keep it and give Ethiopia a new one.

reply to post by Zaphod58

You've done a great job of convincing yourself. But the simple fact of the matter is, there are currently 100 aircraft, flying 200 flights a day, and this is the only one that has had any kind of panel failure. They have flown hundreds of flight prior to this, with no composite failure.

No. I am not the only person looking at catastrophic failure of advanced composites and what that means to infrastructure. I am just the only person talking about it on ATS.

Catastrophic failure in advanced composites is not predictable - not by any current human means. This is because the visuals that lead to this failure are so small.

Settling on catastrophic failure of advanced composites as a reason for anything involves opening the floodgates of vast amounts of money. And watching it all wash away. That's the only reason it hasn't been considered. There is only pussy-footing around by this expert or that. Pilot error; assembly person error - these are all happy reasons as far as the outlay of money goes when compared to the biblical expense that would occur as a result of an oops to advanced composites.

For you to say that there are currently 100 aircraft flying 200 flights a day is completely meaningless because there is no predictability with this failure mode.

Boeing has yet to come up for a reason on the batteries. Their fix was based on no reason. They have capriciously stated that there are 4 or 5 reasons being considered and that their fix took care of all of those. The FAA, like some kind of a lap dog, ate it up.

Aluminum is not an advanced composite. An alloy is not an advanced composite. A composite is not an advanced composite. They are different worlds; different rules; and to now, unpredictable. We learn as we go. Meantime rudders, tails, engines and panels fall.

You try to get me to oversimplify while wanting to talk about aluminum in the same breath with an advanced composite. That's how all of this started. They aren't comparable. Not in any way.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And how much maintenance experience do you have? None? Anyone with ANY experience would tell you that step one, regardless of whether they say it or not, is to remove the tail. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

The patch is designed to extend several inches on either side of the damaged section.

pbs.twimg.com...:large

Please, explain to me exactly HOW they're going to do that with the tail attached. I'm dying to hear this.

reply to post by Mikeultra


I know I'm right. And I'd be perfectly satisfied with the repair job they're doing if this were my aircraft.

reply to post by luxordelphi


And the fact of the matter is that all of these problems you've latched onto, the panels falling off, engine detachments, etc have all happened no matter what the plane is made out of.

You looked at a minor issue, and immediately leaped to the most complex scenario you could come up with for the reason for it happening, and completely ignored every other possibility.

So I guess in your world, pilots don't make mistakes. Maintenance people don't make mistakes. The only reasons for failures are the most complex and least likely ones out there.

"Given how crucial the innovative jets are to Boeing’s future — it expects to sell thousands of them in the coming decades — “they will do anything at this point to show that that airplane is repairable,” said Robert Mann, an aviation consultant in Port Washington, N.Y. “We’ll know how long it takes them to fix it, but realistically, we may never know what it costs.” www.nytimes.com...

Sounds desperate, "they'll do anything at this point..."

reply to post by Mikeultra


They're not desperate. They KNEW this would happen sooner or later, but were hoping for later. This is an opportunity to prove that they can repair them in the field, and set a lot of people's minds at ease. There's nothing desperate about it.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Responding to your post 10.25.2013 at 09:34pm: very interesting. Haven't read through to the end of the thread currently so maybe you covered this later on but just some bits to add on your investigations regarding flight 587.

The same technologies that make advanced composites for aircraft also make explosives. These explosives are treated like and expected to behave like ordinary explosives. Same mistake that's made with advanced composites. They behave completely differently. Mostly this is in the perception of how much is required and what is too much and what will set them off and how dangerous the fallout will be. The 9/11 studies have some interesting analysis of the particles generated by the explosives.

Reading through the stuff you presented makes me wonder if perhaps there was an initial plan to dub that flight 587 a terrorist attack because of the explosions that witnesses saw. And how to explain those. They can be explained by advanced carbon composite failure but that was never an option.

I read through the NTSB report that another poster put up and they came up with reasons for the explosions which I don't remember right now. Will have to look at it again.

Still...very very interesting - why the terrorist thing was not pursued.

reply to post by luxordelphi


You may not be the only person "looking at advanced composite failure" but you sure dont understand much about it.

That the composites are complex to model is really a non-issue, because it is the stress testing that determines whether the materials are fit for purpose; the models simply point to whether or not it may be possible. The stress tests arent simply "bend it and see what happens" they will examine minor fractures and it will be comprehensive. There is a hell of a lot in aviation (and any advanced aerodynamic field) that simply cannot be modelled to the accuracy needed.

Another thing you seem to conflate is complexity of modelling and abilty to manufacture. The complexity of materials may require more computing power than we can throw at the problem, but the materials can be manufactured to consistent tolerances. You wont be having one panel behaving in one way and the next panel behaving completely differently. The manufacturing process does produce consistent materials, and as these have been stressed to way beyond service limits again this is a non-issue. Its no different in concept to any manufacturing process.

Advanced composites have been in use for decades and they have been in use in the most high-stress applications we have come up with, from aviation to racing. They are proven and safe; i'll bet you cannot come up with many (if any) cases of catastrophic failure of parts which is directly from the use of composites (and no the examples you have cited thus far are not such cases).

Lastly, you seem to think that being Boeing is a "for profit" corporation that it means they must be taking short cuts. Sorry but that shows an utter lack of business sense; Boeing's business is based heavily on their planes NOT falling out of the sky. They are not going to cheap out on testing or manufacturing process to save a few dollars. Hell if they wanted to do that they wouldnt be going to the expense of using composites, they would stikc to far cheaper materials!

This thread really makes me weep.

reply to post by luxordelphi


They can also be explained by the aircraft breaking up.

reply to post by C0bzz

there are no sources which state that the failure was caused by composites behaving improperly.

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.

787 has toilet trouble too. De-icing faulty system. It's a lemon!
"A 787 Dreamliner bound for Japan was forced to turn around and fly back to Russia after toilets on the plane refused to flush. The Boeing plane carrying 151 crew members and passengers left Moscow late Wednesday for Narita airport east of Tokyo but returned two hours later, a Japan Airlines spokesman said.

"It was hit by trouble - toilets became unable to be used and the device to heat meals also had a problem," he said.

The glitches were believed to be due to an electrical fault but had nothing to do with the plane's batteries, he added.

The average flight time between Moscow and Tokyo is around 10 hours."
www.news.com.au...
A couple hundred people with no toilets, nice! No hot meals either.

"BOSTON (AP) - A Japan Airlines flight to Tokyo's Narita Airport returned to Boston's Logan Airport on Thursday because of a possible fuel pump issue on the Boeing 787 aircraft."
www.usatoday.com...

Japan Airlines 787 Springs Fuel Leak; Second Incident This Week
abcnews.go.com...

Mikeultra
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Well then explain why B-52's with their entire tail blown off from a SAM were able to fly back to base. Airbus shouldn't build aircraft that can't handle wake turbulence without falling apart. There were other Airbus aircraft that had pieces falling off left and right. I think it's due to their multiple-country assembly method. The Germans make the wings, the French make the seats, the British make the engines, etc. Too many chefs in the kitchen.

This outsourcing is the same kind of action Boeing took with the 787. Many people, economists and stock brokers mostly, blamed that for the many problems. Boeing had also let 2 groups of in-house people go and brought in new people for this endeavor.

I think it's that compartmentalizing thing - where nobody has all the pieces so the true picture remains unclear.

reply to post by Mikeultra


And what do any of those problems have to do with anything?

I bet you haven't bothered to look into any other new aircraft have you. Here are a couple for you.

Boring 777 (non-Composite), lower reliability rate than the 787 at the same point after service entry in the 1990s. Has since become the safest aircraft ever built, and is so reliable and efficient the airlines pushed for a new version.

Airbus A380, still entering service, has already had numerous problems, including an uncontained engine failure that grounded a plane for 18 months.

These problems happen.

reply to post by luxordelphi


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

reply to post by Mikeultra


Oh they are? Then why does Boeing have two new types on the books that are aluminum that will be rolling of the lines for several decades to come.

You understand that Boeing is a FOR PROFIT company right? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to retrain experienced workers than train entirely new ones.

"But while it is unlikely to be a design flaw, Boeing shouldn't get off easily. All the mechanical issues that have marred the 787 program over the years have now become inexcusable. All this talk about the aircraft having to "work out the kinks" or having "teething issues" and such is getting old. Could you imagine if an automaker told its customers that the small fire and fuel leakage on their new car was normal because it's new and was simply "working out the kinks?"

The original source of the 787's delays and technical difficulties laid in Boeing's disastrous plan to outsource the aircraft's production and some of its design across dozens of suppliers from around the globe. Boeing learned the hard way that without control over the critical parts of its supply chain it left itself vulnerable to a number of annoying issues, such as delays. It also had to deal with quality control issues as parts arrived that weren't up to snuff while others simply didn't fit right."

tech.fortune.cnn.com...

Yes outsourcing may not be such a good idea for quality control.

Double post error