Dreamliner going into Nightmare?

[Dudley]

"Significant technical and production problems":
- The fuselage section, the big multipart cylindrical barrel that encompasses the passenger seating area, has failed in company testing.
- Suppliers struggling to meet Boeing's exacting technological demands and ambitious production deadlines.
- Test versions of the nose section deemed unacceptable by Boeing.
- Overall weight of the airplane still too high -- especially the single biggest part of the 787, the carbon-fiber wing.
- Engineers discovering that worrisome bubbles were developing in the skin of the fuselage during the process of baking the plastic composite tape.
here is the whole article:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc20060607_864925.htm
Could this mean delays for the hundreds of Aircrafts on order?

[Lou Scannon]

Gosh, sounds nearly as serious as the A380!

[Monarch Man]

All pretty normal stuff concerning new aircraft development and delivery. Without ambition..its very difficult to achieve:ok:

[att]

Sounds extremely interesting to me.
Is there a source on the web, that would inform one of the prior testing of composites being used in the hostile environments that an aircraft would find itself in?

[The Good Samaritan]

It never amazes me when people are desperate, they usually end up writing articles such as this.
The proof is on the pudding. Always looking to make headline with every piece even if they have to patch it up to make it look good.:=

[archae86]

Humm, the part in the article about Boeing never having outsourced wings or fuselage before rang a bell. I thought I recalled that Northrop built a really big chunk of the 747 fuselage.
Here is how Vought Hawthorne represents their 747 contribution:
"Hawthorne employees have produced the Boeing 747 fuselage since the program began in 1968. This fuselage section is 154 feet long. Each shipset has 28 major panels, delivered to Boeing in 13 custom, oversized railcars."
Vought Hawthorne site (http://www.vought.com/newsFactGallery/factsheets/sites/hawthorne.htm)
It appears that the Business Week article improved that point a little. One wonders how much of the rest they may have similarly dressed up.

[SaturnV]

from reviews of the BusinessWeek article:
Nickname: Steve
Review: The one-piece fuselage piece that was scrapped was the ninth prototype section fabricated, and made in mid-April. The previous eight were fine. As an experiment with Boeing to try to improve durability, Janicki had changed the resin mix in the composite material it used to make the mandrel that failed. Bair said Boeing will go back to the former resin mix, which had produced "very good and very consistent" results, and will make the two replacement barrels on a Janicki mandrel with that proven formula. "On the one that failed, we learned some stuff and made modifications. Now they are bullet-proof," said Janicki. "I'm not seeing any kind of panic [at Boeing]," he said. "You can't do development work and not run into problems. But there are no fundamental problems." Bair dismissed assertions in the BusinessWeek story of serious problems with the nose sections and concern over the airplane's weight.
He rejected the statement that Boeing deemed "unacceptable" the first two 787 nose-and-cockpit sections. He said the first Wichita-built section "turned out far better than we thought it would. "While Bair admitted the 787 is still about 2.5 percent over its target weight, he said that target includes an extra safety margin beyond what's needed to meet the fuel-efficiency promises made to airlines. "We will meet all the commitments we made to our customers, even if [the weight] doesn't get any better," Bair said. "All the moving pieces on the schedule are not exactly where we'd hoped they'd be, but when we look at the whole program, there's nothing there that says we won't deliver the airplane when we're supposed to."
Nickname: canute
Review: Niccolo, the 787 is a tube and wing airliner with a conventional fuselage configuration which, btw, is not an optimal constructiuon from the point of view of structural mechanics, due to all the pits and cutouts in load-carrying structure. Therefore, the fuselage of the 787 contains rather big cutouts such as pits for the nose and main landing gears, wing/fuselage juncture as well as the cargo hatches. The CFRP carbon materials used on the 787 have significantly lower shear and contortion properties than Al-alloys, as well as a much higher sensitivity to the presence of cutouts. Additionally, carbon fibres are highly sensitive to impact loads. The 787 looks like it must employ a relatively high number of extra rivets to attach frames to the fuselage (just in case the attachment of the frames turn out to be not strong enough). This, of course, means more drilling of holes in the fuselage. On the other hand, future all-composite airbuses will most certainly fly around with a fuselage.
where fasteners are only used to bolt major components together. Thus we come to the crux of the matter: The fuselage of the 787 is designed poorly and prematurely. A mature composite fuselage should have a double shell, and should not be constrained by the standard tube and wing fuselage configuration. However, a lot of research and testing remains to be done. Composite researchers are working on combining infusion and microwave technologies, an area which holds out the prospect of enormous savings in energy and dramatically shorter cycle times. Furthermore, the strength of carbon materials can be improved by 50 to 60 percent and its rigidity and impact resistance should be virtually doubled through the introduction of nanoparticles.

[Dani]

All pretty normal stuff concerning new aircraft development and delivery. Without ambition..its very difficult to achieve:ok:

Very true.
The only difference between the A and the B company is that when Airbus has bad news, everyone speaks of the end of the world as we know it, while when Boeing is ******* up they say its normal and we trust them and they always bend their aircraft in a way that they can fly.

[con-pilot]

Ah the heck with all this new fancy, mamby pamby airplane design.

Let's go back to iron pilots, wooden aeroplanes and mountains that get in the way from time to time.:p

Plastic airliners!:=

[Taildragger67]

My concern with carbon fibre is that you don't know it's failing until it fails. That is, with metal, (if you look hard enough with the right tools) you can often see a nascent crack growing. On the other hand, in my experience, limited to boats, oars and composite bits in sailing rigging) a CF component will show no problems until it just completely pops.

There's also the issue of distortion - metal is malleable to an extent (like a dent in a car) but will still maintain some degree of integrity, whereas CF tends to just crumble if distorted very much (unless you stick in multiple layers - adding weight).

Can anyone tell me if diagnostic technology has advanced so as to be able to detect problems at an early stage? My belief has long been that, gram for gram, CF is stronger than most metals, as long as the loads are pretty straightforward; put the load on the CF the wrong way, and a catastrophic failure follows pretty quickly.

And, will they age well, or fall apart as soon as the first lease is up?! This is a serious question as one of the things taken into account in a purchase decision is residual value.

This is NOT an A-v-B wind-up - both are going increasingly down the composites road.

[ionagh]

Diagnostic technology is still based on C-scan ultrasonics. It will give pretty conclusive results for voids, cracks etc. We did CF tests with water immersed C-scan which would be more than inconvenient for a major structure...I think air-based types are now available. I've been out of that line of business for some years now.

Optimum loading of any composite structure can be tuned by fibre orientation(s), shape etc. so its not necessarily isotropic.

[jondc9]

I've never felt that the 787 would really be a dream. Will the plane go much faster than a 707, I think not.

More comfortable than first class in a 777 or 747....probably not (though a lower cabin altitude is a nice touch)

While more fuel efficient, it isn't anything that will change the course of aviation is it?

Time for Boeing to dust off the plans for the 2707.


The dreamliner might be called "fuel efficient". The lower cabin altitude could be done right now by flying lower (just don't fly into a mountain).

[MarkD]

Well, now we know the plastic fuselage is "bullet proof" :hmm: but have they run a ramp truck into it yet :ooh:

[chuks]

I was just perusing 'Flight' the other day, along with the business section of one of the quality British papers, when it was all doom and gloom for Airbus. They did mention these troubles at Boeing but only in the context of normal problems found developing a new design.

The main gist was that Airbus may have bet on the wrong horse, going for the big airplane (A380) at a time of rising fuel prices and then hitting big delays with its electrical system when they should have put more emphasis on a re-designed A350. Now it seems that the new, improved A350 will be coming to market so much later than the 787 that this will cause marketing difficulties plus cancellation of some launch orders.

This is such a high-stakes game, when some mistakes can end up costing billions, and Airbus now has to play it with political problems at the top plus much more trouble securing funds in addition to the usual technical problems that come with any aircraft development program.

Most interesting was one article raising the spectre of 'Concorde,' a technical success that turned into a commercial disaster, as if to hint that the A380 will be built and fly well but never manage to break even. We should be in for some very interesting times over the next few years as Boeing and Airbus fight it out!

Of course the rabid partisans of each type shall pick and choose tidbits of information to buttress their positions. Little flecks of foam shall land on the front of many anoraks over this. Most of us, I think, really don't much care who ends up on top, since most modern aircraft seem to be perfectly acceptable.

[Dani]

I was just perusing 'Flight' the other day... going for the big airplane (A380) at a time of rising fuel prices

Also Flight??
I donno the numbers, but I guess the specific fuel consumption per seat per mile is lower on a A380 than on any 200 seater.

Dani

[bluebird121]

One small crumb of comfort is that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner can avoid turbulence. it can detect big gusts of wind and automatically moves round them... but it will not be in the air until about 2008..That can't come soon enough for me ..:ok:

[Ignition Override]

Boeing has its share of problems and will have many more.
Maybe it is just a coincidence, but this topic might be a good way to take attention away from the A-380's problems: when delivery delays happen, financial penalties are paid to airlines.

Won't European/British taxpayers again be called upon to provide huge sums, as they did years ago for initial research and development, in order to now rescue Airbus? Airbus admitted that it would seek financial bail-out. This was featured yesterday in a newspaper, but we can rest assured that it is all media speculation...;)

Today: "Delays With Airbus Prompt Emergency Meeting", 'New York Times'. "Paris-Top executives at the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. held an emergency meeting monday to discuss their stumbling Airbus subsidiary...".

"In Berlin, senior German politicians blamed Airbus management for a crisis that has seriously undermined the credibility of one of Europe's biggest and most ambitious industrial projects"

" 'The fish stinks from the head', said Johannes Kahrs, a legislator for the Social Democratic Party and a member of the influential budget committee of the Bundestag, the lower house of Parliament".

Airbus has admitted that it will need financial subsidies, in order to compete.
Maybe Boeing should be allowed to soak up the same social welfare benefits?

[NutLoose]

The problem with the A380 is the tailplane is sending the strain gauges off the clock or so I am informed

[ETOPS773]

Regarding the problems and testing failures, I don't think it was ever going to happen any other way.

No aircraft has been built in quite the same way before and its a huge step from the old style of building aircraft. BUT given their military expertise, if anyone is going to pull it off it will be Boeing.

My main concerns for the 787 aren't about passenger safety, It will be a safe enough aircraft and won't be certified unless its at least as safe as any 767s or A330s flying now.

BUT.....there is going to be a big problem, and repair bill if there is a nasty tail scrape or encounter with severe hailstorm. The repairs would be more time consuming, and intensive than with the metal liners we have today.

[misd-agin]

Saw video, shot from roughly 11 o'clock positon, of A380 on final approach. Perhaps arrival/low approachs into LHR or the Farnborough Air Show?

Biggest impression was the over-controlling visible on the video. Pitch attitude of the a/c changed several times in a quick video clip.

Didn't get to see much of the clip. Anyone recall the video (shown last week on U.S. TV) and have a link?

[ETOPS773]

misd-agin

Link to A380 clip, landing at Heathrow:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4990780.stm
(Click on the video button below the picture)

The A380 looks shakey, but there are many reasons for it. Firstly, it was light on fuel, having come to Heathrow from Germany - hence it would be a bit "bouncier" when light.

Secondly, the weather was quite windy and most other aircraft landing were having the same problem / getting pushed around a little.

Lastly, The A380 is quite a short aircraft - look at the size of the tail! If you look at other aircraft which are also quite short (A318 and 737-500 are good examples) on approach, in a draggy configuration, you'll notice they do twitch around alot more then longer aircraft... ie a 747 or 777.

There is an A380 thread with LOADS of info on all this, its a good read :ok:

[surely not]

As I posted elsewhere today, Boeing seems to be changing its stance re a bigger aircraft. The 747-800 might well have a stretch put into it to allow nearly 500 pax on board. So to all those posters who have said 4 engines and large aircraft are dead because Boeing isn't building one might have to take back their Boeing supplied mis information and eat some humble pie.