Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

787 wrinkling composite stops production

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

787 wrinkling composite stops production

Old 17th Aug 2009, 19:24
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
787 wrinkling composite stops production

Boeing news | Boeing stops work on 787 fuselages made in Italy to fix wrinkled skin | Seattle Times Newspaper


I suppose most have read about this issue earlier and the other delay announced a few weeks ago regarding the wing box defects.

Are these two issues related? The article discusses non-compliant stringers used in the fuse construction and also discusses issues with stringers in the wing box but it also says officials believe these issues are not related.
robertbartsch is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 19:58
  #2 (permalink)  

mostly harmless
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: axis of chocolate
Posts: 189
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The article quotes tolerances in "hundreths of an inch".

Can Boeing really still be working in Imperial units for the 787? Or is this journo 'explanation'?

edited to note answer=42 is SLF.
answer=42 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would say not related, first the wing box is a design problem.
The second is a manufacturing problem with not meeting tolerances in the build.
Think Boeing should have kept the old number 7E7 and not 787, the "E" might mean eventually.
Mr @ Spotty M is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the "E" might mean eventually
Thats why it's been re-named the 'Dream on liner'!
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:25
  #5 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

Can Boeing really still be working in Imperial units for the 787?
Of course! .....Is there any other 'units' of measurement?
gas path is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:26
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: bolehland
Age: 74
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dream or nightmare?

dreamliner........" dream on liner " ?

scarebus..........nightmare?
Kentot Gemuruh is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:31
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Obviously, Boeing is an American based company and being that our measures here in the U.S. are Imperial based, ...yeah, we measure in inches, feet, yards, miles, etc. and our temperatures are in Fahrenheit, not centigrade.

As far as I am aware, the meteric system has never been taught in our schools. Apparently, this was an edict from Ronald Reagan.
robertbartsch is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:31
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You can't help wondering how many fewer 787s Boeing would have sold had they opted for a more conventional airframe construction. My guess is very few, the airlines need new aircraft and a metal 787 would still have been a very efficient machine. I reckon they must be kicking themselves over the decision to go composite, it's going to end up costing them a fortune.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2009, 21:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: oop north
Age: 54
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FYI answer 42 not only do Boeing use the imperial system but so do Airbus, every nut/ bolt /washer /rivet on their aircraft are imperial, and long may it continue

Last edited by smudgethecat; 17th Aug 2009 at 21:52.
smudgethecat is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 13:42
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought there were too many aircraft in the world today so Boeing and Airbus need to develop inovative technology to encourage airllines to replace their existing fleets. Since the Dreamer is mostly composite, it is 40% (??) lighter than a conventional aluminum plane and, therefore, burns a ton less fuel; right?

Composites have been around a long time and Airbus has used this in VS, and controll surfaces since the 80s. Many beleive these designs or the materials have casues a few tail snapping incidents so far, but the jury is still out, I supose.

Anyway, I guess Boeing will eventually figure this stuff out and make a ton of money in the future.
robertbartsch is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 14:00
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's not like composites are unproven. The DC-3 has fabric covered control surfaces, correct? Wood is the original composite, and plenty of planes were built with that, including my wood-winged 1946 Bellanca Cruisair.

How can aluminum possibly fly? It won't even float!

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 15:20
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by answer=42
The article quotes tolerances in "hundreths of an inch". Can Boeing really still be working in Imperial units for the 787? Or is this a journo 'explanation'?
For linear measurements, it doesn't really matter all that much, since an inch is exactly 25.4 mm.
So for people who have worked all their life with inches, feet and yards, it's easier to visualise 0.04 in, than for me who's always worked with metric, and who had to convert that 0.04 in to 1 mm before it meant something.

Concorde was built using both imperial and metric, and it never really caused any problems. I wouldn't be amazed if most of the Airbus UK workshops (AB wings are nearly all built in the UK) were still using imperial measurements as well.

It's weights and volumes where imperial measurements make less sense to me, because there are no 'clean' conversion factors, and more opportunities for stupid mistaeks.
Ask the pilots of the "Gimli glider", or the Mars probe, that went "splat".

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 15:28
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anybody have a sketch / drawing / schematic, or whatever, of these wrinkles and the associated stringers?

I would have thought stringers etc. would be molded onto the skin panels, like the integrally milled alumininium skin panels of old?

And I doubt Botox is any use?

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 15:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone have any idea how "ramp rash" will be dealt with ?

I did ask a fleet planner of a major that has an order in and was met with a stoney silence!
Bruce Wayne is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 17:45
  #15 (permalink)  

Usual disclaimers apply!
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Snoop

Anyone have any idea how "ramp rash" will be dealt with ?
A metal scab patch...... I believe!
The difficulty will be in spotting the damage in the first place!
gas path is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2009, 22:51
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The repair methodlogy has been developed and I know for fact that Boeing has been training maintenance personnel in the process. So the guy with the stoney look on his face must have missed that class. I think the biggest concern is detecting ramp rash before it develops into something more serious. Again there is a tool that detects these types of not so obvious dings.

I have been very disapointed in how Boeing has struggled to get this airplane to market but being a little closer to the subject than some, I expect they will work it out..... at what cost, yet to be determined?
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 05:11
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: lefthand side of the screen
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hmm

to be honest .. i think boeing will get over these hurdles. lets be real and accept the fact that designing and manufacturing aircraft is not easy. i only have 2 type course and im pretty sure i dont know everything about my types. If it was easy .. I would have my own factory by now.

late as it may seem. i have to say Boeing will earn a lot from this aircraft.
subsonic69 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 08:20
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taipei
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
787 wrinkling

I have a feeling this new wrinkling problem gets a lot of exposure, only because it follows the epic "stringer end cap delamination delay". Obviously it's a big non-conformity, some guys in Italy will have some explaining to do, but I believe this would be normal QA at work to fix the issue.

As Boeing struggles forward they make big leaps in their learning curve and understanding on how to build composite commercial AC. They will reap the benefits; if not on the 787, they will in the single aisle successor some day...
FMS82 is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 08:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
smudge.
FYI answer 42 not only do Boeing use the imperial system but so do Airbus, every nut/ bolt /washer /rivet on their aircraft are imperial, and long may it continue
Is this true? I hope so! Airbus obviously agrees with Napoleon.

forget is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2009, 11:22
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Composite v GLARE

Sorry if this has been discussed before.....

How does GLARE compare to only composite in relation to weight and ramp rash?
SLFStuckInTheBack is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.