trouble 't mill?
 

4 weeks and counting, can't remember where the pictures come from, but they show 787 barrel sections 41/5-19 mis-match, a recognized problem with this manufacturing method borrowed from the MV-22 fuselage manufacture method
BusinessWeek has learned that Boeing's engineers are wrestling with several significant technical and production problems that could threaten the scheduled 2008 delivery of the jetliner
At a time when Boeing has left itself with little margin for error, the wide-ranging series of glitches could create a domino effect if they aren't resolved quickly. The worst news: The fuselage section -- the big multi-part cylindrical barrel that encompasses the passenger seating area -- has failed in company testing. That's forcing Boeing to make more sections than planned, and to reexamine quality and safety concerns.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...5/b3989049.htm

+ Systems not installed.
+ Workmanship issues with the horizontal stabilizer.
+ Temporary fasteners that will have to be replaced.


Those are only some of what 787 workers at The Boeing Co.'s Everett plant face as the mad dash begins to get the first Dreamliner assembled and out the factory door by July 8.



http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...h_photo/B1.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...h_photo/B2.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...h_photo/B3.jpg

I suspect there aren't too many people in Seattle laiughing about Airbus' misfortunes with the A380 right now.

Typical pre-production problems and probably far easier addressed (with a large hammer) than rerouting a gazzillion miles of wires.

Are Boeing still designing a new airplane in the 21st century in INCHES?

What's wrong with inches?
What about the (albeit 20th century space shuttle being in measures of roman chariots?
(Link to well-worn internet story!) http://www.seiyaku.com/reference/shuttle.html

Yes that's an interesting quote, but doesn't really justify the design of a new aircraft in an obsolete measurement system (if that really is the case?).
Try this link instead:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

You must be that bald curmudgeon engineering prof who slapped me around with customary units I'd never heard of before but apparently are awful important to bald old people. Rankine what?

Look a bit more closely, you'll see the ruler is metric, metric inches that is...

They should have used Withworth.... I have several withworth spanners in my loft going spare..

Rather hard to address anything made in carbon fibre with a hammer I would have thought

Can't they just heat it up with the missus's hairdryer and smudge it into shape with an engineers thumb :confused:

Thats what my lad does with his (late) airfix models ;)

Sheesh, all those engineering degrees outthought by a six year old :p

We should remember the Gimley Glider was partly caused by a SNAFU with non SI units

Isn't it time that aviation finally bit the bullet and standardised on SI units? How can such a safety-conscious industry continue to live with so many superfluous calculations and so many proven causes of error?
Sorry, I realise this is serious topic drift.

Isn't it time that aviation finally bit the bullet and standardised on SI units?

Some of us might even opine that the sorry mess could best be corrected by going back to slugs and poundals ..... real units with some meat to them ...

With you 100% there JT. See what Bony had to say about 'metrication'. :ok:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/nap.jpg

Yeah, let's have the rest of the world pennies and pounds, lefthand driving, fish and chips and a queen.....

Location Sydney? You've already got three out of four.:)

Yeah, the $ must be an accident:O, don't know 'cause not very good in history:*

Some of us might even opine that the sorry mess could best be corrected by going back to slugs and poundals ..... real units with some meat to them ...

It's relatively unimportant which standard is used. The key thing is that everyone uses the same one.
Since almost every country has adopted SI units, and the great majority of the world's population are taught in them, surely it is time that a great international industry fell into line. Not for the sake of appearance, but because of the undoubted benefits of efficiency and safety that will follow.
My original question is still unanswered - is the 787 really being designed in inches?

If it is, its probably safer that way.
There's no especial risk in any given system of units; it's mixing systems that causes issues. Which would be riskier - sticking to inches and 'thou' on the Seattle production line, or having a switchover to millimetres - likely on just one programme at that.
"Gee, what's the standard tolerance, 10 (thou) mil?". NASA's inadvertent collision with Mars wasn't because of using metric or imperial - it was using BOTH that caused it. Sticking to what you know is often a good idea.