23 posts in this topic

Posted

Boeing need to get their **** together, and really fast with this. I can't see all of their ordering airlines staying on board for more delays.

They are way too close to the A350 expected first flight to be dealing with a major issue like this. When was the last grounding of this nature? DC-10? (I could be way off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wonder if the leaky engines are the Trent 1000's or the GEnx? That and a hot Lithium Ion battery are fairly easy fixes by substitution (including switching LiION chemistries.) OTOH, with the continuing Airbus A380 soap opera the problem is structural, a continuing series of cracks in the wings, and more difficult - just 4-5 sales of those big $$$$ birds for all of 2012.

Both Boeing and Airbus had better watch out for the coming onslaught of new, very modern and well priced birds from China's Comac (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China.) The narrowbody C919 is due next year, and widebodies can't be far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Docm, the Chinese models are cheap, but its kind of along the lines of, how safe are they compared to your typical 737? and I was wondering isn't a C919 like a copy of an MD-95 or a 737?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Boeing will definitely be in trouble if they keep going like this. As for Comac their website looks terrible, lets hope they spend more time on building their planes than they did on their website!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I take it you are all very familiar with the commercial aviation industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I take it you are all very familiar with the commercial aviation industry?

Yes, actually. I hope this doesn't in anyway impede me reading other people's opinions on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Docm, the Chinese models are cheap, but its kind of along the lines of, how safe are they compared to your typical 737? and I was wondering isn't a C919 like a copy of an MD-95 or a 737?

So the Chinese now have the ability to clone airplanes? I don't know if I'd trust it though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A380 and B787 - two brand new aircraft. Basically the first completely new aircraft from either company in around 15 years or so. Of course they're going to have teething problems. Both aircraft used new design and construction techniques. Fatigue is always difficult to model, hence we're seeing the A380 problems only just showing up, and the 787 problems can arguably be pointed at individual systems failing - not a sign that it's a problem with the actual aircraft.

I can't see any western airlines willingly purchasing Chinese made planes... yet. It just wouldn't go down well with the public. They actually recognise the Boeing and Airbus names. Unfortunately one certain UK airline has been marketing it's 787 launch heavily to the general public - somehow I think that campaign may be quietly pulled today if it's not already been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Docm, the Chinese models are cheap, but its kind of along the lines of, how safe are they compared to your typical 737? and I was wondering isn't a C919 like a copy of an MD-95 or a 737?

Same class as those, but Comac is going to use a lot of mainstream components; GE engines, Honeywell and other major company electronics etc. They bear serious watching by Airbus and Boeing because most planes are not sold to US operators but to the international markets.

I'd rather have Boeing's problem - as noted it's either components, like batteries that can be re-sourced, or installation/maintenance etc. As for the cabin windscreen breakage, I asked a pilot friend and he's had several break over the years so that's probably a 'so what?' Hit a bird or hailstone at 300+ knots and what do you expect?

With the A380 it sounds like a fundamental airframe issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

My reaction to the cracked windscreen was /careface, but it depends on how it failed.. Cracked windscreens are not uncommon.

With the exception of the fire/smoke issues, it all sounds like general teething issues.

The fuel line issue is kind of surprising though.

Boeing and Airbus issue hundreds of safety advisement documents a year. The aircraft with these issues will be put on higher maintenance checking or will be issued with a fix (assuming one is warranted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Problems aside....i think this plane looks amazing! I mean, in terms of its features and whatnot. Good steps forward - lower cabin pressure, more quiet/efficient engines, better air quality, etc.

I can't (couldn't?) want to fly on one! =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, actually. I hope this doesn't in anyway impede me reading other people's opinions on the matter.

good, tell me about it.

it's the opinions given and their sources that make a big difference in their validity.

I too have been in the industry for the past 25 years. in addition I have 6 of them to work with currently. yes, as with any other new aircraft (and this one is very much science fiction for many) it is painful. were you around for the first 777's you should have heard the gory details about them in the early days.

I will say that this being the first major paradigm shift in commercial aviation in many years and its going to hurt for awhile. hey, I might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

good, tell me about it.

it's the opinions given and their sources that make a big difference in their validity.

I too have been in the industry for the past 25 years. in addition I have 6 of them to work with currently. yes, as with any other new aircraft (and this one is very much science fiction for many) it is painful. were you around for the first 777's you should have heard the gory details about them in the early days.

I will say that this being the first major paradigm shift in commercial aviation in many years and its going to hurt for awhile. hey, I might be wrong.

Absolutely, no one is disputing that all new aircraft have teething problems. And your experience with these new aircraft really doesn't weigh much into the debate that is happening. I'm not in anyway saying this is a bad plane. However, in the scheme of things, and the huge delays already faced, further delays will mean more cancellations, and certainly a lot more money in compensation.

In the interest of not putting all of my personal life on the internet for a complete stranger to read, all I will say is that my knowledge of the commercial airliners is vast. I don't see this thread as an exclusive thread for aviation nuts either. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and unfortunately for Boeing, it doesn't matter if every jet since the Dash 80 have had issues. The flying public see one thing, a grounding of a brand new plane.

Some of the damage in the public's eyes is already done.

And a big shift in the way planes are made is absolutely no excuse. None at all. These things need to be safe out of the box. And yes, I would say they are still safe. Buit there is a very major safety issue occurring on the aircraft. The FAA doesn't just ground aeroplanes for nothing.

Same class as those, but Comac is going to use a lot of mainstream components; GE engines, Honeywell and other major company electronics etc. They bear serious watching by Airbus and Boeing because most planes are not sold to US operators but to the international markets.

I'd rather have Boeing's problem - as noted it's either components, like batteries that can be re-sourced, or installation/maintenance etc. As for the cabin windscreen breakage, I asked a pilot friend and he's had several break over the years so that's probably a 'so what?' Hit a bird or hailstone at 300+ knots and what do you expect?

With the A380 it sounds like a fundamental airframe issue.

I honestly can't see any airline that wants a good image operating anything except Airbus or Boeing. I see Aeroflot using them, purely because they're used to operating unsafe heaps of ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say this is teething problems for a new plane, but I wonder how much is just poor design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Absolutely, no one is disputing that all new aircraft have teething problems. And your experience with these new aircraft really doesn't weigh much into the debate that is happening. I'm not in anyway saying this is a bad plane. However, in the scheme of things, and the huge delays already faced, further delays will mean more cancellations, and certainly a lot more money in compensation.

In the interest of not putting all of my personal life on the internet for a complete stranger to read, all I will say is that my knowledge of the commercial airliners is vast. I don't see this thread as an exclusive thread for aviation nuts either. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and unfortunately for Boeing, it doesn't matter if every jet since the Dash 80 have had issues. The flying public see one thing, a grounding of a brand new plane.

Some of the damage in the public's eyes is already done.

And a big shift in the way planes are made is absolutely no excuse. None at all. These things need to be safe out of the box. And yes, I would say they are still safe. Buit there is a very major safety issue occurring on the aircraft. The FAA doesn't just ground aeroplanes for nothing.

I honestly can't see any airline that wants a good image operating anything except Airbus or Boeing. I see Aeroflot using them, purely because they're used to operating unsafe heaps of ****.

and here I thought you understood commercial aviation. you better look into your history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

and here I thought you understood commercial aviation. you better look into your history.

You tell me why I'm wrong almighty god of aviation.

Just because there are teething problems in every aircraft, doesn't make it right.

You can't tell me that the test aircraft didn't have this problem. If they didn't, then they need to look into their testing environments and see what real world tests they are not performing, and perform them.

I look forward to your full reply with why you are right, and I am wrong.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The thing that would concern me is that all of the 787's problems have hit in what I'd call an extremely short timeframe... By my recollection that's 2 battery fires, a wiring fault, 2 fuel leaks and 2 cracked windscreens since the 7th of january. Yes the A380 has it's own issues but they don't seem to be happening at such an alarming rate. Shouldn't be that hard for Boeing to fix but having the first widespread fleet grounding since the 1970s is going to do their reputation a great deal of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem with the 787 is that lot of it was outsourced, and outsourced incorrectly.

Boeing decided that trying to make everything in the US was too expensive, so they outsourced a lot of it. For example almost 35% of the plane is made in Japan (the wings, electrical bits, doors etc). Parts are made in South Korea, and other smaller bits in Italy, France and Sweden.

Now originally Boeing sent specs to all the other companies that were making those parts and told them to follow them to the letter. But now those companies outsourced those parts to other companies and so on. For example the Wing Ribs were originally sourced to a Japanese company that then sourced them to Hyundai who then sourced them to a Chinese company. Boeing contracted a Japanese company to design and build the batteries and they manufactured them in China and then sent them to a french company who packaged the whole thing and sent it to Boeing.

When you have so much work being sourced out, to different companies and countries quality will suffer. Had those companies kept their work in-house, things might have been different but everyone was looking for a quick way to make a buck.

I'd rather have Boeing's problem - as noted it's either components, like batteries that can be re-sourced, or installation/maintenance etc. As for the cabin windscreen breakage, I asked a pilot friend and he's had several break over the years so that's probably a 'so what?' Hit a bird or hailstone at 300+ knots and what do you expect?

The cockpit window broke without anything hitting it. And it's not a "so what" event, sorry. Had the entire window shattered, the plane would depressurize and the pilots would have had to make an emergency descent (well they would have started to do that when a crack appears).

With the A380 it sounds like a fundamental airframe issue.

Which Boeing will have due to the airframe being completely composite. Boeing likes to claim that composite aircraft are so much stronger and safer but go to any diamond flight school's maintenance hanger and see how many times their composite aircraft have skin problems.

Hell a senior Boeing engineer complained to management that composite fuselages weren't totally safe and in a crash they could quite easily shatter and burn with toxic fumes. Know what Boeing did with that information? They fired the guy.

just 4-5 sales of those big $$$$ birds for all of 2012.

Both Boeing and Airbus had better watch out for the coming onslaught of new, very modern and well priced birds from China's Comac (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China.) The narrowbody C919 is due next year, and widebodies can't be far behind.

The problem with A380 sales has more to do with the market and not the quality. Airlines are moving away from the hub and spoke model because its not fuel efficient. They're also replacing the 747 routes with the 777 because its more fuel efficient. Now in the midst of this Airbus introduced a giant plane that depends on the hub-spoke method and has 4 engines. Something that airlines don't want.

And as for a chinese commercial plane? Sorry I'd rather shoot of my legs and crawl to my destination than sit on a plane made in China. At some point in the future they might be great planes, but next year nope.

Hell Russia has decades worth of aircraft building experience and most people wouldn't go near their commercial aircraft with a 100 foot pole. China has next to no experience and the only planes they've made are copies of Russian ones (and poor copies too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the 787 the problems are teething problems and that uses Lithium ion batteries to greater extent then any other jet. Lithium batteries in cars to computers they have various problems. Once these battery problems are ironed out it should be good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the 787 the problems are teething problems and that uses Lithium ion batteries to greater extent then any other jet. Lithium batteries in cars to computers they have various problems. Once these battery problems are ironed out it should be good to go.

It's the first plane to use lithium ion batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The big problem with the Boeing 787 is that it uses lithium ion battery which is more prone to catch fire than nickel cadmium batteries.

Other problems are relatively minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's important is what type of Lithium Ion battery, particularly the elactrode materisl (nanophosphate is better/safer) the siz and the physical arrangement & ability to isolate (electrically and physically) the individual cells in the battery if one fails or goes into thermal runaway. Smaller cells make for a more controllable situation.

Now this news from some lithium battery pros -

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0AY11R20130129?irpc=932

UPDATE 1-Tesla CEO extends help to Boeing on battery issue

DETROIT, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Elon Musk has long considered Tesla Motors Inc the bold, nimble answer to the auto industry's cautious culture. Now the electric car maker's top executive has extended his help to another industrial giant: Boeing Co.

In a Jan. 26 message on Twitter, Musk said he was in talks with the chief engineer of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner plane, which regulators have grounded indefinitely after a string of malfunctions ranging from fuel leaks to battery meltdowns.

"Desire to help Boeing is real & am corresponding w 787 chief engineer," Musk wrote on the social media website.

Musk, who is also the CEO of space transport company SpaceX, told Reuters in an email late on Monday that SpaceX battery packs could be helpful for Boeing.

"We fly high capacity lithium ion battery packs in our rockets and spacecraft, which are subject to much higher loads than commercial aircraft and have to function all the way from sea level air pressure to vacuum. We have never had a fire in any production battery pack at either Tesla or SpaceX," Musk said in the email.

Boeing declined to comment or confirm if such discussions were taking place.

Boeing's chief 787 engineer, Mike Sinnett, has recently made presentations about the plane and its battery technology to reporters and industry leaders.

Musk's post came a week after his first dispatch to Boeing on Jan. 18: "Maybe already under control, but Tesla & SpaceX are happy to help with the 787 lithium ion batteries."

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.