Jump to content



Photo

Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleets grounded around the world

boeing 787 dreamliner

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 sjms

sjms

    Neowinian

  • 53 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 04

Posted 18 January 2013 - 00:31

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.


#17 Nashy

Nashy

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,037 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5 - SM-G900i

Posted 18 January 2013 - 00:36

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.

#18 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,995 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 18 January 2013 - 00:47

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.

#19 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,810 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:14

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).

#20 Melfster

Melfster

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,710 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 05

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:30

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.

#21 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,810 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:39

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.

#22 illegaloperation

illegaloperation

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,851 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 09

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:00

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.

#23 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,118 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 January 2013 - 20:59

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.reuter...130129?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."
>