I have a bad feeling about the 787.
I Hope Boeing Knows what it's doing
|by Anonymous||reply 75||01/19/2013|
Yeah, wait until the intense ultra violet in the upper atmosphere degrades all that plastic. I think they are making a huge mistake building a fuselage out of resin and fibre. For some reason, many forget about the devastating affect of ultra violet radiation on resins. Compared to UV at sea level, UV intensity increases by 10% every 1000 feet in elevation. This aircraft will be flying at 40,000' and that 400% increase in UV not to mention the increased radiation at those heights.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||10/01/2011|
Don't they coat it with sunscreen of some kind?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||10/01/2011|
I'm pretty sure Boeing thought of that R1.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||10/01/2011|
But surely they know that because military planes have been flying all along with that kind of fuselage.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||10/01/2011|
|by Anonymous||reply 5||10/01/2011|
Military planes have no where near the length of time exposure as commercial liners. Fighter planes have limited lifespans, stressed to carry minuscule loads l and many of those fabricated with fabric and polymers have come apart for 'unknown" reasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||10/02/2011|
In minor accidents, metal gives and bends.
In minor accidents, carbon fiber composites shatter.
Basically, minor accidents of normal plans can be survivable.
There will be no such thing as a 'minor' accident in the 787.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||10/02/2011|
I find Boeing's whole debacle with the outsourced parts and search for cheap labor spooky.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||10/02/2011|
Many of the largest military planes still used today were designed and made half a century ago, more or less. I think they may have gotten some use through the years.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||10/02/2011|
FROM: Director of Engineering, Boeing TO: Boeing 787 Engineering & Design Team Members
Please remember that it is critical to successful design and to the delivery of a safe product that you consult with the gay gossips at DataLounge. Their expertise in physics, sciences and sunscreen may mean all the difference between life and death.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||10/02/2011|
I'm sure hope that Volkswagen knows what it's doing by re-launching the Beetle. What if they should explode on the road like little bombs?
And don't even get me started on Bethlehem Steel and the frameworks of all new skyscrapers!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||10/02/2011|
|by Anonymous||reply 12||10/02/2011|
OK, who will pay $1 for r11's superb post?
|by Anonymous||reply 13||10/02/2011|
R1, you sound like some loony reactionary. Do you actually think Boeing doesn't factor in every possible scenario before they put billions of dollars into building a new plane? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT!
|by Anonymous||reply 14||10/02/2011|
R1 is that one guy who knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. We all know "that guy"... Unbearable.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||10/02/2011|
As long as Boeing doesn't start manufacturing it's planes in China. That is when they will start dropping out of the skies.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||10/02/2011|
Irrespective of the fact that it's made out of plastic or whatever, my concerns would be that the airlines don't know how to load and unload a plane that carries 100 people. Can you even imagine what will happen when they're loading 1000? Jesus.
747s are bad enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||10/02/2011|
[quote][R1] is that one guy who knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. We all know "that guy"... Unbearable.
"Unbearable"? I thought his name was charlie!
|by Anonymous||reply 18||10/02/2011|
[quote]Irrespective of the fact that it's made out of plastic or whatever, my concerns would be that the airlines don't know how to load and unload a plane that carries 100 people. Can you even imagine what will happen when they're loading 1000? Jesus.
It seems to me the airlines have been doing a pretty good job of loading and unloading planes of 100 and far more for many decades. You're obviously as stupid as R1.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||10/02/2011|
You obviously don't fly much, r19.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||10/02/2011|
On the contrary nimrod at R20, I fly almost every week. I haven't had any problems getting on or off many planes. They may not be the most comfortable conveyance once you're on them, but there is certainly little difficulty in getting people on and off.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||10/02/2011|
No wonder you're so angry if you have to fly that often. But you may wish to revisit your business model; most meth dealers don't have to travel by air to sell their wares.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||10/02/2011|
That was a pretty weak comeback, R22.
Kind of embarrassing really, because how would you even know such a thing?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||10/02/2011|
r23, this thread isn't about you.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||10/02/2011|
[quote] Don't they coat it with sunscreen of some kind?
No. They make all passengers wear zinc ointment on their noses.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||10/02/2011|
What is the combustibility of epoxy resins? Will this new fuselage material burn or is it inert like the metals it replaces?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||10/02/2011|
Don't fret OP.... Obama aims to drive them out of business.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||10/02/2011|
Anybody who trusts corporate America (remember, Boeing is the company that left Seattle for Chicago as part of a union-busting scheme) is a booby-head.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||10/02/2011|
I don't know, R14: one wouldn't have thought an Eastern plane would crash in the - 60's's? cause the crew got distracted arguing over a lightbulb. And a number of years ago, I bet no one in Russia (where planes are admittedly substandard, I have read) thought a plane would crash 'cause the stupid fucking pilot let his little boy at the controls; the kid hit them all at once, to be "cute" and ...whoops.
And ever since I've read, several places over the years, that basically it's cheaper for airlines to just pay out insurance and settlements to the odd air crash survivors and more likely families of dead passengers, than to consistently check everything/pay to have planes in perfect condition, I've been, shall we say, a bit leery.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||10/02/2011|
Marry me, R10. I love you.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||10/03/2011|
R29, that is the same policy that Bic brand lighters use. 1 in a million will blow up in your face, but it is cheaper to pay out the victims than to fix the problem. That is why I always used matches now.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||10/03/2011|
[quote][R1] is that one guy who knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. We all know "that guy"... Unbearable.
Aww I thought he was super cute actually.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||10/03/2011|
Boeing has a long history of squelching valid whistleblower claims. To cover for that, on the advice of their Chicago-based law firm, they support a government watchdog group.
Don't trust anything Boeing says or does.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||10/03/2011|
What will this carbon fuselage do if it were in the same situation as UA flt 232? Disintegrate? If it cannot at least perform equally as well I will not feel comfortable flying in them. 111 people died in flt 232 but 180 something lived. Given the plane cartwheeled down the runway in a fireball I would say that was pretty good performance for the structure of a dc-10.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||10/03/2011|
|by Anonymous||reply 35||10/03/2011|
I don't like R14/R19/R21.
If he flies so much he is probably soulless just like George Clooney in that movie a few years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||10/03/2011|
|by Anonymous||reply 37||10/03/2011|
This aircraft is supposed to be the first liner to have parachutes instead of life-vests under the seats. They won't open until the passenger is below 12,000' so that should allow plenty of time if there's a mid air explosion or disintegration. Some have cattily argued the weight of all those parachutes off sets any weight savings in used a Tonka design fuselage. Of course the parachute contractor, Anna's Fabrics, strongly disagrees.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||10/03/2011|
Do you like gladiator movies, R29?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||10/03/2011|
[quote]Military planes have no where near the length of time exposure as commercial liners.
Better check out the B-52 bomber. There plenty of them flying right now that have been in service for 50 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||10/07/2011|
Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner, set to fly its first paying passengers next week, faces four “safety-related concerns” about repairs to the composites used for the fuselage and wings, a U.S. agency said.
A review of the Dreamliner, the first airliner built with carbon-fiber reinforced composite plastics instead of metal, was released Oct. 20 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The GAO identified four concerns: limited information on the behavior of airplane composite structures; technical issues with the materials’ unique properties; standards for repairs; and training and awareness.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||10/21/2011|
As I sit in Tokyo, waiting to get on whatever plane they'll find to replace the 787 flight that JAL just cancelled ... I guess it's time to revive this thread. On the positive side, the 787 is really a beautiful airliner. Clean, smooth, very up to date. On the negative side ... these nagging problems, causing cancelled and delayed flights ... it'll make me think twice before deciding to fly on one again. Boeing seems to managed to build a Chevy Corvair, a Ford Pinto.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||01/15/2013|
Have you actually been a passenger on one, R42?
|by Anonymous||reply 43||01/15/2013|
They're prone to catching on fire.
[quote]But government officials are more concerned about a fire that erupted in early January on an empty Japan Airlines 787 parked at Logan airport in Boston, involving a type of lithium-ion battery that's new to airliners. Lithium-ion batteries—used to power cell phones, laptops and even the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid sedan—are appealing because they generate more energy than other types of batteries. But they can also get very hot, which makes them more prone to fire. Boeing uses lithium-ion battery packs to crank up the auxiliary power units on the 787, which provides power to the plane when the engines are off. It was apparently one of those battery packs that ignited in Boston, sparking a blaze that took fire crews 40 minutes to extinguish.
Lucky the plane wasn't in flight when the battery exploded.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||01/15/2013|
In the industry Boeing is notorious for electronics issues, though in the past it's been poor performance, not fire risks.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||01/15/2013|
Composite structures were quite the boon and allowed supersonic flight, but mostly in aircraft with relatively short life span and very specific missions.
I think composite skins have been the norm for larger aircraft for quite a while -- the Dreamliner may be the first plane to use all composites in the structure, where once aluminum was the norm.
The long term effects of UV on resin is an interesting issue when you consider all the issues engineers often don't think to think about.
Aluminum honey comb material was quite a weight saver for the floors of the cockpit, passenger compartment and many spots in the cargo hold flooring until initial flights showed that thicker top skins were necessary because the stewardesses' high heels were punching through.
This was a minor, funny tale about unanticipated issues until 2001 when that plane crashed in Rockaway after the rudder went haywire. The pilot thought he was pulling the plane one way, the control surface was actually going in the other (and stuck, at one point, I think). The strains induced were such that it ripped the composite tail off...
|by Anonymous||reply 46||01/15/2013|
The 777 had some issues when it first came online as did the 747. They just need to work out the kinks. (Hopefully without the loss of hundreds of lives)
|by Anonymous||reply 47||01/15/2013|
Boeing outsourced many of the plane's parts to third world manufacturing plants. When the parts arrived for integration, many did not fit well or at all forcing time-consuming retooling and "patches."
As for the batteries, even the Chinese won't use them.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||01/15/2013|
Hello, R43. R42 here. Yes. Flew over from Boston on a 787, two days after the one on the ground had a fire in the cockpit, a day after the one had the fuel leak. And then flew it to Singapore, and back to Tokyo. So yes, I actually have flown on one. More than one. Why?
|by Anonymous||reply 49||01/15/2013|
Here's a photo of a 787 waiting to load passengers at Logan Airport.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||01/15/2013|
Composites have been used by the aero industry for decades. The rotor blades of Vietnam War era Hueys are composite.
Aluminum experiences metal fatigue and that's something looked for during inspections. There will be similar guidelines for the 787's composite elements, as there have been for composite components on previous aircraft.
The structural performance of modern military jets is such that the pilots will black out from g-forces long before the plane's airframe fails.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||01/15/2013|
R51 is right. There is a negligible difference between the 49' long F16 and the 200' long 787. The stresses endured by both planes should be pretty much the same.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||01/15/2013|
January 15, 2013, 8:27 p.m.
TOKYO — Japan's transport ministry says Boeing 787 planes are being grounded for safety checks in the latest blow for the new passenger jet.
One of the 787s operated by All Nippon Airways made an emergency landing Wednesday in western Japan after a cockpit message showed battery problems — the latest in a series of "Dreamliner" troubles including a battery fire and fuel leaks. No one has been seriously injured.
The ministry said Wednesday it got notices from ANA, which operates 17 of the jets, and Japan Airlines which has seven, that all their 787 aircraft will not be flying.
The grounding was being done voluntarily by the airlines. But the ministry says it's categorizing the problem Wednesday as a “serious incident” that could have led to an accident.
Details of the problem that led to Wednesday's emergency landing were still being checked, ANA spokesman Takuya Taniguchi said after the flight to Tokyo from Ube landed at the Takamatsu airport, where NTV television reported passengers had used emergency slides to exit the jet. The airport temporarily closed.
Taniguchi said the airline was not yet prepared to comment on the general problems that have surfaced in the 787. He could provide no further details on Wednesday's incident, though local media reported that smoke was seen inside the aircraft.
The U.S. government is conducting a review to find out what caused a fire, a fuel leak and other worrisome incidents with Boeing's newest and most technologically advanced airliner, though it has reassured the public it is safe to fly.
Japanese airlines have been the first to roll out the 787.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||01/15/2013|
This was a great passenger airliner in its day.
What say you, Lou the Stew?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||01/15/2013|
R52, length is not the primary driver in aero stresses.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||01/15/2013|
Many women in colonial garbs have been sighted on the wings of the 787. And Dean Martin in the cockpit.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||01/15/2013|
bring back the Concorde!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 57||01/15/2013|
As a person who actually knows something about all of this, a lot actually, I'm interested to read what the general public has to say. DL is a fairly good example of the general public, with maybe a little more flying experience.
We're screwed. (BA)
|by Anonymous||reply 58||01/15/2013|
R10, you should write professionally for a living.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||01/15/2013|
Airbus not Boeing, is famous for its substandard electronics. Boeing has always been very conservative on that. Actually, the reason the 787 was rolled out in Japan first is that Japan was given the bulk of the share of the production of the plane. The fact that the Japanese are worried about this fire risk situation demonstrates that things really are bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||01/16/2013|
So they planes are mainly Japanese construction?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||01/16/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 62||01/16/2013|
"Made in Japan" stamped on the bottom of something used to mean it was crap, but then the cars and electronics were pretty good, so then it meant quality.
Now what does it mean?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||01/16/2013|
It's interesting that they're essentially pilot testing the plane on themselves. I wonder how much JAL and ANA will stand to lose by having to ground its 787 fleet.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||01/16/2013|
Most new models of aircraft have issues for a number of years. Kind of like why buying the first new model year of a car results in quite a few problems and recalls.
The A340s had them (I remember well as I was working on one that decided to circle for over an hour while someone on the ground patched the pilots through to France to find out how to get the computer to let us out of the circling pattern)
The 777's had them, the A380 had them and now the 787.
I can't say I'm crazy about the level of electronics and automation on-board new aircraft today, but I'd have no problem flying a Dreamliner right now. Because it's new and everyone is looking for issues and responding quickly, it's probably one of the safer planes to fly right now.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||01/16/2013|
Sorry, R60. Boeing is the company that doesn't do new electronics well - and not just in their aero division (care to discuss electronic surveillance of the US/Mexico border?).
R61, the planes are not *mainly* Japanese construction. Overseas contractors did have larger roles than in past Boeing projects but overall the product is a mix of US, Asian, and European contract work. The Japanese primarily provided structural components and software development. The Japanese government also kicked in some developmental funding.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||01/16/2013|
[quote]Most new models of aircraft have issues for a number of years.
True. However, which new models of aircraft had problems with bursting into flames like the 787?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||01/16/2013|
Fuel leak + smoldering batteries.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||01/16/2013|
Well the feds agree with you. They are out of commision until they have been more thoroughly tested.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||01/16/2013|
Considering the tumult at Boeing during the time this airplane was being developed, it is a credit to the durability of the company that the danged thing ever got off the ground. The authorities, airlines, employees & stockholders all know this. That's why you got a fleet grounding over a couple of battery fires where a generation ago it would have taken a couple of flaming crashes with no survivors.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||01/16/2013|
[quote]it is a credit to the durability of the company
It is a credit to the durability of FAA support.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||01/17/2013|
r70, I thought Airbus still had issues with their planes, even after a couple of flaming crashes with no survivors.
I lost my bookmarks a while ago and I lost the link to a great blog by a pilot. He was concerned enough about the Airbus A380 specifically, and the company in general, to advise against flying on one.
IIRC, he never had to retract the post, so I assume he was right.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||01/17/2013|
R71 R72 If the FAA turns out to have been right in their action, it will mark one of the few times this befuddled agency has done so in its entire inept history. This agency is known for hiring pretty talented, hard-working people, then promoting the absolute dumbest of them.
The A380 has had much more serious problems than the 787, but it is a product of Europe, Inc and must/will succeed at all costs.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||01/17/2013|
R54. Never been on an L-1011. My airline flew the DC-10 which was similar in size. We had a great time on the DC-10. Fun crews and I enjoyed working downstairs in "the pit" ( galley below the passenger level)
|by Anonymous||reply 74||01/19/2013|
I flew on an L-1011. Best plane ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||01/19/2013|