By: Matt-100
- 10th January 2013 at 17:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A320 flies about with composite primary structure and isn't parked after 20,000 cycles.
I fail to see the relevance of the failure mode depicted in the video to the B787?
The A320 only has select composite parts (e.g. doors & nose cone), the fuselage is a dull aluminium alloy which may look like a composite on the production line but isn't (it's the same 'non-shiny' aluminium alloy used on the A330 and A380). On the A320, it's the aluminium (rather than the composites) that takes the strain of the pressurisation cycles. Because aluminium has some give in it (like all metals) it can stretch and contract as the pressure builds, this is not the case with the full composite 787 fuselage. After tens of thousands of cycles, small hairline cracks will appear in the composite.
The blades of a wind turbine are made of similar composites to the 787, although the 787 will have been baked for longer and of course be laminated.
By: Matt-100
- 10th January 2013 at 18:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't understand? Your picture confirms the A320 fuselage is not made out of composites? There are select parts, yes, such as the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, the under-fuselage wing join and the undercarriage doors. But most of the strain from pressurisation will be felt by the aluminium alloys (shown in pale yellow).
By: Bmused55
- 10th January 2013 at 18:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Matt, these composite structures have been tested, tested and tested again. The FAA made Boeing jump through many more hoops to gain certification than they would have with a traditional aluminium frame and skin construction.
In that video you posted, those blades would have been going supersonic. An impact at that speed would turn an aluminium fuselage into mincemeat as much as it would with a carbon composite fuselage.
A more like for like comparison (although still not really relevant) would be the GOL 1907 crash.
A brand new Embraer Legacy collided with a brand new Boeing 737-800.
The Embraer's carbon composite wing tip impacted and sliced clean through the aluminium wing of the 737.
The Embraer landed, the 737 spiralled to earth and broke apart with the stresses.
By: ThreeSpool
- 11th January 2013 at 15:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since my last post, this has been posted on the FAA website.
Press Release – FAA Will Review Boeing 787 Design and Production
WASHINGTON – In light of a series of recent events, the FAA will conduct a comprehensive review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly. The purpose of the review is to validate the work conducted during the certification process and further ensure that the aircraft meets the FAA’s high level of safety.
“The safety of the traveling public is our top priority,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This review will help us look at the root causes and do everything we can to safeguard against similar events in the future.”
A team of FAA and Boeing engineers and inspectors will conduct this joint review, with an emphasis on the aircraft’s electrical power and distribution system. The review will also examine how the electrical and mechanical systems interact with each other.
“We are confident that the aircraft is safe. But we need to have a complete understanding of what is happening," said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. "We are conducting the review to further ensure that the aircraft meets our high safety standards.”
The review will be structured to provide a broader view of design, manufacturing and assembly and will not focus exclusively on individual events. The review is expected to begin in Seattle, but may expand to other locations over the course of several months.
FAA technical experts logged 200,000 hours of work during the 787 type certification and flew on numerous test flights. The FAA reviews 787 in-service events as part of our continued operational safety process.
United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. The worldwide in-service fleet includes 50 aircraft.
By: Bmused55
- 11th January 2013 at 15:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder if any of these issues could have something to do with the aircraft being in long term storage before delivery? Weren't the first 30 or so frames completed and stored in Seattle pending certification? Could such storage perhaps have had some adverse effects on the failing components?
By: ThreeSpool
- 11th January 2013 at 15:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd very much doubt it, other aircraft are grounded and reinstated without drama. I doubt the stored B787's even had batteries fitted until they were ready to be recommissioned.
By: Matt-100
- 11th January 2013 at 17:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what kind of compensation JAL and ANA will get from Boeing?
As the WSJ pointed out, both airlines have tied their future success to this 1 aircraft (both airlines will be in the top 3 largest 787 operators).
Also, why does it appear to be the Japanese 787s that have the majority of the issues? They make up ~50% of the global flying 787 fleet but appear to get ~75% of all the issues.
By: Matt-100
- 11th January 2013 at 18:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So all these other faults are a joy in store for the likes of United, Qatar, Ethiopian, LAN and LOT once their aircraft hit higher hours to? Nice... :p
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 10th January 2013 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A320 flies about with composite primary structure and isn't parked after 20,000 cycles.
I fail to see the relevance of the failure mode depicted in the video to the B787?
Posts: 819
By: Culpano - 10th January 2013 at 01:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You seem to know a lot about the B787. Or did you perhaps just read about it in a news article ? :confused:
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 10th January 2013 at 07:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I read an awful lot on aircraft :)
Posts: 997
By: Cking - 10th January 2013 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's been called the plastic pig ever since it rolled out of the assembly shed.
Rgds Cking
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 10th January 2013 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As has the A380 been called the Whalejet, but I don't use it as it's disrespectful.
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 10th January 2013 at 17:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The A320 only has select composite parts (e.g. doors & nose cone), the fuselage is a dull aluminium alloy which may look like a composite on the production line but isn't (it's the same 'non-shiny' aluminium alloy used on the A330 and A380). On the A320, it's the aluminium (rather than the composites) that takes the strain of the pressurisation cycles. Because aluminium has some give in it (like all metals) it can stretch and contract as the pressure builds, this is not the case with the full composite 787 fuselage. After tens of thousands of cycles, small hairline cracks will appear in the composite.
The blades of a wind turbine are made of similar composites to the 787, although the 787 will have been baked for longer and of course be laminated.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 10th January 2013 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH]211157[/ATTACH]
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 10th January 2013 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't understand? Your picture confirms the A320 fuselage is not made out of composites? There are select parts, yes, such as the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, the under-fuselage wing join and the undercarriage doors. But most of the strain from pressurisation will be felt by the aluminium alloys (shown in pale yellow).
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 10th January 2013 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Matt, these composite structures have been tested, tested and tested again. The FAA made Boeing jump through many more hoops to gain certification than they would have with a traditional aluminium frame and skin construction.
In that video you posted, those blades would have been going supersonic. An impact at that speed would turn an aluminium fuselage into mincemeat as much as it would with a carbon composite fuselage.
A more like for like comparison (although still not really relevant) would be the GOL 1907 crash.
A brand new Embraer Legacy collided with a brand new Boeing 737-800.
The Embraer's carbon composite wing tip impacted and sliced clean through the aluminium wing of the 737.
The Embraer landed, the 737 spiralled to earth and broke apart with the stresses.
Posts: 297
By: bostin01 - 11th January 2013 at 13:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20988117
I hope this is just the FAA being over cautious.
As with all new technology, there will always be period of ironing out.
Kev.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 11th January 2013 at 14:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't find on the FAA or NTSB website information that says they are investigating the 787 other than the incident on the battery fire.
Is it just the BBC putting two and two together?
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 11th January 2013 at 15:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since my last post, this has been posted on the FAA website.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 11th January 2013 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder if any of these issues could have something to do with the aircraft being in long term storage before delivery? Weren't the first 30 or so frames completed and stored in Seattle pending certification? Could such storage perhaps have had some adverse effects on the failing components?
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 11th January 2013 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd very much doubt it, other aircraft are grounded and reinstated without drama. I doubt the stored B787's even had batteries fitted until they were ready to be recommissioned.
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 11th January 2013 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder what kind of compensation JAL and ANA will get from Boeing?
As the WSJ pointed out, both airlines have tied their future success to this 1 aircraft (both airlines will be in the top 3 largest 787 operators).
Also, why does it appear to be the Japanese 787s that have the majority of the issues? They make up ~50% of the global flying 787 fleet but appear to get ~75% of all the issues.
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 11th January 2013 at 17:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I knew I'd heard of cracked wind-shields somewhere before,
http://avherald.com/h?article=45b190bb&opt=0
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 11th January 2013 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps because they were the first to operate the B787, and thus have the highest hours? :p
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 11th January 2013 at 18:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So all these other faults are a joy in store for the likes of United, Qatar, Ethiopian, LAN and LOT once their aircraft hit higher hours to? Nice... :p
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 11th January 2013 at 18:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well normally, a fault occurs, the manufacturer finds the cause, a repair is designed, an SB is issued and airlines incorporate it in their fleet.
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 12th January 2013 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've never heard it called that, but the nickname 'Hippo' seems to be in fairly widespread usage.