More 787 issues

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

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?

Member for

13 years 7 months

Posts: 819

My bet is a faulty part in the auxiliary battery pack. Probably not a fleet wide issue, just bad luck.

You seem to know a lot about the B787. Or did you perhaps just read about it in a news article ? :confused:

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

I read an awful lot on aircraft :)

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 997

IMO, you are letting your personal opinion cloud your judgement on this. Naming it "Plastic Pig" does not exactly lend your comments any credibility.

It's been called the plastic pig ever since it rolled out of the assembly shed.

Rgds Cking

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

As has the A380 been called the Whalejet, but I don't use it as it's disrespectful.

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 569

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.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

[ATTACH]211157[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 569

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).

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

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.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

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?

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

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.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=14213

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 10,625

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?

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

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.

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 569

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.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

Also, why does it appear to be the Japanese 787s that have the majority of the issues?

Perhaps because they were the first to operate the B787, and thus have the highest hours? :p

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 569

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

Member for

14 years

Posts: 949

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.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 10,160

As has the A380 been called the Whalejet, but I don't use it as it's disrespectful.
I've never heard it called that, but the nickname 'Hippo' seems to be in fairly widespread usage.