rickair7777

I am optimistic about the 787. However, I have a friend who was offered a senior engineering management position on the 787 early in the program. Without knowing too much about it, he transferred from the Long Beach plant and moved up to Washington...

He was absolutely astounded when he arrived and learned the true scope of what they are trying to do with that airplane. He is still suffereing engineering shell shock and working his tail off, as is everyone else involved.

Obviously this is not a trivial effort, but if they can pull it off, it will probably pay huge dividends. Gotta hand it to Boeing for breaking out of the mold and taking some risk to gain a strategic advantage...I was pleasantly surprised to see something of that scale and audacity coming from a US company these days...

Meanwhile, back in Brie-land...Airbus has hung it's hat on what may well turn out to be a niche-market white elephant, and has responded to the 787 with a warmed-over 300 series...

SkyBusDriver

It's about time Boeing did something to revolutionize the industry. IMO the 737NG fell way short of the mark.

jetblaster

This is a hugely complex issue. As a pilot who has studied the composite use issue over the past five or six years, I will say that, yes, they are complex; yes, they are very strong, but, YES, you MUST inspect them effectively using some sort of advanced Non-Destructive method, like ultrasound. And you must do it on periodic inspections.

Airbus has tail crack problems on AA 587; Air Transat 961; AA 903; and now, a Fed Ex rudder has been found to be delaminated and this damage was not found using the simple, coin-tap inspection that Airbus insists is adequate. This tail WOULD have disintegrated in similar fashion to the Air Transat 961 tail, which caused "damage that was almost exactly the same a AA 587" (or words to that effect) in the vertical fin.

Composites are the wave of the future and can be safe; Boeing has a much more conservative history than Airbus in composite use; but, effective inspections are the key.

Presently, we are simply awaiting another rudder disintegration and vertical fin failure on an A300/310 due to the stubborn Airbus insistence on visual or coin tap inspections on those aircraft.

Jetblaster

NGINEWHOISWHAT

The AA jet going down in Canarsie was an eye opener for me. It just doesn't make SENSE to me to put non-metal in such a critical spot just to save weight.

The ONLY composite aircraft I have flown is a Diamond Katana. On hot days you had to look between the seat at this dot for a number to show through or something like that. If that number was showing it was to hot to fly the aircraft.

I didn't think the entire fuselage of the 787 is made of composites. I thought it was the front 1/3rd and the wings? I'm often wrong ...

calcapt

Boeing is like your mother - usually right about most things. They often tell you things you don't agree with or understand, but in the end, they are usually right. The 787 will be a great airplane and you can be assured that Boeing has done it's homework.

Flatspin7

Boeing would never take such a huge risk on an airplane such as this if they werent 100% sure that the technology was sound, and that it will be sustainable.

The 787 is as much of a leap from 767 than the 707 was from its prop predecessors.

GauleyPilot

in post #4 of this thread----

what is the deal with this "jack" person?

posts n/a ?

bravo24

No doubt that Boeing is pushing the envelope with the 787. But that is something that the aerospace industry has done since day 1 of its existence.

The extensive use of composites (50% by weight) is probably the biggest risk. The technology in this area - materials, production, and inspection - has made significant advances since the early days when composites were used mostly for fairings and flight controls. But just like somebody decided many years ago to make the move from fabric and wood to aluminum, maybe it's time to move on to something better. Aluminum cracks, corrodes, and is prone to fatigue. Composites don't have those bad habits.

The decision to rely extensively on electrics instead of pneumatics should help increase dispatch reliabilability (look ma, no more air leaks or duct overheat warnings). With 2 250 kva generators on each engine and 2 225 kva generators on the APU, there should be plenty of juice to not only pressurize the airplane but to run all of the other goodies such as the HUDs, EFBs, electric brakes, and the stuff to keep the paying customers happy.

As for all the concerns that have been expressed on this thread, don't think for a minute that they haven't been raised by the airlines that have ordered or are considering the airplane. Most of these airlines (especially ones like ANA, Qantas, JAL, and Singapore) are very savvy and know what questions to ask and know what answers they want to hear. If Boeing had not been able to address issues such as repairability and temperature tolerance they wouldn't be ordering the airplane.

Boeing is betting its reputation (not to mention my retirement) on the 787. Rest assured that it is doing everything it can to make sure that the 787 will be a safe and reliable airplane.

Proptrash

What he said!

Pilotpip

While much of the composite work is new to the civilian world, it's not untested in military fighters. It's just a natural progression of things. Composites have been used in large amounts on aircraft since the 747.

PS: The little sticker on the Katana changes around 135 degrees. Do you really want to be doing touch and gos in that kind of heat?