Boeing's "testing" unfortunately parallels our own industry. The test includes way more outsourcing in the interest of "cost savings" for the management team and share holders at the expense of control over the quality of the product, than previous certifications. The 787 is a dismal failure when compared to the 777. What's the difference? The percentage of in-house work.

 

One was aluminium and one is composite...

 

I have faith in Boeing. Aren't these tests done so they can prove if the design works anyway?

Nothing against Airbus; I think they make a great competitor to the B737.

 

Ultimately, mismanagement by Boeing rears it's ugly head again.

Outsourcing is essential. Boeing couldn't build the entire aircraft if they tried!

JJ

 

Every aircraft has design limits beyond which structural failure may occur!


JJ

 

The damage is extensive and will likely delay the first flight at least one more year. At this point Boeing is guilty of nothing less than pathological lying as to the progress of the 787. Just months ago the executives from Boeing, while @ the Paris Air Show, were reporting that the plane would likely fly by the end of the week...and now this?

They are billions of dollars in the hole now as a result of this project in a climate where there is not a lot of money. If they're not careful, this project could very likely sink the company at this point. They need to move quickly and make some big changes.

I'm a huge Boeing fan, but I'm very unhappy about how this has all played out. At the rate this is going, the Airbus 350 could fly before the 787...imagine that.

 

Interesting statement about AF447. (Please keep in mind that I am new here and a member of the slf club. I am not involved in aviation in any form but merely a highly interested fan of said. And have been since childhood.)
I often lurk in the pprune.org forums. There is a very, very lengthy thread on AF447 (Airbus 330-200). I have been reading this thread since day 1 ie, 1 June 2009. There are many technical discussions by those obviously in the know (pilots, scientists, engineers, etc.) which basically theorize the cause of this accident. (Theorize because until now the CVR and FDR have not been recovered and only a small percentage of the fuselage. Thus, not much evidence to go by.) The main theory being espoused seems to be that the aircraft in question entered a flat stall and impacted the ocean "in the line of flight with rapid vertical deceleration." To clarify; On investigation the aircraft was considered to be in a level attitude with a high vertical component of velocity when it impacted the ocean surface, causing momentary high acceleration induced vertical compressive force deformations seen on recovered aircraft pieces. I have yet to see anyone mention anything about the tail section. HOWEVER, what is interesting, to me anyway, is one of the main pieces of the wreckage that has been found is the vertical stabilizer and rudder assembly! Yet no one, on that board anyway, has addressed this issue as possibly being causal but, conversely, resultant. I find it interesting that you brought this up especially considering the two other aircraft you mention.

 

Let me split the difference.

The failures happened above 100% certified load limit, but below the 150% required to certify the design. The alarming part of the problem is that Boeing's design software failed to catch the problem and that software was used to design nearly all the structure.

It's ugly. Some of the Experts quoted by Aviation Week are saying first flight may be 2011. Others saying early 2010.

Boeing is having problems engineering a fix that can be applied to the first airframes already produced since there are a lot of areas that are closed off and subsequently inaccessible in the structure.

There is talk that the first airplane's build costs are over $500,000,000 and that profitability will not be reached until production is over 220 (or so) units. This may actually put Boeing in a cash crunch since it will lose money on all the initial production.

 

Funny thing is you're not actually flying a Boeing and not a 717. You're flying a Boeing marketing effort which renamed a re-engined, upgraded Douglas product, the DC-9 which was upgraded to the McDoug MD-80 and then this version was originally the MD-95. And any aviation historian will tell you the BOEING model 717 is actually the KC-135 which has a smaller fuselage diameter than the 707. So, are you saying you're a Boeing fan, a Douglas fan or a McDoug fan?

Also, Airbus came from Aerospatiale, not exactly a new company and that company came from Nord and Sud which also are not new companies. Granted not as old as Boeing but not exactly a newbie in the business either.

And as for composite aircraft, you are discounting the Starship and the Premier or were you limiting your scan to just airliners?

 

Computational Analysis requires material properties to be assumed to be modeled. Those assumptions assume some uniformity across the materials - uniformity that is very difficult to obtain is large composite structures. Different loads are handled by different parts of the composite structure (fibers handle tensile stress only, fibers must be laid in varying directions to handle tensile loads in various directions, compression loads are handled by the epoxy filler, composite structures don't have traditional elastic/plastic properties, etc).

Large composite structures must have the fibers of the various layers oriented exactly, the epoxies applied uniformly and appropriately, and the pressure and heat applied precisely to obtain a "theoretical" curing - there is no way to measure actual curing and completeness of lamination. The best they can do is try to apply uniform pressure and place thermo-couples at strategic locations and hope that proper temperature patterns at those locations are indicative of proper temperature profiles throughout the part.

On the other hand, thousands of years of working with metals have led to processes that consistently produce materials that are uniform in properties that are easily modeled (compressive strength, tensile strength, ductility, etc).

Nothing is impossible, but this technology is being advanced as far in 20 years as it took metals 1,000 years to advance.