rickair7777

Good explanation. This is the primary reason that there has always been suspicion about composites...the unkown. And until the computational analysis catches up to the complexity of composite parts, you will always be taking some design risk, compared to metal structures. That is why stress testing is performed.

Or you could simply overdesign everything and take a huge weight penalty...but that would defeat the purpose.

If I was using a radical new structural design, I might have front-loaded the physical testing though.

The A350 is composite too, although using a more conventional fuselage structure...don't hand airbus the victory yet, they haven't done their testing either.

tomgoodman

Burt Rutan "dumbed down" composites for us at a Daedalians' dinner meeting. He said: "Picture it as made of bed sheets and honey."

Boeing717Driver

I am currently flying the 737 and "yes" I am a "Boeing" fan. I used to fly the 717, both of which our company currently operate. I know the history of the 717 including the 717 Air Force version you mention.

My "Boeing717Driver" handle was used when I signed up in here some time in the past. But now I fly a 737. Just easier to keep it that way. But my info area shows that I fly the 737. (Confusing I know.)

Your comments about Airbus history are correct. Boeing has been around longer in this particular "jetliner" industry. And my composite comment. I was referring to large airliner type designs and not small aircraft.

Bottom line. This 787 thing will work itself out. It has too. And NO it will not crush the company like some say. Granted. It will be a set back. But in 20 years from now when we all have flown in these things many, many times we wont even remember this story that well. It will be a thing of the Boeing history books.

(I hope I'm alive in 20 years.....) :-)

Boeing717Driver

III Corps

So, having flown McDougs and Boeings, what are your comparisons of the two?

Never flew the -9 but spent a while on the -80 and it took a while to get used to. But the higher extension speeds (flaps, slats and gear) along with the fast extension of flaps was a plus for the -80. Didn't care for the speedbrake. -80 cockpit was quieter than the 737 but neither aircraft is at the front for comfort and space, especially when driving for more than 2hrs.

Didn't fly the NGs but the autoland was better on the 737 than the -80.

Boeing currently has its hands full and its customers are telling Boeing they had better get their act together on this one. Time is NOT working in Boeing's favor.

FWIW, a brief review of history will remind us the 757 spent quite a while on the ramp before it was ordered in numbers. Boeing at one time had quite a few white tails at Seattle. And for some reason, I remember Boeing had to go back and do a lot of recert on one of the systems. Autopilot?

rickair7777

The fix is probably easy...slightly stronger stringer rods. Easy on production airplanes, but a huge PITA on the test airplanes which are already built. Delays and possible order cancellations, but it will not kill the airplane.

Assuming they don't find even more problems when they go to higher stress levels... anyone know if they stopped the test at the first failure? I imagine so.

Jughead

Why don't you care for the speedbrake on the -88? I've heard many complaints about the -88, but that's a new one..

The 737-800 (and 737-232) autoland is much better than the -88 - as it should be due to 20+ years more technology (oh, and the $40 million higher price tag).

-88 cockpit is quiet and much roomier than the 737 if you can believe it...I don't feel near as fatigued at the end of a trip as I did on the 737 (10 years). All in all, the whining and complaining I have heard about the maddog is unfounded and usually lodged by somebody who never flew it.

I can't speak about the Airbus - know nothing about it, except it has a tray table, which is way cool for napping.

JMHO, but I suspect Airbus and the French government are just fine about the FDR being 12,000' underwater.

Boeing717Driver

I liked the 717. It is a very neat aircraft and simple to fly. As you may know the 717 can do a single engine autoland while the 737 cannot. The 717 cockpit is clean, easy to understand, and not to "buttony". I like the 717's "EAD" system (Emergency Alert Display), which the 737 does not have, which keeps you well informed if something isnt right, like a fuel/hyd pump switch position, etc. The 737 just uses the "Master Caution" light in this case then you have to go hunt for the problem. The 717 just tells you whats wrong. Easy!

I commute on Delta at times and have riden the MD-88 jumpseat. Boy, are those guys busy! And their checklist is about twice as long as the 717 or even our 737's. MD did a great job of "automating" the 717 so its easier to operate than its "older brothers".

The 737 cockpit is noisier but I think its mostly the airconditioning system. Some of our 73's have the VG kits installed just below the windscreens and that helps with outside air noise. But all in all the 737 is a joy to fly, but not as easy as the 717. That "LNAV/VNAV" 737 stuff is trying at times but once you get the jist of it its not too bad. But you better pay attention or it will bite you! The 717 comes down and slows down like a bolder. The 737? Well it likes to float down and stay flying with that nice sleek wing. Another thing to get used too.........

Bottome line, I like them both equally. In my case though the 737 is better flying as far as seniority, scheduling, and overall trips. I like the West Coast and Carribean sights too.

Cheers.......

Boeing717Driver

alvrb211

Consumer ethnocentrism is alive and well and People tend get defensive during tough times!

I think this is especially true in America with Boeing at the current time.

Individuals feel the need to be associated with success.

I hope Boeing get their act together fast. They really need to fix this and get the thing into production ASAP.

Unfortunately, the issues with composites wont end after deliveries start. This will also be an issue for Airbus.


JJ

PilotFrog

Remember the 747 almost broke the company as well, and then it MADE the company. Who knows how it will work out.

UAL T38 Phlyer

In designing an aircraft, there are specific load criteria that must be met. Achieving those goals isn't always that easy, however.

Ideally, you could build an airliner that, when flown at 150% of design load, would fail at every single point. It would disintegrate into dust.

That's kind of tough to design.

So, there is always an Achilles Heel or other critical point that ends up being the first to break. Often, it is a wing root, horizontal stab root, engine mount (wing-mounted engines), or rarely, the fuselage (in long-bodied airplanes).

The issue has become clouded since, in two highly-publicized Airbus crashes, the entire vertical fin has been recovered, intact.

The first was a case of pilot-overcontrol. No one knows what caused the second. Maybe smacking the water was 300% of the design limit-load.

I still think both Boeing and Airbus build good airplanes. And I echo the other posts that computer modeling of stress and strains is only as good as the model.

And the A-320 is still my favorite airliner to fly, from a pilot-comfort and logical systems presentation standpoint.