Is the 787 a failure ?

Spehro Pefhany on Sat, 02 Feb 2013
22:05:48 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

Yet at the same time, Boeing had a lot of experience with square
windows and pressurized cabins. Started with the B-29, and the Battle
of Kansas.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
|
| The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
| Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
| Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
| cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
| ...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

--bks

On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.

Actually, Boeing likely hired engineers that had been
pre-designated/approved by the FAA to do the job. They did this at
great expense! Otherwise, they could have waited for the proper FAA
official to show up, subject to the FAA whims and budget.

I once worked for a company that decided to take that second route.
After all, we all pay taxes right? Compared to a job like certifying a
brand new airliner, what that company wanted to do was simple; They had
purchased the type certificate for an established, certified, glider
which they wished to produce.

They built the factory, they installed all the tooling. From there,
things dragged on for years. Each step of the torturous bureaucratic
process to obtain a production certificate took months. The FAA kept
demanding new paperwork, because that was easier and cheaper than
sending the proper official to inspect the facility.

Small businesses don't have the resources to wait out months and years
of bureaucratic inaction. In the end, the business closed down before
the first airframe was even started.

So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.

In fact, an amazing amount of FAA business is done through privately
hired FAA designees. All four of my check flights have been with FAA
designees rather than FAA inspectors, which means that I had to $$$ pay
them myself. Even though my taxes are supposed to be supporting the FAA.

Just today, I sent off $50.00 to a person who has some sort of magic
authorization to hand my CFI revalidation paperwork to the FAA. I can
do it myself, but only if I make an appointment with an FAA inspector
and travel to the FAA FSDO office to do it in person. (No explanation
why I can't just mail it to them.)

When the FAA moves to the new picture pilot certificates, there will be
a whole new class of FAA designees for us to pay. They will be
authorized to verify our ID, take our pictures, and certify the whole
process. It will be done at the pilot's expense, and it won't be cheap!

Vaughn

(Trollish non-related crossposts removed)

Vaughn wrote:
...
So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.
...

Nonsense!

The change to the regulations that allowed Boeing to specify
the engineers, rather than the FAA, took place just in time for
the 787, in 2005 thanks to the Bush administration. (Will that
stench never leave us?)

--bks

Charlie+ chasg wrote:
|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
|
| The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
| Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
| Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
| cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
| ...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html
--bks
Surely there is no other way of doing the job, otherwise the Certifying
Authority would have to have all the massive costs and expertise of
double designing the aircraft?

We spend hundreds of billions a year on military aircraft. What's
the problem with spending a few million on engineers? And as I
pointed out cross-thread, this protocol was changed just in 2005.

--bks

Bush-appointee and rising star D. Hersman of NTSB will have a press
conference Thursday at 11 am EST.

|
| Engineering has been de-emphasized at Boeing so much that
| it's beginning to scare investors, according to Richard
| Aboulafia, the oft-quoted Teal Group aerospace analyst, who
| some have suggested has had a subtle pro-Boeing bias.
|
| Not this month.
| ...
| In his piece, Aboulafia criticized Boeing's stance at its
| Jan. 30 fourth quarter earnings call for a lack of
| "contrition or soul-searching."
|
| Instead, he wrote, it was like, "A farmer showing off a
| great crop but not mentioning that the tractor just broke,
| he fired the mechanic, and outsourced tractor maintenance
| to Bolivia."
|
| Aboulafia listed as problems last year's replacement of
| Boeing Commercial Airplanes' former CEO Jim Albaugh (who
| was an engineer), Boeing's current contract struggle with
| its engineers' union (which he said is partly the union's
| fault), and the Dreamliner's battery issue (which he said
| carried a "strong chance" the plane will require a
| six-to-nine-month grounding for re-certification.)
| ...
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/02/06/analyst-aboulafia-warns-boeings.html

--bks

On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.
http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy
--
Peter

On Mar 1, 4:06*am, Ramsman wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:









On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy

I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI

On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:06 am, wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:









On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy

I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI


This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of google
returns.

Bah!

On Mar 1, 12:08*pm, Richard wrote:
On 3/1/2013 11:02 AM, Transition Zone wrote:









On Mar 1, 4:06 am, *wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
*wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

It wasn't the fuselage windows for the passengers that caused the
problem (at least for G-ALYP), it was the ADF window in the roof. The
passenger windows did fail in the tank test though. The stresses at the
corners turned out to be higher then de Havilland's engineers had suspected.http://www.oocities.org/capecanavera...cogalyp.htm#yy

I see they later made the naval versions with fewer windows. *Renamed
as an MR.2P, one was shown crashing into a lake near Toronto 10 or so
years ago.

--http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o6PitZEmMI

This aircraft has been flying since 1967, and has given excellent
service.

But you post a fatal crash video you found on the first page of
google
returns.

Bah!

Right, thanks for that. That aircraft is supposed to scour the water
for enemy craft. That is its specialty. So crashing in a friendly
lake full of civilians on a bright sunny day isn't exactly the first
think you'd expect from that "service".