Is the 787 a failure ?

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 12:16:30 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
wrote:

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".
It was an "air show" - the MOST dangerous aviation activity, short
of all-out war.

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

The movie was filmed in 1951.

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

On Feb 2, 7:48*pm, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 -0000, "Keith W"









wrote:
Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these
issues haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
too.

* * Irrevelant.

* * It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

That's all-important.

* That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

* * Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787
until it had been in service for a year or so.

This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
overcome it.

* They'll overcome *it - technically - but will that
* help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
* thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
* any ? Switch to Airbus instead.

* Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
* The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
* had to change it to "Jet-Blue".

* I don't think Boeing can try that trick.

erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
different airline

* Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
* them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
* Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
* *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
* be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
* but *perception* is what's gonna count.

Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
a while including the new Airbus 380

Keith

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eet/30054350_1...

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

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

|
| Federal regulators said on Wednesday that they had approved
| one flight of a Boeing 787, with a flight crew but no
| passengers, as the company's engineers study possible
| changes to the plane's electrical systems that could reduce
| the risk of another battery fire.
| ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/business/faa-to-allow-a-787-flight-with-crew-only.html

--bks

NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery
o Not caused by external short circuit
o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and spread to other cells.

Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth,
with particular attention to the special conditions imposed
by FAA in 2007 on use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however
there were two events in less than 100,000 hours.
o Boeing said that design of battery would
prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB
claims that is exactly what would happend.

Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days.
FAA makes the calls on flying, not NTSB.

--bks

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:33:34 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery o Not caused by
external short circuit o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and
spread to other cells.


Lithium-ion batteries are nefarious for
suddenly bursting into flame. Dell and Sony
lost a ****load of money because of flaming
laptops.

Nickel-metal-hydride batteries still exist and
are the logical, safer, replacement technology.
Don't hold quite as much energy per unit weight
though and don't have quite as long a service
life either. Still, if it means yer plane doesn't
go down in flames with 600 passengers ....


Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth, with
particular attention to the special conditions imposed by FAA in 2007 on
use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however there were two events
in less than 100,000 hours.
o Boeing said that design of battery would
prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB claims that is exactly
what would happend.

Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days. FAA makes the
calls on flying, not NTSB.

Boeing was way behind on their orders ... so they
slapped a lot of lipstick on the 787 and declared
it safe and ready for service. Supposed federal
oversight was, as usual, nearly non-existent.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:15:47 -0800 (PST), Liberal Here
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

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

Which lies might those be? The movie about british aircraft snapping
off tails was indeed ID'ed

The sig is 100% accurate and remains a polished and accurate way to
**** you Leftwingers off as its accuracy is well established and you
simply cannot stand to have it flaunted in your faces.

VBG

Now back to the bit bucket..troll

plink

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie