Any volunteers for early Boeing 787 flights?

[nottyboi]

Wow!! This program is really off the rails...now it looks they may delay delivery to late 2011!!... Considering all the rush work they are doing to get this plane delivered, I would really hesitate to fly on the early planes for a few months at least... anyone else feeling uneasy? Story of the current delays below:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/11/exclusive-boeing-reviewing-787.html

 

[DocOdd]

A crash is very, very bad publicity for Boeing. This isn't an industry where safety failures can be swept under the rug and escape notice. Whatever Boeing's having trouble with, if it actually made the planes significantly unsafe, they'd just eat the delays.

 

[alexmst]

Remember that video of Airbus introducing the A320 in the 1980's at the airshow? (The one where the touch and go landing fails and the planes crashes and explodes) Seeing as the A320 was a huge success even after that DISASTEROUS start, I think the 787 will sell well even if there are problems that need to be worked out.

Some Boeing employees have said that the use of composite materials makes the plane less safe/unproven than traditional designs. There MAY be truth to that. Remember that A300 that crashed in NYC shortly after 9/11? If flew into wake turbulence left by a 747 and it perhaps snapped off the composite tail of the A300 killing everyone on it. A Boeing 737 without a composite tail flew into wake turbulence while following a 747 and experienced violent turbulence but did not crash because the tail did not snap off.

Now the A380 uses high tech composites that they say are (and have tested to be) as strong as heavy traditional stuff - it needs to as with traditional thickness of aluminium skin it would be too heavy to fly.

Boeing offers composite brakes on the 737-based BBJ3 to save weight over tradition braking systems (300 lbs savings)

I looked forward to the 777 when it came out and I got my first flight, so I would be willing to go for a cruise on the 787, sure.

 

[nottyboi]

Many aircraft have carbon brakes now. Most major airliners use them. When I hear how Boeing is scrambling to make the Feb delivery date, I am really concerned. Boeing is facing hundreds of millions in late delivery penalties with airlines. This program has so far been a real disaster. The plane itself looks fantastic, and is a great leap in tech. Not sure I will cross my fingers and hope no one made any mistakes with the massive amount of rework being carried out on the 22 assembled airframes.

 

[Blue-Spheroid]

Remember that video of Airbus introducing the A320 in the 1980's at the airshow? Seeing as the A320 was a huge success even after that DISASTEROUS start, I think the 787 will sell well even if there are problems that need to be worked out.

...

I looked forward to the 777 when it came out and I got my first flight, so I would be willing to go for a cruise on the 787, sure.

You actually seem to be making an argument for NOT flying on the 787 too early since it may have bugs and could be dangerous to start.

 

[alexmst]

You actually seem to be making an argument for NOT flying on the 787 too early since it may have bugs and could be dangerous to start.

Well I wouldn't be a hobbyist if I was totally risk-adverse lol.

The 777 had early engine issues when it failed the birds thrown into the engines test. Still, it has proved safe since it entered service 13 years ago. The only one I recall having crashed was that BA one at London Heathrow where it was in approah and the engines failed to respond to a request for power, causing a hard crash landing that ripped off the landing gear when in touched down on grass. Don't know if that is a relation - engine issues during certification and engine issues during the only crash of the type. Anyway, that would be the engine maker not Boeing primarily.

Airbus executives I read said a year or two ago that there was no way Boeing would get the 787 out any time soon due to delays. Of course Airbus was smarting from Boeing joking about delays in the A380 program. Airbus is developing the A350 to compete with the 787...Boeing needs to get the 787 out first to take advantage of having the only plane in that segment (ultra-long range efficent replacement of the 767 size, which is essentially what the 787 is). If Airbus catches up, the 787 will have to compete head to head with the A350. So long as the 787 is out years before, Boeing will have orders for as many as they can make for years.

I would want to wait a few months aftre AC takes delivery just to be on the safe side with the 787, but don't have problem testing it out within the first year

 

[crocket]

Remember that A300 that crashed in NYC shortly after 9/11? If flew into wake turbulence left by a 747 and it perhaps snapped off the composite tail of the A300 killing everyone on it. A Boeing 737 without a composite tail flew into wake turbulence while following a 747 and experienced violent turbulence but did not crash because the tail did not snap off.

The plane that crashed shortly after 9/11 had the rudder snap off but that was because of pilot error. The plane did experience some wake turbulence from the plane ahead, but the pilot (stan mollen) used the rudder too agressively to control the plane. The rudder eventually snapped off and they all died due to pilot error.

 

[nottyboi]

The plane that crashed shortly after 9/11 had the rudder snap off but that was because of pilot error. The plane did experience some wake turbulence from the plane ahead, but the pilot (stan mollen) used the rudder too agressively to control the plane. The rudder eventually snapped off and they all died due to pilot error.

The thing that amazed me in that one was that a fly by wire design would allow inputs that could cause a structural failure..

 

[nottyboi]

Well I wouldn't be a hobbyist if I was totally risk-adverse lol.

The 777 had early engine issues when it failed the birds thrown into the engines test. Still, it has proved safe since it entered service 13 years ago. The only one I recall having crashed was that BA one at London Heathrow where it was in approah and the engines failed to respond to a request for power, causing a hard crash landing that ripped off the landing gear when in touched down on grass. Don't know if that is a relation - engine issues during certification and engine issues during the only crash of the type. Anyway, that would be the engine maker not Boeing primarily.

Airbus executives I read said a year or two ago that there was no way Boeing would get the 787 out any time soon due to delays. Of course Airbus was smarting from Boeing joking about delays in the A380 program. Airbus is developing the A350 to compete with the 787...Boeing needs to get the 787 out first to take advantage of having the only plane in that segment (ultra-long range efficent replacement of the 767 size, which is essentially what the 787 is). If Airbus catches up, the 787 will have to compete head to head with the A350. So long as the 787 is out years before, Boeing will have orders for as many as they can make for years.

I would want to wait a few months aftre AC takes delivery just to be on the safe side with the 787, but don't have problem testing it out within the first year

That scenario has already played out. Boeing has such a large back log that any 787 new order will now be delivered around 2019. Airbus has sold a LOT of A350's and also has a large back log of A330's

 

[crocket]

The plane that crashed shortly after 9/11 had the rudder snap off but that was because of pilot error. The plane did experience some wake turbulence from the plane ahead, but the pilot (stan mollen) used the rudder too agressively to control the plane. The rudder eventually snapped off and they all died due to pilot error.

The thing that amazed me in that one was that a fly by wire design would allow inputs that could cause a structural failure..

Yea no kidding. Dosen't the computer know the planes own limitations? And it was more than just the pilots fault, after all he was trained to use the controls like that.

 

[alexmst]

Yea no kidding. Dosen't the computer know the planes own limitations? And it was more than just the pilots fault, after all he was trained to use the controls like that.

I agree that one would think a fly by wire system would not allow commands that would cause structural failure.

 

[alexmst]

When you wish you had good old fashioned heavy technology...if for no other reason than to make you feel better, however irrational that may be:

(Posts taken fro aviation boards)

* AC flight 190 (an A319) almost lost complete control of the aircraft and many people on board were badly injured, with 10 sent to hospital. The captain on the flight said the wake turbulence the plane flew through was like driving over two 6ft high speed bumps at 200 mph. They cut across the turbulence, so got both vortices at right angles.

* Flying a 767-300ER over the North Pacific at night a couple of years ago, we observed an aircraft on TCAS and NAV lights visually. It passed 2,000 feet above us. I don't know what type it was but we were cruising at .82 or .83 (can't recall which) and the traffic passed us, which leads me to guess it was a 747 or 777. After the traffic had passed and dissappeared of the TCAS screen, estimating at least 15 miles separation, we climbed to 1,000 feet below the passing traffic's previous altitude.

Then everyone on our aircraft woke up.

About 45 seconds of what could only have been wake turbulence. Felt like going over a continous series of closely spaced sharp speed bumps. Right seat was PF and I told him to turn left (upwind). The aircraft (and panel was shaking so hard he had a dificult time getting a hold on the heading knob. I was about to grab the yoke and to disconnect the A/P to make the turn when he managed to grasp the heading knob and turn. A couple of seconds later we were back in smooth calm air.

I did not expect that harsh a ride in a "heavy" encountering turbulence in cruise - especially when the other traffic is in clean config.

* Quoting Kaitak (Reply 11):
This 2001 incident of the AA A300 crash in NYC was attributed to pilot error (which in turn was due to incorrect AA training)

Yes, this is correct of course but I felt it was relevant to mention it in a thread dedicated to the durability of the airframe. Especially considering the fact that the same first officer had previously made similar inputs in a different airplane (according to a company captain and in a 727 if I am not mistaken) and the outcome was nowhere near that bad.

 

[Mister K]

Delays are not new - they are to be expected, and HELL YES I'd fly on the maiden flt

A couple of points that need to be made:

1. Since the introduction of the 747 in the sixties, only one major aircraft program (the 777) has been completed on time. Why? Because building a brand new aircraft from scratch is far more difficult then it seems.

2. Why was the 777 on time? Because Boeing spent a ton of money and program managed it to death. In retrospect perhaps they should have done the same thing with the 787 program.

3. The current process of building major airplanes is to design the prototype/test aircraft, begin building them, fly them all the while continuing to push aircraft down the assembly line. While the test program is being carried out, the production line and off-line production aircraft have the modifications completed based on the results of the test program. The idea behind this is that it is generally faster, however in practice is becomes a logistical nightmare trying to upgrade each individual airframe with the required modifications to meet the final certification requirements.

4. This is a problem that plagues all the major aircraft manufacturers - Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier. No one is immune. It is one of the reasons why aircraft manufacturers prefer to modify existing platforms by putting in longer range fuel tanks, a plug in the fuselage to provide 20 more seats, new wing designs, etc. It is a lot faster and cheaper than designing, building, and certifying a new aircraft from scratch.

5. If you own/run an airline, NEVER, EVER, BE THE FIRST CUSTOMER. Ask SAS about the Dash 8 Q400, Singapore Airlines about the first A380, and now ANA about the 787. If you buy a completely new aircraft design be prepared for it to be between two and four years LATE to the original promised delivery date.

6. I have toured both the cabin mockups for the 787 and the A380 and they were both awesome compared to what is currently offered. If I was lucky enough to be offered a maiden flight I would jump at the opportunity.
​

 

[Cassini]

You will be very safe on the first few flights of the 787. Traditionally, it takes a number of years before the design flaws become apparent.

Pretty much the worst jet aeroplane design that ever flew, the deHavilland Comet, flew from 1949 to 1954 before being shut down for a series of disastrous fatigue failures. They didn't understand fatigue failures in jet aircraft at the time, and the design created a new branch of engineering. It took 5 years before the fatigue flaws showed up, and resulted in downed aircraft.

For a jet aircraft, you have to wait a while before failures occur.

 

[nottyboi]

A couple of points that need to be made:

1. Since the introduction of the 747 in the sixties, only one major aircraft program (the 777) has been completed on time. Why? Because building a brand new aircraft from scratch is far more difficult then it seems.

2. Why was the 777 on time? Because Boeing spent a ton of money and program managed it to death. In retrospect perhaps they should have done the same thing with the 787 program.

3. The current process of building major airplanes is to design the prototype/test aircraft, begin building them, fly them all the while continuing to push aircraft down the assembly line. While the test program is being carried out, the production line and off-line production aircraft have the modifications completed based on the results of the test program. The idea behind this is that it is generally faster, however in practice is becomes a logistical nightmare trying to upgrade each individual airframe with the required modifications to meet the final certification requirements.

4. This is a problem that plagues all the major aircraft manufacturers - Boeing, Airbus and Bombardier. No one is immune. It is one of the reasons why aircraft manufacturers prefer to modify existing platforms by putting in longer range fuel tanks, a plug in the fuselage to provide 20 more seats, new wing designs, etc. It is a lot faster and cheaper than designing, building, and certifying a new aircraft from scratch.

5. If you own/run an airline, NEVER, EVER, BE THE FIRST CUSTOMER. Ask SAS about the Dash 8 Q400, Singapore Airlines about the first A380, and now ANA about the 787. If you buy a completely new aircraft design be prepared for it to be between two and four years LATE to the original promised delivery date.

6. I have toured both the cabin mockups for the 787 and the A380 and they were both awesome compared to what is currently offered. If I was lucky enough to be offered a maiden flight I would jump at the opportunity.
​

Actually, apart from the delay SIA raved about the A380 EIS, it was one of the smoothest ever. The A380 delay was very differnent from the Boeing delay. The A380 had a wiring issue which only affected the passanger accomdation. They were able to fly and test the plane and work out the bugs during the delay. Boeing has had a multitude of major issues. Structural, integration, flight control surfaces, supplier quality etc etc etc... So I would really hate to be taking one of these 22 planes, I would demand a HUGE discount and MEGA warranty as well a guaranteed residual in return for taking a chance with these lemons.

 

[Big Sleazy]

Not sure if this is still the case with all the deregulation that has gone over the last two decades in the States. But I was told by an Engineer here in Toronto, that builds products for both the Military and Commercial air/space industry, that whenever a new plane is tested, all the head Engineers involved in the design have to be on the initial test flight. Thus ensuring that the job was done right. Who cares about the delay...just fix the problem. It's like being on a commercial flight and the plane gets delayed for technical problems. You always hear people moaning and groaning. As if there time is more important than there's and my life. Fix the problem please.

BS

 

[buttercup]

A crash is very, very bad publicity for Boeing. This isn't an industry where safety failures can be swept under the rug and escape notice. Whatever Boeing's having trouble with, if it actually made the planes significantly unsafe, they'd just eat the delays.

Boeing have built and sold some 1400 747s. 28 have crashed. That's 2%! Doesn't seem to have done Boeing any harm.

 

[nottyboi]

I think this is their most troubled aviation project in history. If Bombardier can deliver the CSeries on time, their credibility will take a quantum leap.

 

[alexmst]

An A380 had an engine failure today and had to make an emergency landing in Singapore.


(CNN) -- A Qantas plane that had one of its four engines shut down mid-flight landed safely in Singapore on Thursday morning, the airline said.

The airline, in a statement, did not say whether debris that fell on the western Indonesian island of Batam was from the plane.

Local television stations showed small amount of debris with red-white markings. Pictures of the Airbus 380 after it landed showed the cowling -- or the covering of the engine -- torn off in the back half.

 

[vocid]

Airbus executives I read said a year or two ago that there was no way Boeing would get the 787 out any time soon due to delays. Of course Airbus was smarting from Boeing joking about delays in the A380 program. Airbus is developing the A350 to compete with the 787...Boeing needs to get the 787 out first to take advantage of having the only plane in that segment (ultra-long range efficent replacement of the 767 size, which is essentially what the 787 is). If Airbus catches up, the 787 will have to compete head to head with the A350.