787

clippyrip

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Posts
727
Total Time
......
Whatever works best for the new Delta. It's nice to have Boeing over a barrel anyhow. Thanks NWA!
 

scoreboardII

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
2,694
Total Time
xxxxxx
word from Renton buddies say the first three 787 test birds will be shredded for dust do to engineering issues, the plane needs a whole redesign.
 

ACWild

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
Posts
396
Total Time
12000
I've heard that the floor beams kept getting destroyed during gear retractions. They had to redesign it resulting in a huge weight increase that negates a lot of range capabilities. At the moment, it can't do Newark to Hong Kong non-stop.
 

LearLove

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
4,451
Total Time
12000+
the 787 is a failure - was from the start and is now. just another example of boeing trying to shove a product down the customers throat - one the customer doesn't need. the 787 is nothing but a warmed over 777/767. it exemplifies how US corporations have become wrt "mba baby boomer children" (get the stock price up) running the show instead of the once great industry leaders who built aircraft (or any other technology for that matter) for love and passion. Mr Boeing is probibly rolling over in his grave seeing what his company (and other US aerospace/tech companies) are doing today. we are loosing our advantage fast.

the 777 should have been the last large twin engine "B-47" style airliner/aircraft built. the 787 should be a blended wing/ceramic engine/shark skin-canal aerodynamics configuration built with nano tech structors. our "mba leaders" can't seem to (have the vision) make the leap like the great industry leaders did with the DC-3/2 or 707/747 types.

it is a shame and pionts another finger at the USA and its growing list of problems. our aerospace is but one (albeit large) example. we are falling behind in all other areas of tech such as health (not as much) computer, chip, energy tech also. it can be directly linked to our societies focus on the almighty $$, the bling bling, mtv crib life. everyone wants the quick buck, nobody dreams of the product and lets the $$ come as a result. we have less and less enrollment in science/engineering and thoes that are enrolling are foreign. they are taking what they learn here and going back to asia and becoming the dreamers. it won't be long before the next Donald Douglas is Mr. Kim Sung Wong or the next garage tinkering Steve Jobs is Amier Haji. And by the way their companies in asia will not be outsoourcing their production to the USA.

Scary
 

crj567

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Posts
2,052
There was a great article in Air & Space a while back about the 787.

This article went through how composites are made and how they are used on the plane..... The thing that stuck with me was the part about repairs. The writer went into a bit of detail about how skin patches are made to a conventional plane when a hole is poked in the skin-pretty routine on an aluminum plane-and very common.

The writer spoke to the engineers up there about how to repair the skin of a 787-what the tolerance is for a hole (size-wise.) Anyway, the engineer's response was "zero-but we will have spare plugs available." YGTBFSM!!!!!

Someone pokes a small hole in the fuselage and the design tolerance is "zero!" What the hell? Change out and entire fuselage plug for a pencil-size hole?????

I haven't researched this myself, but this makes it look like a complete disaster. If you have to change out one plug on one aircraft, it will cost far more than the entire fleet of 787s will save in fuel in a year!
-Can this be fact? If so-Boeing is gonna lose its butt on this thing!
-Amazing-if correct!
 

~~~^~~~

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
6,137
Total Time
7,500+
CRJ,

It can be repaired. Delta's been doing flight control surfaces in one of the World's largest composite repair shops for years.

More importantly, the design is very damage tolerant and better than composites designed thirty years ago on the airplanes we see on line. You whack aluminum with a hammer and it deforms. For the most part, you whack carbon fiber with a similar force and it bends, flexes and in an instant goes back into shape.
 

~~~^~~~

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
6,137
Total Time
7,500+
the 787 is a failure - was from the start and is now. just another example of boeing trying to shove a product down the customers throat - one the customer doesn't need. the 787 is nothing but a warmed over 777/767.

And by the way their companies in asia will not be outsoourcing their production to the USA.

Scary
Please don't tell Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, or Nissan since they all have recently built factories in the United States.

Also, don't tell these guys:
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/c070209AircraftCompany/photo/pages/01.html
and, by the way, from the Washington Herald:
The deal makes the 787 one of the industry's most successful launches ever. Boeing has now sold 790 Dreamliners even though the airliner has yet to take flight.

The company expects to test fly the 787 around the end of March and begin deliveries in late November or December. It expects to deliver 109 airplanes in 2009.

The 787, Boeing's first completely new jet since the 777 in 1995, will be the first large commercial airplane made mostly of carbon-fiber composites, a material similar to fiberglass that is extremely light and doesn't rust. Boeing says its new plane will be cheaper to maintain and offer better fuel efficiency and more passenger comforts than planes flying today.

Analysts called the demand for the Boeing plane unprecedented.
IMHO, the 787 does have problems, having mostly to do with managing labor and outsourcing. But, I'm inclined to think their engineers are amongst the very best and brightest in the business.
 
Last edited:

Fly4hire

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
861
Total Time
lots

Occam's Razor

Risible...ALWAYS risible
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Posts
2,551
Total Time
16K+
Could also be 330's. Airbus wants to deal as well, and RA originally chose the 330 over the 777. We'll see...
The Board chose the A330. Each of the aircraft options was presented by the Tech Ops and Marketing departments...who rated each aircraft option on a 14-point matrix. The Board endorsed the option that scored the highest. The VP of Tech Ops (at the time) who endorsed the A330 as the best choice was Richard Anderson.

One of the key data points on the matrix was the leverage effect of buying a jet from a competing manufacturer eager to gain/retain market share.

Brash prediction: Delta under R.A. will always whipsaw the two major manufacturers against each other to get the best overall deal. It's in his DNA.

Brash prediction (part deux): Delta will get some free jets from Boeing as a result of this 787 snafu...and probably parlay that into more free jets from Airbus. I've watched the CEO do it before...
 

Fly4hire

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Posts
861
Total Time
lots
It's not going to be 330s. They don't have the range.
The range for what? I guess that depends on what city pairs its intended for, and that is going to change with hub realignments. While ATL might always be Mecca, I think there are going to be a number of significant bases (other than DTW, and MSP) come into play. I expect to see build-ups of LAX, as well SEA/PDX.

There will always be a need for the super Long Range aircraft, but with base realignments those priorities may weight differently.

Of course saying the 787 is not coming and will be replaced with existing DAL ordered acft plays to your SLI arguments, but that doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:

timmay

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Posts
227
Total Time
5000+
the 787 is a failure - was from the start and is now. just another example of boeing trying to shove a product down the customers throat - one the customer doesn't need. the 787 is nothing but a warmed over 777/767. it exemplifies how US corporations have become wrt "mba baby boomer children" (get the stock price up) running the show instead of the once great industry leaders who built aircraft (or any other technology for that matter) for love and passion. Mr Boeing is probibly rolling over in his grave seeing what his company (and other US aerospace/tech companies) are doing today. we are loosing our advantage fast.

the 777 should have been the last large twin engine "B-47" style airliner/aircraft built. the 787 should be a blended wing/ceramic engine/shark skin-canal aerodynamics configuration built with nano tech structors. our "mba leaders" can't seem to (have the vision) make the leap like the great industry leaders did with the DC-3/2 or 707/747 types.

it is a shame and pionts another finger at the USA and its growing list of problems. our aerospace is but one (albeit large) example. we are falling behind in all other areas of tech such as health (not as much) computer, chip, energy tech also. it can be directly linked to our societies focus on the almighty $$, the bling bling, mtv crib life. everyone wants the quick buck, nobody dreams of the product and lets the $$ come as a result. we have less and less enrollment in science/engineering and thoes that are enrolling are foreign. they are taking what they learn here and going back to asia and becoming the dreamers. it won't be long before the next Donald Douglas is Mr. Kim Sung Wong or the next garage tinkering Steve Jobs is Amier Haji. And by the way their companies in asia will not be outsoourcing their production to the USA.

Scary
Yeah you are right, I mean look at some of the aircraft the US has put out lately. The B-2, what a piece of crap we should just buy a bunch of Bears from Russia, now that there is a fine machine. The F22, which by itself can only shoot down 14 F15's (the most successful fighter of all time) that doesn't even compare to what the Rafale or Sukhoi can do. Yep the more I think about it we should be embarassed at our aerospace industry. Why dont you write a letter to your state senator and tell him that we should buy a bunch of Eurofighters and A380's because they are so far superior to our designs. GIMME A BREAK
 

ACL65PILOT

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Posts
4,621
Total Time
9000+
Occam is correct.
Boeing has been nickle and dimming DAL for decades on all the little extras and what not for our jets. It has pissed up off. No More we will have both types of airplanes.
 

Schwanker

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Posts
486
Total Time
2Much
[FONT=&quot]I know I've posted this before and many have found this a good read. Enjoy. Schwanker

Perspective on NW's Recent Selection of the A330 of
777

By Tim Campbell, Managing Director- Performance
Analysis

From On Course, Northwest Fligiht Operations Magazine
May/June 2001

The January February issue of On Course contained an
article by Capt. Jeff Carlson that outlined the
details of Northwest's multibillion-dollar ivestment
in new aircraft. A large component of this order
includes 24 PW4168A-powered A330-300s. Numerous
questions have arisen since the announcement of this
order, specifically why the A330 was selected instead
of the 777.

This article will address these questions by
summarizing our assessment of the performance
characteristics of the A330 relative to the 777 and
how this information was used in the final evaluation
of these two aircraft.

The competition between the 777 and A330 was for a new
aircraft that would replace our DC-10-30s on dedicated
transatlantic missions.

Perhaps the most important performance-related aspect
of this aircraft evaluation was finding the best match
between aircraft payload-range capability and
forecasted payload demand. We were seeking an aircraft
that efficiently meets our projected requirements. As
shown in the graphs, the A330 most optimally meets our
payload requirements in the Atlantic. This payload
capability, when coupled with operating costs and
projected market requirements (demand) for both
passenger and cargo traffic, offers the highest
earnings potential.

The match between capability and market requirements
is important because it is inefficient to operate
aircraft with excess capability. Our evaluation clearly
shows that the 777-200ER aircraft has significantly
more payload-range capability than the A330-300.

The additional range capability could be helpful if
the same aircraft were also flown across the Pacific.
However this possible dual mission capability was
determined to be impractical because Pacific aircraft
require a much greater share of World Business Class
seats than Atlantic aircraft. Furthermore, the Pratt
powered 777-200ER could not fly many critical Pacific
missions with full passenger load, and most missions
required weight limits on cargo.

This is not necessarily apparent if one looks from the
generic marketing material from Boeing because the
range of the 777-200, evaluated with Northwest rules
and interiors, is approximately 1,100 miles less than
advertised.

The 777 can carry more seats than the A330 although
the A330 already carries 29 more seats than our
current DC-10-30s. The optimal 777-200 configuration
we modeled had 27 more seats than the A330-300
(329-302) and 56 seats more than the DC-10-30
(329-273). However, these additional seats were
economy seats that typically would be filled with
lower yielding passengers.

The 777 has the same empty weight for all available
MTOW's (580,000-656,000 lbs). Northwest requires only
the lowest weight for nearly all markets, roughly
comparable to the A330. The net result to Northwest is
that the 777 is more than 41,000 pounds heavier than
the A330 yet provides minimal additional revenue
capacity.

The heavier weight of the 777 translates directly into
a fuel burn penalty. On a typical 3,500 nm mission,
the A330 burns approximately 28% less fuel than a
DC-10-30; accounting for its higher seating capacity,
it burns 35% less on a per seat basis. The much
heavier 777 burns approximately 16% more fuel than the
A330 on a per trip basis, and 6% more on a per seat
basis.

Questions have arisen about the cruise speed of the
A330, largely due to issues surrounding the cruise
speed of the A340. NW intends to operate the A330 at a
cruise speed of Mach 0.82. This speed corresponds to
the aircraft's LRC (long range cruise) Mach number for
most gross weight/altitude combinations. While the
published cruise speed of the A340 is Mach 0.82, our
analysis substantiates the experience of line pilots
taht certain operators fly slower to avoid excessive
fuel burn. Airbus has implicitly recognized the cruise
speed issue with the "first generation" A340's by
redesigning the wing on the A340-500 and -600.

757/767 DC10-30 A330 777/747-200
Cruise speed .80 .82 .82 .84


As shown in the table, the A33's cruise speed is
slower than the 777, but it is consistent with our
DC-10-30 and faster than other aircraft operating
across the Atlantic. The cruise speed differences
between the 777 and A330 equates to a trip length
difference of approximately 10 minutes on a typical
Atlantic mission. It may be interesting to note that
Northwest negotiated stringent, comprehensive
contractual commitments from Airbus to ensure the A330
will meet our performance expectations both at the
time of deliver and for several years thereafter.
This is a requirement we make of airframe/engine
manufacturers, including Boeing. The performance level
of the new 757-300's has a similar level of
protection. Our agreement with Airbus also provides us
with mission flexibility we could not achieve with
Boeing. The Airbus agreement is structured to allow us
to take delivery of other members of the A330 family
if our requirements change over time. A shorter
member of the A330 family, the A330-200, has 257
seats in the Northwest configuration. It has
approximately 900 nm more range than the A330-300.
This added flexibility to tailor capacity to market
requirements not offered by the 777 since Boeing was
unwilling to formally offer a smaller, lower priced
version of the 777.

In summary, the excess capacity of the 777 leads to
operating economics inferior to the A330. This
situation is further degraded when the notably higher
puchase price of the 777 is factored into the
analysis. The marginal improvement in revenue the
777's size offers simply cannot overcome its increased
operating and ownership costs. Our Atlantic
replacement decision does not mean that the 777 will
be excluded from future aircraft competitions. The
longer range version of the 777-200 and 777-300 will
be evaluated against the A340-500 and A340-600 when we
begin the 747-200 replacement analysis.

[/FONT]
 

crj567

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Posts
2,052
CRJ,

It can be repaired. Delta's been doing flight control surfaces in one of the World's largest composite repair shops for years.

More importantly, the design is very damage tolerant and better than composites designed thirty years ago on the airplanes we see on line. You whack aluminum with a hammer and it deforms. For the most part, you whack carbon fiber with a similar force and it bends, flexes and in an instant goes back into shape.

I'm no expert, but I think the crux of this issue was not whether carbon fiber can be repaired, but whether it can be repaired as part of the pressure vessel.

Obviously, control surfaces have been fixed for years with no ill effect, but the pressure vessel is a completely different animal. I think the engineers are biting their nails on this one.

It is not hard to visualze how the forces are different-the control surfaces deal with a simple deflection force, where the pressure vessel is more of a stretching force.

-Boeing may well have over-reached here.....
-I hope not, but they could be in a world of hurt if they cannot do an easy repair rather than a plug replacement.
 

~~~^~~~

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Posts
6,137
Total Time
7,500+
- they could be in a world of hurt if they cannot do an easy repair rather than a plug replacement.
Looking at it being built, I can't fathom a barrel replacement. The sections are huge.

If you mean a plug / patch, then yes, it looks like that would work just fine.

Again, the structure is very damage tolerant and IMHO is repairable.
 

flyguy75000

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
283
Total Time
5700
the 777 should have been the last large twin engine "B-47" style airliner/aircraft built. the 787 should be a blended wing/ceramic engine/shark skin-canal aerodynamics configuration built with nano tech structors. our "mba leaders" can't seem to (have the vision) make the leap like the great industry leaders did with the DC-3/2 or 707/747 types.

it is a shame and pionts another finger at the USA and its growing list of problems.
What is a shame is that someone with your intelligence and engineering genious is a mere E-190 FO. What a waste of talent.

Let me know when the LearLove Aircraft Co. gets its "blended wing/ceramic engine/shark skin-canal aerodynamics configuration built with nano tech structors" transport category aircraft certified for production by the FAA.

Stick to gear and radio duty, buddy.
 
Last edited:

ace6453

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Posts
152
Total Time
some
word from Renton buddies say the first three 787 test birds will be shredded for dust do to engineering issues, the plane needs a whole redesign.
Completely untrue. My brother is one of the senior engineering project managers and he said they still hope it flies this year (probably not now cause of strike) but more realistically next spring (March-ish)
 
Top