This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Boeing’s Albatross
In my year-end forecasts for 2010 I predicted:
-Boeing will finish a few Dreamliners but they will face many delays and problems.
Looks like I am going to be wrong again. There is a now a question if
any of these troubled planes will be put into service this year. The
latest problem is not with the body of the plane. It is the engine that
is supposed to keep this beast in the air.
Bloomberg reported today that on August 2 the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engine literally blew up while being tested.
The explosion resulted in “limited debris” being released into the test facility,” Rolls-Royce spokesman Josh Rosenstock said.
Uncontained failures are “extremely rare” said Paul Hayess, safety director at U.K. aviation consultants Ascend Worldwide.
Think of this engine blowing up. It is the size of a cement truck.
RR
is attempting to make this development a ‘no big deal’. But three weeks
after the explosion the testing facility has not be reopened. So how
big was that explosion? From the Bloomberg article:
Rolls-Royce
could switch testing of the Trent 1000 to other locations around the
world, according to a person familiar with the programs, who declined to
be identified because the information isn’t public.
Earlier in August Boeing said that the first deliver of the Dreamliner
to All Nippon Airlines might be delayed to sometime in 2011 due to “flaws with the structure”. Now we know that the engines may explode.
Boeing built a plane made of fiber that has structural flaws and an
engine that took out the test sight. Do you want to fly in this plane? I
don’t.
Ah! Well a-day. What evil looks
Had I from old and young,
Instead of the cross, The Albatross
about my neck was hung.
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Samuel Coleridge
»
- advertisements -
ugg boots london I saw something shocking uggs london on my way to work the other day. uggs new york While bundled in a long sleeved shirt, wool sweater and coat, with a Pashmina, hat and gloves,ugg boots london sale I saw a man with his bike a the bus stop in SANDALS. He wasn’t overly well dressed for cold weather, in jeans, t-shirt and open jacket. Now, having lived in Oregon for the past decade I have come to be aware of what “true Oregonians” consider winter attire. ugg boots london shop This primarily consists of the inbred belief that flip-flops are a necessity year round, and sweaters and umbrellas are for tourists. I do not uphold this belief.ugg boots sale london I love getting dressed up for winter, layering on leggings with my sweater dress and ugg boots new york, a sweater and a jacket, and a rotating army of scarves, hats and gloves.ugg boots london stockists I don’t enjoy being frozen, especially knowing how easy a situation that is to avoid. uggs new york sale So personally, buy ugg boots london I do not consider myself a “true Oregonian.” I like umbrellas, and only wear flip flops when it’s above 75 degrees.Based on the population of Oregon, ugg new york I’m probably in the minority. Although I have come to accept that these people are just immune to cold in a way I am not, uggs new york of sale I do still think they are crazy. I’m guessing that the good folks at UGG Australia caught wind of these people because look at what they have to offer: sandals with fleece!uggs new york on sale
It’s a interesting news,i like it.Additionally,wellcome to my website prettyboots.org ,here are so many UGGS On Sale such as:UGG Elsey wedge|UGG Elsey wedge black|UGG Elsey wedge chestnut|UGG Elsey wedge espresso|UGG Langley|UGG Langley black|UGG Langley chestnut|UGG Lo Pro Button|UGG Lo Pro Button black|UGG Lo Pro Button blue|UGG Lo Pro Button cream|UGG Mayfaire|UGG Mayfaire black|UGG Mayfaire chestnut|UGG Mayfaire chocolate|UGG Mayfaire sand|UGG Mayfaire red|UGG Nightfall|UGG Nightfall black|UGG Nightfall chestnut|UGG Nightfall chocolate|UGG Nightfall sand|UGG Sundance II|UGG Sundance II black|UGG Sundance II chestnut|UGG Sundance II chocolate|UGG Sundance II sand|UGG Ultimate Bind|UGG Ultimate Bind black|UGG Ultimate Bind chestnut|UGG Ultimate Bind chocolate|UGG Ultimate Bind sand|UGG Ultra Short|UGG Ultra Short chocolate|UGG Ultra Short sand|UGG Ultra Short black|UGG Ultra Tall|UGG Ultra Tall chestnut|UGG Ultra Tall sand|UGG Ultra Tall balck|UGG Ultra Tall chocolate|UGG Suede|UGG Suede black|UGG Suede chestnut|UGG Suede sand|UGG upside|UGG upside black|UGG upside chestnut|UGG upside mocha|UGG Roxy Tall|UGG Roxy Tall black|UGG Roxy Tall chestnut|UGG Roxy Tall chocolate|UGG Roxy Tall sand|UGG seline|UGG seline black|UGG seline chestnut|UGG Corinth Boots|UGG Liberty|UGG Liberty black|UGG Liberty cigar|UGG Highkoo|UGG Highkoo amber brown|UGG Highkoo espresso|UGG Highkoo grey|UGG Highkoo black|UGG Knightsbridge|UGG Knightsbridge black|UGG Knightsbridge chestnut|UGG Knightsbridge grey|UGG Knightsbridge sand|UGG Knightsbridge chocolate|UGG Adirondack|UGG Adirondack brown|UGG Adirondack chocolate|UGG Suburb Crochet|UGG Suburb Crochet black|UGG Suburb Crochet chestnut|UGG Suburb Crochet chocolate|UGG Suburb Crochet grey|UGG Suburb Crochet white|UGG Kensington|UGG Kensington black|UGG Kensington chestnut|UGG Roseberry|UGG Roseberry black|UGG Roseberry sand|UGG Gaviota|UGG Gaviota black|UGG Gaviota chestnut|UGG Gaviota chocolate|UGG Desoto|UGG Desoto black|UGG Desoto chestnut|UGG Desoto chocolate|UGG Brookfield Tall|UGG Brookfield Tall black|UGG Brookfield Tall chocolate|UGG Gissella|UGG Gissella black|UGG Gissella chestnut|UGG Gissella espresso|UGG Payton|UGG Payton black|UGG Payton chestnut|UGG Payton red|UGG Bailey Button Triplet|UGG Bailey Button Triplet black|UGG Bailey Button Triplet chestnut|UGG Bailey Button Triplet chocolate|UGG Bailey Button Triplet grey|UGG Bailey Button Triplet sand|There are so much style of cheap uggs for sale ,so once you go to my website you will be very surprise.
First person to post a link to the engine destruction video gets a one week "get out of flag as junk" card!
It has been my understanding that individual airlines can put what ever manufacturer jet engines they want on their purchased planes. I was not aware that RR was the sole engine supplier for the Dreamliner. If Boeing did this, thus cutting out GE and Pratt-Whitney I will sell my stock. Getting damn tired of this continual outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing, no wonder we are in such trouble. Not much left to "Made in the USA" anymore........
Thanks to all of you for these informed comments. Interesting discussion. Some clarification. I believe that RR will resolve any issues and the Trent 1000 will be used for many years. I believe that BA will build this thing and when they do it will prove safe.
But both of those things are much further away then we thought not long ago. If this thing is 2-3 years (more) behind schedule you have to watch the stock.
How disappointing. You obviously don't know the first thing about aerospace & the painful process that must be followed to achieve FAA/EASA certification. Yet you feel it necessary to flap your yap. Hmmm. Leads me to conclude that this article is nothing more than you talking your book. You should fess up before you launch into your inane sell pitch.
One has to admit: they did not have this these of problems and delays with the 777. But now it's a different management team and a different headquarters very far away from where the main action is happening.
LOL! Like people will still fly in the future.
Return to your home, citizen!
With the threat of being sexually exploited in the naked body scanner and sexually abused during the "enhanced patdowns" many will stay home!
Besides, who wants to have their gold and silver stolen by the TSA delinquents? ;-)
Howard Hughes' senile dementia long finger nails will be scratching Spruce Goose in his coffin lid as he turns over in his grave...
We forgot how to do engineering and development in this country (as well as in Europe). Most every development by a 'big boy' has been a disaster, over budget, late, etc.
-Dreamliner (Boeing)
-US 101 Presidential Helicopter (Lockheed Martin)
-A400M (EADS/Airbus)
-A380 (Airbus)
-F22, F35
-Comanche
-etc, etc
There are companies that know how to engineer and build stuff, but they are not the big corporations anymore. They are innovative, smaller companies. Not all of them to be sure.
Heaven forbid we get into a war and need to engineer and build stuff quickly again to meet the evolution of warfare that will surely await us.
ex VRWC
Musical? Add your voice to the chorus at http://economicprotestproject.blogspot.com/Back in 1990s, I worked at a major US airspace corporation.
I was a program manager for a major USAF program. Things were changing very fast. My corporate bosses were forcing me to squeeze more and more money from the USAF. At some point, the program became so expensive that it was cancelled. The customer just could not pay for it any more.
One thing more, my friend got an annual award for outstanding corporate scientific achievements. Only one in 25,000+ gets it. 7 months later, he was laid off since he was in a highest pay grade. His work was assigned to someone earning 40% less with very marginal engineering capabilities.
My government customer base was changing too. The old ones moved up and the new ones just did not care. Paper pushing became our primary job.
The Northrup/Grumman B-2 Stealth bomber is just about all composite, and they seem to be experiencing zero problems with them. But it is Graphite, not carbon fiber. Boeing built the B-2 outer wings, and we mated them to the center body at Palmdale California Site 4. I worked on them from Nov. 88 to Nov.99, got layed off when production and modification ended. I saw all of them come back to Palmdale for the modification program, and saw nothing wrong with any of them.
But I wonder why Boeing would choose carbon fiber over graphite for the Dreamliner? At this point I would choose not to fly in one until they have some time under their wings.
Only 21 B-2's have been built. Of these, one crashed in February of 2008 "shortly after takeoff" -- completely destroyed but the crew ejected safely.
Since this was a very expensive and important military project, I'm sure only the best materials and highest-quality labor was used, something you can't expect on a commercial airliner. At a cost of $2.1 billion (1997) dollars per aircraft, I'm sure they're putting a lot of money into maintenance for these aircraft, too.
Airplane engines aren't that powerful so this is no big deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7S_QgE5MN8&feature=related
The one ray of hope is the airline industry and military hardware exports---worlds largest by far. And " THATS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT AT BOEING "
See my comment above. Not exactly a ray of hope, more like an painted echo of a bygone age.
With James McNerney (ex GE, 3M) at the controls, fear the worst.
He only cares about the share price, I would fear for every division in the company.
How he destroys the future in every company to feed the share price is a lesson to be learned; core innovation is starved and abandoned.
It won't be reported, however. The shiny glossy exterior on the PR is all that matters to MSM.
"He only cares about the share price."
Um...he's the CEO. That's his job. That is exactly what he is put in place to do.
I think what you may be trying to say is he sacrifices the share price of tomorrow for the share price of today. That may be more accurate and from an investor's standpoint, it is very scary. Truth is, McNerney is a puppet of the Corporate Facists that have been in control of this country for quite some time. His overall goal and direction is decided for him and he is just a pawn. Boeing is used like all other American corporations...as a tool to achieve a higher goal.
As a frequent traveler, I always want to get "there" faster. Until ANA, the launch customer with sixty Dreamliners on order, decides to cancel, then I can only wish Boeing the best of luck on getting this plane back on track. The world needed it yesterday.
There are 2 outcomes here.
1) The plane never flies because it cannot pass FAA's tests.
2) The plane passes the FAA tests and it is relativily safe.
So really what this article is questioning is the reliability of the tests done by the FAA and has very little to do with Boeing.
Look, the FAA is the only governmental agency worth a damn. These tests are rigorous. There will be failures any time you come out with an aircraft that is agressively-engineered as the 787.
This article is pointless. What is the thesis? Don't fly on a Boeing plane? This is a laughable statement. Now, to say that outsourcing hasn't caused a lot of issues with the construction of this plane, that argument is worth some discussion. Maybe one shouldn't invest in Boeing due to that thought.
But to say that when this aircraft is finalized and passes all the rigourous tests by the FAA that it will be unsafe...you're crazy.
Point of the article is to give readers a heads up about another problem in the development of the 787. As more of these problems occur, the project becomes a "troubled" one. This is relevant to investors and potential investors in Boeing.
The thesis is that there was supposed to by 80+ of these things delivered in 2010. Now none, and there are problems. This means more delays.
So what are we 4-5 years behind schedule on this? If so, what does that do for Boeing?
Just a question for you, Did BA bet the farm on this? Is that in the $63 price?
"The thesis is that there was supposed to by 80+ of these things delivered in 2010."
I think you need to re-read the article. The stated thesis summed up at the end of the article: Boeing built a plane made of fiber that has structural flaws and an engine that took out the test sight. Do you want to fly in this plane? I don’t.
When aircraft manufacturer's come out with new lines, they often face these issues. The more aggressive the engineering, the more complications. I would not invest in BA. But I would undoubtedly fly in their planes. As I said, safety is guided by the FAA. Safety can only be as good as the tests conducted. If it passes these initial tests AND mainenetance procedures are adhered to, there will continue to be safe air travel.
This article does not argue either way about whether the share price of BA is appropriate given their schedule or their engineering challenges. If you beleive it does, please indicate where it is suggested. Otherwise, complain to the FAA about safety.
Duh. This is why they test engines, Bruce.
Good post. This plane is made with new composite materials and alot of the manufacturing is outsourced. There are all kinds of problems from what I hear. I will not fly in one.
i love zh and all..
but you do realize RR is not the only engine manufacturer for the 787..
So? This latest incident is just one of many that show a trend on the Dreamliner project: the engineering is hard (maybe insoluble) and the management is awful.
Why be against the albatross? It's a giant feat of engineering!
And to answer the question: As soon as they come into rotation, I want to be in one!
100% correct, Bruce. I'd rather fly one of those A3xx that crash one in a while (Like the Brazil flight) than 787, until the 787s have at least 7-8 years of proven "track record."
Carbon fiber is a wonderful material that can withstand huge force, but only in the force is directed in exactly the intended direction. When the force acts in another direction, carbon fiber snaps in half (unlike the metal than bends.) No, i'll definitely stay away from this one.
The FAA should mandate wing tethers like the FIA has wheel tethers in F1.
That way, if the wings snap off, they'll just flap about near the fuselage on the plunge, instead of sailing off, maintaining a small destruction zone footprint.
Another successful Formula 1 tech export!
b_thunder, you should probably understand material science before you make such sweeping statements that result in a false dichotomy. I worked at Boeing designing tests for fasteners in composite materials...specifically for wing applications.
Your statements regarding carbon fiber could not be more wrong. The tensile strength in metals have a very wide range. Not all metals "bend" the same. And not all carbon fiber composites "bend" the same. Their elasticity, degree of plastic deformation, hardness, toughness, and creep can very widely. Your over-simplification of a topic you know verly little is not healthy to dispense on others.
the problem, with composites, is de-lamination
As a structural engineer, 20 years of consulting engineering experience, the whole composite materials thing really bothers me. There are a lot of problems with delaminations, out-of-plane stresses, microcracking, and fatigue issues. Nobody really knows how a composite system will perform after millions of stress repetitions, including pressurization/depressurization, turbulence, and take-offs and landings. Computerized tests using finite elements and non-linear analysis is only as good as the assumptions and boundary conditions. A truly composite system has never been used before and the real-life long-term effects are true unknowns.
The A320 that crashed in NYC in November 2001, for example, lost it's vertical stabilizer (a composite structure) because the pilot was following the preceding plane too closely and the buffeting from the engine exhaust caused abnormal lateral loads... snap! There's now a nice little memorial in Brooklyn to commemborate the event.
The reason the Douglas DC-3's still flew after 60 years and millions of hours in the air is that the structural elements were designed for stresses way down on the fatigue curve, not up at the top end. Overdesigned by today's standards, but I'd rather ride in a solid crate than a flimsey and overly-flexible plastic tube.
When I was in school in the 1970's, the "next big thing" was to use carbon fibers in lieu of steel strands for concrete post- and prestressing... the idea went nowhere because there was no way to effectively anchor the strands without crushing them. You have to match the material to the application. Attempts at forcing a material into an application for which it is unsuitable is nothing but folly.
dhengineer, the NYC crash structural failure was caused by pilot input (multiple opposite direction rudder inputs as per previous wake turbulence training). Previous advise to pilots was below a certain speed (Va) any control input would not result in structural failure. The manufacturer's neglected to mention this was for a single input in the case of the rudder. This has now been corrected in training programs for both Boeing & Airbus.
"the whole composite materials thing really bothers me."
In your opinion, then, why did Boeing go ahead with such a complicated aircraft design, if there are so many problems with composites? What is management thinking??? Just trying to understand.
Your assurances and claims of expertise mean very little in the face of airplane tail assemblies falling off in mid air for several airplanes made of composites (read about Flight 587 and Flight 961).
I wrote a very detailed post on this topic months ago: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/take-these-broken-wings-and-learn-fly-a...
Your comment about carbon fiber makes me think there is a common link in American management failures. Hubris/ignorance/greed at the center of decision making without taking care to understand what one is getting into and allowing the asking of tough questions (and consequences) beforehand. Americans don't have the know-how anymore to make good decisions because they have outsourced everything, including Wisdom. Similar to decision-making with BP's American management, drill and cap even if unsure of the quality of the work - resulting in catastrophic failure! Everyone, have a nice day pleasing your ignorant American bosses..... :)
What, you DON'T want to fly in an airplane whose engines might explode at any moment, and whose fuselage might disintegrate into teenie-tiny bits of carbon fibre after being exposed too long to sunlight?
Pussy!
(cheers)
GL
Soooo, you're thinking DEFLATION followed shortly by HYPER-DISINTEGRATION?
Hadn't seen the analogy to the economy myself, but now that you mention it...
Yeah, this is pretty troubling. Boeing employs a huge number of Americans. If this plane isn't a success, watch those employment rolls shrink.
What I've been most troubled about for this particular project was the huge amount of outsourcing done on this particular design. Japanese are making the wings, Italians the horizontal stabilizers, passenger doors made in France, cargo doors made in Sweden, the floor beams made in India, the wiring and landing gear in France... it's a friggin' alphabet soup of manufacturers! No wonder they've had trouble putting all these disparate pieces together.
Hopefully Boeing will learn its lesson and decide to manufacture its next plane in the good, ol' USofA.
They are doing exactly that, by the way.
Boeing is building a production facility in Charleston SC that will not only encompass a second assembly line for the 787 but also bring a lot of the outsourced subsytem work back in house.
The reason they'll be able to do this? The plant will be staffed with NON-UNION labor..
This is exactly correct. One of the reasons Boeing outsourced is to get away from the powerful labor unions here in Washington (the state). I remember there was a competition for that factory on where it was going to be built. Washington (including its 2 Democratic senators, naturally in bed with the unions) pulled out all the stops. But I'm pretty sure Boeing said "F*ck it, we're going where there's plenty of non-union labor".
I'm torn on it. I realize unions protect workers and that workers collectively are more powerful than individually. But there can be no doubt that often unions go too far and impact competitiveness (witness the US auto industry). I'm not sure where the "happy medium" is.
China is building huge rail systems, giant highway system into Western provinces and soon its' own Boeing style aircraft. They now lead in the supply of high speed trains and soon they will in aerospsce as well. Just like the Europeans took a step too far with the Concord; we have taken on too much engineering to turn out a reasonable product with competetive labor hours. Any manufacturing advantages are lost when too many overpaid employee hours are factored in. One of the last heavy industries will die soon enough. About all that will be left is the oil industry (no thanks to Barry) and pharmaceuticals.
WE ARE FUCKED.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_passenger-plane-with-96-on-board-crashes-in-china_1428286
In today's news:
A passenger plane with 96 people on board crashed in Yichun city in northeast China's Heilongjiang Province tonight, government and airline officials said.
The E-90 aircraft of Henan Airlines, with plate number VD8387, crashed near the Yichun's Lindu airport, Heilongjiang provincial civil aviation authorities said.
And don't forget this little Boeing escapade:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002091816_webboeing16.html
optimator:
Thanks for the reminder. Boeing is no longer that nice company out in Seattle. They are now a Chicago corporation.
But, as slow as it is happening, and as corrupt as the upper management may be, I am confident that the "Dreamliner" will happen.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people. As a businessman who's had the pleasure of experiencing Boeing's "love" up close, all I can say is I hope they fly right into Chapter 7. The company is filled, top to bottom, with liars and crooks, and they deserve the hot spot in hell that is coming to them.
but you don't know shit ....