Comments on: A Bit More About The Problems Facing The Boeing 787 Dreamliner

By: Kimo1

Kimo1 — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:09:36 +0000

It's going to be just fine. The 707 and 747 were risky too and today, the simulation technology is 1000 times better. I do agree that BA doubled the risk when they decide to change the supply chain as well as go to composite. Bombardier pioneered this supply chain approach about 15 years ago and it took them several A/C to get it ironed out. But they did it and never looked back. BA can do the same. The devil in any new technology is in the details and dealing with those details is harder if you don't completely control the process. BA is now understanding that and taking control in many areas. .

By: jeffsloan

jeffsloan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:04:28 +0000

Full disclosure: I am the editor of High-Performance Composites, a trade magazine serving the composites manufacturing community.

If I read one more time about how composites are too "new" and a "work in progress," I'm sure that my head will explode. Composites, as the last post said, have been in use on commercial aircraft for almost 40 years. This is not a new material, and this is not a material with which Boeing has no experience.

There is no doubt that Boeing is using composites on the 787 as never before, and there is no doubt that so doing presents challenges. But EVERY new commercial airplane presents its own challenges, whether made of aluminum, composites, or paper. The real challenge with the 787 is that Boeing has radically changed the supply chain, using multiple vendors to provide each structure. Akin to herding cats, this requires the sharing of design, material, and process data among Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Fuji Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Spirit AeroSystems, Vought, Alenia, several Boeing units, and thousands of subcontractors. It's a logistical nightmare with a million variables, all of which are almost impossible to immediately manage well.

The 787 will fly and it will be safe.

By: jeainnj

jeainnj — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:10:16 +0000

First of all, full disclosure. I work at Boeing (the military side). I have bought composite components for a few years now and have some understanding of how they're made.

Composite materials have been used for decades in aircraft. The fabric is made of Kevlar (for structural components) or fiberglass (for non structural parts), and layers are piled up on top each other with the strands crosswise to increase strength (like the grain in layers of plywood). A resin is introduced and the entire part is formed under pressure so the resin integrates with the fabric. As a result, the composite material is stronger than the aluminum parts it replaces, and is also lighter.

When composite parts have failed – as in the Airbus jet that crashjed in NYC a couple of months after 9/11 – it is due to other issues where the demand on the parts exceeded their engineered capability. That can happen in any aircraft.

By: Father_Time

Father_Time — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:11:03 +0000

One word….Fabric!

By: Davebo

Davebo — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:36:52 +0000

Advances such as the composites in the 787 are difficult.

But then, the de Havilland Comet wasn't exactly a success either. Yet we still have 707's operating that were built almost 50 years ago.

Be patient. Innovation isn't always pretty to watch.

By: DLS

DLS — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:20:23 +0000

1. I'm confident that the 787 composite use eventually will be as successful as that on the 777.

2. There are _other_ reasons other than safety concerns why many of us still like steel bicycle frames…