Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[Sammy 30]

That article was Dated March 5, 2006, and the technology moves quickly.

You don't spend this much time and money on a project and not cover such a situation. There is too much a stake to take the risk of losing a plane and then the market because someone didn't think to install a lightning arrestor.

 

Following your line of thinking, you better not fly on any Airbus 340s since it was stated in the article you referenced that ".....the Airbus A340, which carries fuel in its composite horizontal tail — a structure as big as the wing on a narrow-body jet. More than 300 of those operate worldwide, with no reports of lightning problems since first flight in 1991."

 

Thank you for the time moves on lesson Professor How long has the 787 been in design? They certainly have spent a lot of time and money on a project that even Boeing engineers remain very concerned about the lightning issue but Mr. VP of the project tries to sweep it under the rug. For the record I have never flown on an A340 either.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

At least they are coming out with a firm date for the roll out compared to the almost endless delays the Airbus 380 is encountering.

 

As did the A380. The first delay to the A380 was announced 6 months after the rollout.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

They are both major losers and painfully naive if they thing these same things or worst haven't happened in Europe. But, hell, you can't reason with fools and this is a perfect example. When confronted with facts, in this case, Boeing is building a new airplane on time, they resort to personal attacks on individuals in an effort to draw attention away for the accomplishment.

 

 

The aircraft is at exactly the same point that the A380 was in its development and manufacture. The "accomplishment" in achieving a roll-out date is no better than Airbus achieved with the A380.

 

As has been said before, it's the delivery date that matters to the buyers of the aircraft. Ask the Japanese ...........

 

 

 

"The Federal Aviation Administration has placed a series of limitations on Boeing Co.'s KC-767 aerial refueling tanker, delaying its delivery to a key foreign customer and potentially frustrating Boeing's efforts to sell the plane to the U.S. Air Force.

 

The tanker is the first of four scheduled to be delivered over the next two years to the Japanese government. Under terms of the contract, Boeing and Itochu Corp., its Japanese business partner, were required to get the KC-767 certified for flight safety by the FAA, according to the Japanese Ministry of Defense.

 

The FAA issued a basic certificate on April 12 declaring the plane to be airworthy. But the agency's approval came with conditions on how the tanker could be used, including restrictions on carrying passengers and cargo in certain areas of the plane, according to a copy of the six-page certificate obtained by the Press-Register.

 

Chicago-based Boeing claims the tanker is ready to fly and that full certification by the FAA is unnecessary for a military aircraft. Japanese officials disagree, saying they won't accept the plane -- initially due Feb. 28 -- until the limitations are removed.

 

Meanwhile, the tanker sits in limbo at Boeing's aircraft modification center in Wichita, Kan. Japan reportedly is imposing a fine of 10 million yen -- about $82,000 -- for each day the plane is late.

 

Delivery "will take a few more months," according to Japanese Air Force Lt. Col. Ichiro Sato. Sato said the Japanese government has asked Itochu, the Tokyo-based trading company that holds the tanker contract in Japan, "to promote delivering as soon as possible."

[wacmedia 277]

As has been said before, it's the delivery date that matters to the buyers of the aircraft. Ask the Japanese ...........

The FAA issued a basic certificate on April 12 declaring the plane to be airworthy. But the agency's approval came with conditions on how the tanker could be used, including restrictions on carrying passengers and cargo in certain areas of the plane, according to a copy of the six-page certificate obtained by the Press-Register.

 

Chicago-based Boeing claims the tanker is ready to fly and that full certification by the FAA is unnecessary for a military aircraft. Japanese officials disagree, saying they won't accept the plane -- initially due Feb. 28 -- until the limitations are removed.

 

Meanwhile, the tanker sits in limbo at Boeing's aircraft modification center in Wichita, Kan. Japan reportedly is imposing a fine of 10 million yen -- about $82,000 -- for each day the plane is late.

 

Hi,

 

I'm not a fan of the company but thought they were better than that.

[eltib 54]

Already been done.

 

Your article, "How really safe are composites?" is dated, 13 December 2001, a month after the crash in question.

I believe what they eventually found out was the vertical tail fin on that Airbus wasn't even bolted on, it was glued on. Since that time Airbus has gone back and retrofitted each such aircraft with nuts and bolts to make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

Scalawag,

 

so what about the date. If you read both links, you would see the use of composites were used as radar absorbing materials originally and nothing more. Whoever got the idea that you can achieve cost savings from a 100% plastic airplane is somewhere else. My friend said "he would never fly the A380 because it was made totally from composites." That was until I corrected him and told him the 787 was the plastic airplane.

 

And what is Boeing using to secure vital parts on the 787? Plastic fasteners.

[eltib 54]

Great rebuttal on the seven year old articles .

 

Sorry to say and hate to cause offense, but the diatribes and triple backed up hard drives on supposed company dirt reeks of a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. Tough to take his take on the new boeing products without a grain of salt, regardless of his former profession.

 

Hub

 

You cause offense? God you're a joke like their PR rep Ken Mercer who comments on every lawsuit " It is without merit." That is until the evidence is presented in court, and a jury sides with the plaintiff.

 

OK, then the US government is a disgruntled customer, because Boeing tried to bilk $20B from the US taxpayer on the 767 tanker. And the emails between Boeing execs showing Boeing's unethical behavior are all moot. Go take some legal courses, into how email is a legal document.

 

Unless you know what I have, you don't know squat. And I have plenty of emails showing unethical behavior, regarding EEO, and hiring policies policies not followed in Boeing. I will not elaborate anymore here, since you think "I'm a disgruntled employee." Disgruntled employees go and shoot their former employers.

 

 

For the record I have never flown on an A340 either.

 

Sammy, ever flown an A330? Same airframe, just 2 less powerplants. Anyhow it's a great airplane.

 

Well, How much flying experience does he have? Zero. End of subject.

 

Rumor has it you were in control of this RC model...

 

B-52 model

Edited May 23, 2007 by eltib

[MrMango 667]

Back to making insulting posts? Ran out of arguments?

Rumor has it you were in control of this RC model...

Since you have no flying experience, just a disgruntled former IT guy at a Boeing subsidiary, and cannot match my flying experience, the only thing that you can do is insult.

 

Sad.

[Samsonite 181]

Thank you for the time moves on lesson Professor

This board seems to attract more than its share of adolescents.

[eltib 54]

Back to making insulting posts? Ran out of arguments?

 

Since you have no flying experience, just a disgruntled former IT guy at a Boeing subsidiary, and cannot match my flying experience, the only thing that you can do is insult.

 

Sad.

 

Hey asswipe, I just got a job that's closer to home, and once again I'm not disgruntled. Disgruntled employees practice Mossberg justice. The best of part of it, it is NOT in IT. I should have moved out of the IT field long ago when they first started outsourcing jobs. I also won't have to worry about it being outsourced, since it's in the Warehouse and Transportation industry.

 

And you have on many occasions insulted myself and others too, so stop being a hypocrite.

 

You can talk about your flying experience so now lets see some photos of you flying an airplane. This way I don't have to post anymore humor about you. After all on this board, you have some anonymity. You can claim your George Bush, but we don't have to believe you.

Edited May 24, 2007 by eltib

[Cennn3 0]

And you have on many occasions insulted myself and others too, so stop being a hypocrite.

 

You are sure right on this point.

[Hub 203]

OK, then the US government is a disgruntled customer, because Boeing tried to bilk $20B from the US taxpayer on the 767 tanker. And the emails between Boeing execs showing Boeing's unethical behavior are all moot. Go take some legal courses, into how email is a legal document.

 

Unless you know what I have, you don't know squat. And I have plenty of emails showing unethical behavior, regarding EEO, and hiring policies policies not followed in Boeing.

 

All of the above IMO has very little to do with the viability of the 787 (the topic at hand), and your continued rantings on emails being legal documents and your triple backed up "evidence" further depicts you as someone with an unrelated an axe to grind. By your own admission

 

"Now you know why I show negative bias towards Boeing"

 

you are not really a reliable or objective party in this discussion.

 

 

I will not elaborate anymore here, since you think "I'm a disgruntled employee." Disgruntled employees go and shoot their former employers.

 

 

Actually, funny that you mention that, as I previously thought when I read some of your previous posts "God, I hope this guy doesn't have any automatic weapons at home or some execs at Boeing are going to have a rough morning one of these days."

 

Anyways, congrats on you new job.

 

Hub

[Sammy 30]

Sammy, ever flown an A330? Same airframe, just 2 less powerplants. Anyhow it's a great airplane.

Rumor has it you were in control of this RC model...

B-52 model

 

List of airplanes I have been a passenger in:

 

Fokker F-27

ATR-72

Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777

A-300

A-319

A320

DC9

 

No A330 or A340. Does a Sikorsky S-61, Bell 412 or Eurocopter Dauphin EC155B1 count?

 

This board seems to attract more than its share of adolescents.

If by adolescent you mean that I am always trying to learn then I take it as a compliment. But I doubt you meant it that way.

 

You stated Professor, that technology moves quickly in this area. How quickly? In terms of nanoseconds or glacially? Give me some facts, or are you only able to make broad statements that mean nothing?

Edited May 24, 2007 by Sammy

[Samsonite 181]

You stated Professor, that technology moves quickly in this area. How quickly? In terms of nanoseconds or glacially? Give me some facts, or are you only able to make broad statements that mean nothing?

Those statements mean more than your finger gestures, but, the answer to what they, Boeing, are doing to combat the possible damage from a lightning strike is in the very article you posted, dated in March of last year. They had the solution or were working on the solution to the problem before the article was written.

 

"Boeing is taking a multilayered approach to lightning protection of the 787 fuel tank:

 

• The initial lightning strike must be dispersed quickly around the airframe to prevent concentrated damage. Also, the airplane's electronic flight instruments must be shielded from disruption by the intense electromagnetic field. To accomplish this, Boeing will embed a thin metal mesh or foil in the outer layers of the composite fuselage and wings.

 

• A slight gap between a wing-skin fastener and the hole it goes into could be a source of sparking as current jumps the gap. Boeing will install each fastener precisely and seal it on the inside to ensure a snug, spark-free fit.

 

• Inside the wings, any gap along the edges where wing skin meets internal structural spars could cause a spraying out of electrons in a lightning strike — a phenomenon called "edge glow." Boeing will seal the edges with nonconducting goop or glass fiber.

 

• And, in case the efforts to shut out ignition sources fail, Boeing will install a nitrogen-generating system (NGS) that reduces flammable vapor in the wing tanks by filling the space above the fuel with inert gas."

 

And, BTW, Airbus refused to put a fuel inerting system in the A380 and has sought a exemption from having to comply with the regulations.

 

Here from another article is basically the same information, but slightly more detailed.

 

"The task of making the 787 lightning-proof has been exacting, says Strode. “We’re dealing with a combination of not just pressure due to corporate concerns, but also that this is the first all-new aircraft to comply with new regulations dealing with ignition sources. These are very challenging for an all-metal wing, let alone the unique characteristics of a composite wing,” he adds.

 

To shield the 787’s avionics and other more-electric systems from the focused energy of a lightning strike, and to prevent concentrated damage or system disruption, a thin metal foil or mesh is embedded in the outer layers of the composite fuselage and wing, minimising changes to the electromagnetic field. To be on the safe side, and to meet the demands of the new requirements, a nitrogen fuel tank inerting system will be standard.

 

Perfect fit

 

Within the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)-built wing each fastener is being designed to slot in precisely and will be sealed on the inside to ensure a spark-free fit. Boeing and MHI also plan to seal the internal edges within the wing structure, where the composite skin meets the metallic ribs and other fittings, with a non-conducting glassfibre material. “We’re winding down rapidly now on this, and we should have the basic design within a month*,” says Strode, who adds that “testing to validate that will continue”."

*Article was dated 9 months ago.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Scalawag

[eltib 54]

List of airplanes I have been a passenger in:

 

Fokker F-27

ATR-72

Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777

A-300

A-319

A320

DC9

 

No A330 or A340. Does a Sikorsky S-61, Bell 412 or Eurocopter Dauphin EC155B1 count?

 

I guess you can consider helos aircraft.

 

I haven't been on a 767, A300, or F-27, so I don't make my list too long, I'll add which others I've been on, in addition to your list.

 

McD DC6, DC7, DC-8, MD-80s, DC10

 

Boeing 707, 720B (best Boeing jets I ever flew, built like tanks)

 

Lockheed L-188 Electra Turboprop

 

Fokker 100 (DC9 Clone)

 

A-330

 

Convair 550 Turboprop

 

God I'm shpwing my age!

 

Edited May 24, 2007 by eltib

[amphora 0]

You can claim your George Bush, but we don't have to believe you.

 

You think he's not?

[MrMango 667]

You think he's not?

With wackos like him, who knows?

[eltib 54]

With wackos like him, who knows?

 

Once again insults because you can't argue that you aren't George Bush.

 

And you have on many occasions insulted myself and others too, so stop being a hypocrite.

 

Mango,

 

It's really funny that I had to reinforce my quote above, but as soon as a topic returns to civility, you start attacking people to create sensationalism, once again.

Edited May 25, 2007 by eltib

[MrMango 667]

Once again insults because you can't argue that you aren't George Bush.

Mango,

 

It's really funny that I had to reinforce my quote above, but as soon as a topic returns to civility, you start attacking people to create sensationalism, once again.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about - I can assure you that I AM NOT GW Bush - O.K.?

 

When you resort to quoting yourself, you have lost any credibility that you might have had.

[eltib 54]

I don't have a clue what you are talking about - I can assure you that I AM NOT GW Bush - O.K.?

 

Well you sure act like him. He doesn't understand anything himself.

 

When you resort to quoting yourself, you have lost any credibility that you might have had.

 

To the contrary, not when your ignorance or arrogance has clouded your judgment, to the point where you will not comprehend what people are telling you.

[Samsonite 181]

All they're doing is a roll out on 8 July. They could stick it together with glue if that's what's needed......

Well, well, well......looks like they will be buying "glue" in Toulouse after all.

 

"Airbus prepares to shift to all-composite barrel on A350 XWB

Friday May 25, 2007

 

Airbus is set to make yet another design change to its A350 XWB, this time dumping composite panels on an aluminum frame for an all-composite barrel...."

 

Story here:

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=9009

[MrMango 667]

Airbus is set to make yet another design change to its A350 XWB, this time dumping composite panels on an aluminum frame for an all-composite barrel...."

So much for the Nanny's that have claimed that composites wouldn't work - Lets see if they blast Airbus for this? Fat chance.

[amphora 0]

Boeing will install a nitrogen-generating system (NGS) that reduces flammable vapor in the wing tanks by filling the space above the fuel with inert gas."

For those of you who are not as specialized like these gentlemen leading this discussion.

Jet fuel is actually rather hard to ignite. You can throw a burning match in a bucket of jet fuel and it will not burn or explode. The match will be extinguished by the liquid. You have to mix it with oxygen(air) and put it under pressure to ignite it. So a full fuel tank will not easily get on fire by a spark or lightning. A half-full or near empty fuel tank though is much more dangerous. Through heat and motion the jet fuel forms vapors that mix with oxygen (air) and an explosive mixture comes into being. A spark caused by a bad lightning strike could make this mixture explode . The solution is simple: they pump nitrogen gas in the fuel tank that fills the space above the remaining fuel so no more oxygen and therefore no more danger of an explosion.

Boeing uses this system on 747s since the midair explosion of TWA800 in 1996.

 

(BTW I’m not that smart but I watch Discovery Channel once in a while)

 

Maybe nobody was waiting for this explanation but now you can amaze the next BG with your universal knowledge.

 

If Airbus does not apply this system on the A380, I think they must have thought of another solution I guess. I can’t imagine the aircraft will get FAA approved if they don’t have some kind of provision for this problem.

[BigDUSA 71]

Well, well, well......looks like they will be buying "glue" in Toulouse after all.

 

"Airbus prepares to shift to all-composite barrel on A350 XWB

Friday May 25, 2007

 

Airbus is set to make yet another design change to its A350 XWB, this time dumping composite panels on an aluminum frame for an all-composite barrel...."

 

Once again Boeing leads the way and the competition has to follow.

[MrMango 667]

Boeing uses this system on 747s since the midair explosion of TWA800 in 1996.

New to me. I thought only military airplanes used this, and it would be VERY expensive to retrofit.

 

 

If Airbus does not apply this system on the A380, I think they must have thought of another solution I guess. I can’t imagine the aircraft will get FAA approved if they don’t have some kind of provision for this problem.

Again, I did not think that it this was a requirement.

Edited May 26, 2007 by MrMango

[Samsonite 181]

More on fuel tank inerting systems:

 

"Although 10 years have passed since this recommendation was issued, the FAA’s recent actions indicate positive movement, particularly in the development of a practical fuel tank inerting system. Boeing is making a flammability reduction system a basic feature in the design of the new 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing has also designed a flammability reduction system and delivered these systems on production models of the 747 and 737 NG. The first B-737 equipped with a flammability reduction system was delivered on December 8, 2005, to Southwest Airlines. The next design to receive a flammability reduction system will be the B-777. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will certify the new Airbus A380 transport aircraft without a fuel tank inerting system, instead relying on minimizing ignition sources and maintaining the fuel tank temperature below the ignition point. Ironically, Airbus has been investigating the use of inerting systems for cargo compartments, rather than staying with the increasing cost of Halon fire protection. Both the Safety Board and the FAA submitted comments opposing the Airbus approach."

 

The full article, the most recent I could find, is dated November 2006 and can be found here,

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/explosive_tanks.htm

Edited May 26, 2007 by Scalawag