Comments on: Dreamliner-An Impossible Dream?

By: Ormond

Ormond — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:26:18 +0000

The dream IS possible.
The problem with Boeing’s Dreamliner is relatively transparent,
Boeing simply wanted too much at once:
- New logistics (production scattered all over the world,
assembly in Everett),
- New technology without previous know-how and experience
(composites, mixed composite-metal constructions and their
bonds and so on),
- New maintenance scheme (an aircraft which is measured and
self diagnosed by its board computers all the time, finding all
the possible problems before they lead to failure).

All this can be resolved, but it requires very much time and it
signifies a steep learning curve on the development as well as
on the production side.

The impending failure of Boeing’s Dreamliner has the following
reasons: Boeing wanted to catch up with Airbus in one single
giant leap forward. But Boeing underestimated the difficulties
involved. Boeing had nearly no foreknowledge about distributed
production, about composites, composite-metall constructions
and their bonds and also about self diagnosing engines.
This is, why Airbus will succeed with the A350 XWB. Because
Airbus already has all the foreknowledge required. Airbus
already uses all the logistics and technologies involved to a
lesser degree in its existing products, especially in the A380.
Airbus has a solid fundament of knowledge and experience in
these fields, on top of which it can build up.
There is much more time available for the difficult finesses,
for ingenuity based on earlier time consuming experiments.
To get the required results during development of a new
product, some routine at the basics is needed, a certain
serenity and sobriety.
All this is not possible, if you must start everything from
scratch, if you are in a constant hurry, always teetering
on the brink of overchallenge.

By: Altakoi

Altakoi — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:19:13 +0000

The airline industry is between several rocks and a hard place. Peak oil will reappear as soon as global demand does and threatens the mass market in air travel. No emissions reduction scheme is likely to be able to save air travel either. If unsafe but economical airliners are the only way to survive, the usual logic of corporations will deliver that before admitting defeat. Expect some tobacco industry-like coverups if they think they can win a decade more profits.

By: Meet Your Matches » Blog Archive » Dreamliner — is it an impossible dream? (Crikey)

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:21:32 +0000

...] Read more here: Dreamliner — is it an impossible dream? (Crikey) [...

By: Ben Sandilands

Ben Sandilands — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:37:36 +0000

The FAA is a large organisation and I go along with the majority in holding its work in high respect. However there has been a nagging doubt arising for some of us from a string of incidents, most of them raised in Congress, involving the transfer of officers from oversight on a range of manufacturer or airline matters because of ‘their inability to work with industry.’

One thing I will say in their defence is that they held their ground on other aspects of lightning strike protection and I don’t think it is yet all over when it comes to the fuel tank issues.

By: David Klein

David Klein — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:16:16 +0000

The lonely scientist has provided a staggering amount of information on the shortcomings of an all-composite manufactured aircraft. However the section of the book draft I found most disturbing was FAA relaxing fire safety design certification rules on B787 fuel tank ignition source protection from lightening strikes, which was possibly due to sustained commercial pressure from Boeing. How many other certification rules will be relaxed by the regulator on the B787 all composite design in the same manner.

By: Ben Sandilands

Ben Sandilands — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:03:32 +0000

Thanks Josh. Fixed it.

By: Josh

Josh — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:40:51 +0000

Link:

http://www.lonelyscientist.com/