There is no official response yet from Qantas over the latest and apparently very serious issue to emerge in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner program.
As Jon Ostrower reports in the Flightblogger story, production of major parts of the plastic central barrel of the 300 passenger twin aisle ‘wonder’ jet by Italian program partner Alenia ceased on 23 June on orders from Boeing.
The reinforced carbon fibre laminates are wrinkling. The stop work order was made on the same day Scott Carson the president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes reversed his earlier lies about the certainty of the Dreamliner prototype making its first flight on 30 June by revealing that a wing component had actually broken under static test late in May and the flight was suddenly ‘off.’
Even then Carson didn’t level with his customers or the media. While he was portraying the wing-join (side of body) issues as trivial and readily fixed the company he was responsible for had suspended production on a vital part of the airliner.
This standard of misleading conduct and inadequacy in timely disclosure by an airline maker is in a class of its own. Boeing has always insisted that its use of plastic composite materials in load bearing and flexible parts of the design of an airliner where they have never been used before was a fait accompli.
It was nothing of the sort.
Qantas has 50 Dreamliners on firm order, including promised mid 2013 delivery of the 787-9 version which has no chance of actually being deliverable by that time.
What will Qantas have to say about this? We may have to wait until its annual results press conference next Wednesday to find out.
The crucial issue now is whether Boeing can deliver on any of the performance promises made for this jet, or whether it will pause or even cancel the project.
14 Comments
As someone who knows nothing about airplanes or the design and construction thereof, isn’t there a saying “time to get back to the old drawing board”?
A previous Ben Sandilands blog pointed to a website called LonelyScientist.com which listed in great detail the problems that would be faced by Boeing’s decision to construct the 787 fuselage out of one-piece barrels, and the deformations that could occur when these huge carbon composite barrels are baked in high pressure autoclaves.
Now these predicted problems are coming true. It’s dangerous and it’s scary that Boeing management does not listen to engineers.
It seems to me that a lot of Boeing’s 787 problems are a result of trying to change too much in a new aircraft type. Historically commercial aviation aircraft have undergone an evolutionary design process. Small continuous changes that have improved performance, cost and safety. It just seems to me that they’ve tried to do too much all at once with this aircraft. Surely they would have been better off building a new 777 with either an all composite wing or fuselage first and getting some experience with a proven aircraft with composites used for these critical parts.
And they gave the folks at Airbus hell for their delays and problems ..which seem to be minor ones now.Pehaps the people at Seattle need do do a lot of their sums again and eat a little “Crow”
Airbus tried to explain its 2 year A380 delay away with spin, till they sacked the top management and came clean. Their main problem, stupid as it was, had nothing to do with technology, but dismal coordination between French and German designers.
Qantas should cancel its order for those 15 first generation 787-8 Dreamliners. Qantas is risking its reputation, and risking public confidence by going ahead with this.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is entering uncharted waters. Nobody knows how an airliner with its main structural components made of carbon composite plastic will behave. Boeing does not know. That was obvious when Boeing’s computer models failed to predict the testbed structural failure of the 787’s wing join.
Now the composite laminate fuselage skin is wrinkling and delaminating. Boeing did not pick this up on the first assembled 787 Dreamliners. Why not? They happened to notice the problem months later, and are now going back to check the earlier planes.
Boeing does not know how these materials will behave under real-world airline duty, where the composite materials are subjected to weather, impacts from tarmac equipment and flexing during the long flight times that airliners undergo. You, the flying public are the guinea pigs who will test fly it for them.
If Qantas does not cancel this order, or I will stop flying Qantas.
You are exactly right about Airbus icarus and their resistance in going for a radical full barrel composite fuselage design approach for the A350, as a competitor to the B787, has been well founded.
Well, it has yet to be seen D. Klein whether composites are the answer for the next generation of aeroplanes. My worry is not its structural integrity, but the question of health. Can you imagine breathing in toxix emissions these materials must exude, especially on long haul flights since most of the air is recirculated? Add that to the the plastic emissions of the interior and you have a potent cocktail of noxious gases. It probably won’t affect infrequent fliers beyond the odd headache, but what about cabin personnel and crew? One can only wonder whether Airbus, or Boeing considered this really serious problem?
icarus, it’s not true to say that most of the air in an airliner is recirculated. The air in an airliner is usually cleaner than that in your average office building. And it’s changed every 2 or 3 minutes. There is recirculation going on, but there’s lots of fresh air coming in as well. See http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/05/08/askthepilot319/index1.html for a quick description of how air recirculation works.
After a working lifetime repairing highly stressed rotating equipment ..IE turbo…and rotary screw compressors and blowers I came to loathe man made materials. In the early eighties my number one hate was a type of plastic cage which manufacturers began to use in ball and roller bearings ;which all assured would stand up to any working conditions.OK for Europe.USA and Japan …but nobody told the manufacturers about drilling rigs working in the ambient temperatures of central and western Australia. Their rotary screw cages turned to jelly and $12+ K overhauls were a dime a dozen. After much kicking at the ground ( always knew the world was round ) They quietly started making bearings with steel and brass cages an option again. A typical example for lay-people is your garden hose which after a little time in the sun becomes brittle and inflexible. In my book plastic has it’s uses ..but not in high stress situations such as Aeroplane constuction .After all this stuff that Boeing is using is only a fancy plastic. It also may be of interest that The DH Comet 1 problem was de-lamination of aluminium skinning around its windows ..Stange how history can repeat itself.
John Bright, thanks for that link. Here is an older, but more scientific one that relates to Boeing aircraft only.
Excerpt:
“It is the fuel cost associated with this need for fresh air ventilation
at high altitudes that is the motivation for airlines to reduce
ventilation rates to the minimum that would be acceptable. This
is achieved by providing aircraft with the capability to recycle, or
recirculate up to 50% of the already-pressurized cabin air.”
As to filtering the cabin air, it seems almost accepted that flying goes together with catching a cold. The cause of it, numbers of people and proximity in a confined space.
For a comprehensive analysis of cabin air go to
http://www.aopis.org/aiha-indoor%20air%20qual.pdf
The comments by dickbev on the comparison of composites used in aeroplanes with a plastic garden hose are are little simplistic, bearing in mind that composite materials are being used by major aircraft manufacturers such as Eurocopter in helicopter rotor blade spar design to give an unlimited fatigue life, with the use of multiple bi-directional material roving lay-ups.
David Klein….My garden hose anology was a bit naughty. I agree carbon fibre (Plastic) Composite technonogy .Has progressed cosiderably over the years ….But…I would stake my life that the helicopter rotors you mention are subject to very regular and intensive Ultra sound and like tests even though they come with a lifetime warranty.
Looks like the 787 will be the achillies heel for Boeing.I went through the report in the lonelyscientist.com.It appears to be a genuine report.Boeing did not have the knowledge and experience of composite construction. Looks like 787 may not meet the economics and performance projected by Boeing.even if it manages to fly by next year.There are plenty of other issues to solve before the aircraft t goes into airline service.
I dont think the 787 will turn out to be the great Dreamliner we all thout it would become.This is not the first time things went wrong.The supersonic airliner by Boeing was also a white elephant.I have a feeling the 787 would become the next white elephant for Boeing.
They will learn from mistakes and make another great jetliner again.I have a feeling that Airbus will get the Airbus 350 right as they are following a more careful approach.