Oh fine, Boeing!

[smittythewelder]

At long last, Boeing is set to send the first 787 aloft, years late, and in the last remaining two weeks of 2009, after which customers and suppliers have threatened to walk away if no flight has been made. Boeing has let it be known that it is quite unhappy with the performance of some of its suppliers, including one in South Carolina . . . which, interestingly, is where Boeing is gradually moving what manufacturing (assembly work) it will still be doing in this country. But the company hasn't said a lot about the mad rush to beef-up the wing-to-fuselage junction of their plastic wonder-plane, which failed inspection when load-tested a few months ago. Cordless drills, metal doublers, and lag-bolts, anyone? Evidently the enthusiasts for big composite laminates haven't quite worked out how to terminate such structures. Recall the Airbus that went down in the Atlantic a while back; reportedly the plastic tail was so undamaged it could have been put right on a new airplane . . . because it broke off cleanly at the base. Well, that's reassuring, isn't it! Another small issue with these plastic planes is occasional lightning strikes and constant static discharge. Like the B-2, which I worked on for a while, the plastic airliners have a layer of heavy, non-structural, but conductive metal mesh as part of the lay-up, to carry away the electrical currents. But I have heard that the B-2 fleet has still managed to accumulate thousands of tiny pinholes in the wings from static discharge.

This is not an airplane I will ever fly in. One fellow who has been working on the plane for years has said the same thing to me. Maybe when they build a B model . . . .

But none of that is what prompted me to rant. No, what hacks me off, what makes me want to tell Boeing to go ahead and move what's left of their Seattle operation to South Carolina, or Lower Slobovia, is Page One of this morning's Seattle Times which talks about the pilot given the honor of taking up the first flight of the new ship.

This illustrious fly-boy, who shall remain nameless here, is the SOB that took up a newly-restored 1940 Boeing 307 Stratoliner for a short hop, ran out of gas, and ditched it in Elliot Bay. That he was selected as pilot of that airplane made no sense at the time; the 307 was nearly identical, other than having a big passenger cabin, to the contemporaneous B-17 bomber, and there were/are a number of pilots with plenty of current hours on the various restored B-17s, and who would have been entirely familiar with the 307. Probably Boeing was providing some assistance to the project, and insisted on their boy doing the honors. Whatever. As the story goes, enough fuel was supposed to be (??) in the 307 for a short ferry flight from Boeing Field, Seattle up to Arlington (IIRC) where they could tank up at a lower price. But Our Hero had some lucky pasengers, the fuel issue slipped his mind, he took his people sightseeing over the city, . . . and ran out of gas! On a clear day, and with calm water, he managed to misjudge the ditching and hit the water while banked into a turn (it's all on videotape). The airplane was later hauled out of the drink with one straight wing and one swept back. Some of those who had worked on the restoration were very angry, and local pilots were utterly scornful.

To quell the criticism quickly, the company open its wallet and facilities to get the 307 RE-restored . . . then insisted that this same pilot captain the old plane on its flight back to the Smithsonian. And now he will get to take up the first flight of the 787.

Well, if he has to put it in the water, at least it already has swept wings.

(Later)(The first flight ended in a normal landing, all are thrilled.)

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Thanks for the heads up Smitty. I will chalk that one up for my no fly zone. It's over the top when PC and favorites include defying gravity. Stupid mistakes in the air don't equal calling a friend to pull you out of the mud at 2:00am. I never heard about that on the news. I wonder why?

[JohnsonM50]

I was just reading the yahoo news caption on that, no hint of a troubled "flyboy" there. Amazing sometimes, the behind the scenes goings on.
Composite boats & smaller planes are one thing, Id think theres more to learn as well as the test of unsimulatable time to be concerned with before rushing the big boys into the great blue. Also very interesting, the static electricity net & consequent effects. Thanks

[smittythewelder]

Yeah, there are some small plastic aircraft makers that seem to have the process down, Lancair being the one that comes first to mind (as I recall, Lance Niebauer used to build boats, for that matter). And the latest issue of "Flying" has a cover article on Dornier's latest iteration of the push-pull amphibian they have been trying to get in production for a good twenty years or more; it's also plastic, which would seem a natural choice for saltwater operations.

But a friend was telling me yesterday afternoon that his pal on the 787 project says that people there have examined Airbus composite parts and thought, "Wow, THOSE guys really have a handle on this stuff," whereas he said that OUR guys have yet to figure it out . . . and he is another one who says he won't fly on this airplane. Now that's all just talk, worth zip, from guys who might or might not be qualified to talk, but I have heard more of this talk, and I never heard anything like this about any previous new Boeing airplane beyond ordinary grumbles. The FAA team (not to mention all the inspectors for the customers) that has to buy-off on this ship must be under tremendous pressure from several directions! You have to have sympathy for all the Boeing people, and their subs as well, who had to create a new, state-of-the-art airplane under the multinational rigamarole handed to them by top management (which must have spent too much of their time listening to poetry, if you recall THAT little story).

[Tomtall]

Sorry couldn't disagree more. This airplane will survive and be the new air fleet of the skies. We watched with great pride as the first flight took place at my work with 400 + employees watching knowing that everyone's hard work over the years has finally paid off. Yes there were set backs and issues with this aircraft but the issues got sorted out and I for one am glad that my job will be secure by helping build the hydraulic systems for Boeing and the 787 as the many other 1000's of employees with other firms can support their families as well.

You know they once said the gasoline powered auto would never make it because it was to dangerous to pump gasoline in public places to make them go.

Proud employee of "Parker Aerospace", supplier for the Boeing 787 and Airbus aircraft hydraulics.

To read more about this first flight and the technology of this aircraft go to
http://money.aol.com/article/boeings...akes-to/817475

[Skoontz]

I'm happy for Boeing. The one I refuswe to fly in is that French piece of crap that everywhere in the plane you can hear the hydraulic motors running, and every thermal you hit you can hear the ramming on the planes metal....

Airbus planly sucks...

[smittythewelder]

I hope you're right, Tom, and as I suggested above, there are many thousands of people working at Boeing, all with opinions, but many of those opinions aren't to be credited. Nevertheless, I don't envy any airline that's getting airplanes from the first batch off the production line, and I won't be riding on one of those.

I have learned was mistaken about the test-pilot who flew yesterday's first flight. He was co-pilot of the Stratoliner that ran out of fuel and ditched with a wing low, not captain.

As to Airbus engineering, no doubt they have had their share of ugly problems as has Boeing (recall the thread-shredding jackscrews and the random full-rudder deflections). Many years ago I had a long conversation with a veteran Boeing engineer named Bert Berlin, during which he talked about having gone with a team to Europe to see that operation first-hand. He was very impressed with the quality of the Airbus people at all levels and the engineering work he saw. Airbus basically was getting its pick of the most tech-savvy and most skilled workers to be had on the continent (whereas, for example, I saw Boeing hire a woman, whose prior experience had been as a buyer for Bon Marche/Macy's, to run an autoclave, maybe because she was something other than male and caucasian). The Boeing team came back sobered and concerned.

[Powerabout]

How about the 747-800 it has a few carbon parts on it ( 35 tonnes of tin removed)
A mate will be flying one for Nippon..safe or what?

I do like the part where the 787 will be pressurised to about 6000ft or something...that will make it nice to fly in.

Most carbon fibre race yachts are NOT built in the US, I always wondered about that but most waterski's are

[smittythewelder]

Look, I'm not at all saying that plastic airliners are bad per se; they probably are the material of most or all future airliners. As usual with other new projects built of the latest, greatest materials, this first batch of 787s is considerably heavier, despite several weight reduction programs, than promised, which hasn't pleased customers. And like a lot of other old guys, one of the reasons I'm not crazy about it is that carbon fiber panels don't stretch, as aluminum ones did, which means that tolerances must be held very close, not easily done in the real manufacturing world. Some of the misalignments I saw at the "Lazy B" in the aluminum days were scary enough. But maybe they have a better handle on this now, in fact they must have or the airplane could not be built at all.

But to show you how the ideas of old guys are not to be taken as gospel truth, you could go back to the late '40's, and a couple of other Boeing airplanes. The B-29 and the earliest Stratocruisers (different plane than the Stratoliner I spoke of earlier) were built of 2024 aluminum, the wonder-metal of the 1920s. But the next Boeing models, the B-50 and the modernized Stratocruiser were to be made of a new wonder-alloy, 7075, which was stronger and promised lighter weight. Some of the old guys of that day warned that 7075, besides being hard on tooling, would prove to be brittle, and I know one airline captain who quit flying and went back to his previous job as a machinist partly due to his skepticism about the new alloy. But as it turned out, the problems were resolved, and airplanes have been built with 7075 up to the present. So, be skeptical of skeptics. Including me. I am.

Still, I've heard what I've heard, and my choice is made. And I still am hacked off about that lovely old plane being ditched and half-wrecked.

Late news: The company has announced that since the airlines have refused to buy the first three airplanes to come off the line, those will be used for testing only.

[Powerabout]

speaking of trashing national treasures remember that guy who tried to get the B29 ( I think) out of the arctic but a ham fisted job with a portable gen set set it alight and it was lost....wasn't even his plane?