Slashdot Log In
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again
Posted by
kdawson
on Sunday April 13, @05:36AM
from the just-make-it-fly-please dept.
from the just-make-it-fly-please dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It's not just that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner may be unsafe or vulnerable to hacker attacks. At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state. The 787's carbon-fiber construction and next-generation technology have pushed back their delivery schedule once again, this time requiring a redesign of the plane's wingbox. Airlines will have to wait 18 more months to get it delivered, which is an extremely serious blow to the credibility of the company and their financial standing, as they would have to pay penalties to the buyers of more than 850 of these planes. And we thought Airbus had problems." Good thing Boeing can still count on its patent portfolio.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Airbus A380 Under Fire 587 comments
jose parinas writes "The security of the Airbus A380 jetliner is questioned by a U.S. Engineer that faces arrest and bankruptcy in Austria. A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built."
[+]
Science: Boeing's New 787 Wings — Amazingly Flexible 564 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Boeing is making the wings of its new 787 out of carbon fiber instead of metal. That means the wings are so strong and flexible that they could bend upward and touch above the fuselage — or come close. The company is expected to deliver the first 787 to All Nippon Airlines in May 2008. 'Boeing has completed static testing of a three-quarter wingbox, but engineers are still considering whether to limit testing of the full wing to a 150% load limit held for 3 sec. or to continue bending it to see when it breaks. 'There's a raging debate within the engineering team to see if we should break it or not,' says [787 General Manager Mike] Bair.'" They have come a long way in wing flexibility.
[+]
Science: Boeing Dreamliner Safety Concerns Are Specious 402 comments
SoyChemist writes in to note his article at Wired Science on the uproar Dan Rather has stirred up with his claim that Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner aircraft may be unsafe. "Dozens of news agencies have jumped on the bandwagon. Most of them are reporting that the carbon fiber frame may not be as sturdy as aluminum. Few have bothered to question Rather's claims that the composite materials are brittle, more likely to shatter on impact, and prone to emit poisonous chemicals when ignited. While there is a lot of weight behind the argument that composite materials are not as well-studied as aircraft aluminum, the reasoning behind the flurry of recent articles may be faulty. The very title of Rather's story, Plastic Planes, indicates a lack of grounding in science. Perhaps the greatest concern should be how well the plane will hold up to water. Because they are vulnerable to slow and steady degradation by moisture, the new materials may not last as long as aluminum. Testing them for wear and tear will be more difficult too."
[+]
IT: Boeing 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack 332 comments
palegray.net writes "An article posted yesterday on Wired.com notes that 'Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have a serious security vulnerability in its onboard computer networks that could allow passengers to access the plane's control systems, according to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.' They're already working on solutions to the problem - including placing more physical separation between aircraft networks and implementing more robust software-based firewalls."
[+]
Science: Satellite Abandoned Due To Orbital Patent 365 comments
EreIamJH brings news about a commercial geostationary satellite that was launched last month. Due to a launch failure, the satellite did not reach the orbit required to perform its function. The satellite's owner, SES Americom, looked for a way to salvage the satellite, but ran into an unexpected hurdle; a Boeing patent on the lunar flyby process that would be used to correct the satellite's orbit. If another company doesn't purchase the satellite, it is likely to become another piece of space junk. The European Space Agency has posted a gallery of the maps they have put together for man-made debris in orbit around the earth.
Firehose:Boeing Dreamliner Turns Into Nightmareliner by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
it scares the shit out of me just to think if Microsoft made airplanes.
Reply to This
Newfangled (Score:5, Funny)
thar newfangled plastic planes never no-how!
Delivery date met or not!
Dadnabit!
Git off my larn!
-AI
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, they'd never get off the ground in the first place. Weight and the endless Allow/Deny questions would see to that.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.
The terminal is very neat and clean, the attendants all very attractive, the pilots very capable. The fleet of Learjets the carrier operates is immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet it explodes without warning.
Reply to This
Parent
Is it update time now? (Score:5, Funny)
Unix Express: Split into three operating companies.
Linux Cooperative:
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.
Apple Airlines:
The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants are attractive, the pilots very capable, the planes are beautiful, and you always reach the correct destination... unfortunately they have a fairly small fleet, most planes have no baggage compartment or overhead storage, and the seats aren't adjustable. Frequent Apple fliers are known to attack anyone who suggests that these are important features.
Legacy Air:
The terminal is neat and clean, albeit in an "industrial" style. You have to choose your plane ahead of time, because different planes only fly to different cities, and if your luggage doesn't match your plane you need to hire a baggage consultant to adjust it to fit. But the planes are fast, efficient, and always arrive on time or even ahead of schedule.
Windows Airlines:
The terminal is very neat and clean, with security barriers every few meters. The attendants are attractive, even if it's kind of creepy how much they want to "help" (especially in the restrooms). The pilots are allegedly very capable, though nobody ever sees them and there's an armed guard by the cockpit door. The fleet of jets it operates are immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet a message pops up on the seat back in front of your asking "Should this plane explode now?". Some idiot always answers "Yes".
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What weights nothing. But, when loaded onto an airplane, can keep it from taking off?
A: Software.
Reply to This
Parent
It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the bill is hundreds of millions of [dollars|Euros] you don't make your decision based on whether one is made with a cooler process than the other.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Airlines are being faced with the situation of not having the ability to add more and more flights to their schedules from certain locations. So it's not even necessarily a choice between fuel cost X and fuel cost Y. More like "We've got Z number of landing spots, and we can free up three of them with one plane. We can serve other markets with the two open spots the A380 gives us."
The Airbus isn't some magical solution applicable to all situations, and there are many where the 787 is the better option, but it's disingenuous to say the A380 is some kind of relic of a time gone by, a plane that doesn't meet the requirements of today's airlines.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main rationale for using a hub is fuel efficiency by reducing the overall number of flights. A fuel efficient small plane can tip the balance the other way and make point to point routes economically viable again, as well as allowing less-used airports become hubs (since the number of passengers per plane is lower, you don't need to as many passengers to justify a hub flight). Based on the number of pre-orders the 787 has gotten, it would appear that the airlines all did the math and it came out in favor of the point to point routes.
Reply to This
Parent
Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone got a clue?
Reply to This
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Airbuses delays were almost advantageous to the A380 however, since they were all post first flight and pre EIS (entry into service) - this allowed Airbus to iron out most of the issues a new type has when first put into service, with SQ having only three technical problems with their first three A380s in 6 months, which is a lot lower than other new types.
Boeing, however, are suffering their delays before they have even achieved the first 'power on' milestone in their first aircraft, and they are still relying on an uneventful flight test program to bring the aircraft in under the new schedule. This means that the 787 will probably still be subject to the usual new type issues with its first operators. And thats not even taking into account the possibility of *another* delay - which many in the industry are considering highly likely.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a lot of crowing over those delays, but not from Boeing themselves. I heard it from their fans, who seemed to have a major ego investment in the idea that a company from their country is superior to a foreign company.
-jcr
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
What impact does this have? It drastically reduces the head start Boeing had over Airbuses closest comparable aircraft, the A350-800, from 4 years to 2 years (the A350-800 has an EIS of 2014), meaning suddenly the A350-800 becomes a much more palatable rival. This may cost Boeing sales in the long run.
This delay also pushes back Boeings production schedule a full two years - Boeing now has two years less production slots to sell, which will certainly cost them sales in the medium term.
But the biggest impact this will have is Boeing is not in a position to offer the 787-10 stretch, which airlines have been demanding for about a year now - Airbus will be able to offer a comparable product, the A350-900, in 2013 right after the 787-900 EIS. This will definitely cost Boeing sales.
Airbus on the other hand, are looking likely to deliver the A350 on time and within schedule - they have laid out a schedule which is almost double that which Boeing laid out for the 787 (7 years from industrial launch to EIS for the A350 verses 4 years from industrial launch to EIS for the 787). That padded schedule gives Airbus more breathing space.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the weaker dollar is certainly going to harm Boeing - it pays all of its suppliers in dollars, regardless of their local currency, and there is a certain point at which the suppliers can no longer build the parts cost effectively with the dollar so devalued (they still need to pay their workforce and local suppliers in local currency, with the dollar nose-diving they get less local currency for their wares) - at that point, suppliers start telling Boeing to either cough up or go elsewhere.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Comparison Boeing is getting lazy (Score:5, Interesting)
Douglass Aircraft was, for all practical purposes, dead. McD-D had no real interest in building commercial aircraft and pushed much of the process out of the company.
After McD-D lost that big fighter contract, they were dead in the water. Boeing probably could have waited for the bankruptcy sale and picked up the pieces that they wanted. But the "merger" was a bailout for the McDonnell family. Had the company gone under, they would have gotten pennies on the dollar for their shares.
In fact, there are those who suspect that the Pentagon (friends of the McDonnells) encouraged Boeing to merge, using the last stage of the fighter contract competition as bait. It was a real sucker move on Boeing's part. Worse yet, much of Boeing's management has been replaced with McDonnell-Douglas management. That might be why we are seeing Boeing Commercial head down the same path Douglas Aircraft went.
Reply to This
Parent
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
In any state? (Score:4, Funny)
At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state.
Not me. When I catch a plane to California, I sure don't wanna end up anywhere else!
Reply to This
Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, somewhat OT, but it's been bugging me for a while.
Reply to This
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Informative)
Concorde just couldn't ride that fine balance economocally enough.
Then - most countries do not allow supesonic overflights - I remember concorde had to fly subsonic while over land and could only go supersonic while over the ocean on the trans atlantic crossing.
The Concorde was noisy - the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here - and with airports being so close to cities the overflights over suburban areas were problematic.
There is the issue of the optimum aerodynamic shape - there are basically three wing shapes: Swing wing (think B1 Bomber), works well in subsonic and supersonic flight - it is efficient during both flight profiles, but the mechanics is heavy. Probably the best option for the future.
"Normal" swept wings - not optimal for supersonic flight. Is the optimum configuration for carrying heavy loads long distances.
Delta Wings (Like the Concorde) - great for high speed flight, the Valkyrie bomber used a nice Delta wing design that "rode" the shock wave of supersonic flight at high speed to conserve fuel. It is not an optimum load carrying wing, and is not good for low-speed flight. Delta wings have a poor take-off and landing performance, i.e. it means that it lands and takes off at a high speed, and the landing profile is very "low" meaning it flies low over urban areas when taking off and landing. Also it needs a long runway to take off and land - the larger the plane the longer the runway needed. Whereas a wing for the A380 could be optimised for better performance in this flight envelope and not lose a lot of performance when it is actually airborne, for a delta the line to be walked is much finer.
Thus while the speed of supersonic flight would be great for international travel - plus the coolness factor - and there are technologies available today that were not available to the designers of the Concorde and Valkyrie (composite materials for one) there is still the trade-off of a wide range of flight envelopes (take-off, landing, subsonic flight, supersonic flight), size (the bigger you go the less efficient any design is), fuel use (supersonic flight uses a LOT of fuel - hence impacting plane size which makes the design less efficient and on and on) and then the greenies of course haha that makes large supersonic airlines not economically viable today.
Then also designing a supersonic superjumbo is a lot more expensive than is the case for a subsonic superjumbo. Development time is also much longer due to the newer tech, optimizing the design for all the flight profiles, engine design...
It is just not economically viable. It would actually make more sense to design a passenger liner that would "hop" into space to cross vast distances in the upper stratosphere and then fly down to land like a subsonic jetliner.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Informative)
Another concern for continued high-speed operation is the engines. Jet engines create thrust by increasing the temperature of the air they ingest, and as the aircraft speeds up, this air increases in temperature before it reaches the engines. The maximum temperature of the exhaust is determined by the materials in the turbine at the rear of the engine, so as the aircraft speeds up the difference in intake and exhaust temperature the engine can extract decreases, and the thrust along with it. Air cooling the turbine area was a key solution, which continued to improve though the 1950s and on to this day.
Intake design is also a major issue. The engine can only ingest subsonic air, so ramps in the intake are used to create shock waves that slow the airflow before it reaches the engine. Doing so removes energy from the airflow, causing drag. The key to reducing this drag was to use multiple small oblique shock waves, but this was difficult because the angle they made inside the intake changed with changes in Mach number. In order to efficiently operate across a range of speeds, the shock waves had to be "tuned." North American had already worked with advanced inlets on the A3J supersonic bomber for the U.S. Navy, which featured multiple ramps which were moved and angled automatically.
An aircraft able to operate for extended periods at supersonic speeds has a potential range advantage over a similar design operating subsonically. Most of the drag an aircraft sees while speeding up to supersonic speeds occurs just below the speed of sound, due to an aerodynamic effect known as wave drag. An aircraft that could fly past this speed saw a significant drag decrease, and could cruise supersonically with improved fuel economy. However, due to the way lift is generated supersonically, the lift-to-drag ratio of the aircraft as a whole drops, leading to lower range, offsetting or overturning this advantage.
The key to having low supersonic drag is to properly shape the overall aircraft to be long and skinny, as close as possible to a "perfect" shape, the von Karman ogive or Sears-Haack body. This has led to almost every supercruising aircraft looking very similar, with a very long and skinny fuselage and large delta wings, cf. SR-71, Concorde, etc. Although not ideal for passenger aircraft, the shaping is quite adaptable for bomber use.
Reply to This
Parent
Not true at mach numbers approaching one (Score:5, Informative)
Reply to This
Parent
naming (Score:4, Funny)
Reply to This
Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (Score:5, Funny)
Reply to This
Parent