Boeing Dreamliner to fly today

Agreed.

 

Boeing has had a team of hotshots working on the next iteration of the 737XX and it is an extremely hard nut to crack because the airplane is so good. Every time they come up with an idea, the 737 guys tweek something and almost meet the new stuff. There has to be a quantum leap in performance and economics to beat the current airplane. It is 99.999 % reliable and the airlines love it's performance.
Switches

 

The second flight test 787 ZA-002 is expected to take flight next week.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/18/336396/boeings-2nd-flight-test-787-may-fly-as-early-as-21.html

 

I had hoped that when Boeing introduced the current "third generation" 737 that they would have updated the aircraft's appearance by using the 757 nose. Since the aircraft (to my knowledge) share the same body diameter, that should have been a fairly simple procedure; internally the flight deck could have remained essentially unchanged, so pilots of older 737s could have still adapted quickly. Instead we have a nose design which, while instantly recognizable, is 50 years old!

 

A friend of mine is a Pilot for Alaska and he says the 737 nose (originally 707) creates a lot of wind noise in the cockpit. He says on longer flights they use hearing protection to prevent noise fatigue.

In comparison, when he was Co-pilot flying Airbus 320's the Cockpit noise was much lower and they were able to carry on conversation in normal tones.

They really do need to update the nose on the 737 when they make a new one. I am sure there are some aerodynamic gains there somewhere.

 

This is absolutely the most pregnant issue with the airplane and they have addressed it as far as I can tell. But, that one item is the most expensive thing on the airplane. The structural considerations are huge and all the systems in the airplane are concentrated in and around that small area. A redesign requires recertification BUT the windshield configuration is an archaic remanent of years past when the windshield glass technology dictated flat panels. You wouldn't believe the engineering technology required to do flight deck glass. The 787 has the good stuff and the configuration was designed by a friend and younger associate in the 777 days, an incredible young technical designer. He smoothed up the air flow , retained the same RVR as before , and patented the design. Next, the 737 I'll bet.
A wider fuselage is coming but they will do it as an integrated part of the total design...whatever that will be.
Switches

 

Hopefully they won't sub-contract the Engineering out to some hole in the wall in Timbuctu to save a DOLLAR.

 

I think that maybe a lesson has been learned here and more thought will be used in outsourcing work.

 

I'll believe that when I see it.
I think a lot of other people are thinking the same thing, hence the stock going down two dollars AFTER the flight.
The people that know, KNOW.

 

The same thing was done with the first 4 flyable 777's back in the 90's. The launch customers were quite pleased to get a nearly new, reconditioned 777 at a bargain price with full warranty.[/QUOTE]

I can verify that you are right in this regard. I was involved in the test program from the customer standpoint on the first 777's. I used to joke back then we did not want to take delivery of those planes because they flew so much, the wings were ready to come off. The initial production models, and correct me if I am wrong since it has been almost 20 years ago, were 3 planes. They literally flew round-the-clock with a team of Boeing and our staff. These planes had no seats in the main cabin; just large computer monitors with blinking lights. Imagine 3/4 of the plane with nothing in it; just a big open area. The planes would touch down, refuel, and change flight crews then back up. This went on for an extended period as they attempted to get certified. It worked and the plane has been reliable, can carry large amounts of cargo, and with twin engine operations a real asset to the bottom line.

 

My comment.

I can verify that you are right in this regard. I was involved in the test program from the customer standpoint on the first 777's. I used to joke back then we did not want to take delivery of those planes because they flew so much, the wings were ready to come off. The initial production models, and correct me if I am wrong since it has been almost 20 years ago, were 3 planes. They literally flew round-the-clock with a team of Boeing and our staff. These planes had no seats in the main cabin; just large computer monitors with blinking lights. Imagine 3/4 of the plane with nothing in it; just a big open area. The planes would touch down, refuel, and change flight crews then back up. This went on for an extended period as they attempted to get certified. It worked and the plane has been reliable, can carry large amounts of cargo, and with twin engine operations a real asset to the bottom line.[/QUOTE] This brings to mind an incident that I will always remember with relish.
A group of BMW engineers visited Boeing to examine our production techniques. They were escorted by members of the Boeing engineering staff. On the way back to the engineering buildings one of the BMW people commented that there was nothing they could learn from what Boeing was doing. As they passed by 777 number one it was undergoing refurb from the beating it had taken during certification tests, one of the Boeing guys pointed up to the airplane and said, " See that airplane? It is the very first unit of the 777 design. It worked perfectly the very first time it flew and has continued to work correctly after 300 hours of abuse. We didn't have to build 300 examples before we felt that we could sell it, we had it right the first time, and by the way, it has been sold to a happy customer." As if to put a period on the statement a Boeing engineer trailing the group said, " I guess when you have Germans, you're going to have arrogance." As I was told, there wasn't much conversation after that.
Switches

 

Pretty much the way they are treated in service too.

Currently 99.2% departure within 15 minutes of gate time, world wide.

 

As I mentioned to Spasso, I feel a huge amount of pride in knowing that I had a hand ( a small one for sure) in configuring the 777 and when I saw the video of the wing static test I recognized some old friends with whom I worked and for whom I worked. The best in the business!

 

The people who outsource important engineering to third world countries are learning that is it penny wise and pound foolish to do it. I have had some experience with the third world engineering and it wasn't pretty... While there was some competent engineering in Poland, a lot of GE work was done in Mexico and India and when I was working with them they were finding that it didn't save much after it got done right. Pratt has learned some expensive lessons in outsourcing to the third world too...

Another false economy is using "kids" just out of engineering school that don't have the experience, and trying to substitute "procedures" and "design rules" for sound judgement and hard knock lessons that come from experience. Some in management think that having low salaries and a lot of expensive design tools (like CAD and CFD) can make up for more seasoned personel and that is just not the case.

We recently designed, built and tested a complete small turboshaft engine with just a small group of very experienced engineers and overall it cost about 1/10 of what it would have cost by doing in a big company environment.

 

BRAVO !! You have spoken with truth and have repeated what so many of us have been shouting for so long. The last several years of my job I spent teaching the new guys what went and what didn't. I couldn't get a session going on the computer without somebody coming up to ask about what I thought about an idea. On the 767 we had an impromptu discussion about landing gear design and structural support one day with a new engineer listening in. We got into the cantilevered gear design of the 707 and the Martinside conditions and torque box problems of the aft spar location. It got into improper heat treat alloy choices. After an hour of discussions and explanations the young engineer said, " I went to school for five years to get a degree, but I got educated here in about 2 hours." The design of complex systems cannot be done by the uninitiated, it takes years of experience and learning and an extensive file of failures and successes.
Switches

 

I have some more thoughts about your statements regarding the " young kids". This concept was used by General Motors for years and look what they got. God Bless the youngsters for they have the tools but not the total ability to apply them with the benefit of experience and basic knowledge. I had a young engineer ask me what the scissors were for on the oleo struts. he also asked why there were brake equalizer rods on the trucks. We had a vacuum in basic aircraft technology in the newer incoming " students". So, every day a new word was lettered on the blackboard and at lunchtime we had a session to discuss what the new word entailed. Most important was the establishment of an atmosphere that was open to questions without embarrassment or repercussions. You cannot get this kind of technical transfusion in an outsourcing environment when you are designing and building a vehicle as large and complex as a jet airliner. Over the years I have seen a dilution of manual and technical skills in this country and it bothers me.
Switches

 

I have been working personally with a young Liaison Engineer from Puerto Rico named Jaime. He is not a contractor but employed directly by the company.

This kid is a hyper, ricochet off the wall kind of guy and types faster than humanly possible.
He is in his late 20's and in the discussions I have had with him he shows blazing sharpness and logic. His "fixes" on the 777 are are sound and cost effective and I agree with his quality of engineering. Most of the time it is better than some of the Liaison Engineers that have been at it for 40 years.
He has just been given authority to make design changes on working drawings which amazes me because this is what Project Engineers traditionally control.

I am sure he has the same blanks in his knowledge that comes with his age and experience but when one is identified he tears into it until he understands it.

He is going to shine in this organization. I am reassured by this.

So what's the point here?

Somewhere, someone (an airplane guy) in this company is making an investment in brain power FOR the company, instead of renting some for the low bid.

If they were smart they would have stuck with the caliber of people needed to actually build this cutting edge technology.
If they had done this 5 years ago we would see 200+ 787's flying right now.

Someone (a bean counter) didn't, they went for the low bid. They hired people off the street for 11.40 an hour and figured a couple hundred hours of training would be enough to put them on an airplane that had never been built before.

After 15 years in the construction trade I learned that you NEVER go for low bid.

We had a powerful airplane guy in position to lead the Company 5 years ago. He didn't fit the bean-counter driven production culture, saw the writing on the wall and moved to the position of CEO for the only US Automobile company that DIDN'T take Government handouts.

I can only hope there is a reversal to the trend but with further expansion and disconnection of the production line to South Carolina I don't see it.
As Solofast says, This isn't just about one industry but a trend covering many.

Too bad really...................................

















.

 

And his initials are A. M., right? I was very impressed when he was program head on the 777.

 

When I was working on the environmental control system design i was accompanied in the elevator by Alan Mulally on my way back with some Catia printouts. He asked me what I was working on and after I told him he asked to see the drawings and as he looked at them he commented that he thought that it was best to have all new packs instead of the three 767 packs that I was trying to fit . He was genuinely interested and we had a very nice chat about the packs and how tough it was for Boeing to overcome Europe in the competition with " Eurobus" Well, I feel that we did both, put in two all new packs and beat " Eurobus".
Switches

 

I have nothing more to add to the conversation, but did want to say that I'm enjoying reading it....please do continue gentlemen
-David

 

This guy is an unusual human being and Boeing made a HUGE mistake to let him go. He would drop into meetings ( sometimes at 700 hours) unannounced and simply chat and to exhort and to praise everyone. Then he might pop up at a meeting somewhere at 1700 hours and do the same. I got several 777 good humor awards and in one was a personally hand written note from Mulally thanking me for my work. Tell me where that would happen in any other large corporation?
Jim, we must have worked very near each other on the 767 because I was just behind the Grumman guys who were designing the rear spar bulkhead. If I remember correctly that is at the rear of the 45 Section.
Switches

 

You are correct.
He has an engineering background and had a love for airplanes in general.
He also held great value in the PEOPLE that were making it happen.

He was instrumental in fostering the "Get it Right the First Time" culture during development of the 777.

The Company went way over budget in development but are being paid back in spades. Now that the 777 Heavy Freighter is in service, even more so.

 

The 777 program passed out copies of a card with about 21 program objectives on it. I was amazed to see the last one on the list: Have fun!

 

I'm curious about the use of composite technologies in these wings. Yes, they flex. A LOT. The picture must show 5-8' of flex travel at the wingtips. My curiosity is really about the a) fatigue and longevity of composites in this application and b) the inspection capabilities.

Airbus has been using composites for a while in the rear vertical stabilizer, correct? Yet, the vertical stabilizer seems to be the culprit in several serious incidents. Perhaps not the actual cause of the accident, but as a failed component that prevented recovery. Maybe I misstate the problem, but I'd welcome any thoughts.

CW

 

My knowledge of composites is limited but from what I have seen of the sample structures they are extremely strong for the weight. There are obvious issues about which to learn and an obvious shortfall in some engineering sub contractors. The vertical tail problems appear to be with the way they are attached to the 48 Section with a flange rather than running the loads through deep bulkheads and shear webs.
Switches