Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-26-2013, 01:48 AM   #1
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
The 787 vs. ignorance

I'm waiting (again) for a computer render so thought I'd take a shot at writing down something that's been nagging at me.

I’ve been thinking about the “FAA Grounds 787” thread and it’s been a very interesting demonstration of where the world is going these days. And it’s actually somewhat disheartening.

I’ve printed off a bunch of the comments from the 787 thread and shown them to some people I know on the program. Their reaction has been interesting and is what has gotten me thinking about the subject in a somewhat different light.

And that is, to put it in a nutshell, that ignorance has become the dominant influence on what happens these days. Not just with airplanes. But almost everything that is big, complicated, expensive, and not easy to do. Here locally we’ve had massive delays, bad decisions, and staggering cost over-runs on everything from new sewage treatment plants to bridges to tunnels to light rail systems. Ridiculous amounts of money are wasted and projects that used to take months to do drag on for years.

The aerospace industry is about solving problems. From Wilbur and Orville up through today, the whole endeavor is based on solving problems. Because when you want to first simply fly, and then fly faster, then higher and farther and carry more, and then fly quieter and pollute less you are confronted by a staggering array of problems. That, in my opinion, is the real definition of the jobs our engineers and assemblers do--- they solve problems.

Everybody whines about air fares. Probably everybody on TF who’s gloating about the 787 battery problem bitches about the cost to go visit Aunt Sally in Cleveland. They want to fly cheaper and cheaper. Competition has driven the airlines to cut costs to the bone to retain market share and half the time they still lose money. They, in turn, pass that demand to cut costs on to the manufacturers. They want planes that are cheaper to buy, and if that’s not possible they damn well want planes that are way cheaper to operate. So they can continue to entice you to take a flight when you want to visit Aunt Sally.

So what do the manufactures do? What they’ve always done, because this pressure from our customers to cut operating costs is nothing new. We design planes to be more efficient and less costly to own and operate.

Efficiency takes a lot of forms. It’s not just weight or how much fuel the engines burn. It’s how well the plane makes use of everything--- materials, wiring, computers, electricity, water. It’s how much bang for the buck the airline can get out of its flight crews, how efficiently they can do their jobs. It’s how quickly the plane can troubleshoot itself and tell the mechanics exactly what to do, and how fast the mechanics can do it and get the plane back in the air. Because a plane only makes money when it's in the air.

And accomplishing every one of these things means problems to overcome. More and more of them, in fact, as we continue to eke out an increased return on every drop of fuel burned and every hour a pilot or mechanic is on the job.

Electricity is playing a huge role in helping solve these problems. Window shades add weight, and worse, they add maintenance time and cost because they stick, jam, and break. So we’ve eliminated the window shades on the 787 by using dimming window technology. No shades, no weight, and most important, no more fixing them. That’s just one teeny tiny example of how electricity is helping to meet the continuing demand of our customers for lighter, cheaper, more efficient.

Batteries are a must in an airplane and always have been. They have been used forever to provide emergency power for the flight deck displays and other critical components in the event of a total loss of power from the engines. They are also needed to start the auxilliary power unit, which on a B29 was a Briggs and Stratton gasoline generator and on the modern commercial transport is a little jet engine.

As the demand for battery power grew, so did the batteries or the number of them. And anyone who has hauled an 8D or whatever out of the engine room of their boat knows batteries ain’t light.

Turbofan engines used to be air started. Plug in a ground cart to provide air, get one engine going, it provides air to start the rest of the engines. The engines also provided air to run the air conditioning , heating, and pressurization systems. But bleeding air from the engine means there’s that much less power generating thrust. So one of the goals on the 787 was to eliminate the whole bleed air thing. More major problems to solve, but the engineers did it.

But engines still have to be started and the cabin still needs to be pressurized. They are, using electricity now, instead of that power-robbing bleed air that made it even more expensive for the airlines to carry you to see Aunt Sally in Cleveland.

Which means------ better batteries. Batteries that are a hell of a lot more powerful. But loading the plane up with NiCads or whatever was used before wouldn’t work because it would defeat a lot of what the engineers were trying to accomplish with the plane to meet our customers' demands for lighter, cheaper, more efficient. They needed a huge amount of battery power with no weight gain and preferably a weight loss, and not batteries that would build up a “memory” or do the other things that older types of batteries do.

So another problem to solve. And the solution seemed pretty obvious. Lithium batteries, for all the reasons that lithium batteries have become the norm in everything from mobile phones to portable drills to our video camera batteries. They are such an advantage over the older kinds of batteries it’s not even worth making a comparison. But….. as we all know now…. lithium battery technology is not quite where we thought it was.

And here is where the ignorance comes in.

In the aerospace world, this is just another problem to be figured out and solved. The airframe and engine manufacturers have faced far, far more challenging and difficult problems in the past. Wings that didn’t work right, engines that didn’t work right, window frames that didn’t work right in the case of the Comet, tails that came off, engines that burst into flame for “no reason” in the case of the B-29, and on and on and on. And every time, the engineers figured out what was happening and then figured out how to make it not happen again. That’s what aerospace engineers do.

But today, they are hampered by a much bigger problem than things like batteries and exploding engines. They are hampered by ignorance on the part of the media, and subsequently the public, which clamors for instant fixes (same as they clamor for instant gratification in everything else they do). On this forum alone there are people like Sunchaser who gloat at the specter of Boeing failing and FF who lives in an aviation world that ceased to exist decades ago. They, like pretty much most of the public, cannot even conceive of what it’s like to create a new airplane like the 787. And to be fair because this ignorance is an equal-opportunity pain in the ass, the A350. Nevertheless, they glom onto stuff they see in the media, written or broadcast for the most part by people equally ignorant, and in their blatherings they simply reinforce the ignorance.

But as ignorant as they are, these are the voices that tend to sway everything from public opinion to government response. The government, of course, is made up of people who are equally clueless on these subjects, be it aviation or tunnel boring or laying railroad track. So since they know no better, they simply go along with the ignorance and act on it.

Which is why, I believe, nothing gets done anymore with any degree of efficiency and cost effectiveness. We’re reached the point where the ignorant are calling the shots.

I don’t say any of this because I don’t think the 787 should have been grounded. The battery issue is serious---- there is nobody at Boeing who doesn’t think so---- and a solution needs to be found. The new president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Ray Conner who started his career working on the flightline, cancelled the big annual senior leadership meeting last week 15 minutes in and sent everyone back to work to figure out the battery solution.

But the pressure is still on us from our customers to find a solution that will help them compete and knock a buck or two off your ticket price to go visit Aunt Sally. That reality never changes.

And it’s what our engineers do. They solve problems and this is just another one. There will be more, and there will be bigger ones. Maybe on this plane, maybe on the next one. Or maybe even on an earlier one. But they take them on as they come up.

The sad thing is that fewer and fewer people understand this which in turn makes it more and more difficult to solve problems because the bozos keep getting in the way.
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:37 AM   #2
Guru
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Vessel Name: Anastasia III
Vessel Model: Krogen 42
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,716
Of course. Everybody is ignorant and irrelevant except you, Marin. Or maybe it IS you that's the problem. Anyway, the fleet is still grounded. Fact.
__________________

Keith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:56 AM   #3
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,670
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Never-the-less, Marin makes some apt points. Personally I have said for quite some time that between them, low cost airlines and al-Qaeda have ruined the sheer pleasure of air travel.
The cut price brigade, because of the reduced standard of service, poor food or no food, plastic cutlery, loss of the 'sense of occasion' etc, and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc inflicted a whole lot of other occasion-sapping, cost escalating, time-wasting, security stuff. The ultimate irony being it does a lot to slow the whole process down with little really added security, but huge added costs. Add the rocketing cost of fuel, and it is against this punishingly expensive background the airlines and aircraft manufacturers have to still try to make a profit. I wonder that any do, really. Personally I'd rather pay more and go back to air travel being some how a bit 'special', and perhaps a few less servicing short-cuts, (which we know happens, especially with certain cut-price operators), but that's maybe just me.

By the way, is it true that just after we've all gone down the controversial pathway of installing and having to walk through whole body Xray body-scanners, the US has just outlawed them...?
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:33 AM   #4
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Don't know if B&S engines were ever used to power the APU on the B-29 (they may have built a drive engine under license from another supplier) but the airplane used a couple of fascinating versions of the unit.

That is a whole 'nuther story of its own.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:00 AM   #5
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,534
An interesting question is the "law of unintended consequences".

Since a big engineering firm like Boeing is having a hard time with LI batteries , how long will it be that the crowd lines up to claim the value of their Government Motors DOLT has been reduced? , Pay Me!

Even tho the silicon implants was a bogus health issue '
the Toyota "acceleration problem never existed ,
the liars fore hire came out by the bushel basket , and got paid!,

Yes, Martin it was long ago but the Caravelle WAS an electric start ,not bleed air aircraft, "back to the future"?

And as they used bleed air , they set up the aircraft to be LEGAL in Severe Icing, one of the few ever done in the world, Any Boeings OK with Severe Icing , 40 years later?

The reason no APU was installed was the French had a captive market in much of Africa , and with an APU the air conditioned aircraft at night would become a cat house/ gamboling hall for the locals.

In an effort to "win life's lottery" it will be interesting to observe the LI law suits that come out of the sewer .
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 09:04 AM   #6
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Never-the-less, Marin makes some apt points. Personally I have said for quite some time that between them, low cost airlines and al-Qaeda have ruined the sheer pleasure of air travel.
The cut price brigade, because of the reduced standard of service, poor food or no food, plastic cutlery, loss of the 'sense of occasion' etc, and al-Qaeda and 9/11, etc inflicted a whole lot of other occasion-sapping, cost escalating, time-wasting, security stuff. The ultimate irony being it does a lot to slow the whole process down with little really added security, but huge added costs. Add the rocketing cost of fuel, and it is against this punishingly expensive background the airlines and aircraft manufacturers have to still try to make a profit. I wonder that any do, really. Personally I'd rather pay more and go back to air travel being some how a bit 'special', and perhaps a few less servicing short-cuts, (which we know happens, especially with certain cut-price operators), but that's maybe just me.

By the way, is it true that just after we've all gone down the controversial pathway of installing and having to walk through whole body Xray body-scanners, the US has just outlawed them...?
Peter,

I think the real problem is with the way airline's try an fleece the public with their pricing. There has to be a better way that is equitable for both the traveler, business person and the airline. How would this work for folks? The meat in a super market is priced at say $8.95 a pound for rib steak. But the price labels are capable of being changed by electronics at any time. So we walk in together and you go to laundry detergent isle and I go directly to the meat isle. I pick up four of these steaks for $8.95 a lb. Put them in my cart just as you come to the meat counter. Now because the meat department is down to their last six steaks they raise the price to $21.95 a lb. But if you will pay for the steaks today you can pick them up on Monday for $9.50 or on Thursday of next week for $6.95. This is a bit crude but that is about what happens.

I'll give you an example in real airfare. Several weeks ago I had a friend pass away in Northeast OH. The plans for a "Celebration of Life" event were emailed to me. I went on line to buy a ticket from Raleigh NC to either Cleveland OH or Pittsburgh PA because either would work as the final destination was right between the two. $750 for coach. Yet if I looked at a ticket three weeks out or more it was $250. This is nonsense. The airlines say it is so they can plan the flights. Really the same airplane flies the same route every day, today , tomorrow, next week and next month. It goes if it is full or empty. Why not have $350 or $400 as the price everyday, hell even $450 or $500 but the same price.

I remember flying for business back in the 70's here in the US. Air travel was more expensive. But the good thing was that if you had a ticket from point x to y on Eastern Airlines it was good on any airlines if they had the room to put you on their flight. Late to the airport if by air or train or walking it made no difference that you missed your flight on Eastern. National was willing to take your ticket and they collected their money from Eastern as Eastern did when they flew a National customer. Try this today. You play hell getting the company that booked the original ticket giving you a seat unless you are Platinum or such in their travel program.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:08 AM   #7
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
.........to put it in a nutshell, that ignorance has become the dominant influence on what happens these days.

In the aerospace world, this is just another problem to be figured out and solved. That’s what aerospace engineers do.


But today, they are hampered by a much bigger problem than things like batteries and exploding engines. They are hampered by ignorance on the part of the media, and subsequently the public,


We’re reached the point where the ignorant are calling the shots.


The sad thing is that fewer and fewer people understand this which in turn makes it more and more difficult to solve problems because the bozos keep getting in the way.
Where to start..........

This (ignorance) is prevalent everywhere! It's even morphed into "perception" which the masses accept as reality! Look around you...Almost everything you come in contact with today is riddled with incompetence or ignorance. (Too many areas to list here.)

Boeing will solve this latest problem and as I posted in an earlier thread, the "Dreamliner" will be hailed as one of the most revolutionary planes ever built.
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:34 AM   #8
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaHorse II View Post
Where to start..........

This (ignorance) is prevalent everywhere! It's even morphed into "perception" which the masses accept as reality! Look around you...Almost everything you come in contact with today is riddled with incompetence or ignorance. (Too many areas to list here.)

Boeing will solve this latest problem and as I posted in an earlier thread, the "Dreamliner" will be hailed as one of the most revolutionary planes ever built.
As they say "this too will pass".

Where is Pogo when we need him? "we have met the enemy and he is us"

I only wish I could exalt myself above the rest as some seem to do.

Maybe in another life.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:38 AM   #9
Guru
 
Codger2's Avatar
 
City: San Diego
Country: US
Vessel Name: "Sandpiper"
Vessel Model: 2006 42' Ocean Alexander Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post

I only wish I could exalt myself above the rest as some seem to have.

Maybe in another life.
It's tough being up here !
__________________
Codger2

My passion for improving my boat(s) exceeds my desire to constantly cruise them.
Codger2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:21 AM   #10
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
). On this forum alone there are people like Sunchaser who gloat at the specter of Boeing failing .
Marin , good points except

No Marin, I'm not gloating. Just as you refer to me as ignorant, I could refer to you as arrogant and living is a siege mentality. Having dealt with world governments and regulators I found long ago that arrogance leads to problems in gaining approvals and advancing solutions. I'm confident that Boeing puts non-arrogant problem and issue solvers on the front lines when dealing with the world's regulatory bodies to get approvals for the required 787 Li and circuit fixes.

The 787 has been a huge financial failure. even Boeing says this. Boeing runs a business to make earnings and provide good returns to share holders. Boeing's past CEOs and Directors have made statements not flattering to Boeing's past and present Jack Welch mentality. As an investor I and others read these things with some concern.

As a frequent flier I want nothing more than Boeing's 787 to succeed. Boeing's travails with the 787 have been well documented with careers made and lost. But to accuse me of gloaitng as opposed to kicking the guy who willingly put a bullseye on his back, well that is why we are on the OTDE.

One last comment, McNerney's low visiblity over the 787 travails has been news fodder for some time. Connor is bright and capable but nothing beats the heart of investors like a hands on smart Chairman.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 01:19 PM   #11
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 734
It only took a few bad rivets to sink the Titanic!!!
Chrisjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:53 PM   #12
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Of course. Everybody is ignorant and irrelevant except you, Marin. Or maybe it IS you that's the problem. Anyway, the fleet is still grounded. Fact.
It's always nice when someone proves my point for me. Thanks.

BTW, I thought you had me on your Do Not Read list. Since Walt is back I've been trying to write better. Had I known you were reading my stuff again I would have put more of a "See Spot Run" tone to it so as not to baffle you as much. My sincerest apologies and I'll try to make it easier for you in the future.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:00 PM   #13
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickB View Post
Don't know if B&S engines were ever used to power the APU on the B-29 (they may have built a drive engine under license from another supplier) but the airplane used a couple of fascinating versions of the unit.

That is a whole 'nuther story of its own.

The only direct experience I've had with a B-29 was when I flew and filmed on board Fifi extensively in the early 90s for a half-hour documentary I produced on the history of the B-29. There was a gasoline-powered APU in the rear compartment of the plane that was started prior to engine start and also prior to landing. At one point I asked the crew chief who made the APU and he said, "Briggs and Stratton." But I never examined it closely to see what it actually was. It may well have been something else. And it may not even have been original to the plane, whoever made it.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:43 PM   #14
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD View Post
But the good thing was that if you had a ticket from point x to y on Eastern Airlines it was good on any airlines if they had the room to put you on their flight. Late to the airport if by air or train or walking it made no difference that you missed your flight on Eastern. National was willing to take your ticket and they collected their money from Eastern as Eastern did when they flew a National customer. Try this today.
That's the difference between an industry that was regulated and that same industry after it's been de-regulated. The deregulation act went into effect in 1978.

While not the only reason, regulation is one of the main things that doomed Hawaii's short-lived inter-island hydrofoil service, SeaFight, to failure. Because it was an interisland service, their fares had to be pretty much the same as what Aloha and Hawaiian airlines charged. But instead of 20 minutes, a SeaFlight "flight" took upwards of a couple of hours. And it was not always a very pleasant ride out in the open ocean. So after the novelty factor wore off, most people went back to riding the planes since the cost was very similar.

Your ticket in the 1970s was good on any airline because the government said it had to be. As I understand it, the government set the price such that it would cover the airline's cost of providing the seat to San Francisco or wherever plus make a "reasonable" profit, however that was defined back then.

Your description of the constantly fluid prices of tickets today is very good and it's certainly very frustrating. But it's what happens when airlines are given free rein to compete with each other.

In essence, it seems to me that they treat every single flight as a totally separate product. Just as in your description of your purchase of a package of meat as compared to the next fellow's. And the price for that particular product is set according to what the market will bear at that moment.

So the Emirates non-stop from Seattle to Dubai on Saturday is priced at whatever the airline feels it should be given the anticipated passenger and cargo load. But the Monday Seattle to Dubai flight is a whole different deal because the passenger load may be anticipated to be lower or there may be a spike in revenue cargo on Mondays, or who knows. So it may be priced totally differently than the Saturday flight. And the computerization and automation of the whole process makes it incredibly easy to have this level of total flexibility.

The only way to go back to what you experienced in the 1970s is to go back to regulation. Is that a good idea or not?
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:39 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Datenight's Avatar
 
City: Noank, CT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Datenight
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 415
Right on Marin.

Rob
__________________
North Pacific 39
Datenight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:22 AM   #16
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
The 787 has been a huge financial failure. even Boeing says this. Boeing runs a business to make earnings and provide good returns to share holders.
Not at all. The 787 has made in-roads to other areas that only Boeing has certified. Composites (wing, barrel, empennage), electric brakes, HUDs in the cockpit, paperless cockpit, advanced EFB, servo actuated fly-by-wire, 6,000 feet cabin pressurization, anti-turbulence controls, multi-model training efficiencies, high efficiency engines, fuel and cargo compartment inerting, oxygen enriching ECS, larger windows, LCD window shades, etc. All of this is now proven technology that only Boeing can use (on many programs). Wait until you see the 777-X and 737Max

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Connor is bright and capable ....
You're right there. I meet with Ray Conner several a year. He's a great guy & very bright (an Engineer at heart).
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 01:00 PM   #17
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Not to mention the scallops or chevrons on the aft end of the engine cowl that act on their own at high power settings to reduce noise and then move on their own with no actuators required to reduce drag at cruise power at altitude. This is a Boeing-designed and Boeing-patented device.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:23 PM   #18
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Yep... completely passive noise damping.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 03:12 PM   #19
JD
Guru
 
JD's Avatar
 
City: New Bern NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stella Di Mare
Vessel Model: Mainship 34t
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
In essence, it seems to me that they treat every single flight as a totally separate product. Just as in your description of your purchase of a package of meat as compared to the next fellow's. And the price for that particular product is set according to what the market will bear at that moment.

So the Emirates non-stop from Seattle to Dubai on Saturday is priced at whatever the airline feels it should be given the anticipated passenger and cargo load. But the Monday Seattle to Dubai flight is a whole different deal because the passenger load may be anticipated to be lower or there may be a spike in revenue cargo on Mondays, or who knows. So it may be priced totally differently than the Saturday flight. And the computerization and automation of the whole process makes it incredibly easy to have this level of total flexibility.
I don't quite see it as you describe it. They don't treat every flight as a different flight based on day, time and such. They treat each seat as a separate flight. That's way different.
__________________
Vinny

M/V Stella Di Mare
New Bern NC
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 06:24 AM   #20
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Not to mention the scallops or chevrons on the aft end of the engine cowl that act on their own at high power settings to reduce noise and then move on their own with no actuators required to reduce drag at cruise power at altitude. This is a Boeing-designed and Boeing-patented device.

Are you saying that the SMA actuated chevrons are currently installed and flying (were flying) in the production 787?

If they are, it is a remarkably well kept secret.

You really ought to give NASA and the taxpayers some of the credit for that technology and that application.

Google keywords: NASA SMA variable geometry chevrons for a few links. In the meantime, here is a link to a layman's readable version of the state of the art:

Morphing Aircraft (and Other Cool Transformers) | Science in Society
__________________

RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012