Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2010, 01:38 PM   #21
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Boeing 787

Quote:
Marin wrote:You're right. I'm wrong, you two know FAR more about this industry and this company than I do. My bad.* You win.
Should we add a "passive agressive button" to the selection as well. I don't think either of us posted anything that wasn't a direct quote from a Boeing executive or some other generally respected industry source or analyst.

Just because something doesn't come from a Boeing press release doesn't mean it is not valid. There are plenty of guys who work closer than you to the line or suppliers who contribute to blogs and tell stories just like you do. Why should we feel that everything you say is gospel but everything anyone else says is "suspect" at best? Is the WSJ, Av Week, or Flight just making up stuff because it annoys you or puts your company in a bad light?

The information Boeing released to the PI came out while you still claimed no one knew anything or had told you anything. Pictures showing the location of the power panel were posted online hours after the incident and while Boeing and you were still trying to float the idea that maybe the fire was in a flight test rack. H'mmmm is there a pattern developing here?

The fact that you admit there are many people in Seattle who believe Boeing left town to avoid having to look its neighbors in the eye confirms my statement that many people believe that is the reason, even Boeing's own employees.

So what's the beef?


-- Edited by RickB on Friday 12th of November 2010 02:39:12 PM
__________________
Advertisement

RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:39 PM   #22
Guru
 
skipperdude's Avatar
 
City: Whittier AK
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Apache II
Vessel Model: 1974 Donald Jones
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,147
Boeing 787

Marin,

Whisky and fresh horses for my men.

People only know what they know or were led to believe.

There is always a kink in the line that somebody has to straighten out.


SD



-- Edited by skipperdude on Friday 12th of November 2010 02:41:17 PM
__________________

skipperdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 01:59 PM   #23
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Boeing 787

Tom wrote--" McNerney was an "internal hire" from the Boeing Board whre he had served from 2001 to 2005 before being nominated as CEO. So you are right, he was not hired back, he was hired internally and from the outside"

I will respond to this here, but I suggest that if we want to continue this discussion that we move it to OTDE before John Baker puts a note in our permanent records that we have been breaking TrawlerForum posting rules.

Jim McNerney was named to the Boeing board of directors as you say. When the board finally decided to "retire" Phil Condit their first choice for CEO was Jim. However he had just accepted the CEO position at 3M and he felt that he owed that company at least a period of service. That was when we hired Stonecipher out of retirement. (We'd inherited Stonecipher when we merged with McDonnell-Douglas). When he "retired" again, at that point the board was able to persuade Jim to leave 3M and take over the CEO position at Boeing.

The 787 has been a learning experience for the whole industry, I think. The pessimistic view is that Boeing screwed up big time and has tarnished its reputation. A more optimistic view, perhaps, is that this industry, like every industry, has to continuously advance which it does by trying new things. Some things work and some don't. The 787 program tried something very ambitious that didn't work out so well. There are a zillion reasons why the risk-sharing concept hasn't worked out as planned, from some fundamentally flawed reasons for doing it in the first place to poor performance from suppliers and risk-sharing partners who had promised better.* But, as I mentioned before, if the company and the industry has learned a big lesson about how not to do something, it could result in a stronger company and industry down the road.

My own theory, based on a lot of things, is that there has been far too much focus put on the process and not enough put on the product.* I believe this is the fundamental problem behind almost almost everything undertaken today and is why projects from light rail systems to new sewage treatmant plants to new airplanes get bogged down in technical problems, schedule problems, quality problems, and massive cost over-runs.

You have to have processes to get anything done, be it design and build a boat to designing and building an airliner.* But on the 777 program, for example, the focus never strayed from the product.* If a problem couldn't be solved with the processes in place, the processes were changed, or if time was of the essence, the processes were abandonned altogether and the engineers, flight test people, or whoever, simply focused on finding and fixing the problem.* Today, I think too much effort and time is spent trying to use the approved, cast-in-stone process to solve a problem, even if the process isn't really matched to the problem.

I would be curious to know if you have found anything like this to be the case in your own industry? (If you respond, put it in OTDE.)

All I know about the Airbus electrical issue is probably the same information you have read.* What I read is that there have been instances of the primary flight display shutting off without warning.* Not a good thing to have happen on approach in dicey weather conditions. Of course, the flight displays, control computers, etc. are not made by the airframe manufacturers.* In many cases Boeing and Airbus use components from the same supplier.* I have not heard that similar problems have occurred on Boeing planes, but I'm sure we have people who are very, very interested in what comes out of all this.



-- Edited by Marin on Friday 12th of November 2010 03:46:00 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:34 PM   #24
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Boeing 787

Quote:
RickB wrote:
So what's the beef?
The beef is that most of what you say with regards to the air transportation industry and Boeing in particular--- not what you quote from what you've read, but the implications or interpretations you put on what you've read-- is wrong.

I'm not going to argue with you or cite specific examples because I have today off and I want to spend it doing something other than dueling with you because that--- as most participants in this forum have learned-- is a no-win proposition regardless of the subject.

Your response wil be that since I don't cite specifics and quotes from previous posts and whatnot that I'm taking the easy way out and not actually proving you're wrong most of the time on this subject, and you'll be absolutely correct.* I takes too much effort and too much time and in the end is totally pointless.* The fact that you're wrong most of the time is irrelevant.* It doesn't matter what you believe about this industry and my company--- you have no effect on either one.* The thought that other people are being misled is annoying to me, however, and is the only reason I bother to respond to your posts on this subject.* If it didn't bug me to see people misled, we would all be spared these "discussions."* I should probably work on that.

You're a very smart, well read, globally-aware person.* You know a lot of stuff, no question.* But when it comes to the air transportation industry, specifically the airframe manufacturing industry, outside of what you read you don't know much at all.*

Now I certainly don't know it all, either.* The head of flight test is not calling me up the moment there's a problem and explaining it to me.* So on a lot of things, the 787 fire for example, I'm getting my information from the same sources everyone else is--- the local paper, a explantion on our internal newspaper, the radio news, and so on. Tom asked what I knew about the fire and I told him what I had read at that time.* What I had read contained speculation on the possibility it had been in a test rack.* I am not monitoring every news release or internet story as they come out, so when new information came out, I wasn't aware of it. I didn't learn more about the fire until I read the story in the on-line Seattle Times late last night that I copied and posted to OTDE.* The fact you see all this as some sort of Boeing conspiracy is one more indication of how little you know about this company.

So blast away in your defence. Reading what you write here about the airframe manufacturing industry is like reading what I would write if I chose to express opinons and convey information about the yacht management industry.* It would be mostly wrong.


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 12th of November 2010 03:41:56 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:41 PM   #25
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Boeing 787

No need for me to blast away, I'm not the one with his knickers in a twist claiming everyone* else is ignorant or wrong.


Like I repeatedly wrote in the thread that got you all bothered and started your rant that I don't know anything about the aviation business, let's just wait a few months (maybe much longer judging by the way things are going) for the 787 to generate its own figures on how much fuel its bleedless system saves. Then we will see if Boeing marketing claims* match the* physics.

I could be wrong but I don't take it personally enough to write an encyclopedia on why I am or not.

*Except for one guy when it comes to marine engines but that's another story and it is more amusing than anything else.

-- Edited by RickB on Friday 12th of November 2010 03:43:23 PM
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 02:48 PM   #26
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Boeing 787

Quote:
RickB wrote:

I could be wrong but I don't take it personally enough....
Now THAT is truly funny.* You made my day, thank you.

As to the marine engine bit, I suspect that illustrates that we share the same desire to see correct information posted about a subject that we truly do know about.* For you it's marine engines, or perhaps all engines.* For me, it's the airframe and air transportation industry.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Friday 12th of November 2010 03:53:21 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 03:03 PM   #27
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
RE: Boeing 787

Quote:
Marin wrote:Now THAT is truly funny.* You made my day, thank you.

For you it's marine engines, or perhaps all engines.* For me, it's the airframe and air transportation industry.
Glad to make your day, especially as it's supposed to be a day off, as is mine since I fly (Boeing) to Holland early in the morning.

By all means stick to airframes and manufacturing. I will stick to engines and make comments about how the physics just don't add up when Boeing claims to save fuel by pushing more air at higher pressure through an electrically driven pump than through the bleeds.

We should know for sure shortly, or maybe next year this time, or not.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 03:11 PM   #28
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Boeing 787

It will also be interesting to see how things unfold for Rolls Royce. I read--- I wasn't told--- that one of the things Rolls did on their newer generation engines in the attempt to reduce weight was eliminate the Kevlar shield that surrounded the engine core. This Kevlar shield is part of the containment system on earlier engines. Instead they are using a titanium surround to accomplish this, but what I don't know is if this titanium surround is part of the case for the engine core itself so would be there anyway, or if it is a substitute for the Kevlar shield. In any event, they perhaps should have retained the Kevlar.

I don't know how GE engines handle containment in comparison.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 03:23 PM   #29
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Boeing 787

It will be very interesting to see how this washes out. There have been questions about the IP shaft spline for a long time and that is still suspect from what I have read. Also, they don't know if the fire came from an oil leak and that heated up the casing to the point blade tip rubbing took out the wheel or exactly what the sequence was. It has the potential to do a huge amount of damage to RR though.

There is so much speculation that I don't think we will know anything for a long time other than the operators screaming bloody murder, RR claiming regulators are being too fussy, and other engine makers claiming there is no way their engines could ever do that.

Re the kevlar, I thought that containment of a wheel was considered impossible if not impractical and (here's your airframe domain) certification of the engine on the airframe was based on no damage to the airframe or other engine due to an uncontained compressor or turbine failure.??

It's great geek fodder in an event.

-- Edited by RickB on Friday 12th of November 2010 04:27:56 PM
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 06:41 PM   #30
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Boeing 787

I don't know if 100% containment of blades is a requirement, but a certain degree of containment strength is. I suppose it's impossible to guarantee 100% containment since things can fail in so many ways. But I'm pretty sure from tests we've seen from the engine manufacturers that the containment of blade separation under "normal" failure modes--- however one defines that--- is a certification requirement.

Guaranteeing no damage to the airframe from a blade departing the engine would be extremely difficult, and would require literally armor-plating the fuselage in the areas where blade penetration could occur. From everything I have seen and worked with from the engine manufacturers, the objective is to retain any pieces that come off within the engine case itself. I have worked with slow-motion footage from GE showing how blades that break or separate do not break through the engine casing.* They severely damage it in some cases, but the case is not penetrated.

As I said earlier, I received an e-mail from someone at work who was sent an initial damage report to the A380 by someone in a position to have it. It is pretty amazing what was done to the plane--- the airframe and systems themselves--- by the blade separation. One thing that received some press was the fact that the #1 engine, the engine outboard of the engine that failed, could not be shut off once the plane was on the ground. What I did not know until I read the damage report was they first tried to shut it off using the fire suppression system for that engine. It did nothing. This meant that for the duration of the flight after the engine failure in #2, the #1 engine had no fire protection at all. The only way they were able to shut the engine off was to spray foam into it with a fire truck. There were photos of this in the press.

-- Edited by Marin on Friday 12th of November 2010 07:43:13 PM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 07:40 PM   #31
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
RE: Boeing 787

From the reports I've read it wasn't just the blades that blew out, it was the disk that failed, one report said "... it just wasn't there anymore" and they are still looking for it on some island.

My understanding is that fan blades can be contained, compressor blades evidently don't go anywhere but the next stage ad destructum but compressor wheels will break into large heavey pieces a la Sioux City and cause no end of grief.

The damage done to the 380 was evidently far more than anyone wanted to admit could be possible.

RR of course says that there is no component similarity between the 900 and the 1000 but there are stories about the splines on the 1000 as well. There still isn't any public information about the cause or extent of the 1000 uncontained failure so we skeptics have plenty of fodder.

Just for conversation, the marine version of the GE CF-6, the LM2500 just turned 41 years old with the high time engine at over 16000 hours. Thats not too shabby for an engine running in salt air. Of course the aero version has gone over 35000 on the wing in about a quarter of that time. Pretty amazing machines.
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 07:47 PM   #32
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
RE: Boeing 787

Quote:
RickB wrote:

There still isn't any public information about the cause or extent of the 1000 uncontained failure...
Initial media reports we read here said it caused considerable damage to the inside of the test facility itself.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2010, 09:58 PM   #33
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Boeing 787

I read (but not on the internet!!) that some 787s will have RR engines. True? If so, how do they differ in design from those on the Qantas 380?


-- Edited by sunchaser on Friday 12th of November 2010 11:01:45 PM
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 01:18 AM   #34
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Boeing 787

Right now about a third of the 787s on order have been specified to have RR engines. A bit more than a third have specified GE engines and the rest have not made an engine selection yet. The first 787s to fly have RR engines, the GE equipped planes started flying more recently. There are differences between the Trent 900 and Trent 1000 but they share some common design elements including the basic design of the IPT (intermediate pressure turbine) section of the engine. The focus of attention on the Trent 900 and 1000 failures has so far been on the engine's oil system.

RR claims that the Trent 1000 engine that had a failure of IPT on the test stand had been fitted with an oil system that was unique to that particular engine and did not reflect on the Trent 1000 engines currently flying on the 787 flight test fleet.

A feature of the 787 is that the planes can be fitted with either RR or GE engines, and that the engine types can be changed at any point in the life of the plane. As opposed to prior jetliner modesl which have to be specified with a particular engine and it will have that type of engine for its entire service life.

-- Edited by Marin on Saturday 13th of November 2010 02:19:45 AM
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2010, 11:42 AM   #35
TF Site Team
 
Baker's Avatar
 
City: League City, Tx
Country: Texas
Vessel Model: Carver 356
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,631
RE: Boeing 787

I leave the country for a coupla days and this....hahaha. Anyway, this should have been started in OTDE and that is where it is going.

PS...Y'all have opinions about this rig, but my ass will be in the seat....lol
Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2010, 06:01 AM   #36
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
RE: Boeing 787

"The damage done to the 380 was evidently far more than anyone wanted to admit could be possible.



Air Bust is just starting to fly the Military 400 turbo prop.

Cant wait to see what fails on these decade late beauties.

Air Bust is better than SOAP!
__________________

FF 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bill Boeing's boat Marin Cruising and Events - West Coast 26 06-20-2012 11:56 PM
787 Marin Harbor Chat 0 11-11-2010 08:42 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 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