Another one bites the dust (787)

[MH]

The new electric system and e-philosophy is the very heart and core of the 787, and if there is a fault with that, they can practically scarp the whole plane, because you cannot just rip it out and replace it with another one.

What is this judgment based on?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

What is this judgment based on?

Repeated, multiple, many feedback from experts as quoted in media over the past years. No other jet has pushed the electrification that far,m mas the 787 did. The fuel efficiency of the 787 also bases much on weight reduction, and that weight reduction again has to do with the electrification of the plane (replacing mechanical and hydraulic systems). This is the reason why the plane has so high an electric hunger, and why it must carry so many batteries - and this is also the reason why the batteries were accepted by Boeing during construction although one knew from start on that they are not ideal for the task - there simply was no better replacement available.

The electrical system is being quoted by many as the nervous core around which the airframe, the general plane design, new materials and all that have been arranged, to cover that core with a plane. Ripping the electrical system out to replace it with something different, a mix of more hydraulic and mechanical system again, scraps the whole design, from the very first idea for it on. I mean you can do that: but you give up everything what the the 787's conception was about and made it actually the 787. In the end, you get a new plane: for higher costs and more delays, with more angry customers and compromised economic arguments, and a tremendous image loss (which already is suffering).

Good for Airbus.

Airplane makers maybe need to do like the Russians did with their tanks: going back to what is proven and reliable, tested and trustworthy. There was a time when many thought that tanks would need to have gas turbines, the Americans built them for their M1s, and so did the Russians for the T-80. But Germans and Brits and French and Israelis did not only not follow, but the Russians abandoned the concept again. The Russian tank conceptions formed after the T-80, are Diesel engined again, and so is the latest T-90 as well. - And that is a harmless comparison. The gas turbine at least did work and does work, it is logistic and maintenance and cost arguments making almost everybody desinterested in gas turbines in tanks. The electrical concept in the 787 obviously just does not work reliably, with major components being critically at risk, and a key component - batteries - simply being inadequate for the task even after the latest encapsuling. The plane is still young, but a quick Google search showed me 14 incidents in the time between July 2012 and January 2013 alone. The biggest share of that incident pie is related to the electrical system. And before that time, already two or three 787 - this I tell by memory now - had fires aboard due to the electric system and batteries failing.

Sorry. I would not fly with that plane.

Boeing seems to have outsourced quite some things from their internal production. Amongst that: the batteries. I bet they are cursing at that cost-reduction of theirs now. Would be interesting to learn whether Boeing reverses that policy in the forseeable future.

[Oberon]

I imagine this will work well for the 797 though when it comes around, things that they learn through (constantly) repairing and altering the 787 will carry over into the next designs.
The Comet was a ground-breaker when it came into service, the first production jetliner, and look at how many of them fell apart in service, but they paved the way for the other jetliners that followed with better and safer designs.

[MH]

...But following your logic we would still have T-34s and DC-3s .

When it comes to computers MS Dos is the best operating system considering the usual whining every time new OS comes out....

Some ideas are better than other in hindsight but what will become of 787 is yet to be seen.
I'm sure the best of minds(not prophets) are working on solutions to this issue so it is early for passing judgments here.
I agree though that it may be fun sometimes.

Boening had issues with some earlier planes as did Aerobus , at the end it all came together.

[HundertzehnGustav]

after a few hundred people had payd the price for the errors commited by others.

;-)

Plane not bad! looking sharp there in fact.
needs more testing!

[MH]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

after a few hundred people had payd the price for the errors commited by others.
!

True.
Also pay attention , things got much better compared to 60s and 70s in the way the planes are designed and put into service.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by MH

...But following your logic we would still have T-34s and DC-3s . .

Pah, i'd prefer a flight with a DC3 anytime, to any modern jetliner
And my car at least sounds like a T34

And regarding over-electrification, the Airbus is as bad as the 787. The accident happening to the 777 recently was based on an automated thrust landing, especially the far eastern airlines try to automate everything. The Airbus also has that of course, and had its own share of problems with it.

When it comes to my personal preferences, i would take an older hydraulic-controlled and well-maintained Boeing from the 1980ies, with a russian pilot. I take it this combination would have the highest survival rate

[HundertzehnGustav]

okay...?!! why a russian pilot?

[MH]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

okay...?!! why a russian pilot?

Hydraulics ....

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I imagine this will work well for the 797 though when it comes around, things that they learn through (constantly) repairing and altering the 787 will carry over into the next designs.
The Comet was a ground-breaker when it came into service, the first production jetliner, and look at how many of them fell apart in service, but they paved the way for the other jetliners that followed with better and safer designs.

That might be true but I refuse to play guinea pig in an aircraft that still seems to have some problems. I actually don't care whether an airliner crash will improve future designs when I was aboard that airliner and I'm definitely not willing to pay a price in human lives for the next step in technological evolution when this is not necessary! We do have safe air planes. No need for gambling with lives!

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

That might be true but I refuse to play guinea pig in an aircraft that still seems to have some problems. I actually don't care whether an airliner crash will improve future designs when I was aboard that airliner and I'm definitely not willing to pay a price in human lives for the next step in technological evolution when this is not necessary! We do have safe air planes. No need for gambling with lives!

Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.

[soopaman2]

Can I blame Boeing itself for moving out of Washington state, in favor of cheaper non union in Southern Mexifornia?

Cheaper is always better!

God bless the job creators *salutes the flag*

Hey at least they aren't Airbus! (Not yet)

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Alas, progress always has a cost somewhere...but progress we must.

Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.

[MH]

Although the number of accidents per flight has been decreasing with time, the number of fatalities per year has been variable, without dropping.
Evolution of the number of accidents and fatalities

Aircraft accidents are less likely to occur today than 20 years ago. Nevertheless, the growing number of aircraft in operation and their increasing capacity cannot result in a reduction of onboard fatalities



Air travel safety is definitely a data-driven activity. Although the number of aircraft in operation is constantly on the rise, accident rates are falling, making air transport the safest of all means of transportation.
Improvements bear fruit, and the usefulness of aircraft monitoring and redundancies can be witnessed everyday.
The increase in flight length also contributes to explain the drop in the number of plane crashes. Since accidents mainly occur during the take-off and landing phases, a long-haul aircraft performing only one or two long cycles a day is indeed less likely to be involved in an accident than a short-range aircraft performing in the region of ten short cycles a day.
Finally, the introduction of regulations and of checks by authorities and the growing experience of aircraft manufacturers all contribute to the safety of air transport.
However, what with a growing number of aircraft now operating, even though the rate of accidents per flight may drop slightly, the actual number of accidents will increase. Since aircraft carry an ever increasing number of people, the number of onboard fatalities will per force rise too.



.

.....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Actually no. Sure we progress but we aren't forced to do so by playing Russian roulette. Planes can be extensively tested and we do have safe designs that are available. It's not like we have to scrap all proven designs and go with a modern, probably less safe design just because of progress. If I buy a flight ticket I want to be sure I actually arrive at the destination and I don't give a hoot whether the aircraft is a Boeing an Airbus or an Ilyushin as long as it gets me safely where I want to go. We can't risk lives just for "progress" when more reliable solutions are at hand.

They had pretty safe, available and reliable designs for prop driven airliners. Does that mean we should have stayed with them and not developed jetliners?
No-one is asking the worlds companies to scrap all modern airliners and adopt 787s only (although Boeing would quite like to do that) so there are plenty of options for airlines to take, the 787 is just attractive because of the miles per gallon it has, and once it shakes its bad karma from the battery issue (which, I remind people, does not seem to be the cause of this latest fire in the first place) then it will likely go on to be a successful aircraft in its own right, just like the Comet which is still flying today in a modified form as the Nimrod, despite killing some 426 people durings its career as an airliner (the Comet is not to blame for all of those, five of the crashes were controlled flight into terrain from pilot error). No aircraft is perfectly safe, no machine is perfectly safe, and to be honest, every time you get on an aircraft you could very well be playing Russian roulette, just the same as if you get in a car, on a train or on a boat, sure safety records and improvements can tilt the odds in your favour but nothing is perfect, even the fabled A340 could still have a fatal accident one day, it's just been incredibly lucky so far.
Besides, as an aircraft passenger, you pay your money and take your chance, unless you have enough money to spare that you can afford to not take the cheapest fare, or reject boarding the flight if you see it's a 787.