Another unfortunate setback...http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/10/boeing.dreamliner.test/index.html?hpt=T2I may be wrong in thinking this but maybe if all the parts were built in one place things may be faring better now for the 787. Having so many different pieces/parts spread out among so many different nations (and safety standards) seems to be the overriding achilles heel for this project. Once it's finally put together there's been more setbacks than other Boeing efforts in recent memory (please correct me if I'm wrong as I've seen many cancellations for orders of the 787 because of deadlines missed).

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the 737 - which is statistically the safest airliner - was also an aircraft where many parts are made in different countries as well.Al

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the 737 - which is statistically the safest airliner - was also an aircraft where many parts are made in different countries as well.Al

Nowhere near the degree with which the 787 is. The 787 was supposed to have been the showcase of globalization where major portions of the aircraft would be built complete in different corners of the world to be brought into Seattle merely for bolting together.

Haven't most of the problems been a result of Boeings inability to integrate components, not that these components were poorly manufactured.I mean that's a little like me blaming taiwan if I can't bolt together a computer.

Haven't most of the problems been a result of Boeings inability to integrate components, not that these components were poorly manufactured.I mean that's a little like me blaming taiwan if I can't bolt together a computer.

The reason Boeing has been unable to integrate the components has been because they've been poorly built. Off the top of my head I can think of problems with sections from Alenia and Kawasaki. And I think Boeing may have bought LTV out of their workshare due to problems with them as well.

That would be true if it weren't for the fact that the 737 - which is statistically the safest airliner - was also an aircraft where many parts are made in different countries as well.

as you know chock, the 737 has been around a long time. most of the 'kinks' were worked out before the boeing execs began to out-souce and out-country the components to increase their own personal wealth.--

We already know that Italian workers at Alenia were over-torquing some of the nuts in the tail section causing subtle damage to the underlying composite structure ...

This has nothing to do with outsourcing, it has everything to do with competitive advantage. Japanese and Germans build most of todays wings why? Higher quality standards thats for sure.

Japanese and Germans build most of todays wings why? Higher quality standards thats for sure.

Really? RJ

It appears the problem has been isolated to contactor failures in the P100 electrical power panel. Interesting is that an outwardly-similar failure occurred in the P200 panel on a Boeing 777 in 2007. The culprit appears to be Tyco-made bus tie breaker contactors:"Contactor description (model ELM 827-1)The GCBs, BTBs and APB on the Boeing 777 are Tyco Electronic contactors with part number ELM 827-1. This contactor is a three-phase magnetically latched switch rated at 385 Amps at 115 V AC at 400 Hz. It is designed to operate between -15°C and +70°C ambient temperatures and has been tested for up to 50,000 cycles (where one cycle consists of one opening and one closing operation) under full rated load and up to 100,000 cycles in mechanical testing. It is shaped almost like a cube, measuring 106 x 106 x 93 mm, with six external plungers as shown in Figure 8. "This accident aircraft also suffered consequential damage similar to that reported in the 787: burned insulating blankets and molten metal from the enclosure dripping on and damaging cables run under the panel. Boeing designed an aluminum containment tray installed under the power panel to contain any released material after this event via service bulletin:‘Accomplishment of the changes in this service bulletin willprevent a possible fire and or smoke and subsequent damage to insulation blanket and wiring below Electrical Load Management System (ELMS) panels. An ELMS contactor failure in a P100, P200 or P300 power panel can create molten debris. If the molten debris from the overheated ELMS contactor is not contained, damage to components from smoke and heat can occur and the smoke and heat can cause injury to persons…. The enclosure tray will contain the debris and prevent hot debris from falling on the blankets and components below the ELMS panel in the event of a contactor failure. Containment of the hot debris will prevent damage from smoke and heat and reduce the risk to personal safety.’Tyco also did a re-design of their contactor unit.It will be interesting to see what Boeing ends up doing on the 787 for this.scott s..

as you know chock, the 737 has been around a long time. most of the 'kinks' were worked out before the boeing execs began to out-souce and out-country the components to increase their own personal wealth.--

It's certainly true the 737 as a Boeing model has been around a long time, but the current 737 NGs and the production procedures for them are considerably newer, in fact it's only in fairly recent years that it has been outsourced as much as it now is, that is to say, considerably. This is a move which was largely aimed at putting a dispersed parts procurement and production groundwork in operation to get a foothold in the burgeoning economy that China is, which is something EADs have done too with the A320. However there is one big difference - the construction methods and materials - which is almost certainly where the problems really sit as far as the 787 is concerned, because we know Boeing can build airliners out of more traditional materials and get it right more or less from day one. They pulled it off with the 747, which was going into unknown territory perhaps more than any other airliner at the time it was built, with the unusual exception of Concorde, and the 747's development went off pretty much without a hitch.So, bits of a new 737 NG come from all over the place, which was not true to anywhere near that extent for the earlier models (or even the NG when it was first built), and the contractors now used for outsourcing 737 parts includes a lot of the places where the 787 also has parts made for it. All of which would tend to suggest that it is the 787 itself, i.e. the design, different construction materials, and the methods employed to use such materials, and even the main project staff for the 787 (who got replaced let's not forget) which are really at the heart of issues, rather than the fact that the parts are made in Shanghai and Tokyo rather than Wichita or Seattle. Of course it is certainly true that there have been some issues with quality control, but they have not been limited to contractors who are new to aircraft parts production for Boeing, nor limited to foreign contractors either.Dispersed production has been demonstrated to work since long before the 787 used such a methodology. The Germans managed it as far back as WW2 with the bf109, Me262 etc, and that was under pretty much round-the-clock Allied bombing where trains carrying the parts dared not venture out in daylight. Even vastly complex modern jet combat aircraft such as the Panavia Tornado and the EFA Typhoon have been built in that way, but therein lies a lesson that Boeing should have paid heed to, in taking note of the teething troubles innovative designs such as the Eurofighter and Me262 came up against, many of which could have been avoided to a large extent by better project management which takes account of the fact that they pushed the envelope. In more peaceful times, Airbus Industries were making complex innovative airliners in the late 1960s with similarly internationally-distributed parts construction, which successfully transcended five language barriers and a radius of the entire geographical expanse of Europe.All of the preceding few examples took place long before it was a as easy as sending an email with an attached picture of a blueprint to check whether things were being done properly, so it clearly can be managed if a competent hand is on the planning table. Moreover, if anyone needs convincing that you can build a jet airliner to beat all other jet airliners using dispersed production and untried materials, one only has to look at the Concorde. And let's be honest here, the British and the French hate each other, yet still managed to pull than one off!So it all really comes down to two things as far as I can see: The project management for the 787 is quite evidently not as good as it should be, and the construction and design are far more cutting edge than has been accounted for in the optimistic promised delivery dates and estimates of time necessary to overcome the inevitable problems such a new design is almost certainly likely to run into.I'm sure the 787 will eventually turn out to be a wonderful aeroplane of which Boeing can be proud, but as far as the project management goes, it's nothing short of a total cluster...Al

So, bits of a new 737 NG come from all over the place, which was not true to anywhere near that extent for the earlier models (or even the NG when it was first built), and the contractors now used for outsourcing 737 parts includes a lot of the places where the 787 also has parts made for it. All of which would tend to suggest that it is the 787 itself, i.e. the design, different construction materials, and the methods employed to use such materials, and even the main project staff for the 787 (who got replaced let's not forget) which are really at the heart of issues, rather than the fact that the parts are made in Shanghai and Tokyo rather than Wichita or Seattle. Of course it is certainly true that there have been some issues with quality control, but they have not been limited to contractors who are new to aircraft parts production for Boeing, nor limited to foreign contractors either.

The difference here is that Boeing essentially perfected the production of 737 parts before handing them off to tier partners.

I think it has more to do with the engineers designing the aircraft than the manufacturing of the parts. Generally speaking, you would more likely see a CAD program, such as Autocad or Catia used to design the aircraft, and then the part designs from the CAD program are put in the CAM program which basically automates the stamping out of the parts using robots and a computer. At least, that's my understanding of it.

I think it has more to do with the engineers designing the aircraft than the manufacturing of the parts. Generally speaking, you would more likely see a CAD program, such as Autocad or Catia used to design the aircraft, and then the part designs from the CAD program are put in the CAM program which basically automates the stamping out of the parts using robots and a computer. At least, that's my understanding of it.

For some parts, yes, this is true. For others, it's a bit different. You'll have to excuse me that I don't go into more detail here, as I'm not really at liberty to talk about manufacturing processes.

For some parts, yes, this is true. For others, it's a bit different. You'll have to excuse me that I don't go into more detail here, as I'm not really at liberty to talk about manufacturing processes.

I reread my post here and it occurs to me that it's not really a useful addition to the conversation beyond being a simple declaration, so I'll try to elaborate within the limits that I can. The 787 is comprised of mostly composite materials. On other airframes, a majority is aluminum which can easily be machined in a predictable, repeatable, and automated way. Take a block of aluminum, stick it in a 5-axis router, load a program, and eventually you'll have a perfectly machined aluminum widget that can be done over and over again with no variances. Composite materials require a little more of a human touch, particularly in detail part fabrication. That's where the potential for error lies.