Interesting read:http://seattletimes....787tests27.htmlInterview with whistleblower (part 1 of 4):

Interesting read:http://seattletimes....787tests27.htmlInterview with whistleblower (part 1 of 4):

Interressant får man vel si..:) Svaret får vi vel ikke før det evt. skjer en ulykke, desverre..Geir

This is pretty old news, and why bring this up here? Looking to start a a really excited user war? If so, I am game.

This is pretty old news, and why bring this up here? Looking to start a a really excited user war? If so, I am game.

Old news, but still relevant and probably news to a lot of people.

Looking to start a a really excited user war? If so, I am game.

It is not about a really excited user wars - it is hard engineering fact.At the end of the day it is unproven technology. I doubt the regulator will require an actual test (à la NASA and the remote controlled 707 fuel tests, that incidentally went catastrophically wrong).Best regards,Robin.

Interressant får man vel si..:) Svaret får vi vel ikke før det evt. skjer en ulykke, desverre..Geir

This is an english forum? So why do you reply in norwegian? :(

At the end of the day it is unproven technology.

This is true, as much of the 787 seems to be, and there are inherent dangers in that fact, as we saw with the electrical fire earlier in the test flight process.

This is an english forum? So why do you reply in norwegian? :(

Fordi norsk er bedre enn dansk, selvfølgelig...As long as we're getting into a really excited user wars, right?

If I was Boeing I'd be less worried about the crash scenario and more worried about ETOPS certification at delivery. Apparently the FAA is having some major concerns about reliability due to the recent electrical fire and RR engine failures. Not having ETOPS right out of the gate will cause a bunch of cancellations and probably the failure of the program.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013713745_dreamliner19.htmlAnd no I'm not trying to start a really excited user wars, I live in the Seattle Area and I really want the 787 to succeed because as goes Boeing so goes Seattle's economy, and I like being employed Michael Wolfe

sorry double post

If I was Boeing I'd be less worried about the crash scenario and more worried about ETOPS certification at delivery. Apparently the FAA is having some major concerns about reliability due to the recent electrical fire and RR engine failures. Not having ETOPS right out of the gate will cause a bunch of cancellations and probably the failure of the program.http://seattletimes....eamliner19.htmlAnd no I'm not trying to start a really excited user wars, I live in the Seattle Area and I really want the 787 to succeed because as goes Boeing so goes Seattle's economy, and I like being employed Michael Wolfe

The only thing good it might come out of a ETOPS failure would be a Trijet a la L-1011 or Dc-10/MD-11, then again, that is just wishful thinking of my part. The chances are it will never happen(the trijet bit) :Big Grin:Ricardo de Paula

The 787 program is looking pretty bleak that's for sure. It's just riddled with problems and uncertainties. Boeing might've bittten off more than they could chew this time. The composite fuselage could potentially be deadly in a crash-landing, a lightning storm or in a fire. The porous properties of composite materials, allowing them to absorb unwanted moisture, have also been questioned. As the aircraft reaches altitude, the moisture expands, and may cause delamination of the composite materials, and structural weakness over time. I think there's a reason why Airbus has taken a different approach with their A350. Although it too is composite like the Dreamliner, Airbus are using several composite panels instead of single piece barrels that Boeing have opted for. In other words, they've gone for a more conservative/traditional approach, and maybe safer? Only time will tell I guess.

The 787 program is looking pretty bleak that's for sure. It's just riddled with problems and uncertainties. Boeing might've bittten off more than they could chew this time. The composite fuselage could potentially be deadly in a crash-landing, a lightning storm or in a fire. The porous properties of composite materials, allowing them to absorb unwanted moisture, have also been questioned. As the aircraft reaches altitude, the moisture expands, and may cause delamination of the composite materials, and structural weakness over time. I think there's a reason why Airbus has taken a different approach with their A350. Although it too is composite like the Dreamliner, Airbus are using several composite panels instead of single piece barrels that Boeing have opted for. In other words, they've gone for a more conservative/traditional approach, and maybe safer? Only time will tell I guess.

Well according to the news source posted by the OP, it won't be a problem if there is a fire, in fact, it will be better than aluminum.

A fuel-fed fire can melt through an aluminum panel in about a minute. With an added layer of thermal insulation inside the fuselage wall, the fire barrier holds up a further 4 minutes. That required 5-minute total provides passengers time to get out.But the type of composite plastic on the Dreamliner will resist burn-through — and provide protection from the fire — for much longer than 5 minutes, even without insulation.While the epoxy resin in the composite material ignites and burns, the mat of carbon-fiber layers chars like wood to create a protective barrier that holds back the fire.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012201098_787tests27.html

Ricardo de Paula

Well according to the news source posted by the OP, it won't be a problem if there is a fire, in fact, it will be better than aluminum.Ricardo de Paula

Maybe, but if the fuselage is damaged with holes for the fire to break through it might be a different story. According to Weldon: "After such a crash landing, the composite plastic material burning in a jet-fuel fire would create highly toxic smoke and tiny inhalable carbon slivers that would likely seriously incapacitate or kill passengers.

Fordi norsk er bedre enn dansk, selvfølgelig...As long as we're getting into a really excited user wars, right?

Løgn!