6 ms·

Does anyone know why the 787 seems to have gone so wrong? Wasn't it tremendously delayed and then it seems like I'm hearing about problem after problem? Is th

Does anyone know why the 787 seems to have gone so wrong? Wasn't it tremendously delayed and then it seems like I'm hearing about problem after problem? Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery?

sbierwagen 14y ago
1.) General consensus is "too many outside contractors, not enough QA." Outsourcing taken too far, essentially. 2.) No.
- gvb 14y ago
  1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal
  - yread 14y ago
    ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767
- hef19898 14y ago
  Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.
stephengillie 14y ago
It's not a sign of the pending downfall of our civilization. The 787 project tried some new things and suffered some mismanagement. It uses more premade components (like dashboards and controls and seats and frames) than other Boeing aircraft, so Boeing (an engineering company) is having to solve logistical problems. Being a long-term Washington resident, I've grown up hearing about Boeing's problems. In the past, though, they were supply/demand issues, like airline order demand, union negotiations, massive layoffs, etc.
- philwelch 14y ago
  There's also all the defense contracts they lost, plus the time where they lost a defense contract to a foreign company so they got Murray and Cantwell to press for a do-over.
ekianjo 14y ago
> Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery? Yeah, that's probably why we (as in, humans) were able to build the largest plane ever with the A380. Talk about decay.
- kqr2 14y ago
  Actually, the Antonov An-225 Mriya is generally acknowledged as the largest plane in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Looks like it indeed. But the An-225 will never be produced in the same numbers as the A380 will be.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Is the An-225 in production? Isn't it a one-off design for carrying the Buran shuttle with only one aircraft ever completed? The A380 is in active construction with 92 delivered of 262 ordered.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.... Interesting for comparing. Largest has a variety of definitions though (length, wingspan, height (silly measure), capacity, passenger number etc. However that Antonov seems to be the winner.
spoiledtechie 14y ago
Overpaid Unions, Little work for a Union Member, Not Enough Quality Control and very bloated Management.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Eponysterical.
msbarnett 14y ago
Forbes had a good writeup a couple of weeks ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/boeing-has-an-airplane-problem-not-a-pr-problem/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/b... Essentially, they coupled an ambitious design with untested materials and an insane plan by management to outsource far more work than they had ever outsourced before, going so far as to outsource the design and blueprints for individual pieces to external contractors, leading in the end to a clusterfuck in which nothing fit together and contractors had no incentives to perform efficiently because in the worst case Boeing would simply have to buy them wholesale to fix supply issues.
trimbo 14y ago
One thing I've been wondering: is it the problems or the perception that are biting us now? For example, in 1970-ish, did the 747 have all kinds of problems we just would never remember and they were not a big deal in the era? Or is it truly that the 787 plane is screwed up compared to all of the planes Boeing has ever done in the past? Although they really screwed up this outsourcing thing, I find it hard to believe their engineering would have slipped so much (since e.g. the 777). Edit: I've also wondered if the airlines are over-emphasizing issues in order to use them as a bargaining chip for more planes.
- leecbaker 14y ago
  IIRC, they had a lot of problems with engine failures, as the 747 really pushed engine technology and size at the time. Joe Sutter's book [1] is an interesting look at the history of the 747 design (he was the lead designer). There was also an issue with the wing resonating, which they fixed by putting trim weights in the wing of the 747-100 made of depleted uranium. [1] http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviation/dp/0060882425 http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviatio...
ubernostrum 14y ago
To be honest, new, from-scratch airliner designs generally are always delayed entering service and generally always have problems initially. This is not new, and is not unique to the 787. The Airbus A380 went through a multiply-delayed process, for example, and had some pains entering into service (a pattern of engine problems revealed after a Qantas A380 had an oil leak followed by fire and disintegration of a turbine disk in one of its engines). The Boeing 777 had to have a heat exchanger in its engines redesigned. Airbus' timetable for the A350 is all out of whack. And I could go on and on... You're hearing about "problem after problem" because new airliners are high-profile media targets, and most reporting treats delays and post-launch problems as being somehow unprecedented, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
- davidmr 14y ago
  Excellent point. While any possibility of an onboard fire is extremely serious, a fan blade escaping engine housing containment and puncturing the wing is also extremely serious. It was only a combination of luck, skilled piloting, and sound aircraft design that kept that 380 in the air. A modern airliner such a vastly complicated machine that it's simply not possible to create an error free design. The best you can hope for is a safe enough design and competent enough operators to be able to bring the craft safely to ground in the event of a flaw. Combined with a competent regulator in the FAA, I would say that the system is working as designed. I might be an optimist, but I would have no qualms whatsoever about hopping on one for the first flight after they're allowed back in the air.
philwelch 14y ago
Our civilization? No. Boeing? Almost definitely.
codeonfire 14y ago
No, this is a sign of progress. It seems like it used to be a given that there would be a few crashes for a new type. Look at the De Havilland comet, for instance. Being a test pilot really meant that you might die. It was even worse for military aircraft, 20 of 50 A-12/sr-71 aircraft were destoyed. Now planes fly for a decade before there's a catastrophic failure.

sbierwagen 14y ago

1.) General consensus is "too many outside contractors, not enough QA." Outsourcing taken too far, essentially. 2.) No.

gvb 14y ago
1+) The 787 was three BHAGs[1] in terms of... a) Fuel economy: drove the primarily composite structure (causing much angst during development), drove using the lighter weight lithium batteries which is the current issue, etc. A 20% fuel improvement is incredibly ambitious goal (I say is because last I heard they were still falling short, although still remarkable at ~15%(?)). b) Cost (sharing): drove the huge number of outside contractors, all or most of whom invested a substantial amount of their own money in the pieces parts that they designed and built for the 787. c) Schedule. Total miss. The schedule was predicated on no major problems... in hindsight the (a) and (b) BHAGs guaranteed the schedule miss. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hairy_Audacious_Goal
- yread 14y ago
  ANA said in a statement that their 787s are 21% more fuel efficient per seat than a 767
hef19898 14y ago
Additional remark to point 1): Back then before Boeing got all the trouble they had with the immense outsourcing, this approach was seen as THE way to go in supply chain management for highly complex products. Some parts of EADS still used the B787 programme as a model of suppliers and contract management last year. After Boeing was obliged to buy out a couple of there joint-ventures and suppliers. Completely agree on the fact that the Dreamliner wanted to much things at the same time. I only beg to differ on the "not enough QA" part. I don't exactly know how Boeings QA looks like, but assume that aerospace QA is more or less similar in the western world since everyone is dealing with the FAA and JAA in one way or the other. And from my experience it's not "not enough" QA but the wrong QA. In some parts of supplier related QA the point was reached where people cared more about paper work and certificates (to the point where the use of ";" instead of "," in a text field blocked whole deliveries for days) than the actual part. And further assume that the paperwork of what ever part in flying piece of tech that failed was ok. Downside is, the more time QA spends on paer work the less time QA spends on assuring the parts are good. Not that this is a probale cause for the battery issue on hand, so.

stephengillie 14y ago

It's not a sign of the pending downfall of our civilization. The 787 project tried some new things and suffered some mismanagement. It uses more premade components (like dashboards and controls and seats and frames) than other Boeing aircraft, so Boeing (an engineering company) is having to solve logistical problems. Being a long-term Washington resident, I've grown up hearing about Boeing's problems. In the past, though, they were supply/demand issues, like airline order demand, union negotiations, massive layoffs, etc.

philwelch 14y ago
There's also all the defense contracts they lost, plus the time where they lost a defense contract to a foreign company so they got Murray and Cantwell to press for a do-over.

ekianjo 14y ago

> Is this a sign our civilization is in technological decay and we're losing our ability to build advanced machinery? Yeah, that's probably why we (as in, humans) were able to build the largest plane ever with the A380. Talk about decay.

kqr2 14y ago
Actually, the Antonov An-225 Mriya is generally acknowledged as the largest plane in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Looks like it indeed. But the An-225 will never be produced in the same numbers as the A380 will be.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Is the An-225 in production? Isn't it a one-off design for carrying the Buran shuttle with only one aircraft ever completed? The A380 is in active construction with 92 delivered of 262 ordered.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giant_planes_comparison.... Interesting for comparing. Largest has a variety of definitions though (length, wingspan, height (silly measure), capacity, passenger number etc. However that Antonov seems to be the winner.

spoiledtechie 14y ago

Overpaid Unions, Little work for a Union Member, Not Enough Quality Control and very bloated Management.

anigbrowl 14y ago
Eponysterical.

msbarnett 14y ago

Forbes had a good writeup a couple of weeks ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/boeing-has-an-airplane-problem-not-a-pr-problem/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/01/10/b... Essentially, they coupled an ambitious design with untested materials and an insane plan by management to outsource far more work than they had ever outsourced before, going so far as to outsource the design and blueprints for individual pieces to external contractors, leading in the end to a clusterfuck in which nothing fit together and contractors had no incentives to perform efficiently because in the worst case Boeing would simply have to buy them wholesale to fix supply issues.

trimbo 14y ago

One thing I've been wondering: is it the problems or the perception that are biting us now? For example, in 1970-ish, did the 747 have all kinds of problems we just would never remember and they were not a big deal in the era? Or is it truly that the 787 plane is screwed up compared to all of the planes Boeing has ever done in the past? Although they really screwed up this outsourcing thing, I find it hard to believe their engineering would have slipped so much (since e.g. the 777). Edit: I've also wondered if the airlines are over-emphasizing issues in order to use them as a bargaining chip for more planes.

leecbaker 14y ago
IIRC, they had a lot of problems with engine failures, as the 747 really pushed engine technology and size at the time. Joe Sutter's book [1] is an interesting look at the history of the 747 design (he was the lead designer). There was also an issue with the wing resonating, which they fixed by putting trim weights in the wing of the 747-100 made of depleted uranium. [1] http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviation/dp/0060882425 http://www.amazon.com/747-Creating-Worlds-Adventures-Aviatio...

ubernostrum 14y ago

To be honest, new, from-scratch airliner designs generally are always delayed entering service and generally always have problems initially. This is not new, and is not unique to the 787. The Airbus A380 went through a multiply-delayed process, for example, and had some pains entering into service (a pattern of engine problems revealed after a Qantas A380 had an oil leak followed by fire and disintegration of a turbine disk in one of its engines). The Boeing 777 had to have a heat exchanger in its engines redesigned. Airbus' timetable for the A350 is all out of whack. And I could go on and on... You're hearing about "problem after problem" because new airliners are high-profile media targets, and most reporting treats delays and post-launch problems as being somehow unprecedented, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

davidmr 14y ago
Excellent point. While any possibility of an onboard fire is extremely serious, a fan blade escaping engine housing containment and puncturing the wing is also extremely serious. It was only a combination of luck, skilled piloting, and sound aircraft design that kept that 380 in the air. A modern airliner such a vastly complicated machine that it's simply not possible to create an error free design. The best you can hope for is a safe enough design and competent enough operators to be able to bring the craft safely to ground in the event of a flaw. Combined with a competent regulator in the FAA, I would say that the system is working as designed. I might be an optimist, but I would have no qualms whatsoever about hopping on one for the first flight after they're allowed back in the air.

philwelch 14y ago

Our civilization? No. Boeing? Almost definitely.

codeonfire 14y ago

No, this is a sign of progress. It seems like it used to be a given that there would be a few crashes for a new type. Look at the De Havilland comet, for instance. Being a test pilot really meant that you might die. It was even worse for military aircraft, 20 of 50 A-12/sr-71 aircraft were destoyed. Now planes fly for a decade before there's a catastrophic failure.