4 ms·
This is nothing new and isn't different from Boeing in anything they mentioned in the article. Yes the 787 had issues, but the same types of testing occurred. T
by jreichhold 13y ago
This is nothing new and isn't different from Boeing in anything they mentioned in the article. Yes the 787 had issues, but the same types of testing occurred. The 787 was fundamentally different from previous Boeing aircraft with lots of primary components made by subcontractors. Lack of rigor and believing things would just work (too optimistic) from what I have heard on the outside.
Iron birds, flight tests, etc are the requirements from the certification authorities. I.e. this is a fluff piece acting as journalism where the title and conclusions don't match the data.
- Uchikoma 13y agoTo me, not being an expert, the article mentioning a lot of rigor and thoroughness to not run again into the A380 problems, this "This is nothing new and isn't different from Boeing in anything they mentioned in the article." contradicts this "Lack of rigor and believing things would just work (too optimistic) from what I have heard on the outside."
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jreichhold 13y agoThis is an article with no attempt to understand the state of the art outside of what Airbus wanted written and is PR spin. Most of the techniques here were used in the 737NG program in the late 90s
- Uchikoma 13y agoSo your answer in this discussion is "PR spin. PR spin."
- yread 13y agojust look at how the production ramp up looks like (hint airbus has a public plan, there was no such thing for 787). The guys over at airliners.net are tracking the state of building frames. They are ~1100 hours into a 2400 hour test flight program and they have only 4 planes flying (or almost there) and 2 in various states of building. Compare that to 787 which had to fix so many uncomplete frames after finding issues in test flights