Is the 787 a failure ?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:55:25 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

In article ,
Marvin the Martian wrote:

I love it when people who have no ****ing idea what's going on, make ****
up like "a minor tweek will fix it".

I used to write the firmware for battery charging systems for a living.
At two different jobs. This qualifies me as someone who *does* have
a ****ing idea what's going on.

This will be, relatively speaking, a minor tweak.
Thanks Ed.

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:05:48 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Ayup..I think that was it.




The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

george152 wrote in
:

On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
defence anti submarine role

With differently shaped windows, IIRC.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 04/02/13 11:13, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
george152 wrote in
:

On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
defence anti submarine role

With differently shaped windows, IIRC.


You only need the cockpit windows the flight crew use

Gunner wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

The movie was filmed in 1951.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_highway_in_the_sky

"george152" wrote in message
...
On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice
big
square windows in the early models.
The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
defence anti submarine role


It doesn't need to be pressurized at 200'.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:34:53 +1300, george152 wrote:

On 03/02/13 16:05, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.
The same aircraft type flew for many years after that in a marine
defence anti submarine role


After they fixed the problems of course.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Spehro Pefhany on Sat, 02 Feb 2013
22:05:48 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:48:44 -0800, the renowned Gunner
wrote:


Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Turbojet, but maybe this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

They didn't understand metal fatigue very well in those days- nice big
square windows in the early models.

Yet at the same time, Boeing had a lot of experience with square
windows and pressurized cabins. Started with the B-29, and the Battle
of Kansas.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
|
| The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
| Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
| Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
| cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
| ...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html

--bks

On 2/5/2013 10:01 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.

Actually, Boeing likely hired engineers that had been
pre-designated/approved by the FAA to do the job. They did this at
great expense! Otherwise, they could have waited for the proper FAA
official to show up, subject to the FAA whims and budget.

I once worked for a company that decided to take that second route.
After all, we all pay taxes right? Compared to a job like certifying a
brand new airliner, what that company wanted to do was simple; They had
purchased the type certificate for an established, certified, glider
which they wished to produce.

They built the factory, they installed all the tooling. From there,
things dragged on for years. Each step of the torturous bureaucratic
process to obtain a production certificate took months. The FAA kept
demanding new paperwork, because that was easier and cheaper than
sending the proper official to inspect the facility.

Small businesses don't have the resources to wait out months and years
of bureaucratic inaction. In the end, the business closed down before
the first airframe was even started.

So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.

In fact, an amazing amount of FAA business is done through privately
hired FAA designees. All four of my check flights have been with FAA
designees rather than FAA inspectors, which means that I had to $$$ pay
them myself. Even though my taxes are supposed to be supporting the FAA.

Just today, I sent off $50.00 to a person who has some sort of magic
authorization to hand my CFI revalidation paperwork to the FAA. I can
do it myself, but only if I make an appointment with an FAA inspector
and travel to the FAA FSDO office to do it in person. (No explanation
why I can't just mail it to them.)

When the FAA moves to the new picture pilot certificates, there will be
a whole new class of FAA designees for us to pay. They will be
authorized to verify our ID, take our pictures, and certify the whole
process. It will be done at the pilot's expense, and it won't be cheap!

Vaughn

(Trollish non-related crossposts removed)