
Boeing 787 wing flaw extends inside plane - tortilla
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html
======
TrevorJ
They are working with novel materials, this sort of trouble isn't
unprecedented, look at the de Havilland Comet problems in 1954
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet>

We didn't fully understand metal fatigue at the time and these beautifully
designed planes started falling out of the sky.

There are going to be unanticipated design problems to work out, it's to be
expected.

~~~
jrockway
Thanks for the link; that is a really beautiful airplane.

~~~
TrevorJ
Industrial design of that age was simply beautiful. The use of curves and
swept lines you see from that era is really poetic.

I believe a lot of it was informed by our fascination with space and rocket
technology. Check out this hoover vac from the 50's, it actually used the air
pressure to create pocket of air on which it hovered (on smooth surfaces)

[http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ol-
images/la/uploads/55hoove...](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ol-
images/la/uploads/55hoovervacuum.jpg)

------
justlearning
Aha! now the story behind makes sense!

for perspective, strongly suggest to read "micks56"'s comment here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=668067>

posted a month back on a similar article (Bumpy Ride for Boeing's 787
Dreamliner : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=668025>)

~~~
micks56
Hi, thanks for the plug!

It looks like my second prediction was wrong. I said that Boeing would release
a statement in 3 weeks with a delay of 6 months. It took Boeing 5 weeks to
issue the statement, and the delay is TBD, but sounds like 10 months. At least
I got the multiplier right (maybe).

Prediction 1 (there will be more delays besides this one) is still TBD. So is
Prediction 3 (first non-test delivery to a customer in Fall 2011) is also TBD.
Let it ride. I will keep my money on those.

------
yread
Hm as one commenter there says fixing wing box design flaw with retrofits
doesn't make me feel like flying it

~~~
jrockway
This is probably irrational. I sometimes feel the same way when finding bugs
in my software. I should have gotten everything right the first time through.
But now that you've found the bugs and fixed them, you can be even more
confident that there aren't any other bugs lurking in the depths; you've
already found them and killed them.

I am also sure this happens all the time. An engineering project late and over
cost, and still buggy? Unprecedented!

------
jacquesm
There is a very good reason why the aircraft industry is very conservative
when it comes to introducing new materials, and their testing procedures are
about as rigid as it gets.

Good thing they caught this on the ground, there have been way too many
accidents with passenger aircraft lately. Losing a plane this big would be a
tremendous disaster.

This is going to affect Boeing financially quite a bit as well.

~~~
tortilla
But didn't they outsource a lot of the work (~70%), including wing design? Not
very conservative if you ask me.

<http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/dev_team.html>

~~~
smhinsey
Apparently this is largely the result of new management. After Alan Mulaly
left for Ford, their culture shifted dramatically from the
engineering/conservative mindset to a bottom-line-driven outsourcing model.

~~~
rbanffy
"Bottom-line-driven" and "aerospace-engineering" don't mix very well...

I hope Boeing gets its act together. It would be a shame to have only one
company designing and building big passenger planes...

~~~
smhinsey
It definitely seems like your notion is being borne out. Personally, I think
it's indicative of a larger cultural problem in the US, so I don't have
particular optimism that it will be corrected in time at Boeing, but I
certainly hope that it is. It seems unlikely to me that the federal government
will allow such a strategic supplier to simply fade away, I just hope they
don't end up turning into zombie Boeing.

~~~
rbanffy
Boeing is, effectively, "too strategic to fail".

I too find it unlikely that it gets corrected in time, mostly because those
who drove Boeing into this mess will keep their bonuses intact while grinding
Boeing to a thin shell.

Sad.

But there could be hope. The engineers will end up working somewhere else. And
the money to design and build planes will still exist, somewhere. This and
maintenance contracts for all those 7*7s around will keep some money flowing.

