quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
Fortunately no major incidences have occurred(yet)

---

Yesterday's incidents were not both toilet problems. One was an anti-ice system fault. But all these routine glitches are giving Boeing a real dispatch reliability headache, with some airlines quite vocally telling Boeing that it's not good enough (which it isn't, and Boeing knows it).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Globaliser:
.. one more battery fire in a piece of peripheral equipment that has probably resulted in a write-off of that airframe ...

---

Is the Ethiopian still at LHR? I read a while back it was going to take some thought over how to actually repair this as the structure had been damaged. How does one 'patch' a carbon-fibre baked barrel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
Is the Ethiopian still at LHR? I read a while back it was going to take some thought over how to actually repair this as the structure had been damaged. How does one 'patch' a carbon-fibre baked barrel?

---

The unconfirmed rumour runs along these lines:

The aircraft can't be flown without being repaired, and the aircraft can't be repaired at LHR except at ruinous cost, given that there is no local expertise and no engineering facilities for such a big job, and repairing at LHR is too public for Boeing's tastes in any event.

It's a big job because patching is probably not a viable option as a long-term repair due to the way the aircraft is constructed. So the likely long-term repair is a cut-and-shut job: Cut off the damaged part of the tail section and replace it with a new section inserted in its place. You can see why this isn't easily done at LHR - it goes well beyond "heavy maintenance".

So the cost of setting up the repair job and doing it exceeds the market value of the aircraft. The insurers therefore want to write it off as a constructive total loss. Boeing, for obvious reputational reasons, does not want to do that - but equally, doing a cut-and-shut job on an aircraft at LHR is too public even if Boeing is prepared to pay for it.

Result: stalemate while heads are being scratched. It's possible that a solution might involve some temporary patch that allows the aircraft to be flown unpressurised to a facility where it can be either repaired or scrapped in some privacy. In the meantime, I expect that airlines around the world are waiting to see whether, if a small fire results in the aircraft being declared a CTL due to its construction (when a more conventional aircraft could have been repaired by well-tested means), premiums for 787s will go through the roof.

I have tried using carbon fibre pieces in my radio contolled aircraft. It is hard to cut and shape. Yes it's strong but brittle. I wonder what kind of stress fractures will occur? It seem carbon fibre is much more rigid than aluminum or titanium.
What effects of severe turbulence occur on carbon fibre over the long run?
I'm sure Boeing has tested this but not in actual operating flight condition over a long period of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
I did not get all the facts but Japan Airlines has either cancelled or is postponing their order for more 787s. That's a few billion $$$$.
Anyone hear more on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
We'll have to wait and see how they finally decide to overcome the 'problem'.

---

quote:

---

Boeing readies patch for fire-damaged 787

Boeing will repair the 787 Dreamliner jet damaged in a fire at Heathrow by making a duplicate fuselage section and cutting out a piece of it to create a giant patch, in a process one expert says is “pushing the limits of what’s been done in the past.”

Boeing has begun the delicate, expensive and crucial process of repairing the 787 Dreamliner that was badly damaged by a fire last July, approaching the fix in a way that will be closely tracked by its customers and competitors.

Behind a scaffolding erected more than a week ago at London’s Heathrow Airport, where the Ethiopian Airlines plane has been idled since summer, a repair team will glue a giant composite plastic skin patch into the burned crown of the fuselage, said two people with knowledge of the details. Boeing has scheduled five weeks for the repair, one said.

It’s a very complicated procedure, but less so than the alternative option that was suggested by some observers: pulling out and replacing the entire aft fuselage section, which Boeing fabricates as a single-piece barrel.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
If the damage was extensive.Boeing should have scrapped the plane.IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frosty 4:
Does McDonnell Douglas or Lockheed still make any commercial jetliners? I think just military planes.
Boeing and Airbus seem to rule the roost.
F4

---