Print 75 comment(s) - last by Masospaghetti.. on Aug 7 at 10:02 AM

Engineers on the project say wing design flaw will prevent test flight in 2009

Boeing's 787 “Dreamliner” has been more of a nightmare for many at Boeing as the project has cost significantly more than expected and is still two-years late (and counting).

Another problem in the 787's design has been found, this time in the wings. During tests to certify the aircraft, damage to the wings and wing box of the 787 was found. The damage was delamination of the composite sheets covering the wings under stress.

The Seattle Times reports that the structural flaw in the Dreamliner was discovered in May during ground tests that bent the wings upwards to simulate stress during flight. The stress at the end of rods used to stiffen the upper wing skin panels caused the composite plastic material used in the wings to delaminate.

The damage to the wing occurred just beyond the Dreamliner's load limit, described as the maximum weight the wing is expected to bear in service. The Seattle Times mistakenly reported last week that the damage occurred just over the wing's ultimate load, which is 50% higher than the in-service limit load the wing is expected to endure. The limit load is the FAA test target and proves that the problem with the design of the wing is worse than originally believed.

The plane could have flown after the wing damage, but the test flights would reportedly have been severely restricted. The damage the wing sustained is reportedly not severe enough to have caused any sort of catastrophic failure had it happened in flight.

The design flaw and time needed to devise and implement repairs on the fleet means that the test flight will not likely happen this year according to one engineer on the project. The test flight was delayed in late 2008 to Q2 2009.

The damage to the wings extends inside the fuselage of the aircraft as well making repairs more difficult. The failure in the wing and the wing box is not the fault of Fuji Heavy Industries, who manufactures the components for Boeing. That means Boeing is solely responsible for any cost overruns and time delays because of the issue.

The fix has yet to be certified but could involve engineers creating a U-shape cutout in the end of the upper wing skin stringer and then refastening the reshaped stringer ends with new titanium fittings.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Confused...?
By BrgMx5 on 7/31/2009 1:33:18 PM , Rating: 0
Sorry to break the news to you, but you should care that “your tax dollars have anything to do with the Boeing engineering program”.

Both companies receive public funds, and they both complain about the other over that.

You should also account for government lobbying that’s done to ensure sales of aircraft (more aircraft sold more taxes).

Don’t forget also that the delay will probably mean contractual penalties to be paid by Boeing to the buyers of the Aircraft, or worse, buyers will opt out of the existing contracts (so, less planes, less jobs, more help from the government).

RE: Confused...?
By ClownPuncher on 7/31/2009 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 5
Boeing receives "public funds" for defense contracts, NASA projects, and a number of other government contracts. The public isn't paying for commercial airliners in the United States.

RE: Confused...?
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2009 2:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not so sure about that one. I think boeing tends to rip the government off to help the bottom line. That being said, the 747 also had a lot of problem when it was in this stage and I would say that it was definitely a success.

RE: Confused...?
By PandaBear on 7/31/2009 2:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
So does every single aerospace company toward its own government. Every one of them are semi-nationalized industry due to the national security, foreign trade, and the shear size of the industry. There is no way to get politics and public funds 100% out of it.

RE: Confused...?
By BrgMx5 on 8/1/2009 6:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes it is.

Advanced programs funded by the military will produce tech that will eventualy be integrated in comercial products.

And i'm not saying it is wrong, just saying that it is not that black and white

RE: Confused...?
By PandaBear on 7/31/2009 2:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
But they also bring in a lot of foreign revenue. Do you want them to burn some tax dollar while generating a lot of foreign sales (hence tax dollar)? or do you want to abandon Boeing and start buying all planes from Airbus?

RE: Confused...?
By homebredcorgi on 7/31/2009 3:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing receives funds from the US government from direct military contracts (commercial and military funds can't mix - they are literally separate companies), indirect research through NASA or academic universities and tax breaks.

Airbus on the other hand received a multi-billion dollar non-recourse loan to build the A380. Non-recourse means that if they can't pay up, the European governments are stuck with the bill, not Airbus. Boeing on the other hand used their own money (and that of some of the major suppliers) to develop the 787. If Boeing's 787 is truly screwed and never flies, there is a very good chance the company would go bankrupt (and probably be purchased by another defense contractor). So yes, they both receive public funds, but not exactly in the same way. If the Europeans hadn't been giving out free money to develop commercial transports, I would say both companies are about even in terms of subsidies...but that is not the case.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki