787 program quality starting to fall apart?

[Mojocvh]

Latest of a series of mishaps

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/drea...

"The incident was the second in less than 10 days involving engines from GE and Rolls-Royce on Dreamliners. Japan's All Nippon Airways pulled five 787s with Rolls-Royce engines from service on July 21 after the manufacturer found that some components had a shorter-than-expected service life.

Oddly enough the Rollers issue is with the gearbox manufacture of which is subcontracted to GE I believe........



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57482008/bo...

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st August 10:58

[HoHoHo]

Oops!

Spitting metal and flames doesn't sound too good!

[Brother D]

Will be interesting to see what comes of this. - I can't think of many components that so highly stressed as the internals of an engine - blades operating in temperatures above their melting point and incredible tension forces.

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

[thehawk]

Not really the 787 or Boeing though is it?

[Mojocvh]

thehawk said:

Not really the 787 or Boeing though is it?

It's their name on the label.

[dr_gn]

Mojocvh said:

thehawk said:

Not really the 787 or Boeing though is it?

It's their name on the label.

And it's Airbus on the label of the A380 with their recent engine failures too, so why single out Boeing?

If you're trying to do something new, and to make progress, these things are bound to happen, it's hardly "quality falling apart" in either case.

[JW911]

There is an unconfirmed rumour that Boeing is intending to buy back and scrap the first twenty 787s due to quality control. If so, that's got to be around $4bn down the tubes.

[Mave]

The Rolls-Royce engines have long been intended to be swapped out. Early production engines were pack "A" standard, they are on a rolling refresh programme to change out with pack "B"s.

[Talksteer]

Mojocvh said:

Oddly enough the Rollers issue is with the gearbox manufacture of which is subcontracted to GE I believe........

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57482008/bo...

Please don't use the term Roller or similar when referring to Rolls-Royce it's plebeian :-)

The correct term is a Royce or Royce's.... also always use the hyphen.

GE bought Smiths Groups Aviation business a few years ago, the design will date before that point.

[Mojocvh]

Talksteer said:

Please don't use the term Roller or similar when referring to Rolls-Royce it's plebeian :-)

The correct term is a Royce or Royce's.... also always use the hyphen.

GE bought Smiths Groups Aviation business a few years ago, the design will date before that point.

Yep, just knew you'd bite. Get over yourself.

[Mojocvh]

dr_gn said:

Mojocvh said:

thehawk said:

Not really the 787 or Boeing though is it?

It's their name on the label.

And it's Airbus on the label of the A380 with their recent engine failures too, so why single out Boeing?

If you're trying to do something new, and to make progress, these things are bound to happen, it's hardly "quality falling apart" in either case.

Really? We shall see.

[Chuck328]

JW911 said:

There is an unconfirmed rumour that Boeing is intending to buy back and scrap the first twenty 787s due to quality control. If so, that's got to be around $4bn down the tubes.

Oh aye, care to tell where you read/heard that little gem?

Mojocvh said:

Really? We shall see.

Do you know something we don't?

[Godalmighty83]

Chuck328 said:

Do you know something we don't?

It's not the first time he has used that phrase to avoid posting any sort of info or source or infact anything to support his opinion.

[anonymous-user]

Godalmighty83 said:

Chuck328 said:

Do you know something we don't?

It's not the first time he has used that phrase to avoid posting any sort of info or source or infact anything to support his opinion.

He has some connection to EADS and posts this twaddle all the time.

[dr_gn]

Mojocvh said:

dr_gn said:

Mojocvh said:

thehawk said:

Not really the 787 or Boeing though is it?

It's their name on the label.

And it's Airbus on the label of the A380 with their recent engine failures too, so why single out Boeing?

If you're trying to do something new, and to make progress, these things are bound to happen, it's hardly "quality falling apart" in either case.

Really? We shall see.

BTW, we're still waiting for a reference for your statement on the other thread that the F-16 E/F has 1,000,000 times the computing power of the current USAF F-16C/D...Or did you simply make it up?

[dr_gn]

el stovey said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Chuck328 said:

Do you know something we don't?

It's not the first time he has used that phrase to avoid posting any sort of info or source or infact anything to support his opinion.

He has some connection to EADS.

I would say that is extremely unlikely. Maybe 30 years ago but little knowledge of the state-of-the-art. In my opinion

[TimJMS]

I wish Boeing every success with this project. It's the way forward. :smile:

[anonymous-user]

dr_gn said:

el stovey said:

Godalmighty83 said:

Chuck328 said:

Do you know something we don't?

It's not the first time he has used that phrase to avoid posting any sort of info or source or infact anything to support his opinion.

He has some connection to EADS.

I would say that is extremely unlikely. Maybe 30 years ago but little knowledge of the state-of-the-art. In my opinion

I don't know but there's a clear anti Boeing stance. I'm not saying people from EADS are anti Boeing or vice versa but he is for some reason.

[JW911]

Chuck328 said:

JW911 said:

There is an unconfirmed rumour that Boeing is intending to buy back and scrap the first twenty 787s due to quality control. If so, that's got to be around $4bn down the tubes.

Oh aye, care to tell where you read/heard that little gem?

Probably best that I don't but they have been known to be reliable in the past.

[dr_gn]

JW911 said:

Chuck328 said:

JW911 said:

There is an unconfirmed rumour that Boeing is intending to buy back and scrap the first twenty 787s due to quality control. If so, that's got to be around $4bn down the tubes.

Oh aye, care to tell where you read/heard that little gem?

Probably best that I don't but they have been known to be reliable in the past.

This may well not apply to you, but in general this is what's frustrating about threads like this:

The people who wish they were in the know will invariably say "I could tell you, but I can't", whereas the people with the real knowledge won't even allude to knowledge of sensitive information becasue they well know the potential consequences, particularly if it's military or research based work.