Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: KBOS 787 declared a hull loss?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    358

    Default KBOS 787 declared a hull loss?

    I heard a rumor today that the JAL 787 that had the fire at Boston was declared a hull loss. I can't find anything on it on the internet. Has anyone else heard anything about that?
    The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

  2. #2
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snydersnapshots View Post
    I heard a rumor today that the JAL 787 that had the fire at Boston was declared a hull loss. I can't find anything on it on the internet. Has anyone else heard anything about that?
    So, my smart-alek comments about how to do you repair a highly integrated "unibody-like" composite structure damaged by heat were somewhat accurate?
    Tres Caca de Toro

  3. #3
    Junior Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    99

    Default

    If true, I'd think that a real 'wait a moment' issue for buyers. What about ground collissions and other relatively minor but not-that-uncommon sort of incidents during a fleet's service life? Unless there's something substantially more at play here than what's been reported thus far, I would be surprised that the write-off threshold would be so low.

    Arrow

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrow View Post
    If true, I'd think that a real 'wait a moment' issue for buyers. What about ground collissions and other relatively minor but not-that-uncommon sort of incidents during a fleet's service life? Unless there's something substantially more at play here than what's been reported thus far, I would be surprised that the write-off threshold would be so low.

    Arrow
    I would be surprised if it is a write-off. Seems to me they could replace a section (47 or 48 maybe) of the aircraft.

  5. #5
    Junior Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Unless the hull is squeezed out toothpaste-like. Then I could see an issue. But then again, I'm sure someone from Boeing could just send one of the interns down to the local pharmacy or grocery store for a replacement tube.

    Arrow

  6. #6
    Senior Member B757300's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CLL
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    At worst, they could remove the damaged sections and attach new ones. The 787 is assembled in sections, so replacing the tail section would be doable and I'm sure it's still under warranty.

    Boeing once had to replace the entire nose section of a 707 which was blown up, in Beirut IIRC.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,004

    Default Lets think about this for a second...

    The military have been using Carbon fibre and various CFRP and honeycomb materials in their aircraft for years. I would find it hard to believe given that military aircraft go places where being shot at is a real probability that it is impossible to economically repair these materials.

    Boeing has been in business long enough to know aircraft are subject to minor damage from time to time and that the structure needs to be repairable.

    If this is a write off then my guess is that there was one hell of a lot more involved than just damage to the airframe.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    485

    Default

    Considering the frames QF has managed to repair in recent times (various incidents in BKK, MNL, SIN) then I'd have to say it's not credible that this could be a hull loss.

    Could take a bloody long time to fix though.

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
    The military have been using Carbon fibre and various CFRP and honeycomb materials in their aircraft for years. I would find it hard to believe given that military aircraft go places where being shot at is a real probability that it is impossible to economically repair these materials.

    Boeing has been in business long enough to know aircraft are subject to minor damage from time to time and that the structure needs to be repairable.

    If this is a write off then my guess is that there was one hell of a lot more involved than just damage to the airframe.
    I worked on the RAF Harrier GR7's the composite parts could not be fixed with carbon fibre, you can not "glue them together" the components are baked in an oven. the only badly damaged a/c was after a lightening strike they were repaired it by a large "scab" patch of steel and special large "foot" fasteners. (normal fasteners would pull though the carbon fibre... the problem with heat is that it breaks down the resin and it's nearly impossible to repair so it may wide spread and not just confined to the immediate fire location, the military understood the problems with CF and composites , green stick fractures etc, but we still lost a harrier because of it.

    http://www.gizmocrazed.com/2011/10/h...ructed-images/

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsv View Post
    Considering the frames QF has managed to repair in recent times (various incidents in BKK, MNL, SIN) then I'd have to say it's not credible that this could be a hull loss.

    Could take a bloody long time to fix though.
    The QF frames were alloy with composite faring etc, which are non structural.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy C View Post
    The link is a good desciption of the manufacturing technique but it misses out an important step. After layup the assembly is bagged and evacuated. After insertion into the autoclave it is subject to high pressure thus minimizing voids in the layup, and then it is heated under pressure to bond all the carbon layers together.

    I have been involved with large aerospace structures, similar to those shown for the 787, and the subsequent barrel sections were assembled using bonding and mechanical fasteners.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highkeas View Post
    The link is a good desciption of the manufacturing technique but it misses out an important step. After layup the assembly is bagged and evacuated. After insertion into the autoclave it is subject to high pressure thus minimizing voids in the layup, and then it is heated under pressure to bond all the carbon layers together.

    I have been involved with large aerospace structures, similar to those shown for the 787, and the subsequent barrel sections were assembled using bonding and mechanical fasteners.
    yes i missed that - the vacuum and the presurization bits
    i was trying to explain the difficulties in repair, the B787 (and the A350) are not the typical sheet alloy and rivet of the past. which is relatively easy to repair,
    besides if it has damaged the wing box. then thats really a problem.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    at 1,600 metres
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Probaly only Boeing knows the extent of damage to the KBOS 787 and knows if it can be returned toflight (I bet Boeing has a team working this issue).

    Here is what Boeing says about 787 repairs:
    In addition to using a robust structural design in damage-prone areas, such as passenger and cargo doors, the 787 has been designed from the start with the capability to be repaired in exactly the same manner that airlines would repair an airplane today with bolted repairs. The ability to perform bolted repairs in composite structure is service-proven on the 777 and offers comparable repair times and skills as employed on metallic airplanes. (By design, bolted repairs in composite structure can be permanent and damage tolerant, just as they can be on a metal structure.)
    Source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...icle_04_2.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •