Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Delamination prompts Boeing to inspect 787 fleet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Delamination prompts Boeing to inspect 787 fleet

    Boeing again faces a manufacturing quality issue, requiring inspections and repairs of its 787 fleet.

    Structural stiffeners were found to be improperly joined to the composite skin in the aft sections of the aircraft, causing parts of the aircraft's carbon fibre structure to delaminate, confirms the airframer.

    "Boeing has found that incorrect shimming was performed on support structure on the aft fuselage on certain airplanes in our facility in Everett, [Washington]," said the airframer.

    Flightglobal has confirmed there are at least three affected airframes, Airplanes 56, for All Nippon Airways, where the problem was first discovered, and Airplanes 57 and 58, the first two aircraft for Qatar Airways.

    Boeing declined to say how many 787s have this issue, though sources indicated that there are "significantly more" than the three initially identified in the factory.

    Programme sources say the stiffeners, or longerons that run along the length of the aircraft, are delaminating around the rear opening of the Section 48 section above and below the cutout known as the "bird's mouth" that holds the Alenia Aeronautica-built horizontal stabiliser.

    Boeing said the issue is a "straightforward repair" and poses no "short-term safety concern" and the airframer said its inspections have revealed "delamination in some instances."

    Boeing is currently conducting inspections on the already built 787s and those waiting to be assembled, at least 50 airframes, in Everett and its North Charleston, South Carolina facilities.

    "We have this condition well-defined and we are making progress on the repair plan," said Boeing and declined to say if the inspections were slowing preparations for delivering additional 787s.

    The issue, identified around 24 January was traced to assembly of the aft fuselage by Boeing South Carolina, Formerly Vought Aircraft Industries, where Sections 47 and 48 are fabricated, assembled and stuffed with systems before being delivered to final assembly lines in North Charleston or Everett.

    When the longerons are installed on the wound carbon fibre barrel, frames and longerons are secured to the skin of the structure to give it strength. When natural variations in the fit of parts exists, aerospace mechanics will install shims, or spacers, which compensate for variations and wedge into structure to create a tighter fit.

    Without the shims, damage can be sustained to the composite when fasteners are installed by pulling the structure together, damaging the layers of carbon fibre.

    Over the long-term composite delamination can decrease the fatigue life of the aircraft's structure.

    Boeing said it has "already taken appropriate steps to address this issue" in South Carolina, declining to elaborate on what steps it has taken.

    "We have already notified our early customers to ensure they are informed and aware of our plans to make repairs, should they be needed," the company said.
    More here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-fleet-367793/

    Now, is anyone going to speak about "Boeing's cheap composites" too?
    TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

    Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

    www.flytap.com

  • #2
    Originally posted by TAP-A343 View Post
    Now, is anyone going to speak about "Boeing's cheap composites" too?
    They may be cheap, but they're not a patch (excuse the pun) on the Airbus cheap crackerbox composites!

    Comment


    • #3
      What do you expect plastic to do? The dream liner in nice but they are having way to much trouble. If this keep's on happening customers will start walking away, every one have an agenda and schedules to keep.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
        What do you expect plastic to do?
        Composites can delaminate. Metal can corrode. Composites are stronger and have a longer life expectancy, but I expect both to occasionally fail, and so does the industry. Thus we have maintenance and inspections and service life specifications. Neither is a problem if these things are performed as required. This probably explains the scarcity of Airbus incidents due to delamination, and the repeated Boeing incidents due to metal fatigue.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, the learning curve is steep for Boeing. Do not outsource too much on a new design!
          "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

          Comment


          • #6
            I understand outsourcing some things but face it. If it was made in USA Boeing probably would not have such big issues with 787.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
              If it was made in USA Boeing probably would not have such big issues with 787.
              It was made in South Carolina. Actually, that kind of explains it...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alessandro View Post
                Well, the learning curve is steep for Boeing. Do not outsource too much on a new design!
                Originally posted by justLOT787
                I understand outsourcing some things but face it. If it was made in USA Boeing probably would not have such big issues with 787.
                Maybe the gentlemen would like to read the article they are about to give an opinion before opening their mouths (or tapping on their keyboards)?
                Originally posted by Article
                The issue was traced to assembly of the aft fuselage by Boeing South Carolina
                EDIT: I'm too slow by Evan's standards...
                EDIT II: Not that they didn't have some major issues with outsourced parts too, just not in this case.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                  I understand outsourcing some things but face it. If it was made in USA Boeing probably would not have such big issues with 787.

                  Agreed, but for a different reason, we can't be the best at higher tech material applications if we aren't making it here. Just assembling it isn't enough.

                  Bob

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Maybe the gentlemen would like to read the article they are about to give an opinion before opening their mouths (or tapping on their keyboards)?...
                    Are you Flyboy?
                    Les rčgles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think my toe nails have delaminated. Might be time to get out the black polish.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Assembling the plane in SC is one thing but building the parts for assembly is another thing. Parts are made over seas thus the problem with with the 787, and it's a plastic made plane...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                          Assembling the plane in SC is one thing but building the parts for assembly is another thing. Parts are made over seas thus the problem with with the 787, and it's a plastic made plane...
                          Ah... no. The problem comes from mistakes made in shimming during the assembly process, in SC. The material itself was not defective if handled correctly, but I'm guessing you have a very limited understanding of "plastics".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Oh..........No………… I'm guessing you must feel like you are Mr. know it all. The issue is that the parts are not made to spec. I'm in an industry that deals with morons from overseas that don't follow simple drawings to make parts................

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                              ................ The issue is that the parts are not made to spec. I'm in an industry that deals with morons from overseas that don't follow simple drawings to make parts................
                              I'm sure the parts were made to drawing requirements. The question should be are the drawings correct to begin with. One thing I always recommend to clients is that a DFMEA be performed prior to parts manufacture. During inspection parts are inspected to drawing requirements. One example I know about was that an electrical harness drawing showed some wires connected to the wrong connector pins. The test dept made a tester to verify correct assembly per drawing. Result was that harness was built per drawing, installed on a flight vehicle, that promptly crashed (fortunately no loss of life).

                              Shimming is routinely used in both metal and composite aircraft (for secondary structure assembly) due to tolerance build up, especially on interfacing compound surfaces.

                              Another issue with international drawings is that the US uses 3rd angle projection and many other countries use 1st angle projection. I know of a spin stabilized satellite that was built with its spin direction opposite that intended due to a misunderstanding of drawing projection differences. Fortunately the customer noticed the error.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X