777X: now with improved ventilation!

[elaw]

https://komonews.com/news/local/door-bl ... tress-test

[3WE]

Eric's article: Sources tell KOMO there was a stunned silence after it happened.

I dunno, I would have expected a loud bang after it happened???

[Gabriel]

Testing officially suspended (and hence program factually delayed) while the investigation is ongoing.
I don't think it will be quick. When the investigation part is complete, who knows what will be the finding and then they need to start working in the corrective actions. I would not be surprised if first revenue flight moves from early 2020 to late 2021.

With the MAX and the 777-X commercially halted and the 747 almost halted, the only thing they have in business is the 787. I wonder how much capital cushion they have before this leads to curtains.

[J]

With the MAX and the 777-X commercially halted and the 747 almost halted, the only thing they have in business is the 787. I wonder how much capital cushion they have before this leads to curtains.

According to one Investment Banker, Verbal doesn't have to worry:

(excerpt)
Wall Street's biggest Boeing bull breaks down why the 737 Max fiasco has created a great buying opportunity

"Our top pick remains Boeing as we believe the 737 Max pause creates a buying opportunity while the aerospace cycle is steady," Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a Monday note. The combination of an "A-rated" balance sheet, attractive valuation, and the progress of Max upgrades has kept the firm positive on Boeing shares.

The company has a A2 credit rating, which the analysts say gives them the ability to raise more debt capital if necessary. Year to date, the company has raised more than $10 billion in debt while noting unused credit of more than $6 billion, the firm said.

After the 737 MAX is returned to flight, Morgan Stanley believes that demand for the airplane will return to normal — something supported by the company's backlog. This will help Boeing return to growing earnings between 10% and 15% each year, analysts said.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1028513872

[J]

Mentioned elsewhere, the GE engines were misbehaving. Now comes the following:

The Boeing 777X’s First Flight Could Be Nearer Now That GE Has Delivered Flight Compliant Engines

Other than the title, the text of the article cannot be pasted but, in summary, discusses earlier problems with the high pressure compressor. The replacement engine arrived after only three months and ground testing can soon resume.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777x-fi ... ht-update/

[Gabriel]

I wonder what's the status on the door issue.

[Not_Karl]

I wonder what's the status on the door issue.

I heard they're going to replace the doors with curtains.

[elaw]

Is that why everyone is saying these issues will be curtains for Boeing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCEuc6Ifro

[Not_Karl]

Is that why everyone is saying these issues will be curtains for Boeing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNCEuc6Ifro

Yes, maybe my pun was not as clear as I thought
(I remember watching that Bugs Bunny cartoon as a child, now i NEED to know in what form that pun was lost in translation... )

[3WE]

Yes, maybe my pun was not as clear as I thought

Do not despair!

Due to the higher standards here (including humour), we sometimes fall short in acknowledging your awesome and appropriate contribution.

It was noted and appreciated.

I still worry that we aren't beating to death stuff like: MCAS, corporate function, profits, and processes for making tough design decisions.

[elaw]

Update: the "door" that failed on the aircraft apparently didn't exist before the failure occurred: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ress-test/

[Gabriel]

It was a structural failure that happened during an ultimate load test where you actually apply loads on the structure until it fails.

The structure failed at 148% the design load. The requirement is 150%, so the plane did not pass the test. However, it was an engineering success that they got so close to what the engineering model predicted. Now they can use the data obtained from the test to fine-tune the model and made the necessary improvements to the structure.

[3WE]

***it was an engineering success that they got so close to what the engineering model predicted.***

You engineers and computer models... Cue the following:

1. 1955 era attitudes that engineers were out to kill pilots and ruin airplanes.

2. A BBieeee rant about ACTUALLY doing it instead of doing it WITH A SLIDE RULER.

/75% fun, 24% genuine flame attack.

[ocelot]

The structure failed at 148% the design load. The requirement is 150%, so the plane did not pass the test. However, it was an engineering success that they got so close to what the engineering model predicted.

Was it? I doubt the model predicted failure at 149%, or they wouldn't have run the test.

(Yeah, it's better than failing at 80% of design load, but...)

[Gabriel]

The structure failed at 148% the design load. The requirement is 150%, so the plane did not pass the test. However, it was an engineering success that they got so close to what the engineering model predicted.

Was it? I doubt the model predicted failure at 149%, or they wouldn't have run the test.

(Yeah, it's better than failing at 80% of design load, but...)

Of course not. But the model is a model and it will never reflect the reality with absolute precision, especially in a structure as complicated like that of a big airplane. If the model predicted the failure at 151% and the failure occurred at 148% and in a failure mode that is compatible with the model, that's a win for the model.