Boeing - Design Issues...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
988
Location
Europe
Im fairly certain its not hit bottom yet. And they have been having trouble meeting their military deliveries as well because they keep being turned away for violating military policy.

If they start losing customers then its definitely going to drop more.


Well, the engineers asked to take initiative and the British allowed them.

A lot of the time things fail not because they are impossible, but because the engineers with initiative are held back. The MAX is the perfect example. They actually had people willing to do the right thing and do it well, but they were harassed and held back.
As an architect I hate the fact that house industry just changes the old designs a bit and hardly ever gives a change for the architects to shine...or even earn and do their business. This almost makes me feel it is an illegal procedure.
 
Last edited:

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
Once they started using a Merlin engine instead of a [-]Harley[/-] Allison it was an ok plane...
Allison actually built and tested an engine which matched the Merlin, but for one reason or another it was not used. They actually used it when no Merlins were available for testing in order to simulate the Merlin. I have absolutely no idea why it was not used further, but they probably had a good reason.
 

trimtab

Active Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
43
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
The training requirement is obvious. The bean counters finally gave in after killing 340+ innocent people. Kudos to them.

The MCAS software fixes did not pass muster with any of the now four teams of test pilots. The manual trim forces were still excessive.

The steps rumored to be taken include disabling the MCAS after reactivation of the trim servos motors, and limiting the rate and max travel of MCAS stabilizer input. It's an engineering corner they were not able to reach without disappointing the bean counters, because now new training is required due to different handling characteristics.

This came from a well known aviation author many of you probably have heard of who is working on a book about this. I have not heard any confirmation of this.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
The manual trim really should have a ratchet handle installed. It could easily be added for minimal cost. Especially compared to everything else.

The major problem is that the manual control wheel jams very easily, so even if MCAS is turned off... they may not be able to return trim to normal.

That was the whole problem in the first place, when they cut control and went manual it was jammed. So simply having a system to make cutting MCAS easier doesn't guarantee the trim can be used after it gets turned off.
 

wktaylor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
172
Location
Midwest USA
Doggzilla… BTW...REF Your attached quotes... I have these in my 'quotes file'.

Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it.
and
And no, we don't know where it will lead. We just know there's something much bigger than any of us here.
… should be attributed to Steve Jobs.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
Doggzilla… BTW...REF Your attached quotes... I have these in my 'quotes file'.


and


… should be attributed to Steve Jobs.
I didn’t even know that was even still there. It doesn’t show for me. I thought it was removed in the update.

I must have disabled signatures in my settings or something.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
The military just called out Boeing again for its failures on the KC-46 program. It’s a huge $44 billion project that even outsizes the 787 development cost.
 

trimtab

Active Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
43
Location
rocky mountains, rocky, usa
https://wap.business-standard.com/article/international/failed-to-provide-refueling-tankers-usaf-warns-boeing-it-s-not-happy-120011800914_1.html

Boeing is a financial instrument masquerading as an airframe manufacturer. It has been mining the fruits of its past successes for decades in feats of financial arbitrage without planting the seeds of its future, cutting down its orchards for matchsticks quarterly.

Calhoun, the new bobbly head, is an accountant. His efforts won't change anything except to accelerate the arbitrage process.

Without technical vision and motivation at the top, the quarterly financial results are all that will continue to matter. These kinds of people don't have interest, exposure, or experience with what it takes to wrend raw materials into useful things....only the required but insufficient part that involves manipulating capital. They hand wave the rest.

If anything, this could bring about opportunities for real change in design and performance for air travel. Without the sunk costs in glacial design heritage and the work force that has promulgated and curated that heritage to its present state of decline, perhaps something else can emerge.

All they had to do was use both AOA's, alert the pilot to conflicts, allow the MCAS system to be disconnected from the trim servo independently, and mandate training for the new behavior. The brain trust in the C-suites at Boeing decided to cede the market to Airbus instead.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
Forgot to post the link with it.

They wrote a letter ripping into Boeing for terrible performance. At the end of the letter they wrote that they had "serious concerns about trust and safety" and made other comments about trust in other parts of the letter as well.

It states the Air Force has found over 500 deficiencies with the aircraft, that they are "incapable of performing their mission" and that the aircraft is already 2 years behind and over budget at $800 million a piece. Thats 6 times the price of the stock aircraft they are based on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-17/boeing-s-calhoun-warned-by-air-force-that-it-s-not-happy-either
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,429
Location
Seattle, WA
They wrote a letter ripping into Boeing for terrible performance. At the end of the letter they wrote that they had "serious concerns about trust and safety" and made other comments about trust in other parts of the letter as well.
Before I retired, the word was that Boeing had tried to pare engineering costs to the bone on the tanker program. They assigned few experienced engineers to the project, concentrating on younger engineers at the bottom of the pay scale. Boeing expected its lower-level managers to take up the slack, but too many of THEM had gone into management early rather than spend a few decades actually doing the kind of work they were supposed to be supervising.

This story was coming from inside the ranks of the engineer's union, so there is obviously a potential for bias.

My boss tried to loan me out to the tanker organization about ~18 months before I retired. I declined. Pointed out that he had a lot of engineers, but only one engineer who could write. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
To be fair, a lot of the problems are in production. Which is more of a management thing.

As you know, the military has extremely strict production rules. They have been finding tools and metal shavings in their aircraft apon delivery, which means someone in Boeing was falsifying the tool records when tools went missing inside aircraft.

For those of you not familiar with military production rules, they require every tool to be accounted for during production in order to avoid tools being left inside of compartments and potentially damaging sensitive equipment or causing fires.
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
Location
Sydney
Annnnd the new software update is crashing the computers on startup when it tries to verify the status of the instruments.

This probably explains why the software is taking so long for a relatively "simple" upgrade.

https://www.slashgear.com/boeing-finds-yet-another-737-max-software-issue-19607147/
The windows black screen of death, just what you want on the worlds most expensive fuel loader.

Yet more of what I have been saying from the start. Complete arrogance from Boeing. If they can't keep a military fueller program clean with gold plated prices, what hope a civilian machine at a small fraction of the cost.

The decision to stop Airbus from supply after winning the contract, playing politics and changing the rules to suit Boeing, is all a disaster.

Massively over budget, under performing, not to spec, falsified records and not able to be used.

A perfect storm of stupidity under the guise of protecting national interest. Airbus are not a enemy but a partner in aerospace for the USA.

The season of shooting oneself with a shotgun appears in full swing.
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
Location
Sydney
So far 30 tankers delivered.....

Cost $800 million each

total $24 billion dollars.

This is only a small amount of those ordered.

Usable aircraft...

ZERO

And they are still building them even though the engineering fixes required and know for years are still to be designed. Genius.

Is it just me, but I would not accept aircraft that do not even come close to been usable.

But uncle Sam just pays and pays anyway. Would they keep paying if it was Airbus?

I do not think so.

$800 million is a lot for a big paper weight

Sadly here in Australia we have similar defence mentality.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,257
Location
Everywhere USA
Clarification: The computer crashes were the new 737 MAX software not the KC-46 tanker.

Ironically the only good thing about the KC-46 is it’s control system. The engineers foresaw the issues with the MAX and preemptively fixed it on the 46. The KC-46 has a far more reliable and safe control system than the MAX.

So at least it has that going for it.
 
2
Top