I mentioned on this vid that the engine should be the number one priority to improve on but I'm finding that the aerodynamically SHAPE of the wings is just as important or even more so than the engine. The reasoning is that what if the engine breaks down while flying? At least with improved wings the plane can land more safely or it can 'hold it' to the nearest runway. And with improved wings, the fuel economy can be improved with sacrificing safety and comfort.
what about lightning resistance? has it been tested yet? i think they should remote a miniature 787 into high altitude into a storm and see what it does, and im interested to know what the results are, or else, i think it'd only be safe to fly in on night/non weather scenarios.
@palebit well there was one byu accident when they were testing the airplane in a rare thunderstorm. There was no damage to be detected, which means that it's pretty safe when lightning strikes.
even if airlines purchase the expensive/advanced 'inspection' equiptment, where are they going to have the time to inspect an ENTIRE fuselage made of this garbage material? i post this for peoples safety, and the basic fact is, don't fly on this or any other composite aircraft. if you get in a crash or one day the composite fails, there's a much higher chance that you're going to die. don't do it.
@palebit What the hell are you talking about? Composite fuselages are waaaaaaaaaay stronger than conventional aluminum. And what you are saying is what people once said about high altitude pressurized aluminum made aircraft. most notably the dehavaland comet. People questioned it's safety when there were cracks found in the windows which cause the entire airplane to breakup. well now that's no longer a concern thanks to smaller rounder windows. Same case and point here.
I understand that fuel economy is important but safety is much more important. This is why if you want fuel economy while not sacrificing safety, the engine is the FIRST important thing to improve on, as much as possible, since it's the one consuming the fuel.
Weldon's central point is quite correct. Because it feels it has to respond to Airbus competition (they took 50% of the market in a very short time), Boeing has launched far too quickly into a virtually all composite plane. Composites have been in vogue since the 60's. Boeing hemmed and hawed over their use for years under no pressure to change. Now suddenly, we have to be all composite. They have not done the homework and they don't have the talent. Expect many problems ahead.....
Wow, maybe boeing should look into those old style airbus models and really think about it :-\ they got a point...if you cant "see" damage, you wont think damage yet its still there and can eventually be destructive.
Okay, Rather spends 10 minutes criticizing Boeing for inspecting the 787 visually and NOT inspecting with advanced methods. Yeah, that seems a little inadequate based on the evidence presented. Then at the end he acknowledges (almost as an afterthought) that Boeing will inspect 787s with advanced methods. What then, was the point exactly regarding inspections? It makes the other criticisms seem rather contrived by the writers - though ex-Boeing guy Weldon seems to be well-intentioned.
at least their not crashing airplanes by the dozens like airbus that has bad several crashes in the rescent years unlike boeing which is rather scratchless these few years.
I predict that composites will be used for all 'protected' structures (spars, frames, stringers, etc.) with a thin layer of metal, maybe stainless steel or titanium, adhesively bonded/integrated to the composite, acting as a protective skin.
I predict the future. Aluminum metal planes will have the last laugh. Boeing will cease to exist along with Airbus due to lawsuits and failed planes. And the new producer of safe old-school metal planes in the future will be ......?
There are not any other producers that have the resources (Brains&Money) to get into the game, the only reason that airbus exsists is that the Europeon union funds almost all of the research and development. The #1 priority at boeing is safety.
I mentioned on this vid that the engine should be the number one priority to improve on but I'm finding that the aerodynamically SHAPE of the wings is just as important or even more so than the engine. The reasoning is that what if the engine breaks down while flying? At least with improved wings the plane can land more safely or it can 'hold it' to the nearest runway. And with improved wings, the fuel economy can be improved with sacrificing safety and comfort.
unknownunknowns 5 months ago
why the ripped canadian flag??
jamaq 8 months ago
what about lightning resistance? has it been tested yet? i think they should remote a miniature 787 into high altitude into a storm and see what it does, and im interested to know what the results are, or else, i think it'd only be safe to fly in on night/non weather scenarios.
palebit 1 year ago
@palebit well there was one byu accident when they were testing the airplane in a rare thunderstorm. There was no damage to be detected, which means that it's pretty safe when lightning strikes.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
even if airlines purchase the expensive/advanced 'inspection' equiptment, where are they going to have the time to inspect an ENTIRE fuselage made of this garbage material? i post this for peoples safety, and the basic fact is, don't fly on this or any other composite aircraft. if you get in a crash or one day the composite fails, there's a much higher chance that you're going to die. don't do it.
palebit 1 year ago
@palebit What the hell are you talking about? Composite fuselages are waaaaaaaaaay stronger than conventional aluminum. And what you are saying is what people once said about high altitude pressurized aluminum made aircraft. most notably the dehavaland comet. People questioned it's safety when there were cracks found in the windows which cause the entire airplane to breakup. well now that's no longer a concern thanks to smaller rounder windows. Same case and point here.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 i guess youre right thanks for the info
palebit 1 year ago
it has been 2.5 years delay.
applesweeter 2 years ago
I understand that fuel economy is important but safety is much more important. This is why if you want fuel economy while not sacrificing safety, the engine is the FIRST important thing to improve on, as much as possible, since it's the one consuming the fuel.
unknownunknowns 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Weldon's central point is quite correct. Because it feels it has to respond to Airbus competition (they took 50% of the market in a very short time), Boeing has launched far too quickly into a virtually all composite plane. Composites have been in vogue since the 60's. Boeing hemmed and hawed over their use for years under no pressure to change. Now suddenly, we have to be all composite. They have not done the homework and they don't have the talent. Expect many problems ahead.....
charliewilsonswar1 2 years ago
Wow, maybe boeing should look into those old style airbus models and really think about it :-\ they got a point...if you cant "see" damage, you wont think damage yet its still there and can eventually be destructive.
italianluvah83 2 years ago
Okay, Rather spends 10 minutes criticizing Boeing for inspecting the 787 visually and NOT inspecting with advanced methods. Yeah, that seems a little inadequate based on the evidence presented. Then at the end he acknowledges (almost as an afterthought) that Boeing will inspect 787s with advanced methods. What then, was the point exactly regarding inspections? It makes the other criticisms seem rather contrived by the writers - though ex-Boeing guy Weldon seems to be well-intentioned.
ideastoday 2 years ago
Noope...
Not on time...20 Months behind schedule.
BOEING SORE LOSERS..
arsenium666 3 years ago
Update...TWO FULL YEARS behind Scheduled.
BOEING: JOKE COMPANY.
arsenium666 3 years ago
UPdate: two full years behind schedule
Boeing: Careful Company
AznPwnageFTW 2 years ago
at least their not crashing airplanes by the dozens like airbus that has bad several crashes in the rescent years unlike boeing which is rather scratchless these few years.
AznPwnageFTW 2 years ago
Airbus' aircraft safety records are better than Boeing.
beavertown2006 1 year ago
@beavertown2006 yeah because theyve been around for half or less of the time boeing has.
vroomba03 1 year ago
I predict that composites will be used for all 'protected' structures (spars, frames, stringers, etc.) with a thin layer of metal, maybe stainless steel or titanium, adhesively bonded/integrated to the composite, acting as a protective skin.
johnbergstromslc 3 years ago
I predict the future. Aluminum metal planes will have the last laugh. Boeing will cease to exist along with Airbus due to lawsuits and failed planes. And the new producer of safe old-school metal planes in the future will be ......?
layton59 4 years ago
There are not any other producers that have the resources (Brains&Money) to get into the game, the only reason that airbus exsists is that the Europeon union funds almost all of the research and development. The #1 priority at boeing is safety.
27falco 2 years ago
thanks for posting these, i think composited with integrated sensors in the airframe itself will ultimately be the future
sevenboarder 4 years ago
Interesting. Thanks for the vid.
franzd03 4 years ago