777x fuselage splits - another problem for Boeing.

Henry Ford III

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/boeing-777x-fuselage-reportedly-split-during-september-stress-test.html

Between this, the 737NG cowling issue, and the 737 Max disaster things aren't looking too good for Boeing.

p.s. anyone brave enough to buy their shares yet?

Car99

Henry Ford III wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/boeing-777x-fuselage-reportedly-split-during-september-stress-test.html

Between this, the 737NG cowling issue, and the 737 Max disaster things aren't looking too good for Boeing.

p.s. anyone brave enough to buy their shares yet?

This day last year it was 333usd today its 368. No panic with shareholders yet, why?

Because there aren't enough jets in the world to meet future demand and Airbus cant build anymore than they are at present. The worlds airlines need Boeing jets.

Henry Ford III

Car99 wrote: »

This day last year it was 333usd today its 368. No panic with shareholders yet, why?

Because there aren't enough jets in the world to meet future demand and Airbus cant build anymore than they are at present. The worlds airlines need Boeing jets.

I agree they do, but are Boeing able to deliver airframes that are safe?

Inquitus

Wow really ripped the airframe to bits, it was reported as just a Cargo door blowing out.

https://twitter.com/seatimesbiz/status/1199689716750270464

faoiarvok

Henry Ford III wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/boeing-777x-fuselage-reportedly-split-during-september-stress-test.html

Between this, the 737NG cowling issue, and the 737 Max disaster things aren't looking too good for Boeing.

p.s. anyone brave enough to buy their shares yet?

It’s hardly fair to compare this event to those issues. This is a ground test of a new type, specifically designed to push the airframe well past expected loads and right up to the edge of the calculated point of failure. The frame failed just below that point, but isn’t that why they do the test?

Inquitus

faoiarvok wrote: »

It’s hardly fair to compare this event to those issues. This is a ground test of a new type, specifically designed to push the airframe well past expected loads and right up to the edge of the calculated point of failure. The frame failed just below that point, but isn’t that why they do the test?

Aye, but worth noting the A350 passed this test.

circular flexing

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye, but worth noting the A350 passed this test.

Was it the exact same forces? According to the source article, Boeing pressurised the cabin more than they were required to

And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-777xs-fuselage-split-dramatically-during-september-stress-test/

Turbulent Bill

It's embarrassing for Boeing as it wasn't supposed to be a test to failure, but these things happen. The test is for an extreme condition, when in all likelihood something else major has gone wrong and structural integrity isn't the biggest issue.

mickdw

I'm amazed how strong the current 777 is.
The BA that landed short stayed together perfectly.
The crash landing at San Francisco was unbelievable in that the main fuselage stayed intact.
I think they was another crash landing too with similar results.

Kevski

mickdw wrote: »

I'm amazed how strong the current 777 is.
The BA that landed short stayed together perfectly.
The crash landing at San Francisco was unbelievable in that the main fuselage stayed intact.
I think they was another crash landing too with similar results.

Emirates in Dubai?

Henry Ford III

faoiarvok wrote: »

It’s hardly fair to compare this event to those issues. This is a ground test of a new type, specifically designed to push the airframe well past expected loads and right up to the edge of the calculated point of failure. The frame failed just below that point, but isn’t that why they do the test?

I think you missed my point.

I'm not doing a comparison. I'm adding these issues together and wondering is the something wrong with Boeing's ability to make quality new products.

p.s. That test wasn't a destruction test. They expected the fuselage to remain intact.

kirving

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think you missed my point.

I'm not doing a comparison. I'm adding these issues together and wondering is the something wrong with Boeing's ability to make quality new products.

p.s. That test wasn't a destruction test. They expected the fuselage to remain intact.

It failed at 99% of the test load, which to be fair is probably way beyond expected operating conditions.

If I take my engineering hat off for a moment, and put on my accounting hat, you want the absolute lowest quality (ie: lowest cost) products that meets minimum requirements, and no more.

An accountant will view a product that smashes the test limit as an over-engineered waste of money. An ideal scenario is for it to fail at 101% of the test limit.

Personally, I don't agree with that way of thinking when lives are at stake in some unforeseen accident in years to come.

faoiarvok

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'm not doing a comparison. I'm adding these issues together and wondering is the something wrong with Boeing's ability to make quality new products.

Not a comparison then, more of a false equivalence by even listing them together. If this happened on an airframe that had been certified and sold to a customer, it’d be fair enough to cite it as evidence of a failure in their ability to make quality products. But how are they supposed to make quality products without testing them, with the possibility of occasional failure?

Henry Ford III wrote: »

p.s. That test wasn't a destruction test. They expected the fuselage to remain intact.

I didn’t claim it was, I said they were purposely pushing the airframe close to the predicted point of failure.

While I’m at it, the cowling issue also doesn’t seem to me to call in to question the quality of their products. It’s a part that was widely accepted to be safe and fit for purpose to protect against a separate risk that is already pretty well mitigated. The Southwest accident revealed an unforeseen failure mechanism, and the system is essentially working as it should - investigators, regulators, manufacturers and operators finding and implementing a fix to prevent a repeat of the incident.

I’m in no way a defender of Boeing and have serious concerns with their (and their regulator’s) approach to quality control based on MCAS and other reported issues, I just think that you’re trying too hard to link these two things to something wider that’s already been fairly well evidenced.

As far as I’m concerned, this and the cowling issue actually show the industry’s safety management systems working well, proactively in the case of the 777X pre-certification testing, and reactively with the investigation and overhaul of the CFM56 cowling.

murphaph

I would suggest there is a cultural problem within Boeing management.

The issues raised wrt angle grinders and hammers being used at subcontractors to get supposedly precisely machined parts to mate should have been an early indicator of some serious quality problems creeping into the company.

It's really sad. I've always just accepted the fact that Boeing would always "do things properly" and not put the share price at the very top of the priority list.

faoiarvok

murphaph wrote: »

I would suggest there is a cultural problem within Boeing management.

The issues raised wrt angle grinders and hammers being used at subcontractors to get supposedly precisely machined parts to mate should have been an early indicator of some serious quality problems creeping into the company.

It's really sad. I've always just accepted the fact that Boeing would always "do things properly" and not put the share price at the very top of the priority list.

This is a really interesting article on that topic, that argues their current woes can be traced back to a particular moment that Boeing stopped being a company run by engineers: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/

banie01

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think you missed my point.

I'm not doing a comparison. I'm adding these issues together and wondering is the something wrong with Boeing's ability to make quality new products.

p.s. That test wasn't a destruction test. They expected the fuselage to remain intact.

The integration of McDonnell's management practice and culture is starting to bear rotten fruit IMO.
Those things Boeing used to do quite well, have been seconded to accountants.

I've been banging a drum on Boeing's culture issues for a good while now and there are serious failings at play.
The amount of engineering band design failings across their recent product range is quite staggering yet the stock is still holding a ridiculous (IMO) valuation in the face of the lack of 5th and 6th gen military orders or development.
Losing ICBM contracts, Losing large portions of military maintenance to other private contractors, encountering airframe and systems issues with the P-8 and the KC-46, and on the civil side facing into passenger confidence destroying issues across their current offerings.