Comments on: Warning: Dan Rather may be unsafe

Glaskowsky analyzes the engineering claims made against Boeing's 787 on the HDNet TV series "Dan Rather Reports."

[romanom]

Dan Rather is a nut!

Most people already know that Dan Rather is a conspiracy addict and more than a bit off his rocker.

This only proves it to me. I'm sure Bush, aliens, Freemasons and the CIA also had something to do with it.

I am an engineer that has worked both with metal and non-metal synthetics and I would love to fly on a 787.

So not to bore anybody with technical jargon, I'll give you an example of what composites can do...

*The entire wing (and most everything else) of the F/A-22 is made of carbon-fiber based composites. The Raptor sees a bit more stress than a commercial airliner and yet they're not falling out of the sky...hmm!

All composite synthetics designs are everywhere in the aerospace and automotive world, any "engineer" that would suggest this is an unsafe or untested material is an outright LIER and fool!

Personally, I'd trust my safety more to synthetic composites than to aluminum, magnesium or ferrous metals.

[lindaabc]

Take it or leave it

Ummm... isn't this dangerous ground attacking Dan Rathers on the internet? I'm surprised it is alowed here on CNET. As far as him as a reporter, let me give you some advice... You will undoubtedly from time to time run into reports by people you disagree with. It is best to ignore them. Take it or leave it. To post what you did could land you in legal trouble.... wether you are correct or not. It is still defaming him, and could be construde as inflamatory. It is one thing to give critisizm of a comany... but once you criticize a person...especialy a celebrety...all I can say is watch out!

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

I'm glad you didn't take your own advice. Really.

You could have just ignored my post, but it's better for everyone that you're willing to disagree when you think someone is saying something wrong.

That's what I did, and I explained the factual basis for my opinions. I feel no malice toward Weldon, Rather, or Schiavo. I simply believe they were wrong in what they said.

. png

[algorithm eng]

G?day folks whilst I find your discussion on the pros & cons of the 787 interesting Boeing themselves admit there is no way to test the structural integrity of primary composite parts & assemblies after they have been installed, this alone should have stoped the fools in their tracks ! And it would have if the bean counters had not been given total power over the engineering minds within the company, when the very engineers who made Boeing a great aircraft manufacturer raised their concerns about the safety of composite materials employed as primary airframe components they were silenced or sacked by the bean counters ! Why ?? To sell a pig in a poke to unsuspecting airlines and win the virtual title of most popular manufacturer, you see the problem compounds itself when you look at who is making the decision to buy the pig ! YES more bean counters who have no idea of the engineering ramifications of Boeings foolhardy design.

The Basics of Composite components.

1 Incorporating composite construction into aircraft design is not new, Boeing are not introducing some fabulous new technology into aircraft design composites have been used extensively to manufacture aircraft for decades, what?s new is Boeing?s leap of faith in composites as PRIMARY STRUCTURE ( if it breaks you are dead type structure ) then burying the said structure in the guts of an airframe where eventually it will fail ! no ifs or buts about it by there very nature composite materials deteriorate and will inevitably fail eventually, stick your head inside any composite fuselage of any age and you will notice the smell of solvents in the air this smell is OUT GASSING of the volatile components of the composite material and it is these very volatiles that hold the structure together, at some point in time depending on the local environment and stress applied the structure WILL fail catastrophically, composites don?t give any prior warning before they fail they do not deform or crack like aluminium they shatter like glass or delaminate.

2 If you pay peanuts you get monkeys !! Having had the dubious pleasure to work with the top three US aircraft manufacturers I know that they regard the operators who actually manufacture their aircraft as an inconvenient necessity they have no regard for the roots of there success, the company was built on the back of its engineering staff who were the best of the best they were well trained and took personal responsibility to ensure the safety of the end user of their aircraft, now the bean counters run the show safety is only considered if it is cost effective, the staff on the factory floor are as a rule untrained in the deeper aspects of aircraft manufacture or yes men who are only there to make a living, the contempt that Boeing management show towards the staff on the factory floor is reflected in the low wages paid to manufacture the supposedly most technically advanced aircraft in the world, it is impossible to maintain quality control when even the quality control department is staffed by inexperienced yes men,
when manufacturing composite components procedure is everything ! The timing cleanliness, temperature, mix ratio, humidity, light, and many other factors have to be considered and compensated for on the fly! Monkeys WILL screw it up, you only have to look at the mess Hawker De Havilland made of manufacturing the Eurocopter composite cockpit, the procedure specified for the composite lay up was not followed correctly consequently there was extensive delaminating of the composite layers on every lay up, the specifications were correct but it was going to require more than a monkey to fully understand and carry out the process. I think in the end they put the project in the too hard basket.

3 The devil is in the detail !! Composite components present some extreme problems when it comes to the simple act of joining two or more components, the proper installation of the joining fasteners is critical and requires diligent skilled operators to successfully complete the process any deviation from the recommended installation procedure WILL result in the fastener failing under load, from personal experience I know that monkeys are being employed to carry out this critical but boring task, I personally tested a composite assembly produced for the RAAF Orion P3c I was stunned when more than 25% of the fasteners in the assembly FAILED ! In fact it was almost impossible to disassemble because the fasteners had failed and were rotating within the composite material, these fasteners must have failed as the unit was being assembled ! The unit had not even been fitted the aircraft fortunately the assembly was not primary structure but never the less it presented a clear and present danger to the aircrew and was subsequently rejected by the RAAF.

[algorithm eng]

Installing fasteners in composite material requires a skilled diligent operator to repetitively carry out a seemingly simple task 100s of times a day, there is no room for error composite components are only as strong as there weakest fastener they must be 100%, it may look like s simple task but if you ask any engineer familiar with installing fasteners in composite materials they will tell you there are all sorts of near miss ways to install a fastener and only one way to guarantee 100% integrity and it takes a trained eye to spot the near miss ! Monkeys just don?t cut it.

4 THERMAL CYCLING ! Now if by some miracle Boeing manage to successfully assemble the 787 and they get everything 100% right ( dream on ) there is still the problem that composite materials have a fatal flaw which makes them particularly dangerous when used in aircraft construction.

Unlike formula 1 cars !!! Aircraft airframes are constantly subjected to thermal cycling, on the ground -20C to +50C is quite normal in flight the outside air temperature can be as low as -60C, it only requires one defect in the surface finish or fasteners installation of the composite material to allow moisture to enter the matrix of the material, at that point the clock is ticking and the component is already starting to fail, as the aircraft completes its day to day tasks inside the matrix the moisture is constantly being frozen and thawed , as you know as water phase changes to ice it expands so every time the water thaws there is a little more room in the matrix to take on more water and so it goes on until the matrix is eventually ripped apart in a catastrophic failure at normal flight loads, No ifs no buts as soon as the first drop of moisture enters the matrix failure at normal flight loads is eventually inevitable.


Yes composites have a very important roll to play in the design and manufacture of 21st century aircraft but not as PRIMARY STRUCTURE !! ( I define PRIMARY STRUCTURE as - if it brakes you are DEAD ! )

Boeings 787 Dreamliner in my opinion will turn into their worst nightmare, they should have listened to their real experts the engineers not the bean counters and marketing staff, when the customers airline engineers start to freak out about their inability to inspect primary structural parts therefore rendering them incapable of assessing the structural integrity of the aircraft, Boeing will be forced to guarantee the structural integrity of the said parts for the life of the aircraft or develop an NDT method which will enable engineers to assess the condition of the component.

Until such times as a reliable NDT program is developed for the entire primary structure of the 787 airframe you will be playing Russian roulette if you fly in one.

If Boeing think expertise is expensive TRY IGNORANCE !!

Boeing will no doubt dispute all of the above and they will as usual shoot the messenger ! my time here will be short but if it opens the mind of even one individual I am happy.

As for the toy Raptor F22 at the price it should be machined from a solid billet of titanium ! and I am betting that the primary structure of a F22 is metal just like the F 18. Yes it does have a lot of composites employed in its secondary and superstructure but the primary structure is still metal exotic maybe but nevertheless metal ! Mostly titanium alloys in the wings I am told.

So you can not compare the conventional airframe of a F 22 with the leap of faith Boeing has taken .