While Airbus has been under scrutiny for airframe failures in its deployed fleet and experienced delays with its A380 “SuperJumbo” roll out, Boeing has had it’s own issues with the 787 Dreamliner – a smaller, more fuel efficient design made possible by a more extensive use of composites throughout the airframe.
This blogger has done some excellent research – and has good commentary – on the latest static testing failure that led to the company’s June delay.
In search of greater efficiencies in flight and production, Boeing made some strategic steps that have now left it vulnerable. The outsourcing of materials to foreign countries prevented the company from using its military-tested processes while incurring supply chain irregularities. Weight – always the enemy of a new airframe – has blossomed. But supply chain peturbations eventually smooth themselves out, and weight can be trimmed (or expectations massaged).
A design error is much more difficult to rectify though.
In my travels I have been avoiding the Airbus frames. In the future I will also avoid the 787. I find the 757 and 777 preferable. The former over the latter because the idiots have taken up half your leg room in the 777 coach section by positioning the TV electronics box where you would normally place your feet.
Your third para above tells it all when it comes to Boeing military products as well.
Hornets A-G, Ospreys, even Posidons, all Boeing products exhibit that same fundamental design deficiency to some degree. We all know the post-CDR and time tested set of workarounds to accommodate that unfortunate characteristic but they continue to win contracts!
b2
The decision to outsource production of components is a marketing one, but a necessary one in many ways. Virtually the only way to generate sales overseas for airplanes is through production offsets. That is, country X’s national airline will be happy to buy Boeing products, provided, of course, they get to build component Y for the entire fleet.
Boeing would have been happy to keep production local, but they would then find themselves with an excellent airplane that generated no sales.
Lex, many thanks for entering a tough debate. You have the expertise, humility and honesty to enter the debate. Me, I’m just like many others, just observers. I’m describing the concept of tankers or an air bridge to our areas of interest. I am referring to this tanker or air bridge issue and come to some final answers. When we start finding answers, we could be talking of a larger updated Carrier Fleets. We must remember, the lack of same have not stopped us before, but it is *not* wise.