Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Boeing again pt2. 12

Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Is this the Peter Principle at work, or is the Peter Principle failing?
Are people now being promoted Past their first level of incompetence?


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
Always been that way. Even before AA.
That happened when they switched from THE company owner's money to OPM and the incompetence range expanded to equal IPO valuation.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
 
"The 737 size should have been clean sheeted then"

That is a popular claim. Which airline went to Boeing and said - we need a clean sheet design so all our current pilots won't be type rated to fly it, none of our mechanics will be trained to repair it, none of the tools will fit to fix it, and we really look forward to a number of new things that can fail in new ways.


The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.

Wasn't the A380 clean sheet also? Didn't that lose money for Airbus?

Meanwhile Boeing has been making money selling 737s to airlines which want to buy them and still has a backlog in the thousands.
 
3DDave, your point is well taken. To insure a clean sheet would have to be a regulatory process, at a point in the design program that makes sense for safety. Otherwise the financial departments of the airlines would certainly follow the logic trail you stated. Star for you.
 
3DDave said:
The now-A220 was clean sheet. It nearly bankrupted Bombardier to do it.

Come on it was in the full frontal assault of Boeing trying to kill it off.

Boeing got out played.

Over 1/3 of the development costs were spent on the avionics and flight control system, and network.

The airframe was 2 basic sizes but it already been stressed for 4-5 sizes. And apparently they have a wide body already on paper but there is no way that Airbus is going to let that mess with the A330.
 
"broken up" really doesn't describe the condition to me, given the widespread debris field. It was either an impact or explosion; the former would not be Boeing's fault, while the latter might be, but an explosion after 8 years in orbit seems unlikely.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Was the cause of the 2019 failure ever released? There was a gas release which could indicate an explosion or an impact involving certain parts of the satellite. It appears now that two have "exploded". Do odds favor a debris impact in a portion of the satellite that could cause an explosion or is there a condition within the satellite causing the explosions?

Are geosynchronous satellites more susceptible to impact damage?
 
At 22,000 mile altitude, are they not well above the bulk of the debrie field?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
 
At 22,000 miles out, I think you have to say "separated".[bigsmile]

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."
 
At 22,000 miles out, I think you have to say "separated".
Ah, but this is Boeing.
If management said that the door fell off, then the door fell off. (If you want to keep your job.)

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
Back
Top