I understand Wayne (aka elonmusk909, fred.james48, dell.george and several other IDs) has been making all kinds of claims about how the A350 uses more light weight composite material than the 787. That's completely false. It's the other way around. In fact, across the board Airbus isn't introducing nearly as much new technology on the A350 as Boeing did on the 787. If you doubt that, just check out the trade press. It's documented all over the place. I also happen to have a friend who works for Airbus and she confirmed it as well.
Hey dude....any idiot can introduce new gadgets......but apparently boeing introduced a little more than they can handle....this whole 787 fiasco is an international embarrassment.......ceo mcninny should be fired.
So you know how this works, right? The more new, state-of-the-art technology you put into something, the more likely it’s going to have problems early on in its life cycle. I could give you a hundred different examples, but the PlayStation 2 video game console and the Apollo command module come to mind.
When Sony introduced the PlayStation 2 in 2000, early versions of it suffered from what was called a “disc read error”. Without any warning whatsoever, brand new consoles would just suddenly stop being able to read the optical discs that the games are on. People would put a disc in the console to play a game, the system would display “Disc Read Error” on their TV and that’s it. The system wouldn’t boot up and play the game, essentially rendering the PlayStation 2 just a very expensive paper weight. Sony went on to fix the problem however and eventually sold a bazillion of the things. Microsoft had a similar experience with the XBox.
Then there’s the Apollo command module. Astronauts Roger Chaffey, Russ Grissom and Ed White died when a fire somehow started inside the command module during a ground test on the launch pad. Did NASA and the designers of the command module throw in the towel, declare it junk and quit? No, they did not. They vowed to do better, redesigned it and eventually put a man on the moon. One does not make significant leaps in performance or go on to do revolutionary things without taking risks. I know that’s what everybody would like, but it just doesn’t work that way.
Has the 787 has been experiencing some maddening, frustrating, in-service technical issues? You bet, but once Boeing and the suppliers involved have a chance to determine the cause, design fixes for them and get the fixes implemented, history suggests that the 787 will go on to be a very good A/P and perform very well. I’ve worked in this industry for almost a quarter of a century and have worked on several development programs. I’ve seen it all before and ...