Howard_T

Boeing's 747 Dreamliner and CDS / Equity Ratio

There are probably hundreds of work orders written every week in the aircraft industry that say "ground test only, no flight test". All depends on the nature of the work to be done and how it may be evaluated. Something like a modification to landing gear actuation systems would be best tested on the ground by jacking up the aircraft, attaching a hydraulic cart, and cycling the gear. Most electrical and instrumentation systems can be tested on the ground with special test equipment. In fact, in-flight testing is used only when there is no other option because ground tests are not only much less expensive but also can be monitored more closely.

Mr. Delaney, you need to spend a lot more time learning something about aircraft before you write articles such as the above. I'll give you a pass on the headline, since it was likely not your error. By the way, the move of Boeing's corporate headquarters to Chicago was for two reasons. First, it is closer to the military aircraft operations, the former McDonnell-Douglas plants in St. Louis. Second, Seattle is too remote from any of the major financial markets. Boeing still maintains its research and development center in Seattle, as well as the manufacturing facilities in Everett and Renton.

My Thoughts on Bernanke, Boeing and Citibank

On Boeing's 787 problems, the reason they kept coming up 7s and 11s on their previous commercial programs was that all were rather conservative forward moves from existing platforms. The original platform was an offshoot of a military tanker program that was made necessary by the performance characteristics of the B-47; it was too fast for existing piston powered tankers, thus the KC-135/707 was born. From the 707 forward, all that was done was to enlarge fuselage sections, try out new engines, etc. All of these steps were taken incrementally, not with a great leap. The 787 now makes use of a lot of new technology. I do not wonder that Boeing is having problems, but I applaud their conservative approach. Unlike Airbus, they do not rush into production and then hold their breath. The A-330 problems illustrate this point well. I believe there is a fundamental problem with Airbus aircraft that is hidden well enough that it has been overlooked. There seems to be some structural weakness in their use of composites coupled with their insistence on "fly-by-wire" control actuation. Flight control software may also be a weakness. If you need to limit control surface movement because the surface might break off, there is a problem. Many aircraft mechanics who have worked on both Boeing and Airbus platforms are of the opinion that the Airbus vehicles are "throwaway" aircraft, and are not built to last.

On the F-22, the problem is the old nemesis of design, "requirements creep". As you design something, new technologies become available, and the customers often ask you to include something else in what you have done. This usually means costly and time consuming redesign, and you never seem to get to the end. The F-22 is without a doubt the most advanced aircraft of its type ever built. I have some knowledge of its capability, and frankly I would not want to oppose one. The problem is to be able to pay for enough of them to ensure the survival of enough to completely destroy an enemy's capability. In other words, if you have 200 F-22s, and each can handle 10 enemy aircraft, the enemy needs to have in excess of 2,000 aircraft. If he does, then the F-22 is a losing proposition. (Please note that my numbers here are purely hypothetical and not based on any published studies) Replacing the F-22 with the F-35 is not entirely a bad idea, but the cost of the F-35 is likely to approach that of the F-22. Now we are faced with the same dilemma some years down the road. So what is our alternative? Some say building many more cheaper, less capable aircraft (upgraded F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s) is the answer. The problem here is manpower. It is very expensive to train a military pilot, and his service life as a pilot is quite a bit less than that of the aircraft he flies. It is not an easy problem, and politicizing it is the wrong thing to do. Someone needs to convince the politicians to take a long look at the many studies and intelligence analyses that have been done over the years, and hope that they can come to the right answer. Of course, expecting a politician to put what is right for his country ahead of what gets him re-elected is a forlorn hope.