Dreamliner’s publicity nightmare

One website NewsBuster headlined the story this way: “Expect Dan Rather Boeing 787 Story to Fly Past Some Facts. ” And then claimed: “Still smarting from his Memogate spanking, disgraced former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather is trying to reclaim journalistic glory by trumpeting the claims of a supposed Boeing whistleblower. ” Weldon was formerly employed as a high level engineer and manager at Boeing’s Phantom Works research unit in St Louis and argued that the 787 needed stiffer tests than those Boeing has conducted. He asserted that the composite structure could shatter in a crash landing and burn emitting toxic fumes.

He contended that when it shattered it would open up holes that would allow a fire and toxic smoke inside what remained of the cabin.

However on those points alone Weldon appears to be off track. In virtually any major crash where fire is involved the aluminium fuselage has typically ripped open and with a burn through rate of just two minutes, aluminium is a very poor second to composites Boeing is using on the 787 which have a burn through rate of 20 minutes! Boeing has completed three tests using the lower half of a 787 partial fuselage and the test involved slow crushing in a vice, ramming from a steel plate and a vertical drop from five metres onto a steel plate. All test results validated Boeing computer modelling.

As Boeing strongly refuted the Weldon claims Contrails learnt from two sources in Japan that structural testing of some sections of the 787 – including the wing – was abandoned after achieving 180 per cent of the design load.

“It simply wouldn’t break” one source told Contrails.

Boeing spokesperson Lori Gunter said that “Boeing’s technical teams had thoroughly investigated all the claims of Weldon and we are absolutely convinced of the safety of the 787. ” Gunter also added that Weldon was not part of the 787 program nor would he have the benefit of the latest structural testing data.

And support for the 787 also came from an unusual source – Airbus. Clay McConnell, VP corporate communications at Airbus North America told media: “The properties of composite structures vary greatly according to their design purpose.

Any suggestion that composites behave in a certain way doesn’t give the whole story.

The orientation of the carbon fibres in the various layers in a composite structure is designengineered to give the desired strength across various axes.

The carbon fibre structure is going to vary according to the unique purpose for that structure and the certification requirement in each area of the airplane. ” Hans Weber, owner of the consulting firm Tecop International in San Diego, and a past and present consultant to the FAA on safety issues, asserts that Weldon’s concerns are off base.

Weber is former chairman of the FAA’s Committee for Fire Safety Research and currently chairs the FAA’s Technical Oversight Working Group for Aircraft Cabin Environment. “There are two issues: first is crash-worthiness and crash behaviour. I really think this is a total red herring,” Weber said of the Weldon complaints. “The difference of composites vs aluminium is well known and taken into account. The [Boeing] drop test completely validated the design codes. ” There can be no question that a microscope is being applied to the Boeing 787 because of Airbus’s A380 problems and the fact that so much of the production has been moved away from Seattle and the US.

The latter situation resulted in one Boeing mechanic sending photos of supposed gaps in the fuselage sections arriving from different suppliers to the Seattle Times earlier this year.

Mike Bair, 787 program VP, was able to simply explain the problem at the Paris Airshow in June. Bair told Contrails that the forward fuselage, built by Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, had sagged and bulged outward in one section after some secondary parts were not put in position early enough for shipment.

This meant that a temporary support structure was put in place for shipment but when it was removed at Everett some distortion resulted and had to be corrected. The fit in fact was prefect.

And talking of perfect Bair told media at Paris that the wing join to the centre wing box was “the best ever for a Boeing aircraft,” with only a difference of 40/1000ths of an inch out on the left wing and the right wing was “dead on. ” It’s the ongoing delays to the 787’s first flight that are causing its airliner customers greatest concern, rather than crashworthiness and production panel fit furphies