Back to Squawk list
  • 39

Boeing grounds 777X test fleet on failure of engine mounting structure,

Submitted
Boeing’s next generation widebody – the 777X, with several size variants – faces new challenges today. It’s years behind schedule, and the airframe manufacturer’s test fleet has just been grounded. As first reported by The Air Current, a Boeing 777-9 test plane operated a Kona flight on Friday. When inspected after the flight, Beoing found “cracks in the thrust link structure.” Furthermore, there’s also been an issue with the mounting of the engine to the plane on Boeing’s other two test 777-9s.… (viewfromthewing.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bt1104053
Bob Turner 6
Isn’t this one of the reasons for test flights? To find any potential problems that may come up in the future especially with new technologies.
87vr6
Ron Wroblewski 2
This is something that should have been found way before test flights.. Like during stress testing, or engineering process.
cjhillconsultingservices
CJ Hill 4
Bowing encountered a thrust link problem during the original certification of the GE90/B777 back in the mid 90s. ETOPS certification took place after the plane was certified for general operations and the FAA held up ETOPS until this and several other issues were resolved.
cjhillconsultingservices
CJ Hill 2
Apologies to the Boeing folks and fans. “Bowing” was a result of autocorrect and not some sort of statement. Highest regard for Boeing employees. Saw the error but haven’t found an edit function. Size 2 font doesn’t help either :)
akovia
akovia 6
We were in and out of Boeing stock for decades. Did well by us. We quit investing when the bean counters took over. I think we all know where its long running problems come from.
87vr6
Ron Wroblewski 0
Yeah, WHEN THE BEAN COUNTERS TOOK OVER.

Let me guess, you think the problems stem from DEI, don't you?
designwebs
Johnny Miller 1
noun: bean counter; plural noun: bean counters; noun: beancounter; plural noun: beancounters
a person, typically an accountant or bureaucrat, perceived as placing excessive emphasis on controlling expenditure and budgets.
mbrews
mbrews 3
A few things to consider - The 777X uses an extremely powerful engine ( GE9x) . In engine testing, it was able to produce 134000 pounds of thrust. The 777X also features a composite wing structure. The 787 series has engines mounted to a composite wing. But AFAIK for 787, maximum thrust per engine is (approx.) 70000 to 80000 pounds thrust. Not making excuses for Boeing - just stating facts. Guessing the 777x engine mount migh be derived from 777-300 mount design, but adapted to composite wing ? Only a guess.
nasdisco
Chris B 2
A key difference between the X and prior generations is the single engine source decision.
777x is locked into a single power plant. Older generations had a simpler system to allowing the differing engine supplier’s product.

In many ways that should be simpler, but with 110l rated thrust, it obviously isn’t.

[This poster has been suspended.]

lordfarringdon
lordfarringdon 3
Wow. Designing and manufacturing an aircraft with the complexity of the T7X, and then testing that the design meets the requirements in practice with hull pressure testing, wing flex tedting and inflight testing kind of suggests you have no clue.
lordfarringdon
lordfarringdon 7
1.
The comments about space suits and bringing astronauts home have absolutely no bearing on this T7X testing regime. Same company but entirely different division.

2.
The complaints about Boeing playing PR games with these issues is just the same old 'Boeing is bad' narrative. For crying out loud, we wanted the accountants to let the engineers have more say and now the engineers are saying, "we aint releasing this bird until its ready". Thats what we wanted and thankfully we seem to now be getting that.

3.
This airplane has amazing new technolgy including the largest and most powerful engines ever strapped under an airliners wing and of course folding wing technology which although not new by any means is certainly new to large commercial airliners. Testing is therefore going to throw up challenges and has to be comprehensive. What looked good on paper doesn't always translate to actual in flight operations. Engineers know that and dillegently seek out the weaknesses in original design.

4. in saying all this, there is just one thing that niggles me a bit. Ever since those fuel efficient ETOPS twins pushed aside the 3 and 4 holers, the mantra seems to be that two engines are better than any thing else. To satisfy that demand and meet ever heavier take off weights and longer cruise distances, and of course fuel economy, reduced noise and emmissions targets etc, the industry has developed these enormous engines both in size and power. After strapping them to the T7X it is perhaps not too surprising that the engineering concepts that 'just worked' in the past, may have just reached a limit beyond which 3 or 4 smaller engine designs would actually be more practical?. Just a thought.
87vr6
Ron Wroblewski 4
They 100% belong here. It (and other problems, like Starliner itself) just further illustrates boeings company wide failures.

Boeing WAS a great company, now it's just a money sapping turd, trying to please its shareholders above all else. These are the results, like it or not.

Lets see:

787 production line faults in the last few years.
777x years behind
MCAS.
737M production faults
Starliner
KC46
The spacesuits, which partially can be blamed on NASA for not making a standard for all contractors to adhere to.

These aren't minor faults.. They are indicators of major systemic problems inside the company, starting at the top and infecting all levels.


In fact, the ONLY positive thing that comes to mind when I think about Boeing is I'm fairly certain they've somehow gotten the f15x program right... But then again, the F15 is an inherited design, soooo they can't be given all the credit for getting that right. Also, after a brief search, seems like they're late with those too. So congrats Boeing!
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 6
And now we find out the Boeing space suits are not compatible with those of other manufacturers. NASA, you blew this one for sure.
trentenjet
trentenjet 6
Boeing WTF it's getting really scary, really bad engineering. more bad Boeing
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman 14
That is why they call them test aircraft. Not really any scarier than anything else.
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 2
Any bets on whether or not an engine will depart its fixture before it’s all said and done?
Raylene09
Raquel Pena 3
Hope it gets resolved Please bring home those Astronauts safe my prayers
Thompsor
Ron Thompson 7
One would think, NASA would get space suits from Space X and put them on the vehicle, so the astronaut could change into them for their return.
17dec1903
17dec1903 2
The article says, "...test plane operated a Kona flight..."

Does anyone know what this means? Is it a typo? I assume they weren't doing a test flight in Hawaii?
87vr6
Ron Wroblewski 2
Just bad english.

Should be something like "...test plane operated a flight to Kona.."
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 4
Kona is an airport in Hawaii ICAO code PHKO.
17dec1903
17dec1903 2
I'm aware that Kona is an airport in Hawaii. What's the relation to the 777X test flight? Did Boeing actually fly the plane to Kona? Wouldn't that be strange, considering how early they are in the 777X flight test program?
nasdisco
Chris B 14
Boeing test flights are being conducted over the Pacific with Hawaii being used as the base.
Y2KRene
Rene Kunz 1
Aircraft design and reliability confidence perhaps even by Boeing doubtful in order to perform the 777x test flight over wide open water?
NancyRovenstine
Seems like Boeing continues to get the basics wrong. Workforce hiring or culture?
jeffinsydney
jeff slack 22
A cracked engine mount is not getting the basics wrong; this airframe is currently in the testing stage and this is exactly why the tests are so exhaustive. If anything, the fact that it is found, publicised, and a fix being worked on, is exactly what should happen.
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 10
Engine mount engineering and manufacturing should be pretty much a done deal.
trentenjet
trentenjet 8
Seems like Boeing continues to get the basics wrong yes basics wrong

[This poster has been suspended.]

Nooge
Nooge 2
Bill picked up a HABIT of WRITING like THIS on UNTRUTH SOCIAL

Bill got in early on DJT Stock and BA before they crashed
nasdisco
Chris B 2
Boeing has four test aircraft. Boeing has built 20 customer aircraft. So any changes in t h e test aircraftvwill have to be duplicated on the other aircraft.
Test aircraft often get sold to airlines.
Raylene09
Raquel Pena 1
Hope it get resolved...Bring home those Astronaut save My prayers
d0ugparker
Doug Parker 0
This makes me wonder of we’re hearing more reports of Boeing uncovering and publicly reporting newly found failures as being

1) genuine reports, disconnected from their historical behavior,
2) genuine reports unconsciously intended to function as PR stories, or
3) genuine reports consciously disguised as PR stories?

The corporate game seems to be played such that its damage control spins up its efforts to start covering all the past, bad press as best it can. All reports, therefore, seem to forever be in a grey area where we’ll never know if their reports are genuine or contrived. How sad.

Once lost, trust cannot be reestablished to the same level.

Although hard to do, I think that’s what this post attempts to put into words.
ekim125
ekim125 0
I’m not an engineer or a pilot, I’m a retired nurse. Boeing’s management changes clearly had profound changes on its corporate culture, which is associated with both engineering and production problems that ironically have had catastrophic effects on the company’s books.
IMHO, Boeing commercial clients (airlines), seeking to maximize their profits are packing passengers like sardines (more weight) into planes optimized for efficiency (less weight) constrain aircraft design. Moreover, it seems to me that, for lack of a better word, “safety tolerances/redundancy, etc, are less generous in part because that means more weight and less efficiency. (Two very large engines vs four/three smaller). Higher fuel costs!
Materials get more exotic, and manufacturing intricacies much more complex. There are fewer companies with workforce skilled to manufacture these components that have critical design specifications that may or may not be fully described initially. Case in point the 777 thrust link.
In the pursuit of less weight and more powerful within the “profitability constraints” some engineers may been constrained from opining that the FEA software modeling the wings and engine mounts lacked robustness to adequately describe new harmonics generated by the increased mass and thrust vectors. Moreover the older modeling software may not adequately account for thrust link deformation (anisotropy under deformation).
If corporate culture, if managers do not encourage discussion and ownership, then that junior engineer who might recommend using Crystal plasticity finite element method (CPFEM) to proof the thrust link would never be heard.
Changes in corporate culture take time and commitment. Moreover, the stock market has to support it. So much of the focus is on short term profits without building companies and work forces.

Think about your health care. Look at quality indicators for HCA hospitals decades ago before Scott (Columbia), then Bain Capital. My advice to you: seek out Magnet hospitals (pick top ranked hospitals), choose insurance plans that allow you to choose your hospital and providers.
Take some time to Google “US healthcare system world ranking”.

BTW: that pilot who tried to pull the fire suppression system mid-flight - do you think he had good psychiatric care? Do you think the rules rt medical/psychiatric illness in pilots is helpful or not so much? How many pilots are flying with hypertension and/or severe undiagnosed heart disease? (High stress, lack of exercise, interrupted circadian cycles, poor diet, etc.) Boeing’s culture isn’t the only culture that needs to be changed.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss