Boeing787 a motherfucker!(words from Boeing assembler). - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2018, 11:17:12 pm
content: I knew it have battery problem but not that it had inbuilt potential structural failures!https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 12:13:23 am
content: Someday I hope I can fly in a 787 because I read people feel better in them. Over 500 in service and no crashes.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 12:44:01 am
content: I haven’t watched the video as I generally don’t watch videos that are linked without very little context, but almost every aircraft has inbuilt structural weaknesses. Sometimes it’s better to control the point of failure. A good example would be the bolts that attach the engines to the wings. Those are intended to snap off when the engine becomes unstable. It’s better to lose a dangerous engine than to have it tear your wings to shreds.They often do the same in products. It’s better to engineer a simple or cheap part to fail in a predictable fashion than to have a consumer break the product thoroughly.

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 01:36:06 am
content: Airbus use aluminium wire instead of copper in the A380 quote "to save the weight of 3 fat Americans". No kidding that's was was told and I'm thinking WTF did you just say that. Is that half a metric ton or something ? Really, aluminium wire, it's one way to reduce weight. What I remember is the rudeness of the comment and the desparation to save weight.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:02:20 am
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on March 25, 2018, 01:36:06 amBuilding a modern airliner is all about saving weight, so that's not really a surprise. Was this the informal statement of a single engineer or some official Boeing PR communication?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:04:51 am
content: I just noticed that video is close to an hour long. Who's going to spend nearly an hour to respond to the two line opening of a thread?

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:19:44 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 25, 2018, 02:04:51 amHmm. People that fly a lot and that might want to considernotflying on a 787.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:26:55 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 25, 2018, 02:19:44 amWhy would they not? Because literally no fatalities have occurred? Or because stepping out the front door is many times more dangerous than getting on an aircraft, even when taking the aircraft types that crash a lot more than the 787 into consideration?Besides, in many cases you don't even know what you'll fly when you book.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:38:04 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on March 25, 2018, 01:04:48 amSage advise right there!Yeah, this story smelled of bullshit. To be sure, the 787 had battery issues in the beginning that required some redesign, but after that I don't think I've heard an unkind word about the 787. At least if you discount obvious trolling...Brian

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:00:34 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 25, 2018, 02:38:04 amNo troll here but a guy with several friends in the industry and a captain daughter flying domestic and another type.The vid asked a lot of questions about the validity of the documentation that allow theses things to get and keep airborne. Valid they are too !Further to what the vid alerts us to is a more recent problem with RR engines.https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/12/10/air-new-zealand-becomes-latest-airline-to-ground-multiple-boeing-787s/What that doesn't expand on thatmightbe being kept under wraps some is engine parts damaged control surfaces ......well that's the gossip I've heard from those in the industry.My neighbor flies these and the NZ fleet has been grounded for a few months but reportedly they'll be in the skies again quite soon.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:10:35 am
content: Quote from: tautech on March 25, 2018, 03:00:34 amWas unaware of the RR engine issues. Most of the engine makers have had problems with one model or another at one time or another and I guess it's RR's time for one. So, is this a Boeing 787 problem or a Rolls Royce problem or does one equal the other. A major aircraft is composed of many parts from many suppliers and for some things it's easier to view it as part of the AC but with engines it's a different story as many AC can be fitted with engines from different suppliers. Also, the dollar value of the engines make up a fair percentage of the total cost. Should we start a thread titled "Rolls Royce Trent 1000 is a motherfucker!"Brian

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:16:13 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 25, 2018, 02:26:55 amI always do. It's usually listed along with other details about the flight. If it's not, it's very easy to go look it up. I always make it a point to know what kind of aircraft it is and where my seat is AND where the exits are in relation to my seat."The video was uploaded 3 years ago, and considering the political standpoint of Al Jazeera to the west back then, it's not hard to imagine the bias shown in this video."That's true but it doesn't necessary mean that they're wrong about the 787. It has had more than it's share of delays and screwups. Remember the Space Shuttle had a perfect safety record too; until suddenly it didn't! Then the history of design failures and BAD management decisions became glaringly obvious. Even with a MAJOR redesign it still suffered a second major flaw which in hindsight was obvious. IMO the multiple battery failures alone are a good indication that the 787 wasn't designed or built to the normal safety and engineering standards. And the decision tocontinue touse Lithium batteries on the 787 is frightening! You can fly on one if you like but I think I'll choose something else.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:18:37 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 25, 2018, 03:10:35 amWho makes the restraining envelope around the engine to protect the airframe and control surfaces, answer that and then we can point the finger and ask was it well enough tested to ensure airframe integrity upon engine failures.Smells like more dodgy 'safety' documentation like what was outlined in the vid.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:54:06 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 25, 2018, 03:16:13 amThat is always good practice. Whether you are flying, taking some other transportation, sitting in a theater, or restaurant, or sleeping at home.QuoteIt doesn't mean that they "right" either. The whole news business has become just another form of profitable entertainment. Some people are amused by dancing girls, and others by sensational "news". A good writer/producer/editor can spin ANY story whatever way they please. That is why they have only a fraction of the credibility they enjoyed in previous generations. The popular term is "fake news".QuoteWhat extraordinarily complex modern technology hasn't?QuoteThe "bad management decisions" appear to be operational vs. equipment design.QuoteThe reputation and track record of the operating company is a far more compelling factor where you have a choice vs. the equipment. Many of the airlines with the best safety records (i.e. Qantas, et.al) operate B787s.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:58:23 am
content: Quote from: chris_leyson on March 25, 2018, 01:36:06 amAnd the use of lithium cobalt batteries in the 787 instead of the vastly safer LiFePO4 batteries saves remarkably little weight - replace one average American with Rinoa Super-Genius (who is not even that skinny) and that would just about offset the weight difference. The weight difference between lithium cobalt and lithium manganese (considerably safer than lithium cobalt but not as safe as LiFePO4) is even sillier - less than the weight difference between Rinoa Super-Genius and Naomi Wu. (Don't know much about Tesla's safer chemistry that does use cobalt so can't comment about that.)Really, there needs to be more effort put into solving the obesity epidemic in the US.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 03:59:40 am
content: Quote from: tautech on March 25, 2018, 03:18:37 amThe amount of rotational energy in a large jet engine is enormous and you could surround the engine with inch thick armor plate and still have issues if an engine explodes not to mention the plane would struggle to get in the air with inch think armor plate around both engines. The article you linked didn't say much about the damage to the AC itself so perhaps you have a source for information that detail the non-engine damage. But, it's a fair question as to who designs the engine shielding and I could come up with pros and cons for either the AC maker of the engine maker.Engineering is the art of making something that does the job but doesn't waste weight/money going much beyond the design requirements. This is true in most areas of engineering but no where is this more true than aviation and aerospace. You could design an AC like an M1A1 tank but it would never get off the ground!Brian

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 04:02:56 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 25, 2018, 03:58:23 amThe US gets a bad rap about obesity and rightfully so, but have you looked around elsewhere? Seems to me first world nations are all fatter than they were a generation ago and much fatter than two generations ago.Brian

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 04:43:03 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 25, 2018, 03:59:40 amThey use Kevlar, think bullet proof vest. Weight isn't the issue, it's the engine component failure AND the inability to safely contain/constrain the shrapnel from damaging airframe or control surfaces.The engine failure containment systemsmustbe near 100% proof.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 05:07:44 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 25, 2018, 04:02:56 amSomewhat surprisingly it's not a first world issue.https://www.worldobesity.org/data/map/overview-adults

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 05:32:28 am
content: Quote from: tautech on March 25, 2018, 03:18:37 amIt's integral to the engine, and while not infallible it is quite effective at containing debris, it's something taken very seriously by turbine engine manufactures.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:03:11 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2018, 05:32:28 amI still feel more comfortable seated in a row that is not in-line with the engines.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:15:50 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on March 25, 2018, 06:03:11 amMe too, although injuries resulting from uncontained turbine engine failures are exceedingly rare, I haven't looked at the stats but probably up there somewhere with getting struck by lightning.I did find it interesting sitting directly across from the prop on a Q400 though, I could clearly watch the pitch change with the throttle setting.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:30:04 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2018, 06:15:50 amDid you watch the trick they do at landing ?

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:50:26 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2018, 06:15:50 amIt is also quieter farther away from the engines. I was always dubious about the consumer-level noise-cancelling headphones/earbuds. But then I bought a cheap pair from a vending machine at an airport and was pretty surprised at their effectiveness at mid- and higher-frequencies. Of course not very effective at lower frequencies.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 06:50:47 am
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2018, 06:15:50 amGetting hit by lightning is much more likely.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 09:12:31 am
content: The biggest problem is that people with little technical knowledge, managers in general, have the company power to overrule those who do have the knowledge.When those with knowledge protest they get fired.There is only one solution IMO make those managers personal liable for their decisions, meaning they go to jail when people die due to their money based decisions.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 09:39:35 am
content: Aluminium wire is good, providing you terminate it correctly and do not have it flex too much. So, hopefully the aluminium wire runs from bulkhead connector assembly to bulkhead connector assembly with a rigid sheath and rigid mounting to keep it from flexing during use, and then the ends are done using either short copper or aluminium connector tails that are replaced regularly as they flex, before they reach a fatigue life limit. Of course using digital data buses to move the data long distance instead of multiple individual wires is best, though for redundancy you need to have at least 3 paths for the wiring, one port lower, one starboard lower and one via top of cabin, so that any structural failure does not cause total loss of communications, and of course each link must have a dual redundant interface each end, and then polling and majority vote electronics to aggregate the data and give the best valid data as output either end. Saves a lot of mass, though there is added cost of the 6 controllers you need, but they are at least possible to design as interchangeable devices making them lower cost.However, Boeing did have a lot of labour issuesh, and it was no secret there was some very poor work done at some of the assembly plants they got parts from. Same for RR, there were some parts that had early failure from poor design, poor assembly and poor QC, like the accessory gearboxes that caused a few engine failures, due to a poorly centred drilling that was not allowing full flow of lubricantm and which also was very prone to cracking and leaking oil into the engine itself.As to uncontained engine failure, the biggest risk is not cabin penetration, as the cabin is only around 10 degrees of rotation, but rather fragments damaging control surfaces, as there the 180 degree coverage is a lot higher risk, and cabin damage is something that is bad, but containable with rapid descent to breathable altitude. Wing damage runs the risk of tanks losing fuel ( ETOPS does not help if you are 3 hours out and are losing fuel rapidly such that you only have 2 hours of fuel for the remaining engine) and control surface damage, which was the cause of the Dutch accident. However the cowling’s do reduce velocity of the fragments so they are less damaging, there might be damage but at least it is less, and a higher probability of the aircraft still being able to fly, though generally when that occurs most pilots are going to look for the closest landing place possible, not the most convenient.Remember the original Being 747 was kind or renowned for departing London for New York, or the other way round, with 4 engines, and arriving with 3, one having fallen off from fatigued fuse pins and engine mounts mid Atlantic. Fixed with better fuse pin design, better crack checking cycles and also not using fork lifts to change engines, and overstress the mounts as the hydraulics leak down.As to me, I used to travel on C130's, and always sat 2 rows back from the red line painted inside and outside the fuselage, over the yellow line painted on the floor that indicated wing root and thus COG of the plane. Same on the C47, though there I also had a party trick of drinking a cool drink during heavy thunderstorms, and keeping the level in the bottle even as the plane pitched and yawed though the storm. Made a few of the others grab the bags I also had as well. From there go to a commercial carrier, and had no issue with the bumpy flight, even had the on board meal as well, though I did have to hold the glass while eating, as it would not stay on the seat back tray. 30000 feet above a major storm is not bumpy in a 737, if you flew in through the same storm at 8000 feet in a Dakota.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 10:38:52 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 25, 2018, 09:12:31 amHey I am a manager and it is highly likely I know a lot more about electronics and firmware design than you ever will.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2018, 02:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 25, 2018, 10:38:52 amGood for youScientific studies show that most managers have a narcistic personal disorder, grave for power and overrate their knowledge and achievementsIn the meantime back online the first direct intercontinental flight from Australia to Europe (London) has taken place with a 787-9 on board high Quantas officials.https://nos.nl/artikel/2224226-eerste-directe-lijnvlucht-tussen-australie-en-europa-geland-in-londen.html

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 04:54:32 am
content: I would not use Aluminum wire on an AC or spacecraft -- the weight saving are not worth the reliability risks. The better approach is to eliminate, as much as possible, the need for wiring by using optical fiber for comm and signals and copper for power. The use of digitally multiplexed signals over an optical bus pretty much eliminates the need to run long length of copper or even aluminum for those signals. What might have required 3500kg of wire 50 years ago can be done with 500kg or less today given the ability to multiplex dozens or hundreds to signals that once needed discrete wires but can now be done over an optical LAN cable.Basically, at various places in the AC you have an area interface hub that is wired, using short runs, from sensors and actuators and then the hub is connected to higher level systems via a digital/optical buss. You see something like this in most newer cars though the bus (CAN bus) isn't optical. Over time I think we'll see cars go optical though the benefit is less than AC.No way would I use aluminum wiring except for high tension power lines...Brian

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 07:48:45 am
content: Quote from: raptor1956 on March 26, 2018, 04:54:32 amI think the redundancy of multiple cables is a feature, not a bug.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 12:44:36 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 25, 2018, 02:13:16 pmSure, I have come across managers who exhibit the traits you describe.One memorable one was nicknamed "FIGJAM", meaning "F*** I Am Good, Just Ask Me". Figjam knew how to play the corporate game in one of the worlds biggest tech companies. He knew next to nothing about electronics, software or systems engineering, despite him often boasting two engineering degrees and an MBA (Master of Bulls**t Artistry). He spoke incessant buzz words and gobbledegook to impress technically dim managers. He was very, very cunning. For example, he asked me how a colour TV picture tube works, so I described how a picture tube worked in detail. I found out from a colleague he had slyly gone to senior management pushing the case that he was the only engineer who had the skills and experience about how monitor works and as a result that he should run a major new project involving manufacturing monitors. The reality was everything he touched technically turned to mud, but he had a great knack of covering it up by moving on, letting someone else clean up the mess.Once, four of us were involved in an trial in deploying the first PCs in a school in Australia. It attracted a lot of media attention. Figjam boasted to all his double degree and knowledge of computers would prove invaluable in ensuring everything worked. We managed the PC rollout, educated key school staff and I wrote the menu software. We worked as a team, all in our own time. It turned out Figjam contributed absolutely nothing, except his ego.The biggest display of ego was when Fijgam stood up on one of the cafeteria tables addressing a couple of hundred subordinates, saying something like, "Friends, colleagues, countrymen. As I was painting my picket fences the other day I had a vision. A vision of what could be. I have a dream! It's called MATRIX MANAGEMENT. And I want you all to share the dream!" Even Josef Goebbels would have been impressed with this nutter's egotistical performance. The reality was Figjam had created a new form of chaos theory.Figjam was one of a kind. He was fundamentally a shonky salesman. Under Figjam's leadership, the entire place closed and 600 people lost their jobs. That was years ago.I now work in satellite equipment design (I also do electronics design myself, as well as manager a team). I can tell you all our managers are experts in their fields. No-one remotely like Figjam. No egos, no politics or hidden agendas. Just people who are the real deal. I think most technical managers in successful companies are genuine and are technically astute.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 04:03:22 pm
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 04:15:09 pm
content: "The engine failure containment systems must be near 100% proof."Actually it's only rated to normal max rpm. If the engine suffers a major overspeed then shrapnel may bust out of the casing. That happened some time back when an oil pipe broke and the engine started consuming its own lube oil. Apparently jets are like diesels in that respect, once warmed up they will run on just about anything that burns.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 04:23:26 pm
content: RR engine failures , quantas A380 engine failure, oh dear yet another 1 hour video, how terrible!The ATSB investigation is one good read, it will take hours so "instant satisfaction people"here on the forum probably should avoid it , it might be to informative.https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-089.aspxAir France A380 engine failure as reported by the most "fake news company" there are:

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 05:59:23 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on March 26, 2018, 07:48:45 amYou confuse having individual wires for every circuit all the way from source to control with redundancy -- you really should think first. It is absolutely the case the for critical things redundancy is necessary, but that does NOT mean that every sensor and every actuator needs to have parallel runs of redundant wiring in copper or aluminum running here there and everywhere. What redundancy means is having multiple paths for critical signal and controls. In the topology I mention that means having area interface hubs connect to sensors and actuators and then redundant LAN's carrying that data, multiplexed, to redundant control system via different paths.Brian

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2018, 08:53:19 pm
content: Blade lost on RR engine, pilot ask passenger to say a prayer.And Kiwi two RR engine failures.https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/12/07/66537/photos-air-nzs-damaged-787-engine

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2018, 08:15:06 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on March 25, 2018, 06:15:50 amI know it's a 737-700, not a 787, but nasty things do indeed happen occasionally when you're sitting near an engine!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43803340

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2018, 08:37:55 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on April 17, 2018, 08:15:06 pmIn this latest case it wasn't a RR engine but a CFM engine.Brian

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2018, 02:08:59 am
content: Life is filled with risks, engine failures like this do happen but they are extremely rare. Thousands of airliners are in the air every single day and events like this are so rare that they make front page news when it happens.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2018, 02:15:22 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on March 25, 2018, 12:13:23 amThe B787 and A380 both have higher cabin pressure (6000 ft altitude instead of 8000 ft) and slower pressure changes and higher humidity than older airliners. I believe the new A350 is the same. The A380 is also extremely quiet inside, even on takeoff and climb. I've heard the A350 is the same, and the B787 is much quieter than older planes but not as good as the A350 & A380.No A380 crashes to date as well. There aren't as many of them, but being bigger and older they may well have carried as many or more passengers as B787.I've not yet had the chance to fly on a B787 but I've had dozens of flights on A380s between {Auckland,Christchurch}-{Sydney,Melbourne}-Dubai, Dubai-Moscow, Dubai-Seoul, {Frankfurt,CDG}-San Francisco.I'll note that airline matters. QANTAS/Lufthansa/Air France 380s are all better than, say, a 777, but are rubbish compared to Emirates. Seats, entertainment system, food/service, decor. Everything.I hear AirNZ have started to put 787s on some Auckland-Christchurch flights, so I might get a chance to try one sometime -- albeit on a flight short enough that I'd be happy to stand the whole way.I'm going to do a fair bit of Auckland-San Francisco this year, but sadly AirNZ has 777 on that route, not 787. Unless I go Auckland-Honolulu-LAX-SFO. Ugh.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2018, 03:22:56 am
content: I haven't been on a 787 yet but I've seen several of them fly over, they have a really unusual sound, almost like a turboprop. The most impressive plane I've been on at this point is a 747, big, fast, all around impressive, I'll be sad to see them disappear. I've always really liked the 727 too, that was the first plane I was ever on.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2018, 06:35:48 am
content: Quote from: james_s on April 22, 2018, 03:22:56 amYes, I love the 747, especially the -400. My first few trips between Auckland and {Los Angeles,San Francisco} were on 747-300, which had to stop for fuel in Fiji or Hawaii. When the -400 arrived it could do it non-stop. Later I had flights on those routes on 767 and it was much slower and less comfortable.The 747 was the comfort queen of the skies until the A380. They're still almost as good. But very expensive to run because they're hungry on fuel.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 22, 2018, 10:24:18 am
content: The main difference I've found between the A3xx and the 7xx (apart from the lower cabin noise) is that, at the end of a long journey, you can be pretty much assured of a feather-bed landing - the 7xx feel a bit like an expensive bit of test gear being dumped on the runway by a dodgy courier. Oh, that and the much brighter looking cabin plastics.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 28, 2018, 09:53:04 am
content: Also, the B737/B757 fuselage is *significantly* narrower than the A320 one, forcing narrower seats and/or aisle with the same 3-3 seating arrangement.

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2018, 03:09:06 pm
content: aljazeera has been western owned for many years,as for boeing,there was another film a few years ago, i think it was 60minutes.a whistleblower on the production line of the 737 i think it was - complete with secret video.miss-fitting frames assembled with sledge hammers.it turned out that the company had outsourced for parts, and some company with "laser cutting" and "very high precision manufacturing."turned out to be a shed full of mexicans making stuff by hand.boeing didnt want to throw away the components they had recieved - so they MADE them fit!!!

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2018, 03:25:09 pm
content: Quote from: stj on April 30, 2018, 03:09:06 pmIt took some digging, but I found the story. You paraphrased it a bit, but the gist of it seems there. Link to archived page.https://web.archive.org/web/20170520072020/https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/political-social-justice/boeing-parts-scandal.html