Boeing problems...

[[DHT]Osiris]

As I understand it, the thing about Boeing is that it seems to have undergone a significant change of character, and every discussion I see of it traces it back to that merger. Its earlier record is actually slightly surprising to me, insofar as it really did seem to put pride in engineering quality far ahead of maximising profits. Hence its safety record was really very good.

Maybe it's just coincidental, and an accidental consequence of what just, by sheer chance, was the nature of its early management vs the corporate culture of McDonnel-Douglas, but also in that respect its previous nature seems very much a product of the post-war boom years, when such an attitude was possible, and the shift seems of-a-piece with the way _everything_ has gone downhill since the end of the boom.

Much of the rest of the corporate world seems to have abandoned that conscientious, pride-in-one's-work approach long ago, but it seems that because aircraft development is such a long-drawn out process (and aircraft purchases such a long-term investment), it's taken longer for that shift towards short-termism and profit maximisation and 'shareholder value' to have filtered through in the aeronautical sector.

Seems that in recent years Boeing has started behaving much more in the way I'd (cartoonishly?) imagined corporations to behave, whereas up till quite recently my expected image of them would have been unfair.

There's a pervasive belief within corporate culture that infinite growth is like communism; possible, just never implemented properly.

Realistically speaking, certain companies have substantial growth until they reach a limit of growth potential, at which point perceived 'cost centers' get stripped away, artificially inflating perceived growth even further, until the hollowed out house of cards collapses into something else that may or may not survive, like a star. Meanwhile they get surpassed by another company doing the same thing with improvements that wouldn't have been deemed 'profitable' by the other company, which is naturally wildly profitable. The same cycle usually eventually repeats, with an almost exclusive exception going to privately held companies (Valve, SpaceX, I'm looking at you two).

 

[Zorba]

As I understand it, the thing about Boeing is that it seems to have undergone a significant change of character, and every discussion I see of it traces it back to that merger. Its earlier record is actually slightly surprising to me, insofar as it really did seem to put pride in engineering quality far ahead of maximising profits. Hence its safety record was really very good.

Maybe it's just coincidental, and an accidental consequence of what just, by sheer chance, was the nature of its early management vs the corporate culture of McDonnel-Douglas, but also in that respect its previous nature seems very much a product of the post-war boom years, when such an attitude was possible, and the shift seems of-a-piece with the way _everything_ has gone downhill since the end of the boom.

Much of the rest of the corporate world seems to have abandoned that conscientious, pride-in-one's-work approach long ago, but it seems that because aircraft development is such a long-drawn out process (and aircraft purchases such a long-term investment), it's taken longer for that shift towards short-termism and profit maximisation and 'shareholder value' to have filtered through in the aeronautical sector.

Seems that in recent years Boeing has started behaving much more in the way I'd (cartoonishly?) imagined corporations to behave, whereas up till quite recently my expected image of them would have been unfair.

I think the merger definitely turned Boeing into a Jack Welsh style company. However, I promise the safety record has improved since the merger. Likely in spite of the merger, but aviation has gotten significantly safer since the 90s.

I also think most of the recent issues have their origins in the 2003-2019 time frame. When you slash engineering training and experience it takes awhile to show up, in the short term you look amazing but lowering costs without impacting revenue.

 

[Zorba]

There's a pervasive belief within corporate culture that infinite growth is like communism; possible, just never implemented properly.

Realistically speaking, certain companies have substantial growth until they reach a limit of growth potential, at which point perceived 'cost centers' get stripped away, artificially inflating perceived growth even further, until the hollowed out house of cards collapses into something else that may or may not survive, like a star. Meanwhile they get surpassed by another company doing the same thing with improvements that wouldn't have been deemed 'profitable' by the other company, which is naturally wildly profitable. The same cycle usually eventually repeats, with an almost exclusive exception going to privately held companies (Valve, SpaceX, I'm looking at you two).

In commercial aviation and military services they had helluva growth in the time period they were cost cutting like crazy.

 

[Zorba]

Well ULA got their shit together and Starliner is flying. Here is hoping for a good flight.

 

[sdifox]

past Centaur Ignition. Wish them luck.

 

[sdifox]

we have Starliner separation!

 

[hal2kilo]

we have Starliner separation!

Seemed separation isn't a big deal in the ULA world. First sign of separation from the reporting I watched was seeing Centaur's 2 rocket bells exposed. Did someone miss it?

 

[Zorba]

Seemed separation isn't a big deal in the ULA world. First sign of separation from the reporting I watched was seeing Centaur's 2 rocket bells exposed. Did someone miss it?

I thought the same thing, and then they were calling the Centaur's engine cutoff Main Engine Cutoff, where I am pretty sure that would be SECO for SpaceX.

 

[Pens1566]

Haven't followed this religiously, but how big of a problem is this for SpaceX in terms of direct competition?

 

[brycejones]

Haven't followed this religiously, but how big of a problem is this for SpaceX in terms of direct competition?

Not much unless they radically change direction to drive down costs per launch.

 

[Pens1566]

Not much unless they radically change direction to drive down costs per launch.

Well that's a fucking shame.

 

[brycejones]

Well that's a fucking shame.

SpaceX is so far ahead when it comes to reusability and the effect that has on driving down costs it’s sad. They really have shown the way forward and the older players in the industry just haven’t taken the hint.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well that's a fucking shame.

It is, right now it's Intel competing with a 1993 general instruments. Different scope, and the venn diagram of mission capability is like a really big set of circles covering a very small one, it's kinda hard to justify not just using SpaceX.

 

[Racan]

They really have shown the way forward and the older players in the industry just haven’t taken the hint.

Indeed, while older players aren't anywhere near close to coming up with a Falcon 9 competitor, SpaceX just managed a successful landing on Starship's 4th (near) orbital flight test despite problems with the heat shield and a damaged flap:

 

[skyking]

They'll change the material in that flap to pure unobtanium overnight.

 

[MrSquished]

I agree with @Zorba - while there is a lot to criticize at Boeing, they are definitely held to a higher standard with the space launches vs SpaceX - due to Elon - and that's just how it's been with the fucking media worship of that guy for years.

 

[sdifox]

I didn't know 777 can have afterburner fitted

Air Canada Boeing 777 flight #AC872 right engine in flames on takeoff from Toronto

Air Canada flight from Toronto to Paris quickly returned after takeoff following right engine fire.

airlive.net

 

[Zorba]

I didn't know 777 can have afterburner fitted

Air Canada Boeing 777 flight #AC872 right engine in flames on takeoff from Toronto

Air Canada flight from Toronto to Paris quickly returned after takeoff following right engine fire.

airlive.net

For the record GE built and certified engine. Probably a bird strike.

When the compressor stalls you loose the aerodynamic forces that keep the flame contained in the combustor, a lot of times you get flames out the front too

 

[igor_kavinski]

For the record GE built and certified engine. Probably a bird strike.

They didn't learn anything after the "Miracle on the Hudson" thing?

Why not put some kind of protective grating on the engine front so birds don't get sucked INTO the engine?

 

[fskimospy]

They didn't learn anything after the "Miracle on the Hudson" thing?

Why not put some kind of protective grating on the engine front so birds don't get sucked INTO the engine?

I mean this is a very well known problem that engine and aircraft manufacturers have attempted to mitigate for a long time now (all engines must be designed to withstand at least one bird strike). I strongly suspect if the answer were as simple as a grate it would have been done a long time ago.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I strongly suspect if the answer were as simple as a grate it would have been done a long time ago.

OK, after researching the topic a bit, I think I can make someone here very, very rich with a patent (share some of that money with me and don't be a scrooge, ok??).

So what we need is a high resolution camera that can detect the presence of a medium to large sized bird in front of the engine in a matter of milliseconds. Upon detection, a massive airbag is deployed that is too big to enter the engine. At the same time the engine will automatically shut off. When there is no suction left due to the completely shut down engine, the airbag will naturally fall down, at which point the pilot can restart the engine. The airbag on its way down, upon reaching a certain drop velocity can then deflate through the automatic activation of a self puncture mechanism.

Yes, this all sounds very expensive. But it could be cheaper than losing an engine and replacing it, or the entire aircraft, not to mention loss of life.

 

[feralkid]

OK, after researching the topic a bit, I think I can make someone here very, very rich with a patent (share some of that money with me and don't be a scrooge, ok??).

So what we need is a high resolution camera that can detect the presence of a medium to large sized bird in front of the engine in a matter of milliseconds. Upon detection, a massive airbag is deployed that is too big to enter the engine. At the same time the engine will automatically shut off. When there is no suction left due to the completely shut down engine, the airbag will naturally fall down, at which point the pilot can restart the engine. The airbag on its way down, upon reaching a certain drop velocity can then deflate through the automatic activation of a self puncture mechanism.

Yes, this all sounds very expensive. But it could be cheaper than losing an engine and replacing it, or the entire aircraft, not to mention loss of life.

Crackpipe "idea" on so many levels.

 

[brycejones]

OK, after researching the topic a bit, I think I can make someone here very, very rich with a patent (share some of that money with me and don't be a scrooge, ok??).

So what we need is a high resolution camera that can detect the presence of a medium to large sized bird in front of the engine in a matter of milliseconds. Upon detection, a massive airbag is deployed that is too big to enter the engine. At the same time the engine will automatically shut off. When there is no suction left due to the completely shut down engine, the airbag will naturally fall down, at which point the pilot can restart the engine. The airbag on its way down, upon reaching a certain drop velocity can then deflate through the automatic activation of a self puncture mechanism.

Yes, this all sounds very expensive. But it could be cheaper than losing an engine and replacing it, or the entire aircraft, not to mention loss of life.

Do you understand aerodynamic forces at hundreds of miles per hour?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Do you understand aerodynamic forces at hundreds of miles per hour?

I understand the virtue of experimentation. Let's simulate and see how bad my idea is and then gradually weed out the issues until it's worth implementing.

 

[brycejones]

I understand the virtue of experimentation. Let's simulate and see how bad my idea is and then gradually weed out the issues until it's worth implementing.

Have fun in your garage doing shit engineers can calculate.