— FEATURED —
Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation
We Can Fix it! - a graphic novel time travel memoir
The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek
— COMICS —
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: Super-Fun-Pak Comix, featuring Caveman Robot, and MORE!
Brain Rot: The Statue
Real Stuff: Fatal Fellatio
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala awaits Constitutional Court rulings, defense continues legal challenges to genocide trial
Victoria Sanford: "It’s Too Soon to Declare Victory in Guatemalan Genocide"
Xeni on PBS NewsHour, in Guatemala: Ríos Montt genocide verdict and aftermath
— RECENTLY —
Odd Duck: great picture book about eccentricity and ducks
Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Illustrator William Stout's Legends of the Blues - exclusive excerpt
Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor
Review: Disunion, the VR guillotine simulator
Mousetronaut: kids' picture book about mouse in space, written by a Shuttle pilot
Review: Pebble e-paper watch
Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong: YA graphic novel about robots, romance and school elections
Old School Dungeons & Dragons: Wizards of the Coast’s Problem Child
Jello Biafra and The Guantanamo School Of Medicine's "White People and the Damage Done"
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Xeni Jardin at 7:30 pm Tue, Jan 15, 2013
Just saw it on NHK all the planes on the landing strip and didn’t know what was going on.
Both of these airlines have crappy maintenence. I worked at Boeing for many years and both had problems noone else had because they couldn’t follow directions. Please notice these are the only operators with problems.
I agree these are likely just glitches or teething problems, perhaps even due to airline culture (AA587?) but why would Boeing pick “crappy” ANA as a lead customer?
From an engineering standpoint, you could argue that giving early production models to your most demanding customers would help shake down design and service issues.
Early adopters get discounted pricing since they expect some delivery delays and down time.
It’s pretty amazing that in spite of multiple issues on multiple aircraft, everybody’s OK. Engineering FTW!!
This is what happens when design and manufacturing tech and efficiency are advanced this far in a single program- there is an element of risk. Japanese airlines have more 787s than anyone else at this point, so it makes sense that they will have the most problems.
It’s no-kidding why the first customers get a discount on new designs. See also the Airbus A380 and its myriad of initial problems including an exploding engine and cracks forming in the wings. These problems get worked out and in 10 years people marvel at how reliable airliners are.
they just don’t make them like they used to. Give me the good old 747s any day.
The 747, huh?
During later stages of the flight test program, flutter testing showed that the wings suffered oscillation under certain conditions. This difficulty was partly solved by reducing the stiffness of some wing components. However, a particularly severe high-speed flutter problem was solved only by inserting depleted uranium counterweights as ballast in the outboard engine nacelles of the early 747s. This measure caused anxiety when these aircraft crashed, as did China Airlines Flight 358 at Wanli in 1991 and El Al Flight 1862 at Amsterdam in 1992 which had 282 kilograms (620 lb) of uranium in the tailplane.
The flight test program was hampered by problems with the 747′s JT9D engines. Difficulties included engine stalls caused by rapid movements of the throttles and distortion of the turbine casings after a short period of service. The problems delayed 747 deliveries for several months and stranded up to 20 aircraft at the Everett plant while they awaited engine installation. The program was further delayed when one of the five test aircraft suffered serious damage during a landing attempt at Renton Municipal Airport, site of the company’s Renton factory. On December 13, 1969 the test aircraft was being taken to have its test equipment removed and a cabin installed when pilot Ralph C. Cokely undershot the airport’s short runway. The 747′s right, outer landing gear was torn off and two engine nacelles were damaged. However, these difficulties did not prevent Boeing from taking one of the test aircraft to the 28th Paris Air Show in mid-1969, where it was displayed to the general public for the first time. The 747 achieved its FAA airworthiness certificate in December 1969, making it ready for introduction into service.
Yup, the 747s weren’t pushed into service until AFTER their issues were ironed out. Thanks for reinforcing my comment.
“This measure caused anxiety when these aircraft crashed, as did China Airlines Flight 358 at Wanli in 1991 and El Al Flight 1862 at Amsterdam in 1992 which had 282 kilograms (620 lb) of uranium in the tailplane.”
That’s well after the December 1969 induction into service…
Yes, jets crash. All of them have, even the ones you prefer.
So that you’re clear on it, people were worried about there being uranium rods in aircraft wreckage at all, not that they thought those rods caused the planes to go down. …Was that what you were trying to suggest to us?
A 747 flying into or out of Renton (or SNA, DCA etc.) is something I’d like to have seen.
(EDIT: I mean, I know it can be done, but still… I also recall reading about 747SPs regularly using WLG)