Airbus Rudder Failure (last Sunday)

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Airbus Rudder Failure (last Sunday) (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:22:47 AM EDT

My friend sent me pics of an Airbus with the rudder broken off. The text said that it took off from Cuba last Sunday, and the rudder broke off at 35K feet. It turned around and landed safely.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:23:44 AM EDT

[#1]

How did it do that? Any more info?

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:26:54 AM EDT

[#2]

There is excellent discussion in the current Flying magazine of the AA587 crash in November 2001 in NYC - the one where the entire vertical tail separated in flight, leading to loss of control and in-flight breakup of an Airbus. For "normal" airliner flights, the rudder is not really used that much in-flight. It would be a bitch to try a cross-wind landing without one, though!

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:31:18 AM EDT

[#3]

Biggest suprise when I was flying was that the rudder is damn near worthless.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:35:57 AM EDT

[#4]

The problems is that the carbon fiber tail assemblies are delaminating under huge loads of stress. The NYC crash the rudder was forced back and forth very aggressively prior to failure. They were blaming the copilot for over-reacting. The thing is that I dont they have any long term experience with such materials over like 20-30 years of use. Boeings new Dreamliner will be significantly constructed of carbon fiber. The problem is that failure is usually catastrophic.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:37:46 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
There is excellent discussion in the current Flying magazine of the AA587 crash in November 2001 in NYC - the one where the entire vertical tail separated in flight, leading to loss of control and in-flight breakup of an Airbus. For "normal" airliner flights, the rudder is not really used that much in-flight. It would be a bitch to try a cross-wind landing without one, though!

There should be a big red, yellow and black warning tag on the Airbus visor:

WARNNING! Excessive use of rudder pedals may result in detachment of the tail of the aircraft, resulting in a detrimental decrease in controllability.

I couldn't freaking believe that they build an aircraft that the pilot can literally tear the tail off of just by stamping on the rudder pedals.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:42:55 AM EDT

[#6]

Didnt/doesnt the Airbus Rudder pedals operate differently in Air than on ground?

Something like a 'to the floor push' on the ground moves the rudder 100%, while in the air it only takes a small portion of pedal movement (1/4, or 1/2, or something like that?) to move the rudder 100%?

In the NYC crash didnt the pilot pivot the rudder back and forth 100% several times to break off the tail, when he was probably only trying minor corrections but since he didnt have the training/flight time in the airbus he probably didnt know what he was doing since he was used to only using the rudder on the ground?

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:46:37 AM EDT

[#7]

They were blaming the poor slob as he is dead he cannot defend himself. No lawsuit for Airbus I guess. But they have inspected all the airbuses and have found several tails with varying degree of cracks and delamination.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:54:34 AM EDT

[#8]

A pilot can destroy an entire aircraft by making control movements outside the operating limits of the structure of the airframe. This is the revalation by the NTSB in the AA587 case, that even at realtively low airspeeds, it is very possible to create hazardous control inputs. The article discusses particular technical differences between the way, say, a 757 rudder system works versus the A300-600 in the crash. Very interesting read.

Posted: 3/11/2005 11:58:23 AM EDT

[#9]

I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:08:21 PM EDT

[#10]

What gets me is the Boeings I know have a limiting system, and as far as I know it doesn't allow excessive rudder deflection. In a Boeing you're only supposed to use the rudder pedals for crosswind landings, and the yaw damper does the job for everything else. In other words, you don't use rudder for turns, ect....

So what's up with the Airbus not having this? I assume the newer ones have a similar system. The A300s are old.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:12:52 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
What gets me is the Boeings I know have a limiting system, and as far as I know it doesn't allow excessive rudder deflection. In a Boeing you're only supposed to use the rudder pedals for crosswind landings, and the yaw damper does the job for everything else. In other words, you don't use rudder for turns, ect....

So what's up with the Airbus not having this? I assume the newer ones have a similar system. The A300s are old.

Very old! I remember flying Contential A300s. They were falling apart and kind of scary. They retired all of their A300s.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:15:21 PM EDT

[#12]

POST THE PIC....THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITH OUT PICS

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:16:15 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Didnt/doesnt the Airbus Rudder pedals operate differently in Air than on ground?

Something like a 'to the floor push' on the ground moves the rudder 100%, while in the air it only takes a small portion of pedal movement (1/4, or 1/2, or something like that?) to move the rudder 100%?

In the NYC crash didnt the pilot pivot the rudder back and forth 100% several times to break off the tail, when he was probably only trying minor corrections but since he didnt have the training/flight time in the airbus he probably didnt know what he was doing since he was used to only using the rudder on the ground?

I won't try to quote the article from memory, but the NTSB report is probably available on the web if you want to read the whole thing. I believe the article stated that on certain Airbus models, the A300-600 being one of them obviously, the force required to fully deflect the rudder pedals all the way is only slightly more than the "breakover" force to move the rudder pedals off center. It's a pretty detailed discussion, though, and worth the $4.95 (or whatever) cover price if you're interested.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:16:41 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Biggest suprise when I was flying was that the rudder is damn near worthless.

Until you've got a 20 knot crosswind, huh?!!

Keep the dirty side down.

vmax84

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:19:31 PM EDT

[#15]

Oh yeah...................and airbus ("a" on airbus left intentionally small) = big pos.

vmax84 "Fly Boeing"

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:25:03 PM EDT

[#16]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:26:19 PM EDT

[#17]

Simple solution to the rudder problem on the Airbus, take the rudder off a Boeing and attach it to the Airbus, problem solved.

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:27:44 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Simple solution to the rudder problem on the Airbus, take the rudder of a Boeing and put it on the Airbus, problem solved.

Simpler solution: get rid of the whole damn tail!

Posted: 3/11/2005 12:43:22 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

Very true… most people ain't going to be buying Boeing!

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:09:59 PM EDT

[#20]

Boeing and MD have both had rudder problems as well. Remember the 737s and their rudder actuators. The MD-9 series of aircraft had problems with their jackscrews. However, both problems could have been avoided if those parts were serviced and inspected on a regular basis. They do it now I bet.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:15:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

Very true… most people ain't going to be buying Boeing!

Except for the Chinese and about 47% of the air transportation industry.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:22:02 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
The problems is that the carbon fiber tail assemblies are delaminating under huge loads of stress. The NYC crash the rudder was forced back and forth very aggressively prior to failure. They were blaming the copilot for over-reacting. The thing is that I dont they have any long term experience with such materials over like 20-30 years of use. Boeings new Dreamliner will be significantly constructed of carbon fiber. The problem is that failure is usually catastrophic.

We have plenty of experience with designing composite structures; it's a piss poor choice in a joint with little or no redundancy because it fails catastrophically. Properly designed metal lugs will fail gracefully by letting the bolts bear out in the lugs at ultimate load levels (this means there is some yielding and stretching occurring, but no fractures or whoesale failures of the part), and prevent fracture to loads well above the maximum expected design load. This is a case of improper material selection.

The Airbus vertical tail attachment is not designed to transmit the loads that are possible by an experienced pilot that needs rudder, and needs it now. Placards against full rudder input at maneuvering speed or below are stupid and should be cause for revocation of the airworthiness certificate.

The public is enamored by "advanced composite" structure - well, that's borderline stupid, carbon composites are essentially made from burnt string and glue.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:26:24 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Old wive's tale, based on anecdotal evidence. It was good for the aerobatic flight training partnership.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:27:09 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
POST THE PIC....THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITH OUT PICS

+1

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:27:35 PM EDT

[#25]

I still prefer Boeing and absolutely hate Airbus.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:31:25 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Simple solution to the rudder problem on the Airbus, take the rudder of a Boeing and put it on the Airbus, problem solved.
Simpler solution: get rid of the whole damn tail!
www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/yb49_a.jpg

I don't think you want to be a passenger in the outer wing of a span loaded flying wing.

Flying wings require a careful design trade - there is so much wetted area that it can easily offset the advantage of deleting the empennage. Plus, pressurized tubes are efficient shapes for pressurization, flat sided compartments and so on that get pressurized are very heavy.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:40:21 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I don't think you want to be a passenger in the outer wing of a span loaded flying wing.

Flying wings require a careful design trade - there is so much wetted area that it can easily offset the advantage of deleting the empennage. Plus, pressurized tubes are efficient shapes for pressurization, flat sided compartments and so on that get pressurized are very heavy.

Oh, yeah, what do you know? What do you think you are, some kind of Aerospace Engin ... oh, wait.

Yes, I'm a little aware of the myriad difficulties involved in the design of a large civil flying wing. I was just trying to illustrate that for many things, there are a number of solutions. Some are elegant in their simplicity.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:49:08 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you want to be a passenger in the outer wing of a span loaded flying wing.

Flying wings require a careful design trade - there is so much wetted area that it can easily offset the advantage of deleting the empennage. Plus, pressurized tubes are efficient shapes for pressurization, flat sided compartments and so on that get pressurized are very heavy.
Oh, yeah, what do you know? What do you think you are, some kind of Aerospace Engin ... oh, wait.

Yes, I'm a little aware of the myriad difficulties involved in the design of a large civil flying wing. I was just trying to illustrate that for many things, there are a number of solutions. Some are elegant in their simplicity.

Everybody, please relax. It's Friday. Go get a beer. Nuff' said.

vmax84

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:50:07 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Old wive's tale, based on anecdotal evidence. It was good for the aerobatic flight training partnership.

Hey thats what the pilots told me!

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:52:15 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Everybody, please relax. It's Friday. Go get a beer. Nuff' said.

vmax84

Relax? RELAX? RELAX? Relax?!?!

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:53:12 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you want to be a passenger in the outer wing of a span loaded flying wing.

Flying wings require a careful design trade - there is so much wetted area that it can easily offset the advantage of deleting the empennage. Plus, pressurized tubes are efficient shapes for pressurization, flat sided compartments and so on that get pressurized are very heavy.
Oh, yeah, what do you know? What do you think you are, some kind of Aerospace Engin ... oh, wait.

Yes, I'm a little aware of the myriad difficulties involved in the design of a large civil flying wing. I was just trying to illustrate that for many things, there are a number of solutions. Some are elegant in their simplicity.

And I ain't bashing. Unfortunately, Popular Mechanics has popularized all sorts of stuff that doesn't hold up to the harsh light of economics. I am convinced that we can design and build anything we think up, but unless you are a Microsoft founder that can build big projects just for the heck of it, everything else has to either make money, deliver ordnance quickly, or spy on bad guys.

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:54:27 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Everybody, please relax. It's Friday. Go get a beer. Nuff' said.

vmax84
Relax? RELAX? RELAX? Relax?!?!

Or, hooters and blow.

vmax84

Posted: 3/11/2005 1:59:04 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

Very true… most people ain't going to be buying Boeing!

Except for the Chinese and about 47% of the air transportation industry.

The Chinese don't think so!

From the Chinese Horses mouth……

Airbus expects US$230b plane orders

Airbus expected China would need to place orders totaling US$230 billion to meet demand for 1,790 passenger and cargo aircraft over the next two decades, the firm said Tuesday.

"Air transport will become even more essential as a facilitator of China's strong economic growth than in the past, both in passenger and freight traffic,¡± said Laurent Rouaud, Airbus vice president for market forecasts research.
Rouaud said China's demand for small twin-aisle aircraft was expected to be 440 planes over the next 20 years.
Chinese carriers have increasingly divided their purchases between Airbus and Boeing Co. after years of dominance by Boeing. China is expected to have the fastest-growing demand for passenger jets over the next 20 years, becoming the world¡¯s second-largest market after the United States.
Over the next 10 years, Airbus expects passenger traffic in China to rise 9.1 percent a year and the country's freight traffic to increase 9 percent annually.
Rouaud said the trend would necessitate aircraft in all market segments and, from Airbus's perspective, the 100-seater A318 to the 555-seater A380.
"Air traffic and aircraft demand could be further stimulated by the low-cost carriers in the region," he said.
Globally, Airbus expects airlines to require more than 17,300 new aircraft between 2004 and 2023.

Source: Shenzhen Daily-Agencies

And……

EADS soars with jumbo-sized profits

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Filed: 10/03/2005)

Europe's aerospace giant EADS boosted profits 58pc last year on the back of surging Airbus jet sales and the recovery of its space operations, but warned of tough times ahead if the dollar remains weak.

The Franco-German group announced pre-tax profits of €2.4 billion for 2004, as it pulled further ahead of Boeing as the world's top producer of large commercial aircraft, and upped the dividend from 40 cents to 50 cents.

Rainer Hertrich, the co-chief of the twin-headed company, said the company had 1,500 aircraft on its order books and predicted 5pc growth in earnings per share in 2005, but said the relentless rise in the euro against the dollar was starting to crimp profits.

"A large part of our costs are in euros, but we're competing with companies that have costs in dollars," he said.

He warned that the break-even cost of Airbus's new double-decker jumbo, the A380, would rise from 250 to 300 aircraft if the euro remained above $1.30 for long. So far, the company has 154 firm orders, but is counting on booming demand in China.

The world's biggest aircraft, with 555 seats, the A380 is the spearhead of Airbus's bid for global dominance in civil aviation. The firm is owned 80pc by EADS and 20pc by Britain's BAE Systems. It accounted for 79pc of EADS's profits last year.

www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/10/cneads10.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/03/10/ixfrontcity.html

Posted: 3/11/2005 2:00:48 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
And I ain't bashing.

Yeah, I know.

Back on topic: While the political forces involved in such a case will ultimately have the dead F.O., I think the AA587 case is a classic example of how a catastrophic accident is rarely caused by some single, isolated element or event. AA587 represents the unfortunate result when a multitude of contributing factors (design, construction, maintenance, training, , policy, proficiency, turbulence, etc ...) all culminate with just enough severity to effect a catastrophic failure. IIRC, the particular rudder control system in the accident aircraft is limited to just a few older Airbus models, and the newer models are equipped with a system more like what Boeing uses - at least with respect to magnitude of rudder pedal input forces.

Posted: 3/11/2005 2:52:08 PM EDT

[#35]

Normally powered rudder systems are deboosted ( operated at lower Hydraulic pressure) at higher speeds to prevent rudder damage/stress. Depending on A/C, rudder will not get full pressure untill a set airspeed, Flap setting or gear lowered condition.

The 737 uncommanded full rudder deflection problem was with supposodly a sticking control spool in the rudder Integrated servo actuator.

The crappy Airbus AFCS " Flight control " computer is probably alot of the problem...Too many auto pilot rudder inputs stressing the carbon fiber rudder mounts..

Posted: 3/11/2005 2:58:38 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Biggest suprise when I was flying was that the rudder is damn near worthless.

?? What were you flying? How did you land in crosswinds? How did you coordinate turns?

Posted: 3/11/2005 3:03:36 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
What gets me is the Boeings I know have a limiting system, and as far as I know it doesn't allow excessive rudder deflection. In a Boeing you're only supposed to use the rudder pedals for crosswind landings, and the yaw damper does the job for everything else. In other words, you don't use rudder for turns, ect....

So what's up with the Airbus not having this? I assume the newer ones have a similar system. The A300s are old.

I flew A300's for American, and now I fly Boeing 737's. They both have rudder limiters that reduce the amount of rudder deflection you get as you increase speed. According to Boeing, their rudders would not have withstood the two full-throw rudder inputs that caused AA 587's crash, either.

Posted: 3/11/2005 3:07:15 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Boeing and MD have both had rudder problems as well. Remember the 737s and their rudder actuators. The MD-9 series of aircraft had problems with their jackscrews. However, both problems could have been avoided if those parts were serviced and inspected on a regular basis. They do it now I bet.

737's probably didn't have rudder actuator problems, although precautionary changes were made. The two accidents you are referring to were probably incorrect rudder inputs. But we'll never know for sure. The MD jackscrew problem was for the horizontal stabilizer. (Flew those, too.)

Posted: 3/11/2005 3:09:37 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Old wive's tale, based on anecdotal evidence. It was good for the aerobatic flight training partnership.

Hey thats what the pilots told me!

It is true, the 757 generates enough wake turbulence that Air Traffic Control is required to warn you if you are landing or taking off behind one.

Posted: 3/11/2005 3:36:17 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Old wive's tale, based on anecdotal evidence. It was good for the aerobatic flight training partnership.

Hey thats what the pilots told me!

It is true, the 757 generates enough wake turbulence that Air Traffic Control is required to warn you if you are landing or taking off behind one.

Everyone gets the warning behind all heavy aircaft; "Superplane 15 kilo, approved to land number 2 behind the 737 (or A320, or Super Connie, ad naseum). Caution wake turbulence."

There is no feature, speed, span loading,weight, wing loading, power loading, color, or anything else that would cause more intense wake turbulence behind a B757 than any other airplane of similar size and performance. It's anecdotal.

I am willing to read all FAA or NASA documents you supply that proves otherwise, and will report about their findings herein. That's the closest we are goin' to get to a plane 'o truth.

Posted: 3/11/2005 3:49:09 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was talking to some pilots the last time I flew and they were flying a 757 to LA. They were telling me how other pilots hate following 757s in the flight pattern. I guess it generates huge vortexes that causes turbulence and control problems for other aircraft that are following. He was telling me that 757 is like a Porsche compared to other jets.

Supposedly the Airbus was following a 757.

Old wive's tale, based on anecdotal evidence. It was good for the aerobatic flight training partnership.

Hey thats what the pilots told me!

It is true, the 757 generates enough wake turbulence that Air Traffic Control is required to warn you if you are landing or taking off behind one.

Everyone gets the warning behind all heavy aircaft; "Superplane 15 kilo, approved to land number 2 behind the 737 (or A320, or Super Connie, ad naseum). Caution wake turbulence."

There is no feature, speed, span loading,weight, wing loading, power loading, color, or anything else that would cause more intense wake turbulence behind a B757 than any other airplane of similar size and performance. It's anecdotal.

I am willing to read all FAA or NASA documents you supply that proves otherwise, and will report about their findings herein. That's the closest we are goin' to get to a plane 'o truth.

Yes, wake turbulence warnings are issued for all "heavies". But a 757 isn't a heavy. It's wing just generates very powerful vortices, and so it's the only "non-heavy" that ATC tells you about.

I'm a retired Marine fighter pilot and a current American Airlines captain with a little over 12,000 hours of flight time, including every aircraft discussed in this thread so far. Does that give me any more credibility in your eyes?

Posted: 3/11/2005 5:51:43 PM EDT

[#42]

Nope, Marines aren't pilots - just grunts at a higher level!!! - Just kidding... 12,000 is a a pretty good number!

The C-5 has the same rudder limiter system described above. 0 - 153 knots you get 35* of movement, 153 - 238 knots you get 12* of movement, above 238 knots only 4*. There is a switch to get it all back if you say, get down to a two engine situation and need all that rudder authority to keep the blue side up (which is not a lot of fun in simulator BTW).

For some reason we always get the caution about wake turbulence when we take off... I would be pretty scared if I was one of the local Aero Club pilots in their 172 following us around!

Spooky

Posted: 3/11/2005 5:57:19 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
The Chinese don't think so!

Umm, they do think so:

Boeing to fly high in China with sale of 60 wide-body jets
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Alan Mulally, third from the left, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, unveils a model of the new 787 with Chinese airline executives after a sales-contract-signing ceremony yesterday at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington, D.C.
Boeing confirmed yesterday in a Washington, D.C., signing ceremony an agreement to sell 60 of its new mid-size wide-body jets to the six major airlines in China, a deal worth $7.2 billion at nominal list prices.
Boeing also announced that the jet formerly called the 7E7 would henceforth be designated the 787, continuing the company's 7-series model numbering.
And it signaled that a substantial amount of work on the plane will be subcontracted to China.
Air China, China Eastern Airlines, China Southern Airlines, Hainan Airlines, Shanghai Airlines and Xiamen Airlines will each receive at least one jet in time for the opening of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and deliveries are expected to be complete by 2012.
All six airlines will get the long-range 223-seat model, the 787-8. Boeing did not disclose how the 60 jets would be divided among the carriers.
In a conference call with journalists, Mike Bair, who heads the new jet program, said the redesignation of the model number to 787 was carefully timed to please its Chinese customers.
"We felt it was appropriate to honor this Chinese order in some way," Bair said. "The numeral 8 is good luck in China; 787-8s for the 2008 Olympics made a nice package for them."
Since the naming of the initial 707, Boeing's first and highly successful commercial jet, all of its airliners have been named in succession based on the 7-7 formula.
Boeing had announced in June that the new plane's rudder would be made in China, at the Chengdu plant of China Aviation Industry Corp.
Bair said yesterday that additional contract work will go to China through Boeing's major subcontracting partners. This suggests that some of the major Japanese work on the 787 airframe will be farmed out to China.
"Our expectation is that there's a fair amount of this airplane that ultimately is going to be produced in China," Bair said.
Although 60 percent of the commercial jets in China today are Boeing-made, Airbus has made strong gains there in recent years.
Airbus also formalized a deal yesterday that had been announced earlier: the sale of five super-jumbo A380s to China Southern Airlines, worth about $1.4 billion at list prices.
"Long term, the Chinese have decided that they want to balance their purchases," between Boeing and Airbus, Bair said.
Geopolitics complicates sales to China. The government of the People's Republic of China has been unhappy with a prospective U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, which it considers a breakaway province that is only temporarily independent.
According to sources in China and the U.S., negotiations around the Taiwan issue created delay in nailing down the Boeing order, which the company had originally expected to announce in 2004.
"I can't say for sure there was a political motivation around some of that delay," Bair responded when asked about the political issues.
Bair also announced minor changes to the 787's configuration. He confirmed that the number of seats has increased slightly to 223 seats in three classes on the standard long-range 787-8; 259 seats in three classes on the 787-9 stretch version; and 296 seats in two classes on the short-range 787-3 model.
In addition, the wing span of the two longer-range models has been lengthened by four feet to 197 feet.
Bair said that the use of light, strong composites for the wings allowed this performance-enhancing adjustment without adding weight.
"With composites we can make a lot thinner wing a lot longer," Bair said.
Boeing has a list of 186 announced orders for the 787, of which 56 are firm contracts. Details of the other 130 deals, including the Chinese order, will be finalized later.

And:

washingtonpost.com
Boeing's Jet Becomes '787' With China Order
By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 29, 2005; Page E01
Grateful for a big order from China, Boeing Co. yesterday renamed the new 7E7 Dreamliner the 787 Dreamliner in recognition of the symbolic significance of the number 8 in Asia.
The announcement came as China signed an order at the Department of Commerce in Washington for 60 aircraft, worth up to $7.2 billion at list price. To the Chinese, the number 8 represents prosperity and good luck. It also represents the year in which Beijing will host the Olympics: 2008. Boeing said it would deliver at least one of the new planes to each of the six Chinese airlines that had placed orders in time for the Olympics.
"It was appropriate to honor this Chinese order in some way," said Michael B. Bair, Boeing's vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "All of you know the numeral 8 is good luck. The 787 -- 8 for the 2008 Olympics -- kind of made a nice package for them."
The 787 also is the latest in Boeing's 7-7 model series following the 777, the last commercial airplane the company launched.
Yesterday's big order was crucial for the success of Boeing's new plane because China is one of the hottest markets for aviation, as millions of its residents can now afford to travel by air. Boeing and its rival, France-based Airbus SAS, are competing heavily to sell new planes in China. Yesterday, Airbus said it had signed a deal to deliver five of its new super-jumbo A380s to China Southern Airlines. It also recently announced plans to build a competitor to the 787.
Boeing now has 186 orders for the new double-aisle aircraft, which it expects will begin flying in 2008. The plane will replace the company's 767 and will have more fuel-efficient engines and be made mostly of composite materials rather than aluminum to reduce its weight.
Chinese officials did not indicate what routes the aircraft would fly, but Boeing officials said the new plane is designed for international travel and for opening service to new cities. Bair said China was already offering service to new destinations, noting that China Southern now has a direct flight from Ghuangzhou in southern China to Las Vegas.

Airbus 5
Boeing 60

Next.

Posted: 3/11/2005 6:45:12 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Yes, wake turbulence warnings are issued for all "heavies". But a 757 isn't a heavy. It's wing just generates very powerful vortices, and so it's the only "non-heavy" that ATC tells you about.

I'm a retired Marine fighter pilot and a current American Airlines captain with a little over 12,000 hours of flight time, including every aircraft discussed in this thread so far. Does that give me any more credibility in your eyes?

The 757 is classified as a large airplane, MTOW up to 255000 pounds, which just happens to be the weight of an extended range B757. Yes, it gets and exeption for a specific callout for trailing traffic.

www.noaa.inel.gov/capabilities/wakevortex/

The 1998 safety notice cancelling pilot and controller discretion for deviation from separation
ntl.bts.gov/lib/1000/1100/1156/781.pdf

The Aeronautical Information Manual for those that are interested -
www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap7/aim0703.html

Here is a very good training aid from the FAA -
www.faa.gov/avr/afs/wake/04SEC2.PDF

The existence of an extra strong wake behind a B757 is conjecture, stemming from the possibility that it was the cause of a handful of accidents; there isn't any solid measured data that I have ever seen or heard of; it is anecdotal evidence, yet to be proven. Just because the wake seems stronger, doesn't make it so. The FAA is under pressure to take the lowest risk path they can get away with, and extra caution behind a 757 doesn't cost them a thing, even if the airlines think it is too conservative.

The last Marine pilots I met couldn't convert the true course to a target to a magnetic heading and wanted the FAC's to do it for them. I still haven't met a gray headed captain that remembers how to calculate weight and balance. My flying experience doesn't include jet time (except the sim domes at work, not the same), just night mail, pipeline patrol, tugging shit, recreational aerobatics, gliders, and even some DC-3 time.

Posted: 3/11/2005 7:18:42 PM EDT

[#45]

Actually 757s have been involved in several wake turbulance crashed. The USAIR 737, the American A300 and several others. It maybe anecdotal but I know many actual pilots believe this. I rememeber seeing a vortex simulation from Boeing of a 757 and the wake was significantly larger then any other plane of similar size.