Bralo20 wrote:I'm totally not convinced that it was isolated to a small area, the images we've seen on TV are suggesting that the area affected by externial damage is quite significant. It's not a simple patch of 10x10 it's quite a large area that suffered damage enough to at least damage the paint and weaken the cfrp structure.
The fact that Boeings cfrp fuselage parts are moulded instead of traditionally bolted (like the "old" aluminium parts or even the cfrp panels of the A350) is a significant problem. You simply cannot "patch" a moulded fuselage like you would do with traditional fuselage. The fact that cfrp loses it's strenght when heated over 250°C is also something that you have to be considering, the large area seen on the tv images is an area that was heated well over 250°C and thus even without being burned through (although it's still not confirmed that the hull wasn't burned through, they specified "damaged composite structure" besides blackening and peeling paint. Damaged composite structure can mean everything, it can mean that it was burned through but at -least- it means that there is structural damage following a fire.) it still means that the structural integrity was breached due firedamage. Now you have a plane with a hull that has firedamage in an critical area of the plane where it will undergo a lot of stress during take off, landing and flight itself. But even then it doesn't stop... The fuselage was filled with smoke when the firedepartment entered the plane, smoke got denser when they got to the point where the fire was happening. This alone means that there is to be expected a significant amount of smokedamage, even soot damage... At this point the plane was also nicely covered with foam, I don't know which brand the LHR fire department uses but this can also cause significant damage though the modern types of foam are less damaging then the old ones which where really corrosive. So another point to take into account and then they started to tear up the interior of the plane to extinguish the fire in the crown of the plane, ok this probably won't have caused any extra damage but the fact they started to fight the fire with water (and maybe even used foam inside too, but this wasn't specified) meand that everything was covered nicely with water, all the electronics in that part of the plane (and especially below the floor) will have received a nice shower of water...
When you add everything it's not just a simple patch it's a lot more then most expect... Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised for even a second if they announce that the plane is a write off... I actually expect it to be a write off and this mostly "thanks" to the Boeing design of using moulded fuselage parts... If the plane could have been repaired in a "normal way", thus by replacing panels, stringers, etc... I would say yes, they will repair it to have it back in service, but now? Maybe Boeing really wants to keep the 0 hull loss figure this early in the game and maybe they'll buy it from Wells Fargo to have it shipped to PAE to repair it there and keep it in the fleet as a testplane but I doubt it will fly with ET again...
I truly hope I will be wrong since it would be hard to see a hull loss that soon after EIS...
You'd be surprised how they fix an aircraft for a ferry flight...
Yes, I do agree that the damage is more extensive then it may seem. But also, it was in the top of the fuse, so most likely, the lower part is fine. Which will mean that the aircraft still is straight, and all that has to be done, is reinforce the roof section in that area to give it back its stiffness. If they have to bolt a couple of I beams to the structure to achieve that, then that is what they will do. It only has to do one unpressurized flight. Or maybe two, as the fuel burn will be quite significant at 10000 ft. But I am pretty sure it can be done. If not, the alternative is to take it apart, which I allready suggested earlier. But as more details emerge, I think it could fly.
As for the water and smoke damage. I am not really concearned about water. Aircraft are designed to disperse of water that accumulates in the fuse. The level reached will be hight then normal, but in this part of the fuselage there are generally no costly avionics. So that will be ok. The smoke, and interior damage... Yes, quite significant I think. I think it is a safe bet the interior will be mostly, if not all scrap. But that is easily replaced, I don't think the cost of the interior will tip the scale to a write off. Which is of coars also a possibility, a write off But I have a feeling that Boeing is not going to let that happen so quickly.
As for the ELT.
The statement from yesterday shows that it is the prime suspect. I honestly on't know why they only want them out of the 787... Sounds like a bit of head in the sand politics... But maybe the composite structure is more suseptable to overheating than traditional alloy. But I don't know, I would look further than the 787...
May be they are gearing up to that level for a later date. The thing is, if you take 6000 ELT's out of 6000 planes, you need 12000 back ups... Portable units are often carried double. So that will be an issue I guess... A hundred units for 50 787's, no problem, can be supplied from the shelf... But 6000 planes... Not really.
The fire extinguishers... Water extinguishers are carried on aircraft. I don't know if on all, but they are common. So I don't see why that should be a problem. The firefighting equipment on any aircraft is quite limited by the way. So if there is a fire on board, on any plane, you want to land as soon as possible. If the fire is big enough, it doesn't matter if the fuselage is made from alloy or composite, you have a big problem anyway.