For those of you who have paid a visit to the Future of Flight museum at Paine Field in Everett, Washington, this large monolithic composite barrel will be quite familiar to you. A few weeks ago, Boeing removed three barrel - a demonstrator of 787 section 47 - from its exhibit in at the museum and relocated back to the factory grounds. It's been rigged up near the 40-41 building and appears to have a vertical stabilizer leading edge now attached to the top of it. I confess to having absolutely no earthly clue as to the purpose of this barrel's reclamation, but it does inspire many many questions? Can anyone shed some light?Photo Credit Mark Palmer
on November 6, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply
Maybe it will be thinly sliced, deli style for use on giant sandwiches?
on November 6, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply
Jon
You need to stand by the fence with coffee and donuts when the engineers are there. You would be amazed what the gate post will tell you when you bring it a large double double and a glazed donut espically on a cold and blistery day. I not saying unappreciated and under payed Boeing engineers can be bought with coffee and donuts, I am just saying a little love goes a long way.
on November 6, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply
My guess is some kind of ground test. It has the fifth window in the 46/47 join bay that was deleted from Section 47 pretty early on.
on November 6, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply
It is obvious, they are evaluating the joint between barrel and stabilizer. Note the yellow tarp covering this interface.
on November 7, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply
It's clearly an antenna to contact aliens and ask for technology help with the dreamliner...
on November 7, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply
Oh dear,
This is no ground test. For a static test the adjoining rear section would be required to provide required structural stiffness.
It looks as though Boeing have already confirmed that the vertical stabilizer to fuselage joint is suffering the same issues as the wing joint and are trying to assess how to fix the structure via a rework procedure. If I am correct then this is even less accessible than the side of body join.
The 787 wont be flying this side of Xmas.
Mo.
on November 7, 2009 5:44 AM | Reply
Very very curious. I too think that they're evaluating or modifying something to do with the join between barrel & stabilizer. It doesn't yet appear to be fixed in pic/vid. What's telling and a little ominious is that this is not being dealt with in a computer simulation, leading to further speculation that there could be a problem with that join that they're trying to understand or overcome.
on November 7, 2009 6:06 AM | Reply
Does the horizontal stabiliser connect into this
section as known from published construction details?
uwe
on November 7, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply
Testjig for the vertical fin leading edge/body fairing?
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q2/nr_050602g.html
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q2/050602g.jpg
uwe
on November 7, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply
I only wish they haven't detected any delamination due to stabilizer loads on the upper shell cover...I don't know detail design but if the leading edge is fix attached on the fuselage it will appear....
on November 7, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply
Seems strange indeed, Looking at the cables attached to the structures supporting the fin section I would say they are going to flex the fin leading edge. I hope this doesn't mean that they have a possible problem with the barrel/fin joint delaminating due to flexing. Perhaps what they learnt with the wing problem is making them check other stressed areas!!! Otherwise why would they do that now, surely this would have been done a long time ago if it was part of the design check.
on November 7, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply
I think there may be more problems with the 787. It ain't looking good.
on November 7, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply
This test setup is certainly not aimed at testing the fuselage-stabilizer join. The stab leading edge doesn't transmit any loads into the fuselage. Like the wing, the vertical stab has a bending/torsion box structure that carries the loads. That part occupies about the center third of the stab chord only.
I'd wager this is an electromagnetic effects (EME) test. There's an HF antenna located in the leading edge. The covers at the front and over the door look like the shielded material computer components are packed in.
The CFRP fuselage turned out to be tricky when it comes to EME/HIRF shielding, especially towards the aircraft's HF/UHF/VHF radio antennas.
But maybe they just want to give you something to chew on until first flight... :)))
on November 7, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply
The wooden trestle the fuselage section is resting on and the wooden pylons are also indicative of EME testing.
on November 7, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply
I can solve part of the mystery.
Ron May is a towing company based in Everett.
All the rest is puzzling.
on November 7, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply
I know, but Im not telling.
on November 7, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply
It appears to be in the correct position to be leading edge, but assuming it is one half of that, it seems to be too fat as far as profile is concerned.
If viewed from the top, it look as if it could be anything from 60 to 90 degrees as a developed profile.
Having said that, the dominant connection of the fin to fuselage would be in the next section aft.
I do not believe the leading edge of the fin would have much more than a fairing between it and the fuselage.
Finally, if it were a design issue, the whole thing would be out of sight.
on November 7, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply
Why would they prop it up to the same height as the airplane sits on its landing gear?
Could the metallic leading edge be the main electrical path for a lightning strike, and they're worried about how that is electrically bonded to the metal mesh in the fuselage? Using the mystery fittings under the yellow tarp?
Just shooting in the dark here... very odd
on November 8, 2009 8:09 AM | Reply
All wood support, and only the vertical leading edge, logic point toward potential static electricity transfer at the leadding edge fuse joint. Bad news, good news, who really knows ? If the found someting wrong, to me it is good news, it is going to be fixed.
on November 8, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply
My money is on a lightning test. They are waiting for a thunderstorm with a lightning that hits the leading edge to analyze the effects on the fuselage to validate bonding straps etc.
on November 8, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply
I do NOT believe they are evaluating the 'structural' join between the vertical stabilizer and the body.
What is shown is the LEADING edge fairing, and it is NON-structural, just as the LEADING edge of the wing.
The vertical TAIL BOX, which is NOT shown, is the structural joint between the vertical tail and body, just as the CENTER WING BOX is the analogous structure for the wings.
This assemblage is therefore NOT for structural evaluation, but for some other unknown reason.
on November 8, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply
Calm down everybody. The vertical fin's main attachments are in Section 48 not Section 47 (pressurized) which is what you are seeing here. This is not out there because there is a problem with the vertical fin attachment. This is an interesting picture and may indicate some EME testing but I don't think we need to be jumping to the conclusion that everything Boeing does with the 787 indicates some massive problem. If there was a problem with the fin attach, why would Boeing pull out the barrel manufacturing test section and put it outside for all to see while they repair some huge problem?
on November 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply
This is obviously the new method for parts integration...Krazy Glue.
Soon you'll see giant wooden structures holding each part of the aircraft, while technicians scurry about with bottles of krazy glue, bonding everything in sight.
The yellow wrap is to keep out rain while the glue sets.
Anyone can see that.
on November 8, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply
I vote for EMI/RFI and lightning tests.
Composites handle lightning differently than metal plans....semi-conductive vs very condudtive...
Most of the leading edges on the plane are metal...so I think they are testing the interface between the metal and compostie fuselage.....the wood support is a big hint....
on November 8, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply
It may be a lightning-related test, but they are not waiting for actual lightning -- Seattle gets so little that it would take centuries, perhaps milleniums, for any given point in Seattle to have a high chance of a lightning strike unless it was outrageously tall compared to its surroundings.
Actually, reflecting on recent Boeing history, they may very well have time for this before first flight!
on November 8, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply
Trivial. Boeing wants to buy a few senators. Pictured is a really big dipper to access public funds.
And I'm a Boeing supporter.
on November 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply
It look that part of the 787 De-Icing Certification is taking place. The system is a electro thermal ice protection system. This type of system eleminates the need for engine bleed air. GKN Aerospace and Thermion Systems International (TSI) developed they system for the 787.
on November 9, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply
To me the EMI story seems most plausible. As a structural test this would be totally unacceptable. there is no way you could achieve something remotely approaching a defined load with this kind of structure.
Any kind of weather testing you would be doing in a climate chamber. There are quite a few chambers out there which would be capable of testing something of this size.
For an EMI test you want to be away from all possible disturbances. A parking lot therefore does not seem such a strange choice. It is also something you might want to do on a bare structure without all the wiring or other stuff that might obstruct your measurements.
Whatever it is, unless they put this up just to puzzle us, they have seen something in the system which warranted this unscheduled FUMO test. Doesn't necessarely mean that it is something major or will lead to furter delays, but I can't say it is very reassuring either.
on November 9, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply
maybe they are looking for water ingress, accumulation, and freeze-thaw damage....?
on November 9, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply
I also know what this setup was for; however, I don't think that anyone would believe me. I'll give you a hint: the tarp passed the test.
on November 9, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply
OK John L.
Try us! We all want to know "believe it or not"... :-)
on November 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply
Hmmm... Does this have to do with the fact that the fatigue-test airframe does not have the vertical-stabilizer leading-edge root fairing?
paineairport.com/kpae2324.htm
paineairport.com/kpae2316.htm
Please tell me that this elaborate (albeit somewhat kludgy-looking) setup was meant to test the rainproof characteristics of the (also kludgy-looking) tarp! Boeing hopefully did not just realize that the fatigue airframe will have to be outside for a long time, that there is an opening near the root of the tail, and that weather in the area can get rainy...
I am very tempted to call the fatigue-test lead and find out, but I'm happy to stay un-informed for a while longer in case the answer is published.
on November 9, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply
Sorry, what I intended to write was "Please tell me that this elaborate (albeit somewhat kludgy-looking) setup was NOT meant..."
on November 10, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply
Appears to be Monarch Airlines Livery , good to see
on November 10, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply
De ankle bone connected to da shin bone..............
So let,s just figure that one out!