Вы можете внести свой вклад в бесплатную работу FlightAware, разрешив показ рекламы на FlightAware.com. Мы следим за тем, чтобы наша реклама была полезна и не мешала работе с сайтом. Вы можете быстро
включить рекламу на FlightAware или приобрести
привилегированное членство.
There is nothing about these issues that are the result of "Fatigue cracking" in low time in service aircraft, vis-a-vis age or operational hours IMHO. These parts are primarily titanium, a very rigid, light and durable metal but virtually Inelastic compared to other common use metals in aviation manufacturing. It doesn't bend or stretch repeatedly without cracking failures and thus doesn't fit well in the 'shim to fit' world Boeing created with the outsourcing of everything to outside manufacturers with promised but not always delivered production tolerances. Thus, if not shimmed to fit properly, a defect already exhibited in several other areas of the 787 assembly process, they are forced to bend or stretch in service and failure from cracking is a given.
But, But, what about the SR71, it was titanium! Yes, but, virtually all the big pieces and structural components were made in house, "The Skunk Works", by "craftsmen" with very rigid production and assembly tolerances. Thus, in operation, the titanium 'grew' with heat but did not bend or stretch due to improper 'fit'.
To call most current 787 assembly workers "craftsmen" or Boeing management inspirational since the MD sellout would be a 'stretch' of the imagination.