Q&A: Boeing R&D Motivated by Flexibility (Part II)

Alan Miller, director of technology requirements & incorporation at Boeing speaks about composites potential.

Last Week, Composites Manufacturing spoke with Alan G. Miller, the director of technology requirements & incorporation for Boeing Commercial Airlines – Product Development, about the increased use of composites (you can read the interview online). Today, he’s answered a series of follow-up questions about the Boeing’s R&D processes, and composite manufacturers’ potential to grow or get involved.

What motivates Boeing’s R&D?

We certainly don’t push technology for technology’s sake, but rather how it translates to our customers. For example, we strive to improve aerodynamics not only for more efficient airplanes, but to reduce community noise. Also, if we reduce the carbon footprint of airplanes, that affects dispatched planes around the world. If they were quieter and had less of an impact on the environment, they could be dispatched at all hours of the day, which gives more flexibility.

How does R&D collaboration work for such a large company?

We are aligned with our broader Boeing-wide technology organizations where we share best practices and the newest ideas. Together we maintain an active global presence with our partners, supply chain members, and affiliated universities. Building and supporting airplanes is a global business and major components are fabricated in Australia, Asia and Europe. Part of those relationships is the participation in development. We leverage each other’s knowledge and whether a good idea comes to us from France, China or Kansas, it’s still a good idea.

How do you determine what parts will be made of what materials?

It is a decision made between alternative materials/structures of value to our customers. We consider the collective value of these decisions in terms of integrated considerations with structures, materials, systems, aerodynamics, propulsion, manufacturing, and life cycle cost factors.

In the future, what parts could be potentially made out of composites that aren’t right now?

Currently, composites are not as efficient for certain parts of the aircraft; we can do it with composites but it’s just not as efficient. But there is movement into more complex geometries, for example, where we use titanium or other metallic parts. Currently, the airplane is roughly half composites and half not composites. We optimize material selection and structures around the material properties that best work together. We’ve put aluminum and titanium around composites, for specific reasons—it was best for the job either due to stiffness, strength or expansion. But fitting, which takes a part loaded in one axis and joins to another axis, is done using traditional metals.

What are Boeing’s material evaluation and testing processes like?

One word – extensive. Boeing used the same rigor for testing and evaluation we have used on all of our commercial airplanes.

As an overview, we start with structural testing of the smallest parts and move up to larger and larger panels, stringers, then full-on components (full-scale wing or fuselage), then the full airplane static and fatigue testing. All of this is independent of material selection. If we are testing steel or aluminum, we go up the scale for that material. With composites however, the 787 has experienced the largest and most comprehensive structural testing program we have ever had. We have a wealth of data, something like 6 or 7 million flight hours with composites and material data from flying the 777 family. So, in moving forward, when we elected to use same material as the 777 family, data was there but the applications were different because we hadn’t built a full-scale wing out of composites. We had to supplement the database with strong service and certification. We were comfortable technically from the 777, but still had to test. To fill out the entire matrix took three to four years. Next time, presumably it will go a bit faster, because now we have more data.

What is your role in terms of working with supply chain partners?

We have worked extensively with our supply chain partners throughout the development of the 787 program. We have had many of their key technical leaders work directly with our teams on the best solutions to design needs and to manufacturing requirements. These best ideas from our partners scan the globe and are aligned with the unique and diverse strengths of our partners, such as issue quality and schedule performance. Our partners bring a wealth of experience to the table, such as quality, cost, schedule and performance expertise. Plus, they have a different perspective that helps us develop products. For example, when we were developing a one-piece barrel, the partners who were building the fuselage not only got reports, they put people in Seattle on a daily basis. The team was learning and sharing their experiences on the floor, which provided a great deal of interchange between companies. In the end, they took that cumulative knowledge back to their companies to set up productions. I think it really worked out well.

What are your criteria in deciding what partners to work with?

The criteria are quality, cost and schedule performance. Our supplier partners brought significant composite design and manufacturing experience to the project. For example, Alenia makes the wings of Eurofighter from composites as well as numerous commercial airplane components. In addition, the list of partner experiences is quite extensive and is additive to their significant commercial, transport, composite and production experiences.

To subscribe to CM’s weekly Q&A, click here.

Tags: Aerospace, Boeing, news