For mine, what I've read in this thread makes me more confident about my Felt carbon forks, only worry is checking for damage after impacts.

Cheap no-name stuff may be another matter, though...

Yes.. I did digress.

Bottom line.. carbon has not proven it can go the distance. Stress it.. then the 'what if' creeps into one's mind.

Imagine.. a fully loaded 'dream plain' hitting a dead air pocket.. dropping like a rock till it finds "air". I do not believe that wing stress test Boeing ran comes close to that scenario. I hope that titanium band-aid has some lift designed into it's profile.

I agree this thread has degenerated into a rant against Boeing. The military has been using carbon components in it's aircraft for many years and these routinely sustain loads far greater than any civilian aircraft.

Ride what you like and trust but this is way off the original topic.

Please, Mr. Engineer, elaborate on that.

In the early days of aviation, the manufacturers used aluminum. Originally, planes had rectangular windows. The repeated stresses of flying casued fatigue that ended up cracking the 90 degree points in the aluminum sheating of the plane. When they assessed the problem, the solution was to eliminate the 90 degree corners of the rectangle windows for an oval window making the aluminum stronger at a known weak point.

So...

What tests were done on the other 7#7 planes to make you feel confident in flying?
What tests has Airbus proven to be a superior test than Boeing's wing test?
What other major known issues have happened with the 787?
Also, how many million miles has the existing 787 fleet flown without incident?

I heard on the news this morning that the FAA is narrowing their investigation to the battery manufacurer in Japan. I would suspect since it's a problem from Japan, the Subaru in my garage will instantly catch fire and my Sony DVD player will start eating DVD's .

This is a similar situation to the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tire issue years back.
Were the vehicles bad?...No
Was a certain piece of the vehicle bad?...Yes

So, I ask you Mr. Engineer SortaGrey, please elaborate on the scientific research and proposed wing tests that you've done so that Boeing and the FAA can adopt those.

Point/s taken.

Since when ..was miles from a topic other than the norm on this salad bar?

Military reference isn't real world... in the sense who do they answer to budget wise? Yes of later yrs.. but in the end.. the decision makers all have Swiss bank accounts. They'll just retrofit the planes sooner.. more commission's to the Swiss accounts. No competitive financial venue to compete in.

Now ...if your en-GINE-erring degree sez fly that 'dream plain'.. it's your life.. and your funeral.

The gist of my .. issue... irritation.. whatever.. is this: Boeing is attempting to cut the corner as it were.. with a technology that is NOT proven over the long haul. Adopting a military-like strategy .. 'we'll fix it later'... get it up and running anyway. Who looses? In my opinion.. it'll be the consumers. Simple trade off ..of fuel costs vs human lives.

I could care less what some blinking paid expert sez... anyone with paperwork to give the consumer sheep a sense of confidence. Everybody is for sale in the 21st century.

At this point, your topic is way off of bicycle components and well into the realm of paranoia and populous economic ranting. Another forum is properly the place for it.

There's no sense debating this nonsense. Nothing on this thread is going to inform or influence anybody.

Someplace early on in this thread I made a reference to the good faith of the OP. I stand corrected.

seems like we've bounced around and reached the limits of rational discussion of this subject. Closed