Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5270740/

Topic: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: TomB
Posted 2011-10-03 12:33:50 and read 19743 times.

Daniel Tsang of Aspire Aviation has written a very good article providing an overview of the Boeing 787 program.
"Challenges Remain as Boeing 787 Becomes Reality"
http://www.aspireaviation.com/blog/

Here is a summary of some of Daniel's comments:
7 to 8 B-787 deliveries in 2011
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016
Production rate should hit 10 airplanes per month by 2013 or 2014
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

Engines:
R-R Trent Package A: 2% - 4% miss on SFC
R-R Trent Package B: 1% miss on SFC

GEnx-1B: 2% to 3% miss on SFC
PIP1: Reduces fuel burn by 1.4%
PIP2: Reduces fuel burn by 1.5%
2013 spec GEnx-1B: hits original SFC target (=+)

Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

Conclusion on B-787-8: Should finally hit the original factory specs in 2013

B-787-9: Weight is ahead of curve
B-787-10X: Probably EIS in 2016

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tak
Posted 2011-10-03 12:49:29 and read 19699 times.

WOW, the amount overweight seems really staggering! Thanks for summarizing this article. I just posted in another thread asking the question of which AC will be delivered in the remainder of this year: Which Other Airliner Receives The 787 In 2011? (by tonytifao Sep 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-03 14:46:21 and read 19342 times.

I'm a bit skeptical of those weights, to be honest. I recall other sources saying ZA001 was about 2.5 tons (5000 pounds) overweight.

Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-03 21:13:08 and read 18723 times.

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016

What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight

Is that with or without the tons of flight test stuff on the airplane?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

I find it odd that he's got hard numbers for all the negatives but only the general term "slightly" for the positives...is there any quantification out there?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.

There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ADent
Posted 2011-10-03 22:03:36 and read 18578 times.

Gross Profit Divided By Sales is the equation for GPM.

Gross Profit is the difference between total revenue from sales and the total cost of purchases or materials.

--

So a negative GPM would indicate Boeing is getting paid less then they are paying for the parts. GPM doesn't include overhead.


This article from Flight Global ( http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...he-price-of-boeings-787-sales.html ) said Boeing charged really low prices (as low as $65 million) on the first few hundred aircraft.

But by unit 1,000 each plane will have a positive GPM, since it hasn't been sold (or Boeing should really cancel the program). I guess the report could be that Boeing won't even pay costs when divided over the first 1,000 but that seems pretty harsh.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-03 22:55:15 and read 18427 times.

I think the whole thing is a red herring...and like the 380 talk, won't change a thing. How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research? The work done on the wing will potentially save billions when Boeing needs a new 777 wing...or the next narrow body...and it already went into the 748 wing.

If they go with a more electric architecture to save weight on the 777ng or anything else, it'll be thanks to the work done on the 787.

The windows on the 748 are thanks to the 777.

So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

Regardless, there isn't a report that will kill this program...or any other. The only thing that will kill it is lack of customer interest. How much it cost Boeing is, at this point, irrelevant.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Extra300
Posted 2011-10-04 03:50:40 and read 18093 times.

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Wow. That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens. That would make just over 200 aircraft per year.

(For comparison, A330 had it´s best year so far in 2010 with 82 deliveries, and the best year for 767 was 63 aircraft back in 1992, and Boeing delivered 88 777 in 2009. All according to wiki)

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: STT757
Posted 2011-10-04 04:43:50 and read 17954 times.

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 6):
That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens

They're going to have two final production facilities, Everett and Charleston.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Ruscoe
Posted 2011-10-04 04:51:38 and read 17918 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research?

I agree with you.

A lot of the money spent on the 787 program is an investment in the future of Boeing.

Ruscoe

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-04 05:08:36 and read 17864 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Agreed, but Boeing spokesfolk have specifically said "contractual performance guarantees".

I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8.  

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: C680
Posted 2011-10-04 06:08:53 and read 17699 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8

The way the whole 747-8f thing went, he's going to get LN-90!!!

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
LN-90: meets original weight targets

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-04 06:13:08 and read 17670 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

As this is the most transformative airliner since the 707, this is very true. What has been learned on the 787 will affect every airliner Boeing designs from here on. The 707 also took far, far longer than anticipated to turn a profit by itself, but without it there would have been no 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, or 787. Boeing would probably have followed the same course as Lockheed, and by now would probably have been absorbed by either them or General Dynamics. Fortunately Boeing seems to have had access to sufficient capital to overcome the cost overruns; in the 50's it was much dicier. They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 06:27:18 and read 17604 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 11):
They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.

Not even close. Even the most pessimistic and doom-laden projection of the cost of the 787 program is significantly lower than the company's current net worth.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: planespotting
Posted 2011-10-04 07:10:31 and read 17466 times.

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft? I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

I'm not saying that I don't believe this info, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I would like to know why.

Does it just have to do with an assumption that Boeing/supplier engineers will be able to produce a variety of parts at a lower weight, or will they learn more about the aircraft and be able to physically remove certain items (like 1,000 rivets? - just throwing that out there as an example) and therefore reduce weight through many piecemeal reductions?

Any insight would be much appreciated!

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-04 07:33:52 and read 17403 times.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft?

Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact overdesigned. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: fpetrutiu
Posted 2011-10-04 07:37:29 and read 17388 times.

Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: poLOT
Posted 2011-10-04 07:44:37 and read 17338 times.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

Sure. If the original airline does not want the airframe and refuses to take delivery of it than Boeing is free to sell it to whoever wants it. No need to force the original airline to do anything. If they don't want it and there is someone else who does might as well cut out the middleman.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?

Only if they could get an acceptable amount of frames in a short amount of time. No one is going to jump ahead for 1-2 frames and then wait 2 years to get the rest of their order for example (unless they ordered a small amount, i.e 4, then maybe). So you would have to look at some of the early customers.

[Edited 2011-10-04 07:46:03]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-04 11:44:43 and read 14971 times.

Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-04 12:37:52 and read 14489 times.

It is interesting to look at what finally was of the 787-8 if one assumes the figures from above. If the actual figures are 2-3t better per Stitchs assumptions then this whole reasoning adjusts a bit but is not invalidated. If one compare the 788 to the other A/C that one can buy today in this capacity-range class, the 332, an interesting picture emerges. They are surprisingly similar at first years as the 332 at 238t MTOW is at the pinnacle of it's career and the 787 is at the start of it's.

Table with all weights metric ton. Assumes 788 target is the 114,7t OEW B last publicized. At 787-8 spec range load of 242 pax+bags they both carry 23t, this is used for the range comparison:


......................7-19......20-50.....90-......332.........Comment
OEW..............121.......119.......115......120.........for the first 50 frames the OEWs are similar
MZFW..............?.........161.......161......168.........the 332 carries more payload below 5000nm
MTOW............220.......228.......228.......238........the 332 needs the 10t for its fuel burn deficit at longer ranges
Range at 23t....6800.....7300.....8000.....7300.......up to frame 50 the 332 exceeds or matches the 788
Fuel burn t/hr.....4,9..........4,9.......4,9.......5,6........the 788 burns 12% less fuel on a spec range trip

At frames up to say 40-60 the 2 frames are surprisingly similar (with the first 12 no fun at all) then the 788 sails away.

[Edited 2011-10-04 12:59:23]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 13:14:40 and read 14325 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.

I don't think so. They just have to show that no current jobs have been effected. The union has to prove specific harm...potential or future harm probably won't cut it.

The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

If Boeing can successfully show that the Charleston line is supplementary and not a replacement for the current line, I don't think there is much the NLRB could do.

Regardless, at worst, Boeing would be issued a fine, (based on some court calculated formula determining relative harm based on what proportion of the plant was built with union harm in mind), which they would no doubt appeal and the game would continue forever. There is not a chance in the universe that the union can succeed in shutting down the Charleston line.

I doubt they could even stop the surge line from being moved if Boeing wanted.

What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: cmf
Posted 2011-10-04 14:14:20 and read 14189 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

It stands to reason that the capacity was needed and based on the statements made by Boeing the "missing" jobs are those not created in WA.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 16:59:27 and read 13985 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.

I'm actually not placing blame...I think there is plenty to go around...but ignoring reality won't help anybody. Boeing has made it clear that work stoppages in Washington are hurting their business and they will be placing work out of state to ensure that if there is a strike in one place, it won't kill their entire production.

This is a legally viable reason to move work out and if they had just said that, the LRB wouldn't have taken them to task. Unfortunately, some Boeing pinheads said they were going to stick it to the IAM as one of the reasons to move...and since it's against the law to punish unions for striking, the LRB is looking into it.

It may seem like mere semantics but moving work to ensure production continuity can be interpreted differently than moving work to punish unions...it partly depends on what the company says but it also depends on what the company does.

As it turns out, the unions haven't actually been punished by the plant in SC...what they also haven't been, in actuality, is rewarded with new work, (big but subtle difference)...unless you count the surge line, which I suspect is on the bubble at the moment...until the noise dies down.

So the reality is, (and legalities aside), if Washington wants to see more new work, it should think twice about poking the bear with a stick. You can be sure that Boeing will never make the mistake again of having any record where punishing a union for striking is a business goal...even if it is.

As long as they can show a viable business reason for moving, (even if it means short term loss), it's perfectly ok for Boeing to not only put new business outside of Washington, (or even out of country), but to move current production as well.

That die was cast when head office went to Chicago.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 17:39:44 and read 13915 times.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):
I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

Part of it is the very long lead time on airliners, part is how the engineering has to be handled.

Suppose you determine, today, that you can get weigh reduction on a certain part. Changing that part may also change loads on other parts, so you need to do all that potential re-engineering too. Once that's all complete, the earliest you can possibly insert the change in to the supply chain is after *all* current affected parts are built, plus the time it takes the assorted suppliers to modify their production plans based on the new designs. If the farthest-back-corner of the supply chain is working on, say, parts for LN90 right now, that's the earliest you can cut the change in.

There's always the option to retrofit the change into already-built aircraft (i.e. issue a service bulletin) but for many changes, especially structural changes, the modification may be economically prohibitive.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 18:20:56 and read 13819 times.

My fingers are crossed that Boeing is finally being conservative in their estimates and they will actually ramp up faster than officially forecast.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2011-10-04 20:59:50 and read 13654 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact over designed. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.

You are describing and engineering process done some 20 to 30 years ago. And I do not believe that Boeing worked that way for the 787. Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few. Simulation helps you to narrow down your design options and balance to ideally one preferred type, then to to do it like in the past with more try and error type design. In the past you may have tested and refined it 2 or 3 times based on your learning, but today you will actually design only 1 time and probably calculate a refinement loop for tuning. Only in rare occasions you may actually prepare and test 2 options.

I would not believe that Boeing is designing airplanes like that. It would be crazy. They should design it based on simulation. And Boeing also should be in control of the total airplane assemblies and subassemblies to do simulation of the those assemblies.

Now what happened that this idn't work for the 787.
I assume 2 major reasons for that.
1) Simulation tools:
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough, respectively have been off the reality - some could assume when you do it the first time - and you may tend to add additional safety margin in to cover for that uncertainty. However still Boeing didn't adjust the weight targets accordingly.
2) Supply chain capability
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process. We could read that some suppliers even contracted the design work to design houses. With that method you will get a puzzle of engineering results based on various unaligned methods and would need to spend a hell of work to put the puzzle together for a reasonable good simulation of systems.

For me those both points are the reason for Boeing being so much off the target.

Now the only solution is to organize the identified design changes in reasonable block points, what they obviously do now.

Hope they learned for the future.

regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-10-04 21:11:18 and read 13951 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
If one compare the 788 to the other A/C that one can buy today in this capacity-range class, the 332, an interesting picture emerges. They are surprisingly similar at first years as the 332 at 238t MTOW is at the pinnacle of it's career and the 787 is at the start of it's.

It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-10-04 21:15:16 and read 13967 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few.

If I can offer a note of caution to your assumptions....

Whilst the principles may be the same, a car is a product with about 25 000 parts which will sell by the million.

I work on a product that has 3 000 000 parts and we will only produce 6 or 7 of this product.
There is NO WAY that we can cost justify the same level of modelling/simulation/engineering per part as you can on your car.
We have 120 times as many parts, and we will only charge the customer for making 7 of each, not millions.
To cap that off, the assembly process is dramatically more complex and convoluted.

An airliner I would expect, would fall somewhere between those two extremes.

It doesn't alter your correctness in principle. But there may be differences in application.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: qfa787380
Posted 2011-10-04 22:07:05 and read 14121 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

Assuming the thread starter is correct............................but is it???? Stitch has raised his concerns on the authenticity of the numbers. No doubt there's been a weight issue but I'm not sure it's as bad as mentioned here.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-04 22:10:28 and read 14131 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.
Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of the A332 and the B788.

But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

The base design has about 15 years between them (the wing was designed for the 340 about 1990) and the engines about 12-13 years (EIS 330 1994) but the engine has been updated all the time as has the structure to carry a higher MZFW and MTOW, only the base design on the wing has not been changed. Further, the body was in it's second or third optimization (300 and 310) The wings are not that different, they have the same span and the area of the 332 is only slightly larger (360m2 to 325m2) ie the aspect ratio is not that different. Assume the wing of the 788 is better but not dramatically so (the 340/330 wing was a masterpiece of it's time, this we know) and the body and systems of the 330 benefited from coming of the 300/310 and 320 for the FBW. I guess it confirms the red theory (Piepenbrock: red=incremental development in steps, blue=big jumps), B has clearly gone all blue on the 788.

The problem for the 788 is the immature weight situation, 228 to 120 is worse then 238 to 120 and that saves the 332 but then remember the the 330 family started at 212t! and the 332 could start at an optimal 330t as it was a derivative 5 years into the 333 I would say very much like the 789. Still once the 788 gets optimized in the first round with the later frames one start to see that the it's base design is clearly more modern and it will continue to get better and better. We are now 20 years into the life of the 330/340, lets see how good the 788/789 is in 20 years.

The only thing is, one shall perhaps not tout 2004 that one will revolutionize the world like B did (but then they probably did for passenger comfort, lets see what the pax says). And I guess the whole thing shows that Piepenbrocks theories has some merits, but then what he describes is just engineering common sense and has been known for ages.

B problem was they dropped the ball to A after the 777 and felt the need for a quantum leap to catch up, such things cost.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2011-10-04 22:16:25 and read 14094 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

When Boeing releases the accounting block number this month, all will become clear.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-04 22:22:22 and read 14135 times.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 27):
Assuming the thread starter is correct............................but is it???? Stitch has raised his concerns on the authenticity of the numbers. No doubt there's been a weight issue but I'm not sure it's as bad as mentioned here.


Don't want to be negative but even with Stitchs figures things don't get that much better, the general conclusions are still valid. I guess my reasoning in the previous post shows why this happens, if you change to many things at once it takes time for the dust to settle. The one who has the advantage of continuous development (A in this case who had new programs with about 5 years between then all the time) benefits, it was 15 years between the 777 and the 787, this does not go unpunished, you simply loose to much know how and experience (not only in level but also sheer number of heads that can take the plunge of a new project the size of an A/C).

Bs board saved money they thought after the overdraft of the 777, they paid for it now.

[Edited 2011-10-04 22:24:20]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-04 23:27:47 and read 14028 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process.

In some respects, Boeing might have been asking contractors for very sophisticated products but it did use some usually very reliable contractors. Alcoa, Honeywell, Goodrich and Messier-Bugatti, Alenia, as well as the engine makers, (and more), are all reputable and have all produced good work in the past but were each responsible for some part of the delays.

It's wasn't just Boeing that bit off more than it could chew, (at the time), the contractors did as well. That the engine makers will probably be 4 years late or more before they can finally deliver is an indication of how far they are stretched and how advanced their goals are.

The results will be fantastic when everything gets ironed out. I guess they don't call it the bleeding edge for nothing.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-10-04 23:52:29 and read 14055 times.

With the 787, Boeing failed with the interfaces. How could they let the first wingbox be delivered 1/2 cm too short and still within definition?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

This explains why there will be little, if any, resale for the first 20 frames.

$500 per kg or a half million in plane value (or more) per ton.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
At frames up to say 40-60 the 2 frames are surprisingly similar (with the first 12 no fun at all) then the 788 sails away.

How do the 788s have the same fuel burn per hour post engine improvements and weight reduction?


It is sad not to have a hundred out now with payload/range that would be opening up new routes.   We will not see new capability until line number 90 and thus few new routes until then.

Then the game changes.  
Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-05 02:55:15 and read 13832 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
How do the 788s have the same fuel burn per hour post engine improvements and weight reduction?


Fuel burn:
I have calculated all with the B standard T1000 = within 1% of spec SFC, few frames will have the A std T1000. When it comes to the GEnx more will fly with PIP1 before they get PIP2, therefore they will be about 1,5% of in SFC. For simplicity I treated all as having within 1% of SFC.

OEW and MTOW:
The different OEW does not influence the fuel burn as they all fly max spec range with MTOW, ie the frames are doing the same flight profile with the same max weight decrease per nm or hour = total drag is the same, whats affected is the range (ie the time when fuel is up) and the max payload you can load on top of the OEW for shorter ranges. In detail the 220t frame 7-19 has a 0,1t/hour lower fuel burn as the weight curve tracks 8t lower but as some only fly with PIP1 I did not adjust the fuel burn down 0,1t/hour, should have done perhaps.

In summary those are variations that lie within the uncertainty of the calculations, the overall conclusions does not change however.

[Edited 2011-10-05 03:03:25]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-05 05:31:36 and read 13671 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines. But it does seem to be that CFRP is not the wonder weight-saving material it was touted as. I believe the A350 will be much closer to the 777 in OEW than some folks are claiming/projecting.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-05 06:18:03 and read 13560 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines.

Don't want to be picky but the T700 at 6160kg is 222kg heavier then the T1000 at 5936kg, makes 0,5t on the frame level. Further they are equal in span, the 332 has more wing-area, the 787 is 2m shorter. The only larger for the 788 is it's 13cm wider tube.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-05 06:42:49 and read 13497 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
You are describing and engineering process done some 20 to 30 years ago.

And the process that's used today. Airliners are far to complex to do full product simulation like you're describing...there isn't a computer on earth big enough to pull that trick off.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I would not believe that Boeing is designing airplanes like that. It would be crazy. They should design it based on simulation.

You can't simulate an entire aircraft in software. Maybe one day, but not today.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
And Boeing also should be in control of the total airplane assemblies and subassemblies to do simulation of the those assemblies.

Given the use of major suppliers by all OEM's, that's simply not possible either. You can have a common CAD/CAM model (Boeing did this on the 777 and 787) but you can't actually control the assemblies and subassemblies at the OEM level...if you were going to do that, you might as well just do the entire thing yourself. And that hasn't happened since long before the jet age.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough

They've been around, for the 787 material, for 20+ years. How much more calibration do they need?

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process. We could read that some suppliers even contracted the design work to design houses. With that method you will get a puzzle of engineering results based on various unaligned methods and would need to spend a hell of work to put the puzzle together for a reasonable good simulation of systems.

Whether or not you select good suppliers, you're always going to have the problem you discuss at the end of the paragraph.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent.

Why? 13% is a *huge* fuel burn difference for an aircraft.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 25):
But in my eyes the biggest disappointment is the OEW of the B788 in comparison to the A332.

Why? The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 29):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

When Boeing releases the accounting block number this month, all will become clear.

Not really...the accounting block almost certainly isn't the total number of frames that will be sold. If you dive into the footnotes of the annual report you'll see that the accounting block is the number that they can be reasonably sure will be sold right now. I've never seen the accounting quantity get above the actual orders quantity in any given annual report.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-10-05 07:45:30 and read 13377 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
ie the frames are doing the same flight profile

Ah... So they are all flying to maximum spec range (maximum fuel load for the same payload)? The later lighter examples will still have a lower overall fuel burn thanks to more time at higher altitudes (less dense air=less drag).

Quoting ferpe (Reply 33):
the overall conclusions does not change however.

That we may agree upon.  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Why? 13% is a *huge* fuel burn difference for an aircraft.

15% is the generation goal. With the weight reduction, and thus higher altitude flight profile with less drag, the 787 will eventually shine.   

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2011-10-05 07:52:01 and read 13329 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Not really...the accounting block almost certainly isn't the total number of frames that will be sold. If you dive into the footnotes of the annual report you'll see that the accounting block is the number that they can be reasonably sure will be sold right now. I've never seen the accounting quantity get above the actual orders quantity in any given annual report.

My understanding was when the accounting block was released, Boeing would state whether the program was in a forward loss position or not. If it is in a forward loss position, I am assuming Boeing at that point has to estimate (or at least provide analysts a chance at estimating) what the actual breakeven point is programmatically in terms of frames. It might not be totally clear (my bad on that one), but still a data point of significance for the financial analysts.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-05 08:35:30 and read 13257 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 37):
Ah... So they are all flying to maximum spec range (maximum fuel load for the same payload)? The later lighter examples will still have a lower overall fuel burn thanks to more time at higher altitudes (less dense air=less drag).

A real analysis would put all weight variants and the 332 against each other taking a certain payload (eg 70% of maxpax + say 5t cargo) at a certain very probable range (6000nm or so) and then check their performance/fuel burn. My simple spreadsheet can't do that, it would involve assumptions on L/D, SFC and so on.

I use the manufacturers spec range numbers as the base (they should know what they calculate    ) and then I extrapolate with this as the basis. This is why I always state fuel burn where the A/C started at MTOW, the flight profile to the range point is then always the same = no need for adjustments from my side    .

If one dwells into it it is quite a bit the OEM gives away when they state the spec range with a corresponding pax only load, the only other parameter one needs is the OEW et voila one can deduce a lot.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2011-10-05 13:33:40 and read 12789 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 26):
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few.

If I can offer a note of caution to your assumptions....

Whilst the principles may be the same, a car is a product with about 25 000 parts which will sell by the million.

I work on a product that has 3 000 000 parts and we will only produce 6 or 7 of this product.
There is NO WAY that we can cost justify the same level of modelling/simulation/engineering per part as you can on your car.
We have 120 times as many parts, and we will only charge the customer for making 7 of each, not millions.
To cap that off, the assembly process is dramatically more complex and convoluted.

An airliner I would expect, would fall somewhere between those two extremes.

The analysis (not necessarily the same as simulation) is tighter on airplanes than in the car manufacturing business (I've only briefly worked around the automotive industry, but that's my experience). The analysis is frequently done more strictly and the production methods are typically more strictly controled because the safety factors in the aviation business are tighter than in the automotive industry. The automotive industry puts a lot more emphasis into designing for manufacturability and keeping production costs down. In aviaiton, not only are safety factors tighter, but the consequences of failure are higher. The result is that the design process is far more time consuming. There are far more layers of engineering as typically 7 different engineering disciplines/levels review every drawing & part. Sometimes it is even higher than that quantity. That's why design takes so long. There are so many layers in the design process and on top of that for components beyond the detail part level, testing is done to validate that the part performs correctly.

With all that said, sometimes parts are over designed. Aerospace parts tend to be very complex with the small space constraints, strict weight requirements, and other restrictions (lightening, eletromagnetic frquency, flammability, etc), so often times they can be redesigned and improved as the airplane matures. New designs can save weight, improve capability or reduce manufacturing costs. There are still parts from the 737 going through the improvement process and getting redesigned with different designs, manufacturing methods, materials or other enhancements as technology matures.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-05 20:27:09 and read 12477 times.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 38):
My understanding was when the accounting block was released, Boeing would state whether the program was in a forward loss position or not.

They certainly can, but I don't think there's any requirement that they do so. If the program is in a forward loss position *and* they're taking an accounting charge that year (as they did in the past for the 747-8) then they'd have to disclose that, but if they don't take a charge I don't think they need to say anything.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 38):
If it is in a forward loss position, I am assuming Boeing at that point has to estimate (or at least provide analysts a chance at estimating) what the actual breakeven point is programmatically in terms of frames.

They could to make the analysts happy but I don't think there's any legal requirement for them to be that granular...their public financial statements don't even break down by program.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-10-06 00:36:08 and read 12277 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
Why? The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive.

Take a look in reply 18, please.


- The first 50 airplanes have the same range or even less range.
- The empty weight is similiar, despite CFRP on the B787-8.
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

By the way, the B787-8 is not bigger than the A332...


I believe that Airbus will cancel their A358 sooner than later, which could mean some improvements to the existing A332.

What will the comparison between the B788 and the A332NG look like? It could end on pair when it comes to range or fuelburn...

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-10-06 01:14:21 and read 12215 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 34):
At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 36):
The 787 is a bigger airplane with more range and it weighs the same...that's darn impressive

My understanding is that the A330 actually has a fractionally larger cabin by dint of being a couple of metres longer, despite the 787 being fractionally wider.

Widebodyphotog's charts had the 787 at 223m2 and the A332 at 228m2, from memory.

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-10-06 02:24:43 and read 12125 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees.

Where have they stated this? LN100 is not even a blockpoint, so that makes no sense. My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
They're going to have two final production facilities, Everett and Charleston.

The final assembly lines are only a small part of the picture. If you want to understand how (or if) the production can meet 17/month then you need to look at the whole supply chain and the investment required there to meet that rate.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):
I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft?
Quoting flyglobal (Reply 24):
1) Simulation tools:
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough, respectively have been off the reality

This is not the case. Boeing methods and allowables for composite analysis are well developed. There is not a great deal of difference between 777 and 787 composite design manuals.

Astuteman has it right. You can't compare the automotive and aerospace industries like that due to the difference in magnitude of both complexity and volume. Add in the degree of optimisation already undertaken and the burdens associated with certification.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2011-10-06 05:14:43 and read 11950 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 40):
he analysis (not necessarily the same as simulation) is tighter on airplanes than in the car manufacturing business (I've only briefly worked around the automotive industry, but that's my experience). The analysis is frequently done more strictly and the production methods are typically more strictly controled because the safety factors in the aviation business are tighter than in the automotive industry. The automotive industry puts a lot more emphasis into designing for manufacturability and keeping production costs down. In aviaiton, not only are safety factors tighter, but the consequences of failure are higher. The result is that the design process is far more time consuming. There are far more layers of engineering as typically 7 different engineering disciplines/levels review every drawing & part. Sometimes it is even higher than that quantity. That's why design takes so long. There are so many layers in the design process and on top of that for components beyond the detail part level, testing is done to validate that the part performs correctly.

With all that said, sometimes parts are over designed. Aerospace parts tend to be very complex with the small space constraints, strict weight requirements, and other restrictions (lightening, eletromagnetic frquency, flammability, etc), so often times they can be redesigned and improved as the airplane matures. New designs can save weight, improve capability or reduce manufacturing costs. There are still parts from the 737 going through the improvement process and getting redesigned with different designs, manufacturing methods, materials or other enhancements as technology matures.

Rose Flyer, this way I can buy in way more and it is closer to my expectation as the reply astuteman made some threads above. By the way, the automotive design process is probably closer to car process as you may expect. The major difference is that we in automotive are less under certification protocol throughout all phases as the air industries is. Our people do not need to be certified, respectively licensed for each and everything they are doing, we are more certified if we follow our own defined processes we claim for a quality product and we have written in our ISO quality handbooks. Our certification is the authority certification at the end of the product development phase.

Still I wonder the reasons why the planes are so much off their targets given the process you described. Somebody should make an estimation and define a risk balance for each part and usually by that process in our case new technology and material gets higher safety margin and some reinforcement case study which allows quick reaction if the sampled and tested part fails. This higher risk weight assumption is then booked into the wight forecast which by this method gets better and better each new car development. We gave up booking the absolute minimum and best case in all parts assumption some time ago for target commitments.

I assume that something like this could be the case here: The Boeing Chicago marketing team advertising and promoting the best of best of best assumption, as the truth while the engineering team in Seattle may have preferred to comitt rather to the middle of the sensitivity analysis, which is usually closer to reality.

regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-06 05:52:12 and read 11890 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 44):
Where have they stated this? LN100 is not even a blockpoint, so that makes no sense. My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

Sorry, Meant ZA100 (LN007). And it's in the public record, so a search should bring it up.


As for CFRP, even if it makes no difference to weight, hopefully it will make a difference to airframe longevity. But considering how much the industry bought into the hype of CFRP, it would be rather ironic if the 787 and A350 prove to be dead-end branches and both OEMs return to aluminum.

And considering how much fuel a long-haul widebody burns, even 13% should be worth jumping in the aisles for considering how folks are banging on how super-amazing a 15% fuel burn reduction is for a narrowbody flying an hour or two is.

[Edited 2011-10-06 05:57:02]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-06 07:14:25 and read 11812 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The first 50 airplanes have the same range or even less range.

Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm. The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The empty weight is similiar, despite CFRP on the B787-8.

Exactly. With the same OEW, the 787 is hauling more stuff farther with smaller engines and burning less fuel. Even with the worst case public estimates of OEW (ZA001), they're just barely catching the A330 on weight.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

13% is *huge*. 1% a year is an airplane designer's absolute wet dream. You seem to be massively overestimating the normal pace of aircraft development.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
My understanding is that the A330 actually has a fractionally larger cabin by dint of being a couple of metres longer, despite the 787 being fractionally wider.

I think it really depends on the layout but I agree, it's probably the noise as far as cabin layout goes.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
Still I wonder the reasons why the planes are so much off their targets given the process you described.

Stackup error.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
Somebody should make an estimation and define a risk balance for each part

They do.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
and usually by that process in our case new technology and material gets higher safety margin and some reinforcement case study which allows quick reaction if the sampled and tested part fails.

Aviation is with you right up to the quick reaction part...the design/build/test process is too long to quickly turn around and redesign. That's why you have blockpoint improvements down the line.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-10-06 07:39:03 and read 11741 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
- The fuelburn is 13 percent lower, which is no good value for 15 years later EIS. It is less than 1 percent per year.

1 percent per year is how fast technology is moving. About half from the airframe and half from the engines. Now that technology moves in 'fits and starts.' So it isn't 1% every year, just 1% on average.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):
I believe that Airbus will cancel their A358 sooner than later, which could mean some improvements to the existing A332.

I'm in that camp.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 44):
My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20 blockpoint.

It will take the multiple engine PIPs and later (lighter) airframes to meet the 8000nm mission. LN20 is the first that is competitive with the A332. Later 788s will be far more competitive.

Note: I've always been in the camp that it will take the 789 for the 787 to 'get its legs.' That is the plane that will reduce the CASM to the point that we'll see a true explosion in long haul P2P IMHO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
And considering how much fuel a long-haul widebody burns, even 13% should be worth jumping in the aisles for considering how folks are banging on how super-amazing a 15% fuel burn reduction is for a narrowbody flying an hour or two is.

Yes!   

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm.

I thought the MTOW increase bumped that to 7400nm?

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-06 08:59:44 and read 11564 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

As have the 332, this statement means nothing Tom (and you know it) as long as you do not put in with what payload    . Both the 788 and the 332 have huge tanks (the 332 can't even fill them full at 0 payload without bumping into MTOW ) therefore both can fly 18+ hour flights with little or no payloads.


Re range, the 332 spec range with 252 pax=24,1t is 7250nm, the spec load of 788 is set at 242pax=23,05t, I therefore calculated both at the lower 23t payload to make it comparable.

Please also note that the 332 is a more capable short to mid hauler due to more MZFW, 7-19 is at 156t (found it now at the type certificate), thereafter 161t. Now the 332 has 168t ie it is at most 12t better on sub 5000nm legs.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-10-06 11:33:33 and read 11362 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 45):
This higher risk weight assumption is then booked into the wight forecast which by this method gets better and better each new car development.

That's probably the other big difference between auto and aero - it's a long time between new airplanes, so the opportunity to learn from each successive model is less and by the time the next one comes around a lot of the experience is lost.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
It will take the multiple engine PIPs and later (lighter) airframes to meet the 8000nm mission. LN20 is the first that is competitive with the A332.

Possibly the difference between the planned mission and the mission guaranteed in contracts.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-06 12:29:33 and read 11263 times.

LN 7-19 is a true first series type of crafts, they are inferior on most accounts (except passenger comfort and fuel burn) to the present competitor. A couple of things would be interesting to know:

- at what price did customer accept these frames? As they will have a very low resale value (odd bird, first in series with considerably less performance then main series) whoever accepted to take these must have insisted on a very good deal. Does our friend Al Bakker take delivery of any LN below 19    ?

- what structural beefing was required to increase the MZFW 5t and the MTOW 8t? Any MLG changes? What did these changes weight? Must have worked against any lowering of weight yet LN20 should have lower weight creep.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-06 12:45:45 and read 11295 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
...at what price did customer accept these frames?

We'll likely never know. In some cases, with the huge disparity in list price between the earliest orders (NH) and later orders, I could see Boeing offering later builds as the compensation and shifting the underperforming frames to other customers and giving them their list price - which could be tens of millions savings per frame.

More than half of Air India's compensation - $264 million out of the $500 million total - relates to the price difference between the time they ordered the frames and what they'd pay if they bought them today. Air India is also getting liquidated damages of 0.5% of the value of their contract with a cap of $145 million.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2011-10-06 13:31:08 and read 11164 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52):
More than half of Air India's compensation - $264 million out of the $500 million total - relates to the price difference between the time they ordered the frames and what they'd pay if they bought them today.

Seems a bit hard to fathom that one. Sounds like Air India paid more early than now in order to apply some kind of refund? Is this right?

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-10-06 14:38:30 and read 11058 times.

Seems to be allot of comparisons being thrown around here regarding the heavy earlier 787 frames vs. various Airbus models (present & future) as far as performance is concerned. Other quotes form the OPs article include:

"Line number 90 (LN90) will be the first 787-8 meeting the aircraft’s original weight target with no overweight issue, the sources say."

"the 787-9 on which the weight is “ahead of the curve” "

"The Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 Package B engine is expected to bring the engine’s SFC within 1% of its original fuel burn target which will feature a revised six-stage low pressure turbine (LPT) and outlet guide vanes (OGVs) with better aerodynamics, is still in testing and believed to be featured on Airplane 31, flightglobal reported."

"Meanwhile, the General Electric (GE) GEnx-1B engine on the Boeing 787, which is believed to have missed its specific fuel consumption (SFC) goal by 2%-3%, will feature performance improvement packages PIP1 and PIP2, which will reduce the fuel burn on the engine by a combined 2.9%, thereby enabling the GEnx-equipped Boeing 787 to be slightly better or in line with the original SFC target."

" better-than-expected aerodynamics of the aircraft found during testing."


By LN90 we have an A/C that meets original weight target, has better than expected aerodynamics, has engines that meet or possibly even exceed in GE's case and a 787-9 that it's weight is "ahead of the curve”. In other words a A/C that meets, or most likely beats its original specs? Maybe this should be the focal point? (Not LNs 7-19)...

Since these will be the A/C that others will be competing against?   

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-10-06 16:11:39 and read 10979 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm. The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

That was a testflight with an empty airplane...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Exactly. With the same OEW, the 787 is hauling more stuff farther with smaller engines and burning less fuel.

No. It has no smaller engines and it does not fly farther, it only burns less fuel.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2011-10-06 16:29:55 and read 10946 times.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 55):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Exactly. With the same OEW, the 787 is hauling more stuff farther with smaller engines and burning less fuel.

No. It has no smaller engines and it does not fly farther, it only burns less fuel.

Maybe not physically smaller but lower powered as the 787 is 64K lbs thrust vs 70-72K lbs thrust for the A332.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-10-06 16:51:06 and read 10936 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 56):
Maybe not physically smaller but lower powered as the 787 is 64K lbs thrust vs 70-72K lbs thrust for the A332.

Boeing 787:

RR: Up to 74.000lbs
GE: up to 75.000lbs

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/trent_1000/

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/genx/index.html


Airbus 332:

RR: Up to 71.100lbs
GE: Up to 69.800lbs

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/brochure_trent700_tcm92-5733.pdf

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/comparison_turbofan.html

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-06 18:26:11 and read 10830 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 56):
Maybe not physically smaller but lower powered as the 787 is 64K lbs thrust vs 70-72K lbs thrust for the A332.

This is a myth, the engines that got certified for the 788 is the 69klbf variant even for the first 7-19 with 220t MTOW:

The 787 Weight, How It Got There (by ferpe Sep 26 2011 in Tech Ops)

Thereby they are for all practical purposes equal also there. That is also logical, the 788 can't have less power per ton of start weight, the wings are pretty similar even to the point of the 332 having higher area with fowler action flap systems. So the LN20- will need it's 69klbf engines otherwise the new and shiny 788 would have worse field performance then the craft it shall replace, we can't have that can we  .

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-10-07 00:27:10 and read 10614 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
what structural beefing was required to increase the MZFW 5t and the MTOW 8t?

Probably not much. A 3-ish% weight increase is in the noise for loads, and sharpening the pencil on the analysis can usually take care of critical margins. We made no changes.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-10-07 03:55:20 and read 10429 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
Quoting 328JET (Reply 42):I believe that Airbus will cancel their A358 sooner than later, which could mean some improvements to the existing A332.
I'm in that camp.

Don't forget the A358 still has 152 units sold. Some of them may be cancelled, some more may be converted to A359's. Still, I believe there will be more orders left than for types like 753, 764 and 77L...

An A330NEO may appeal to some airlines, but don't forget it would be like the A350Mk1, which didn't have the best market reception in the world, as you well know. Things may have been different if an airline could get an A330NEO right now, but with the work Airbus has with the A350 and A320NEO, I can't see an A330NEO EIS before the last version of the A32xNEO. Which would mean 2017, and the 787-8 then will be a lot better than the ones Boeing is building right now.

So I think Airbus won't be able to present a good enough business case for an A330NEO. Some airlines may like it, but a lot of them will be the ones that already ordered A350's, so net gain may not be very big.

IMO Airbus will eventually try to optimize the A358 for its size instead of being a straight shrink from the A359. It will be a niche plane like the 77L, and Airbus will leave the market for the smallest for what it is. Just like Boeing will do with the market for the biggest widebodies. Return on investment in something completely new will not be enough IMHO.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 51):
As they will have a very low resale value (odd bird, first in series with considerably less performance then main series)

I believe NH will use these for domestic use, initially planned for the 783. They'll probably use them until they run out of cycles. Resale value of the total airframe won't be high, but in parts it won't be bad at all   

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-07 05:16:38 and read 10337 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 60):
Still, I believe there will be more orders left than for types like 753

Since the 753 is out of production and there is nothing remotely close to it available, what are you referring to? Even the most optimistic projections for the A321NEO and the 739MAX don't match the 752, let alone the 753.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: frigatebird
Posted 2011-10-07 06:15:41 and read 10250 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 61):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 60):Still, I believe there will be more orders left than for types like 753
Since the 753 is out of production and there is nothing remotely close to it available, what are you referring to? Even the most optimistic projections for the A321NEO and the 739MAX don't match the 752, let alone the 753.

What I'm referring to is the opinion/expectation of some that the A358 will be cancelled, due to lack of interest. My point is that some other aircraft types have not been cancelled, even though they've sold far less than the A358 (and I can include the A345 too, if you like). I'm not saying the A358 is competing with the 753 or 764. It is with the 77L (as an ULH aircraft) by the way, just as a sidestep  

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-07 06:31:33 and read 10237 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 62):
What I'm referring to is the opinion/expectation of some that the A358 will be cancelled, due to lack of interest.

I think the reason for the speculation that the A358 will be substantially inferior to the 789, with which it will compete head to head and come up short. It may offer more range, but the range that the 789 offers will be sufficient for all but a few very long routes, and as the 77L has shown demand for such a plane is small. But if it does match the 77L for range it may carve out a niche for itself while killing off the 77L. But it might not be enough of a niche to justify developing it, as Airbus has more than enough on its plate to keep its engineers busy. The A350 seems to be optimized around the A359, and the A358 is clearly a shrink of the A359; history has shown that shrinks fare poorly, especially against a plane optimized for that size. The 788 is the first model, but it really seems to reach its optimum with the 789; the 788 might fall victim to this same scenario eventually. Right now it has the advantage that it is clearly superior to the only other plane in its size, the A330 due to the fact that the A330 is a generation older. But as the 789's come on line I would expect the lion's share of orders to go to it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-07 06:38:38 and read 10217 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 49):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

As have the 332, this statement means nothing Tom (and you know it) as long as you do not put in with what payload
Quoting 328JET (Reply 55):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm. The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that.

That was a testflight with an empty airplane...

Except I do know the payload and it wasn't empty.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 55):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 47):
Exactly. With the same OEW, the 787 is hauling more stuff farther with smaller engines and burning less fuel.

No. It has no smaller engines and it does not fly farther, it only burns less fuel.

If it flies the same distance on less fuel, it can fly farther with the same fuel. So you seem to be agreeing that it can do the A330 mission but save fuel (a huge deal) or run farther for essentially the same trip cost (modulo extra crew pay). The only time this isn't true is if you're at the extreme right end of the payload-range curve and essentially zero airlines operate there.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 57):
Boeing 787:

RR: Up to 74.000lbs
GE: up to 75.000lbs

That's like saying the 777-300ER has up to 135,000 lbs of thrust...that's not what the engine is certified for on that airframe. The max for the 787-8 is 70k and the many of them, including ANA's birds and the one that did the 18-hour flight, are 64k.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: poLOT
Posted 2011-10-07 08:47:57 and read 10082 times.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 60):

Don't forget the A358 still has 152 units sold.

There are only 131 A358s still on order, and out those 131:

6 belong to Afriqiyah Airways
5 belong to Libyan
5 belong to Kingfisher
3 belong to Tunisair
10 belong to Yemenia.

Considering the financial state of some of those carriers and the Arab spring, Airbus really only has 102 guaranteed firm orders, not taking into consideration conversions from other carriers.

At some point Airbus is going to have to decide if 102-131 firm orders is worth diverting engineers from the far more important A350-1000 and A320NEO projects (and possibly from the A359 if they are having trouble getting that out the door).

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2011-10-07 09:01:24 and read 10015 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 56):
Maybe not physically smaller but lower powered as the 787 is 64K lbs thrust vs 70-72K lbs thrust for the A332.
Quoting 328JET (Reply 57):
Boeing 787:

RR: Up to 74.000lbs
GE: up to 75.000lbs

Focusing on thrust is a bit of a red herring as it only helps you with runway performance (and range in runway-limited situations), not with raw range assuming typical conditions and long runways... for example, the 752s that operated the longest regularly scheduled 752 flight to date (DTW-FRA) were equipped with PW2037s, not the highest-thrust engines available.

Edit: Wrote DTW-AMS, meant DTW-FRA...

[Edited 2011-10-07 09:04:02]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-07 12:59:34 and read 9789 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 64):
The max for the 787-8 is 70k and the many of them, including ANA's birds and the one that did the 18-hour flight, are 64k.

Would this mean that you can run other engine variants then in the type certificate? The EASA one only lists the engine data as:

5. Engines
Two (2) Rolls Royce PLC Turbofan Engine Models:
Trent 1000-A (EASA Engine Type Certificate No. E.036)
Engine Limits:
Engine Limits 787-8
Data Sheet EASA E.036 RB211 Trent 1000-A
Static thrust at sea level:
-Take-off (5min)* (flat rated to 30 deg C) 307.8 kN (69,194 lbs)
* 10 minutes at take-off thrust allowed only in case of engine failure
Other engine limitations: See the relevant Engine Type Certificate Data Sheet.

The RR T1000 certificate list the 64klbf engine as the T1000-H, the one above is the -A.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-07 13:18:45 and read 9764 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 67):
Would this mean that you can run other engine variants then in the type certificate?

Since power settings are controlled by software, I would not be surprised if the Type Certificate lists the maximum available rating at the time and an airline could choose a lower setting if they wish. When the 75K engines are introduced with the 787-9, the Type Certificate would then be amended to reflect the new, higher, maximum.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2011-10-07 14:01:03 and read 9728 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 54):
Maybe this should be the focal point? (Not LNs 7-19)...

Agreed. LN90+ will be the ones to watch. However, that means 2011 and 2012 go buy without full capability.


We're looking at 3.5 month by early spring (maybe late winter), 5 by end 2012:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0%20More%20Boeing%20787s%20To%20Go

LN46 is under assembly at Charlotte.

So LN90 should arrive in 2013.

The tough part for Boeing is:
1. They must 'eat into the backlog' to sell more 787s.
2. Some airlines wait until performance is proven for 18+ months. Oh, they'll believe promises (as long as they are under contract) for small improvements; but not for the leap in performance the 788 will experience.

There are quite a few reasons I'm excited about the 789.  

Lightsaber

ps
ANA's seat maps still pleasantly surprise me. Not the 264 pax for domestic on the 788. It is the 42J+112Y (154 total) in the international configuration.    The 788 will nicely open up Japan to Europe, parts of Africa, and the Eastern US. Now for them to keep expanding their larger airports so that they can hub the 787 there.  

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-07 14:24:45 and read 9683 times.

90 planes sounds like a lot but even at the worst case scenario, that just over 10% of the planes currently ordered and probably a significantly proportion of the total amount that will be sold.

I have no doubt that Boeing has paid, or will pay, significant penalties for any performance shortfalls...which they should, as well as pay for the delays.

I'm a big fan of being held to account and customers rightly did it to Boeing.

In decades to come, people will sit around and laugh, (from the comfort of our hover cars), about the development of that crazy plastic plane...which plies the skies by the thousands.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: mffoda
Posted 2011-10-07 15:22:10 and read 9622 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 69):
We're looking at 3.5 month by early spring (maybe late winter), 5 by end 2012:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0%20More%20Boeing%20787s%20To%20Go

LN46 is under assembly at Charlotte.

So LN90 should arrive in 2013.

2013 No? Not likely... OK... Lets make it 3 A/C in Jan 2012 and 5 in Dec.. Lets say the average is 4 per month. = 48 A/C?

All things 787 website has LNs 47/48 already started and LN49 on Oct 16th. The are starting a new A/C every 2 wks (hence the 2 per month we're already at). So, we add 1 more in Oct, 2 ea. in Nov and Dec. That is 54 A/C (not counting SC plant)...

http://nyc787.blogspot.com/2010/04/news-from-around-787-world.html

If we would leave everything as it is (No increase in production during 2012)? Add 24 A/C from Seattle and say just 12 form SC, that gives you 36 A/C... 54 + 36 = 90 A/C without a any increase in production...

If they average 4 A/C in 2012, that would be 102 A/C by the end of 2012... And that is not giving SC much credit?

Additionally, GE anticipates PIP2 engine certification in June 2012 and entry into service in late 2012... So the A/C meeting weight specs should meet the engine meeting sfc specs in 2012? And the LN 139 787-9 in 2013 looks pretty damn good!  

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: dynamicsguy
Posted 2011-10-07 16:48:05 and read 9504 times.

Quoting poLOT (Reply 65):
Airbus really only has 102 guaranteed firm orders,

For a derivative still years away from its first flight that sounds pretty good to me, not a reason to cancel it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-08 06:35:55 and read 9245 times.

I'm still skeptical of the weights presented, but if we take the fellow at face value, that means Boeing has pulled 6.5 tons or more out of the 787-9's OEW in the past four years. So it does stand to reason they could do the same with the 787-8 over the same period of time. *shrug*

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: poLOT
Posted 2011-10-08 06:41:36 and read 9232 times.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 72):
For a derivative still years away from its first flight that sounds pretty good to me, not a reason to cancel it.

True, but if they can convince a majority of those customers to convert over to the A359 then they can save a ton of money by not having to build and certify the A358. When was the last time the A358 even got an order?


(Sorry for dragging this completely off topic)

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-08 07:26:01 and read 9183 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 67):
Would this mean that you can run other engine variants then in the type certificate?

Yes. Type certificate is maximum rating *for the engine*. It doesn't tell you anything about installed rating on a particular airframe. The 787-8 currently comes with two ratings, 70k and 64k.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 67):
Trent 1000-A (EASA Engine Type Certificate No. E.036)
Engine Limits:
Engine Limits 787-8
Data Sheet EASA E.036 RB211 Trent 1000-A
Static thrust at sea level:
-Take-off (5min)* (flat rated to 30 deg C) 307.8 kN (69,194 lbs)

When installed on a 787-8, a Trent 1000A is a 64k engine. The 70k version is a Trent 1000C. Don't forget that engine type certificates are airframe independant.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-08 10:11:26 and read 9022 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 75):
The 787-8 currently comes with two ratings, 70k and 64k.

Would then LN7-19 have 64klbf (MTOW 220t) and LN20- 70klbf (228t)?

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2011-10-09 21:49:56 and read 8614 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 76):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 75):
The 787-8 currently comes with two ratings, 70k and 64k.

Would then LN7-19 have 64klbf (MTOW 220t) and LN20- 70klbf (228t)?

You can have either rating with either MTOW. Also keep in mind that the TCDS MTOW isn't necessarily what the airline has...many airlines purchase "paper derates" on the MTOW to lower their landing fees at airports that charge based on MTOW. If you're not going to run at ranges/payloads that require the full capability, it's good business sense to lower the MTOW.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Ruscoe
Posted 2011-10-09 22:38:02 and read 8565 times.

Whatever the real situation, the 787 according to Boeing, is meeting contractual guarentees for performance, and Boeing have been able to sell 800+ based on the contract guarentees.
It can only get better from here.

The 350 might be even better, but has a long way to go to proove it.
The 350 has several design flaws which will stop it dominating the market.
1. Fuselage wrong diameter. Wider and thus heavier than the 787 without being able to fit an extra seat width wise
2. The fuselage design which is the pinnacle of the fabricated fuselage v the early start of a new era wound fuselage, which some have so elegantly pointed out is not very good at the moment, from a weight point of view, but will just keep improving..
3. Trying to span too large a gap with the same aircraft, 358 to 351 which means the bottom and top ends could fall off.

For all those who think that Al might come back, bear in mind that there are developments in CFRP where bubbles or microscopic spheres are impregnated into the matrix which could potentially half the weight.

Ruscoe

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-10 02:54:03 and read 8319 times.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 78):
For all those who think that Al might come back, bear in mind that there are developments in CFRP where bubbles or microscopic spheres are impregnated into the matrix which could potentially half the weight.

It'll take a while to get them certified but eventually, composites will actually be the miracle materials folks dreamed of with the 787...and the Jetsons.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: flyglobal
Posted 2011-10-10 05:09:00 and read 8209 times.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 54):
"the 787-9 on which the weight is “ahead of the curve” "

Just to give some explanation as I dodn't see it yet.

the 789 ahead of the weight curve means: yes it is over weight to the end target, but according to Boeing internal weight progression curve ahead of EIS it means that usually 2 years ahead of EIS the wight is EIS Weight + X, but 789 actual wight today is lower than the glide path says, it is just EIS weight + X - Y. So 789 weight status is Y below the weight glide path as of October 10, 2011.

Lets see how the weight according glide path will develop.

regards

Flyglobal

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Baroque
Posted 2011-10-10 06:13:33 and read 8086 times.

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 80):
Lets see how the weight according glide path will develop.

Reads as if you do not think the ground proximity warning is going to go off any time soon????

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-10 17:11:34 and read 7753 times.

The 787-9 will replace some parts that are AL on the 787-8 with CFRP to reduce the weight even further. These CFRP parts will also be available on later-build 787-8s to reduce their weight, as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-14 17:58:47 and read 7244 times.

So I've been investigating the claims by Aspire Aviation about the 787's weight and I believe that those figures are relative to Boeing's original design goals for the 787-8's weight and not an overage above and beyond what Boeing's current design spec weight is.

Airbus claimed three years ago that ZA001 had an MWE (Manufacturer Weight Empty - an airplane with no customer interior) of 102t, which is 9 tons heavier than Boeing's original design goal of 93t.

When Boeing announced firm configuration for the 787-8 in 2005, the OEW in a Boeing Configuration of 224 seats was 110t. Add the extra 6 tons of LN007-LN019, and you're at 116t OEW, which is a bit more than the 115t OEW listed in September 2008 and would reflect additional structural changes.

So when Boeing reaches "design weight" with LN090, that weight should be the firm configuration weight of 110t in a 224-seat Boeing Configuration and if NH took delivery of a 787-8 in the same configuration as their first two, those planes would weigh some five-plus tons less.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-10-14 22:45:17 and read 7041 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Add the extra 6 tons of LN007-LN019, and you're at 116t OEW, which is a bit more than the 115t OEW listed in September 2008 and would reflect additional structural changes.

So Boeing produced an ACAP just for LN's 007-019?

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: 328JET
Posted 2011-10-15 05:16:36 and read 6849 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 82):
to reduce the weight even further

Even further...?


I am not sure, if this is the best wording in case of the "heavy8" from Boeing...

 

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-15 06:06:30 and read 6791 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
So when Boeing reaches "design weight" with LN090, that weight should be the firm configuration weight of 110t in a 224-seat Boeing Configuration and if NH took delivery of a 787-8 in the same configuration as their first two, those planes would weigh some five-plus tons less.

As I've written in my post in TechOps your argumentation is not supported by any of the analysis that one can make. Here is what Lisys (maker of Piano and Piano-X) wrote when they released the 787-8 model for Piano-X (both available for free at www.lissys.demon.co.uk):

"The Piano-X B787-8 baseline release has an MTOW of 219.5 t (484k lb), a typical airline OEW of 114.5 t (252.5k lb), nominal aerodynamics and SFC targets, and when carrying 242 pax at 95 kg each (210 lb) achieves a range of 7653 nm with standard reserves."

We also know that B released an ACAP document the same year with a stated OEW of 114,7t, I don't have the document so can't say with what MTOW but I would assume 219,5t. Now a frame doesn't get any lighter when you increase MTOW to 228t.

I also have tried to model your data in Piano-X, you get a frame that flies 9000nm with the 228t MTOW, we know that B claims 7650nm when equipped with 250 seats and having 250pax+bags and 8200nm when having 210 seats and pax.

When I model these statements from B I end up with a frame which has a OEW of some 217-219t for those seatings. which fits well with LN20-90s 4t overweight.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-15 09:29:30 and read 6615 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 84):
So Boeing produced an ACAP just for LN's 007-019?

I would expect the ACAP would show the heaviest OEW (at OEM spec) in the fleet and in September 2007, that would have been ZA001 - which at the time Boeing did intend to deliver to NH.




Quoting ferpe (Reply 86):
As I've written in my post in TechOps your argumentation is not supported by any of the analysis that one can make.

It is supported by Airbus' analysis, and Airbus' objective should be to paint the 787 in the worst light possible. So if they could say that ZA001 was 17 tons overweight, one would think they would have said that as opposed to 8 tons.

I also can't see ZA001 suddenly gaining 8 tons of additional empty weight between October 2008 and October 2011.

And by extension, if ZA001 gained 8 tons from Change Incorporation and Re-Work since October 2008, so should every other 787 airframe produced by October 2008 as they all would have had the same Change Incorporation and Re-Work. And yet the first tranche of production frames magically lost 2 tons of that CI&RW weight and the second tranche magically lost another 2 tons on top of that and I am sure some of them were complete by October 2008.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-15 10:02:56 and read 6561 times.

Sticth, you are referring to this document:

http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf

on slide 12 it is clear that A refers B data for production aircraft, they have for example an October 2008 slide saying that LN20 will have a MEW of 101.2t. Now we also know that the OEW-MEW diff for a 242pax LN20 is 15,2t i.e. already Oct 2008 A was saying LN20 would be at 116.4t OEW.

Now if we shall use this analysis we shall use it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-15 10:20:22 and read 6528 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 88):
on slide 12 it is clear that A refers B data for production aircraft, they have for example an October 2008 slide saying that LN20 will have a MEW of 101.2t.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 88):
already Oct 2008 A was saying LN20 would be at 116.4t OEW.

I don't see anywhere on those slides where they say that weight is specific to any frame, much less LN020. Boeing have stated they will see a "significant weight savings" from LN020 onwards and that seems to be borne out by the claim that LN020 onwards will be 4 tons overweight.

I think the point of contention / confusion is what "overweight" means. I believe the figures Aspire is listing are against the September 2005 MWE, not the October 2008 / Post EIS MWE as I can't see NH accepting delivery of an airframe that had an MWE of 117 tons (adding 6 tons to the 101 tons Airbus listed).

As such, I don't believe that LN020 would have an OEM spec OEW of 116.4t. That is what I believe LN001's OEM spec OEW would be. For LN020, I believe it would be closer to 112.4t.

I guess we'll know who is closer to the reality of the situation when Boeing publishes a new ACAP that has an OEM spec OEW in it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: astuteman
Posted 2011-10-15 10:39:37 and read 6488 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
I would expect the ACAP would show the heaviest OEW (at OEM spec) in the fleet and in September 2007, that would have been ZA001

Not sure I can see the point in a "draft" ACAP for a single aircraft that is never going to see revenue service.......

And if the early aircraft actually HIT the published weights, why would even Boeing consider them to be "overweight"?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
I guess we'll know who is closer to the reality of the situation when Boeing publishes a new ACAP that has an OEM spec OEW in it.

I can go with that   

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-15 10:43:39 and read 6491 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 90):
Not sure I can see the point in a "draft" ACAP for a single aircraft that is never going to see revenue service.......

But in September 2007, Boeing intended that plane to see revenue service. And it was the farthest along, so it was likely the only plane they could use as a baseline to calculate OEW.



In the end, what I do not believe is that NH's first delivery was 6 tons heavier than Boeing expected it would be when they started assembling it.

I can believe that it was 6 tons heavier than Boeing expected it to be when they completed firm configuration back in 2005.

[Edited 2011-10-15 10:44:17]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-15 12:24:19 and read 6406 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89):
I can't see NH accepting delivery of an airframe that had an MWE of 117 tons (adding 6 tons to the 101 tons Airbus listed).

Sorry I don't get this, I think you mean 117t OEW. In slide 12 the MWE of the 119t version (which ANA got for first delivery) is given as 100t. Add the 6t from Aspires inside info and you have 106t. Now what ANAs interior/furnishing weighs only they and B knows, but lets add the OEM spec value for the B spec 242 pax version, 15.2t and you have a comparable OEW of 121.2t which is what we have assumed previously in the thread.

Next thing is does this makes sense with what other info we have? Well run this through Piano-X and you have a range with 242 pax of 6780nm, this is a value that we have heard mumbled several times for this inital version with limited MTOW. Then to check the rationale go to the 228t final version and do the same, add 15.2t to the MWE of 101.2t and you have 116.4t. Run this through Piano-X and you have 8000nm, smack on what B says a 242pax 788 should do when mature.

So for me this all makes kind of sense, the weights are high but then the 788 was the first craft in it's kind with a semi-badly prepared team given the task at hand and the long interval to the 777 and with a time-plan WAY to compressed. I do believe you can miss your weight targets with 6% in you first shot given these circumstances, there was no time for a second thought before design freeze, there were hordes of problems to solve just to get the ship in the air. I admire this team for taking this boat to shore, their management at the time sure did not help them. And they are fixing this issue swiftly.

[Edited 2011-10-15 12:38:10]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-15 12:45:29 and read 6374 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 92):
Sorry I don't get this, I think you mean 117t OEW.

No I mean a 117 MWE, but it seems we both agree that the MWE is not that high so it's of no matter.

I still think LN007-019 have an MWE closer to 100t than 106t based on SUH's comment that LN007 is 2.5 tons overweight, not 6.1 tons, but unless someone posts the actual number, I guess we just guess and agree to disagree.  

[Edited 2011-10-15 12:48:41]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-15 21:19:54 and read 6202 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 93):
I still think LN007-019 have an MWE closer to 100t than 106t based on SUH's comment that LN007 is 2.5 tons overweight, not 6.1 tons, but unless someone posts the actual number, I guess we just guess and agree to disagree.

As I said in the TechOps thread, I have no idea if Aspires figures are correct, Aspire is normally very positive vs B however so if these sources are not reliable I think Aspire does B a lot of bad on loose grounds. These numbers are now quoted everywhere, I would think Aspires Boeing friends would tell him he is wrong if they were unsubstantiated.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Spacepope
Posted 2011-10-15 21:27:06 and read 6197 times.

Out of curiosity, was this another delivery today?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...7/history/20111015/1655Z/KPAE/RJTT

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: wale03
Posted 2011-10-15 22:31:48 and read 6144 times.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 95):
Out of curiosity, was this another delivery today?

I saw that also,that's the delivery flight of JA802A,and this is a video of the departure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3W4p57gU-g&feature=feedu

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-16 05:36:51 and read 5848 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
These numbers are now quoted everywhere, I would think Aspires Boeing friends would tell him he is wrong if they were unsubstantiated.

I don't think they're wrong, I just think they are in addition to Firm Configuration MWE, not actually completed frame (post-EIS) MWE.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: starrion
Posted 2011-10-16 21:17:04 and read 5480 times.

Quoting wale03 (Reply 96):

I saw that also,that's the delivery flight of JA802A,and this is a video of the departure

So far two ANA 787's are away and the two CX 748F's

What are the next deliveries to look forward to?

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2011-10-17 04:14:15 and read 5169 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
As I said in the TechOps thread, I have no idea if Aspires figures are correct, Aspire is normally very positive vs B however so if these sources are not reliable I think Aspire does B a lot of bad on loose grounds. These numbers are now quoted everywhere, I would think Aspires Boeing friends would tell him he is wrong if they were unsubstantiated.

As Stitch said, his figures aren't necessarily wrong, they are mixing design concept numbers with actual project numbers, or in other words, crossing boundaries that normally are separated (mixing apples and oranges). The main inconsistency being orginial concept rather than firm configuration as the basis for calculating overweight in early production models.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-10-17 05:47:06 and read 5067 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
Airbus' objective should be to paint the 787 in the worst light possible

Not in that report. That analysis was only adressed for an internal audience. If that report would knowingly have bend the truth they would only have fooled themselves.

No, in the "lessons learnt" report Airbus simply wrote down the most comprehensive and reliable insights they have gathered.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-17 07:05:05 and read 4948 times.

If it was only for internal use, it never would have made it, almost immediately, into the public domain. Airbus would never let themselves be caught, even if there was only a slight chance, with putting the competition into what might be considered the best light.

It's funny that no positive characteristics of the 787 program made it into the report. One might venture that there would be a few good lessons that could have been learned. Every single one of the lessons was how badly Boeing is screwing the pooch.

Airbus, like any good competitor, took whatever bad news it could find, (and there was a lot of it), and put in in one nice package and immediately leaked it. Calling it their, 'lessons learned' document was merely rubbing salt in the wounds.

That's the way it goes in business but it's silly to consider this a private document. It was a sales package with the added benefit of being a tool to scare the troops into getting their act together.

I bet this package was part of every sales pitch Airbus made for the 330 and the 350.

Hey...I'm not judging...if I had that kind of dirt on the other guy, I'd have done the same thing. That doesn't mean I can't see it for what it really is.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-10-17 07:46:23 and read 4894 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 101):
Airbus, like any good competitor, took whatever bad news it could find, (and there was a lot of it), and put in in one nice package and immediately leaked it.

Silly speculation that lacks any proof, I would say...

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2011-10-17 08:46:09 and read 4800 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 102):

Of course you would say that. No more silly than claiming that a document that was supposed to be secret almost immediately was made public. Also, not silly considering that Airbus couldn't find a single positive thing to take as a lesson from the 787 program.

And there's no proof that this wasn't intended for public consumption.

Considering they followed along with a CFRP fuse shortly after casting some pretty serious dispersions at the very idea, seems they may have learned one lesson from a positive aspect of the 787 program...but it didn't make it into the lessons learned.

A smart company not only looks at a competitors mistakes, but also their successes.

I don't need any more proof than the fact that it is in the public domain and Airbus isn't in the habit of lauding their competitors in public.

If it wasn't intended for public consumption, then they did a very, very poor job of protecting their secrets. I sure hope they fired their security. The paper is dated October 2008 and was made public by Dec 2008.

At least I give Airbus enough credit that if they want to keep something secret, I think they are perfectly able to do it.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: fpetrutiu
Posted 2011-10-17 09:35:47 and read 4707 times.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 95):
Out of curiosity, was this another delivery today?

Yes. It was. I believe the next one is in 2 weeks.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2011-10-17 11:16:54 and read 4551 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 103):
And there's no proof that this wasn't intended for public consumption.

I always loved the quote on page 8: "Affected passengers may not be happy!"

Very technical briefing indeed!!  


Regards,

Hamlet69   

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2011-10-17 23:41:02 and read 4197 times.

Right, there is no proof at all. But acting in good faith forbids to draw your conclusion. It just shows bad faith.

I am in the engineering business too and I can assure you that a document called "lessons learnt" perfetcly reasonably concentrates on the troubles and nothing else. Including impact on the user. I could even post you the index of our lessons-learnt-template document to proove you that.

If Airbus Intelligence would not have written THIS document for their own use, they would have had to write the exactly same document a second time, this time for their internal use....

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: PITingres
Posted 2011-10-18 04:55:27 and read 4046 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
I am in the engineering business too and I can assure you that a document called "lessons learnt" perfetcly reasonably concentrates on the troubles and nothing else. I could even post you the index of our lessons-learnt-template ...

If that's a competitive evaluation template, you're doing it wrong.

An internal "lessons learned" document may reasonably concentrate on the bad things only, since the good things are obviously already being done. A report evaluating a competing product that only looks at the bad features, ignoring the clever things that the competition did, is doing the organization a gross disservice. As an engineer you should know that.

And in any case, I don't see any lessons in that Airbus document. It's a litany of Boeing mistakes and imperfections, probably factually true in general; but I don't see any conclusions drawn as to "We need to avoid this by doing xxx or yyy." Just because it's titled "lessons learnt" doesn't make it so.

I certainly don't think that AIrbus went out of their way to generate fiction in that report, but it's pretty obviously a sales-oriented document; it reads just like the many dozens of other sales-oriented competitive evaluations I've seen over the last 35 years. I have far too much respect for Airbus to imagine that the document was meant as a true, objective engineering report.

Kindly stop defending every word Airbus spills as gospel, and let's keep on-topic here.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-18 05:07:17 and read 4033 times.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 107):

And in any case, I don't see any lessons in that Airbus document. It's a litany of Boeing mistakes and imperfections, probably factually true in general; but I don't see any conclusions drawn as to "We need to avoid this by doing xxx or yyy." Just because it's titled "lessons learnt" doesn't make it so.

A true engineering "lessons learned" or, more accurately, "lessons to be learned" document about a competitor's product would focus more on things that they are doing right and your organization has trouble with than purely with mistakes made by the opposition. I completely agree with you and with others that this is a sales document, not an engineering one. Engineers are far more interested in learning positive lessons, such as "if they can do this, what can we do to do it better?" than is saying "You really blew it there."

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: Stitch
Posted 2011-10-18 05:36:15 and read 3988 times.

Well Airbus evidently didn't learn much, since they admitted later that they encountered the same lightning protection issues Boeing did. *shrug*


In other news, it looks like the certification of the 787 with GEnx power is taking longer than planned. CZ have been informed their first delivery is being delayed, as have UA, and both have GEnx power. I am guessing JL will see a delay, as well.

[Edited 2011-10-18 05:37:32]

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: ferpe
Posted 2011-10-18 08:02:35 and read 3849 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
In other news, it looks like the certification of the 787 with GEnx power is taking longer than planned.

This was my wonder as well when I heard of these delays, hmmm the frame is almost 4 years late for first EIS with the GEnx and they are still not ready....

Might be that customers have insisted on getting the frames with PIP1 engines, the vanilla ones are not that much fun...

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-18 08:47:46 and read 3773 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
In other news, it looks like the certification of the 787 with GEnx power is taking longer than planned.

The 748 with a variant of the same engine has been certified; does anyone know what the holdup for the 787's engine is? With the 748 engine actually being more complex in that it has bleed air I'm somewhat surprised, unless it has something to do with the alternators or drives, as they are the only things I know of that would be more demanding on the 787.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: PW100
Posted 2011-10-18 08:59:30 and read 3749 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 109):
In other news, it looks like the certification of the 787 with GEnx power is taking longer than planned. CZ have been informed their first delivery is being delayed, as have UA, and both have GEnx power. I am guessing JL will see a delay, as well

Uh uh . . . . which engines did Al Bakar order?

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: bonusonus
Posted 2011-10-18 10:06:27 and read 3660 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 111):
With the 748 engine actually being more complex in that it has bleed air I'm somewhat surprised, unless it has something to do with the alternators or drives, as they are the only things I know of that would be more demanding on the 787.

Still, bleedless engines are a new technology, and bleed-air engines aren't.

Topic: RE: Boeing 787 Program Overview
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2011-10-18 10:12:13 and read 3645 times.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 113):

Still, bleedless engines are a new technology, and bleed-air engines aren't.

Isn't that kind of saying that when I take the turbocharger off my engine that then I am making new technology? My car engine has only been built with a turbocharger; removing it will change how it runs, and the computers will have to be reprogrammed, but I would expect that the manufacturer should be able to do that in short order with no complications if they wanted to. I do agree that it makes the engine different, but I would expect that making it simpler (which going bleedless does) should make the certification easier. I may be wrong, but I would appreciate someone with more knowledge (Lightsaber?) to give me an explanation as to why it might be.

[Edited 2011-10-18 10:14:21]


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/