Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 11600 times:
Some interesting pictures & details in the Seattle time on the 787 production. Boeing seems to be on an ambitious roadmap to increase production long before the first proto has flown.
The target for 787 final assembly in Everett is three days. This time frame does not include wing and tail integration that will be done in parallel feeder lines in Everett before final assembly. Nor does it include painting and testing that follow roll-out.
Internal company documents show that by 2011 Boeing plans to roll out a new 787 every two days.
A detailed break-up of were major parts are build: click to enlarge
IMO increasing productions as Boeing now seems to be striving for largely depends on its sub contractors & complicated supply chains.
click to enlarge
The 3 747 freighters are rebuild to move the bigger parts to the assembly line in Washington state. I think the 747 will need technical stops from Asia and Europe. The Beluga´s also have a very limited range.
click to enlarge
I would not be surprised if Boeing orders a fourth and fifth. They´ll will likely be used intensively & this increases scheduled & unscheduled maintenance.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11554 times:
I find it interesting that fuselage sections are to be joined together before being flown to Everett. This suggests to me that the B737NG replacement will be assembled from not more than three sections. A single section is impossible because the mandrel would not be removable. Two sections is possible, but joining them at the wing root might pose problems.
If Boeing can get the B737NG replacement down to two or three fuselage sections, then perhaps they could also get the B777-300/B747 replacement down to three sections.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 71 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11506 times:
Leelaw, which is it? Unprecedented or not any worse than the WhaleJet scheme? I don't think you can have it both ways but, if you can, please explain how.
Matt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11421 times:
Makes me proud a large part of this magnificent airplane is made in Italy. Alenia Aeronautica also manufactures large pieces for the B767, B777, A380 and also looking forward to take part of the A350 project.
LifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1815 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11372 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): I would not be surprised if Boeing orders a fourth and fifth. They�ll will likely be used intensively & this increases scheduled & unscheduled maintenance.
Yeah, and with three you are maybe somewhat vulnerable if you loose a plane due to a mechanical problem or worse, an accident.
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2793 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11349 times:
That's cool stuff. It's good to see the gear coming from England. We could use some manufacturing boost after Airbus takes away the wings from Wales because we won't subsidise the A350.
BTW, with a fair bit of stuff coming from Europe, that puts to rest the old European carriers must buy Airbus for the sake of homegrown industry idea.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11185 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3): Leelaw, which is it? Unprecedented or not any worse than the WhaleJet scheme? I don't think you can have it both ways but, if you can, please explain how. Confused
You're right...perhaps I should have phrased it something like: although the proposed production scheme for the 787 program is novel and complex, it's got to be better than...
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11155 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 2): It can't be any worse than the ships, barges, and trucks with multiple cargo transfers production scheme Airbus devised for the A380.
I think Boeing would love to use ships, trucks & trains, but compared to Airbus supply lines to Hamburg & Toulouse distances cannot be compared.
Thinking about the 3 Boeing 747´s, maybe Boeing included in the business case that if transport capasity falls short temporary, they can always pick up the phone and hire Volga Dnepr or Polet for all but the largests parts..
Blackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1890 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11138 times:
Keesje: Nice reporting.
The logistics certainly looks complicated, but doable. I just hope they can keep their promises to their customers.
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7614 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11100 times:
Thanks for posting that. I am also curious to see how much of the other components of the plane are outsourced and where they go. I work for the company that makes the electrical system for the plane including the APU, and power generation units. It is really interesting to see how much is involved with this airplane and how many people around the world are working on it. It is amazing how the logistics work out on this plane with things coming from many different companies in all parts of the world and they all have to remain on schedule.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11079 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11): I think Boeing would love to use ships, trucks & trains, but compared to Airbus supply lines to Hamburg & Toulouse distances cannot be compared.
It's certainly debatable. For example: what's the most efficient and least costly method of transporting a wingset from a remote production facility to the final assembly hall? Barge, to an ocean going ship, back to a barge, and finally to a truck for an overland trip or a single plane trip (of virtually any distance) with multiple refueling stops between the two facilities?
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11014 times:
Leelaw, one problem been people shooting at ships on rivers and damaged fuselages, so
airtravel is much safer.
BTW anyone knows if http://www.maxmove.se/ will be used in the production?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8609 posts, RR: 96 Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11001 times:
As a production engineer it's this aspect of the 787 which interests me the most (sad bastard...).
Many thanks for the information Keejse - brilliant.
Despite the logistical complexity, I think the strategy is absolutely spot on. I love the idea of staged modular assembly and (in particular) testing. It's THE best way to minimise lead times, maximise throughput, and minimise those massive costs at the final assembly stage (something that Boeing definitely needs to do.).
I thoroughly congratulate Boeing for going down this route.
By the way, the engineering effort needed to tailor this product to this strategy is awesome, and difficult to deliver.
All you Boeing lovers out there, I'd ask you please not to keep blithely trotting out the "The 787 will be on time and on cost because Boeing always deliver" platitudes.
You actually run the risk of underselling the MONUMENTAL achievement by Boeing when they do finally deliver this strategy (which they undoubtedly will - they always do...). Great stuff, B.
A
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7614 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10865 times:
Quoting Alessandro (Reply 16): one problem been people shooting at ships on rivers and damaged fuselages, so
airtravel is much safer
I have heard of the same problem with rail. Boeing sends the 737 fuselage by rail from Kansas to Renton, and there have been bullet holes found in the fuselage after this trek or at least that is what I was told.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10408 times:
Some interesting details from the Seattle Times:
Ambitious plan under study to boost production in the first 4 years According to internal documents, the new plan means the Everett factory will be rolling out seven per month by mid-2009, allowing delivery of 444 aircraft by the end of 2012.
But that's only 21 aircraft more than previously planned. So in addition, Boeing and its partners in July began a detailed study of a much more dramatic ramp up that would see the rate increase gradually from seven per month to 14 per month by the spring of 2011.
If that's implemented it will allow delivery of 554 aircraft by the end of 2012, with a new jet rolling out every day and a half.
Weight issues, 5000 pounds overweight ATM Back in April, according to internal company documents, the Rolls-Royce-engine version of the 787 was 6,800 pounds over the target weight; the GE-engine version was 6,100 pounds overweight.
By July, later documents show, the engineers had slimmed down those figures to 5,000 pounds and 4,700 pounds overweight respectively, about 2 percent over where it should be.
That puts the 787 within the parameters of previous programs at the same stage of development. While the 777 and 767 jets had more modest weight problems, the 747 was more than 6 percent overweight less than two years before rollout.
South Korea joins as a new 787 sub contractor The aerospace manufacturing division of Korean Air Lines (KAL) will have a substantial 787 package not yet publicly announced.
KAL will make the 787's raked wingtips. Under subcontract from Vought, it will also produce the tail cone at the rear of the airplane that houses the auxiliary power unit.
Additionally, it will provide stringers for the wing; a bulkhead wall behind the wheel well; and the fairing for the wing flap supports.
The barge dock & future outsourcing of other aircraft types In 2003, Washington state made its successful high-stakes bid to win 787 final assembly in Everett. Led by then-Gov. Gary Locke, the effort won the day with a $3.2 billion tax-break package over 20 years, plus additional sweeteners.
Among those was the barge dock at Mukilteo, capable of receiving very large aircraft structures and transferring them to a rail siding for a quick trip up the steep hill to the Everett plant.
But as it turns out, the 787 logistics plan is to fly in all the big structures. The barge is not needed for the 787. Yet Boeing is committed to funding all project costs above the state contribution.
So what's the new dock for?
It certainly will streamline deliveries to the plant, and provide a backup for 787 deliveries. Yet its express purpose is to ship in large pieces of airplanes, much larger pieces than are shipped now.
It therefore provides Boeing the option to outsource the fabrication of existing jets. Complete fuselage sections could be shipped in from Japan.
In 2003, according to internal documents, even as the Legislature debated the incentives it should offer, Boeing was quietly studying exactly that.
Today, Japan makes fuselage panels for the 777, but they are assembled into a complete fuselage in Everett. Boeing weighed a plan called 777 HAL (for Higher Assembly Level) that would have seen 777 fuselage sections shipped in almost complete from Japan.
Today, Japan makes fuselage panels for the 777, but they are assembled into a complete fuselage in Everett. Boeing weighed a plan called 777 HAL (for Higher Assembly Level) that would have seen 777 fuselage sections shipped in almost complete from Japan.
Boeing later shelved the 777 HAL option, said company spokesman Tom Downey.
But company executives "continue to look at bringing more of our bigger parts in through the pier," Downey said.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2153 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10259 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 1): I find it interesting that fuselage sections are to be joined together before being flown to Everett. This suggests to me that the B737NG replacement will be assembled from not more than three sections. A single section is impossible because the mandrel would not be removable. Two sections is possible, but joining them at the wing root might pose problems.
If Boeing can get the B737NG replacement down to two or three fuselage sections, then perhaps they could also get the B777-300/B747 replacement down to three sections.
At this very moment, the 737NG fuselage sections are in ONE piece. With the exception of the 737-900, which comes in 2 pieces. It will would also be hard to do the 747 in 3 sections as u said above, because the Boeing Beluga can't handle the height of the 747 upper deck.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2559 posts, RR: 61 Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10215 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 19): But as it turns out, the 787 logistics plan is to fly in all the big structures. The barge is not needed for the 787.
The barge dock was never intended for the 787. Instead, it is being built to speed/simplify delivery of 747/767/777 parts. Currently, all incoming shipments from Asia are unloaded in Tacoma (possibly some in Seattle as well - I'd have to check), thrown on a rail car, and make their slow, laborious way up to Everett. Anyone who knows the Puget Sound area knows what a journey from Tacoma to Everett can entail - even by rail.
Therefore, the new pier is being built so that these large containers can either be unloaded on a barge and sailed up to Everett, or ideally, unloaded directly at the pier.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 755 posts, RR: 54 Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10198 times:
>> I find it interesting that fuselage sections are to be joined together before being flown to Everett. This suggests to me that the B737NG replacement will be assembled from not more than three sections. A single section is impossible because the mandrel would not be removable
An Alan Mullay press statement indicated that a single-section fuselage for a 737-sized aircraft was under intense consideration. Impossible is not a word I would use...
Why could they not manufacture the entire fuselage, sans nose and tail, and remove the mandrel as they do in a segmented fuselage?
>> I have heard of the same problem with rail. Boeing sends the 737 fuselage by rail from Kansas to Renton, and there have been bullet holes found in the fuselage after this trek or at least that is what I was told.
More importantly... the taller and wider 787 components wouldn't clear bridges and crossings between Witchita and Everett. This necessitates alternative means.
>> I think Boeing would love to use ships, trucks & trains, but compared to Airbus supply lines to Hamburg & Toulouse distances cannot be compared.
Keesje, Boeing was very keen to use air transport because it greatly reduces the inventory in transit at any given moment. This reduces overhead and insurance cost on the billions of dollars of product that would otherwise be spread across the oceans and globe if barge, truck, train were used.
That's a tremendous cost reduction gained by "just in time" component delivery.
BTW- great topic !
>> Thanks for posting that. I am also curious to see how much of the other components of the plane are outsourced and where they go.
IMO I was actually shocked at how much of the airplane was still designed and manufactured in the U.S. Since Day 1, it has been, this is almost an entirely foreign project, Boeing is outsourcing everything, yada, yada. The numbers however, show a different story: 5,000 American engineers, 500 Japanese engineers, approx. 2000 other engineers.
In reality, Boeing is doing what Airbus has been doing for years: integrating rather than manufacturing.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2153 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10097 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 22): An Alan Mullay press statement indicated that a single-section fuselage for a 737-sized aircraft was under intense consideration. Impossible is not a word I would use...
It is being used. Am I missing something you are saying? For all I know, the 737-600/-700/-800 ARE single sections.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7614 posts, RR: 51 Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10097 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 22): I was actually shocked at how much of the airplane was still designed and manufactured in the U.S
I agree with you there. One someone in the US hears the world outsourcing, they instantly think Japan, China, India, etc, but in reality that is not true. I am one of those engineers right now at least partly that this has been outsourced to. However I don't live in Japan or some other country, but rather right here in Illinois. There is a lot of integration, and a lot of engineers throughout the world, but most importantly within the United States are working on developing this new plane.
A lot of the fuselage, wings and external structures are being made elsewhere in the world, but I am curious about how much of the other components are being designed and made in the United States. The engines which are the most complicated part of the airframe are mostly designed in the US with GE and Rolls Royce having their large North America operations, along with the electrical system that Hamilton Sundstrand is designing, which is the most complex system ever to go on an airplane. What else is being made in the US?
[Edited 2005-09-11 22:04:20]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
25 Kaitak744: To prove my point 737s are assembled in one peice.
26 GARPD: They arrive as one fuselage "piece". But the fuselages are made of plates of metal rivetted together. So they are not a true "one piece" fuselage.[Ed
27 DfwRevolution: >> It is being used. Am I missing something you are saying? For all I know, the 737-600/-700/-800 ARE single sections. To prove my point 737s are ass
28 Zvezda: They could, but that would be three sections, not one.
29 DfwRevolution: >> They could, but that would be three sections, not one. Ahh... I think I see the misunderstanding. I was thinking of the fuselage as only the fusel
30 Kaitak744: Ah yes, sorry about the misunderstanding. And an aircraft the size of an 737 probably would take 3 pieces.
31 Aircellist: Sorry of someone already asked the question, but I'm curious about the percentage of US content of, say, a 787 with RR engines, as compared to an A330
32 Zvezda: Two sections should be possible -- a forward section including the nose and an aft section including the tail. I'm not sure whether or not it would b
33 Kaitak744: Also, an aircraft with only 2-5 sections and barely any fasteners would make C and D checks very quick, as the airline would not have to inspect the e
34 DarthRandall: Is that a miniature golf course behind that KLM 747, Keesje? Still, even that amount of international participation is significant relative to the his
35 JoeCattoli: I'm proud too... they work very good here. Sorry but... isn't Boeing an American company? It seems me less true every day that comes... I'd like to k
36 Centrair: I have to ask. The map shows a fuselage section, the center wing box and wings coming from Japan. It actually has Nagoya written on the map. Does that
37 PlaneDane: Joe, one of the initiatives of the Boeing company for a number of years now has been to operate and be regarded as a truly global enterprise. And as
38 Abbs380: Actually, I think most of you have not figured it out yet. The reason this a/c is being built, bit by bit, all over the world, is because the Boeing e
39 AirFrnt: Commercial success will do that to you. Glad to see that the Airline industry is realizing what the rest of the industrial sectors already have learn
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 327 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2793 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
