Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 On Schedule  
User currently offlineStratofortress From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 178 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5802 times:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/061206/boeing_carson.html?.v=1

787 on schedule and 2% more efficient than promised


Forever New Frontiers
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5799 times:

The airplane is not yet in production and already it's beating it promised fuel consumption. One has to wonder what the pplane can actually do when it enters service in 18 months!!!


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5768 times:

I think that they most likely tweeked up some other areas while working and adressing the weight issues , A bit of eff. from all areas probably made the difference in the end.

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

Cheerleader suit on...

Are you really surprised??? When it comes to engineering that's the Boeing way. Wait till it's flying and the better than expected SFCs show up in a provable environment.

Love or hate Boeing their engineers ?almost? always deliver. The 777 was miles ahead of planning from a perf standpoint.

I expect at EIS the 787 will be 5-8% ahead of promises.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineLokey123 From Barbados, joined May 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5733 times:

Please keep in mind that Scott Carson said 2% better than what is promised to customers. What is promised to customers, as negotiated in their PAs in the form of performance guarantees, is normally not what is touted to the public. So by him saying that it is 2% better than what has been promised to customers doesn't necessarily mean that it is 2% better than the fuel burn that Marketing uses.

User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5718 times:

Even if the 2% is true, the weight issue remains. Lowering fuel burn is great on the cost side, but an overweight aircraft means less payload and hence less revenue opportunity. I do not assume that the weight problem is solved, nor that any better-than-expected performance will nullify the problem if it is not solved.

This is good news, but I'll hold my applause until Boeing delivers what they promised. If it has lower fuel burn AND is as light as advertised...it'll be a grand slam.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5705 times:

Well lately it seems the team over at Boeing has made a habit of going all the way and then some as far as meeting performance promises. And I think it's great, makes for overall better aircraft and it puts a smile on the customers faces.

However, I'm beginning to wonder if they will eventually get burned for producing a plane that does just what they said it would, and not what they said it would plus a bit. In other words what would their customers say if they met all promises and guarantees, but did not exceed them - like many are beginning to expect.



CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Quoting CanadianNorth (Reply 6):
However, I'm beginning to wonder if they will eventually get burned for producing a plane that does just what they said it would, and not what they said it would plus a bit. In other words what would their customers say if they met all promises and guarantees, but did not exceed them - like many are beginning to expect.

Hey I still don't think the customerrs will be unhappy if a plane meets all its contractual guarantees. They've planned for it and I don't think they can or wouldd try to penalize Boeign for not exceeding them.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

...Speaking on a webcast at the Credit Suisse Aerospace and Defense Conference, Carson said Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner is on track to begin test flights next summer. The aircraft is still about 500 pounds too heavy, he said, with excess weight distributed throughout the aircraft. Carson said the fact that the 787 is made of new, lightweight composite material, rather than aluminum, will make it easier for engineers to reduce the total weight of the aircraft...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20061206-708505.html


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5606 times:

I guess we´ll see 787 in the air at Farnborough 2007

Ohh I forgot.... Boeing never fly their contraptions on air shows, why´s that?

Micke//   

[Edited 2006-12-06 16:44:35]


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 8):
The aircraft is still about 500 pounds too heavy

This is huge news. A few months ago the 787 was 2.5 tons over weight. Now they cut it by 2 tons. That's pretty significant. Hopefully it'll quiet a lot of doubters out there.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5501 times:

Quoting Lokey123 (Reply 4):
Please keep in mind that Scott Carson said 2% better than what is promised to customers. What is promised to customers, as negotiated in their PAs in the form of performance guarantees, is normally not what is touted to the public. So by him saying that it is 2% better than what has been promised to customers doesn't necessarily mean that it is 2% better than the fuel burn that Marketing uses.

Even if this were true, that means 787 is only 1% below the internal target, assuming 3% wiggling room. With flight testing and tweeking I am sure that it will be at least right on the internal target.

On the second note, I take back my comment. Carson said that it is 2% better than promised not guaranteed. Just like 773ER, Boeing said that it is 3% better than promised, which does not mean it is on target. It meant that it was 3% above the target.

Cheers,
PP

[Edited 2006-12-06 17:05:24]


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 9):
Ohh I forgot.... Boeing never fly their contraptions on air shows, why´s that?

Probably one of three reasons:

1. It isn't an insignificant expense to perform aerial demonstrations.

2. Boeing likely has no interest in seeing one of their commercial products crash in front of hundreds of spectators. Think about it, there have been notable air disasters involving aerial demonstrations.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19591019-0&lang=en
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880626-0&lang=en
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19730603-0&lang=en

3. Boeing likely doesn't feel the need to "one up" Airbus for their use of an A346 doing max climbs and bank rates.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5464 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 8):
The aircraft is still about 500 pounds too heavy, he said, with excess weight distributed throughout the aircraft

If so, they must have made major progress on weight reduction in the last few months, since the last figures I recall were in the 2,500-3,000 pound range. Great that things appear to be rolling along relatively smoothly...  crossfingers 

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineAirFRNT From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 9):
Ohh I forgot.... Boeing never fly their contraptions on air shows, why´s that?

Maybe because they don't believe in beta testing their FBW systems in large crowded public areas?

 stirthepot 


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

pretty impressive if they've knocked off 2000lbs already and are going for the last 500lbs right now.

Also, Carson says at the very end of the article, that Airbus will be stronger than ever after they get their mess sorted out, and that BA better be ready to meet the challenge.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):
pretty impressive if they've knocked off 2000lbs already and are going for the last 500lbs right now.

Certainly is impressive. I wonder what is the R&D cost per pound of lost weight. I would imagine it gets higher as the total weight gets lower. At what point do they say that an extra 5 pounds isn't worth spending an extra $5 million?


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 14):
Maybe because they don't believe in beta testing their FBW systems in large crowded public areas?

OUCH!!! Man that was low...

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):
Also, Carson says at the very end of the article, that Airbus will be stronger than ever after they get their mess sorted out, and that BA better be ready to meet the challenge.

Good attitude to take, even if it turns out not to be right.. just means Boeing will be tougher and shows they aren't falling into the complacency that nearly did them in not so long ago.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineLokey123 From Barbados, joined May 2006, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5257 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 11):
On the second note, I take back my comment. Carson said that it is 2% better than promised not guaranteed.

As a customer, a manufacturer's promise doesn't mean much unless it is in writing, ie a guarantee, so when he says promise to customers I infer guarantee. Of course i could be wrong but hey.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 9):
guess we´ll see 787 in the air at Farnborough 2007

Unlikely because:

There will be no Farnborough Airshow in 2007 as it is held in even numbered years, like 2006.

The Paris Airshow will be in June 2007 (held during odd years). Since the 787 first flight will be during August 2007, it won't make that show either.

Look for the 787 at the 2008 Farnborough Airshow. The airplane will fly into and out of the event.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 14):
Maybe because they don't believe in beta testing their FBW systems in large crowded public areas?

Wait till some Aibus cheerleaders see that. I don't wanna be around when that happens..lol


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5213 times:

More interesting comments from Carson:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16073977/

Fair Use:

Boeing officials have said since earlier this fall that they need to trim the 787's weight significantly from parts scattered throughout the entire plane, in some cases switching from aluminum to titanium, in order to meet its promises for greater fuel efficiency.

Carson, the unit's sales chief until September when Alan Mulally left to become CEO of Ford Motor Co., said the first six 787s, all test aircraft, will be above weight specifications. All the company's energies are focused on the seventh and a plan is in place to get the weight off, he said.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5178 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 10):
This is huge news. A few months ago the 787 was 2.5 tons over weight. Now they cut it by 2 tons. That's pretty significant. Hopefully it'll quiet a lot of doubters out there.

Big ditto on that. I'm a doubter, but I'll be very pleased to be quieted!

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 15):
pretty impressive if they've knocked off 2000lbs already and are going for the last 500lbs right now.

Double that! If true, they've knocked off 4000-4500lbs.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5091 times:

Quoting AirFRNT (Reply 14):
Maybe because they don't believe in beta testing their FBW systems in large crowded public areas?



Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 20):
Wait till some Aibus cheerleaders see that. I don't wanna be around when that happens..lol

Nice to see that aircraft crashes amuse the "aviation enthusiasts"... cough... cough

Regarding the "2% more efficient than promised", is it because they gained back those 2.5 tonnes?


User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5043 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
The airplane is not yet in production and already it's beating it promised fuel consumption. One has to wonder what the pplane can actually do when it enters service in 18 months!!!

You're being sarcastic isn't it?! Or else one could accuse you of massive cheerleading.  Wink
How can a paper plane beat it's promised fuel consumption, would you please enlighten me?

I'm sure the 787 will be a helluva plane, but please let the facts speak...



Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
25 TinkerBelle : Why Exactly are you quoting me?
26 NYC777 : Where have you been? 1) It's not a paper airplane as part have been manufactured and will be shipped January 2nd from Japan. The paper plane you're r
27 DfwRevolution : Calling the 787-8 a "paper plane" is a misnomer. The aircraft is well into development and many production-standard components have been built. The e
28 Congaboy : I couldn't agree more, Osiris. I doesn't matter if he's right or wrong...what matters is he is not underestimating the power of Airbus and the many,
29 Post contains images Beech19 : Almost? Not trying to nitpick but when have they missed... Yes they were 2-2.5 TONS over target weight (they had already met the guarranteed customer
30 Osiris30 : There's a reason I wrapped in double ?s. I wasn't sure they had.. not from memory anyway.. but had I said never some idiot would have pulled some eso
31 Post contains images AirFrnt : I just wish some people would stop coming into every A350/380/787 discussion and start a trolling. My point is that just adding doesn't excuse people
32 Osiris30 : Why did you quote me? I wasn't the one who said it..
33 MBJ2000 : What part of my posting you didn't understand? I'm asking again, how can a plane be better than expected before first flight?
34 Beech19 : Boeings initial numbers, just like any other airframe company, and the promises they make to customers are based on thousands of hours of simulation
35 DAYflyer : You dropped your mini-tootsie roll pop on the way into the forum. Go pick it up, stick it in your mouth and try again little one. Unlike some other a
36 NYC777 : Beech19 probably gave you a better explaination than I can. Please read what he posted. He would know as he's an engineer in the business.
37 DfwRevolution : No, I answered your question. I'll again answer in the same manner: When Boeing began marketing the 787-8, the engineering team estimated that fuel b
38 Beech19 : Um... thanks for the vote of confidence. Engineer no, 787 Manufacturer Technician, yes.
39 Zvezda : There are three factors that determine overall efficiency of an airliner: a) propulsion efficiency, b) aerodynamic efficiency, and c) structural effi
40 Post contains links Leelaw : Boeing's 787 is still overweight, although not the 5,000 lb. disclosed a month ago (ATWOnline, Nov. 7), but the company is confident it will "meet all
41 WingedMigrator : This highlights an oft-neglected component of CASM, which on a.net is often reduced to just fuel efficiency. (fuel accounts for less than half of dir
42 Post contains links Leelaw : Boeing Press Release: Boeing 787 Program Ends Year with Celebration of Progress EVERETT, Wash. , Dec. 06, 2006 -- Customers, partners and employees ga
43 PanAmOldDC8 : Can't wait for the 787, my last wish before I die is to travel on one. The need for the smaller wide body will become apparent in the next 20 years. I
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
On Tour With The 787: Dreamliner Is On Schedule posted Fri Jun 16 2006 14:59:40 by NYC777
787: Is It On Schedule? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 04:26:51 by A380900
CRW Runway Work Advances On Schedule posted Fri Dec 8 2006 19:18:17 by KarlB737
A350 And 787 On The German Market? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 11:40:33 by Columba
Northwest's Bankruptcy Reorganization On Schedule posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:54:48 by KarlB737
1 UFO 787 On Boeing Site... posted Thu Mar 9 2006 21:31:29 by Ikramerica
Boeing Says Development Of 787-8 On Track posted Tue Feb 21 2006 17:05:06 by NYC777
787 On The Move posted Mon Jan 16 2006 22:02:33 by Boeing767mech
Aeroflot Will Pick A350 Or 787 On Nov 3? posted Tue Nov 1 2005 15:18:53 by Ual747-600
AI LAX-FRA-BOM Back On Schedule posted Mon Jun 13 2005 05:19:29 by LAXDESI