Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Test Frames?  
User currently offlineNcelhr From Vatican City, joined Jul 2006, 357 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

I understand that the first completed 787 will be shown to the world on 7 July 2007. Is this going to fly at some point?

Indeed, is Boeing going to have static and fatigue airframes like Airbus before having a first flight with another frame, or are they going straight into the flying phase with SN 01 ?

Thanks for your answers.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5667 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

The first frame out the door (on 7/8/07) will be a test flight aircrat that will fly around end of August. The 2nd plane off the line will be the static test frame followed by two more flight test airplanes and then the 5th will be the fatigue test frame.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1):
The first frame out the door (on 7/8/07) will be a test flight aircrat that will fly around end of August. The 2nd plane off the line will be the static test frame followed by two more flight test airplanes and then the 5th will be the fatigue test frame.

Not quite. There are 6 test airplanes that are rolled out in sequence, all will support certification. Test frames for structures are not part of the flight test airplane sequence.



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3173 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4076 times:

What's the difference between the static test frame and the fatigue test frame? Thought it was the same?

User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

static tests--bascially one force to breaking. done once

fatigue--many many many cycles of forces to see the behaviour under cyclic loading.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting LY4XELD (Reply 2):
Not quite. There are 6 test airplanes that are rolled out in sequence, all will support certification. Test frames for structures are not part of the flight test airplane sequence.

So when do the fatigue and static test articles get built, after the first six flyable airframes? Seems very late to start these test programs, that must be completed before certification. Additionally, I think they must to be built on the same production line as the flyable airframes to make the tests viable.


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
So when do the fatigue and static test articles get built, after the first six flyable airframes? Seems very late to start these test programs, that must be completed before certification. Additionally, I think they must to be built on the same production line as the flyable airframes to make the tests viable.

The second frame off the production line is the static airframe, while the fourth will be the one destined for fatigue testing. They will be built on the same production line as the flying aircraft. The framework for the static tests are as good as done.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5667 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Actually here is the order of production:

(In order of production).
ln1 - RR powered and first to fly
ln9997 - no engines, systems ect, Static Test frame
ln2 - RR powered and test flight
ln3 - RR powered and test flight
ln4 - RR powered and test flight
ln9998 - no engines, systems, ect. - Wing Break Test
ln5 - GE powered and test flight
ln6 - GE powered and test flight



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
Actually here is the order of production:

(In order of production).
ln1 - RR powered and first to fly
ln9997 - no engines, systems ect, Static Test frame
ln2 - RR powered and test flight
ln3 - RR powered and test flight
ln4 - RR powered and test flight
ln9998 - no engines, systems, ect. - Wing Break Test
ln5 - GE powered and test flight
ln6 - GE powered and test flight

Which will be used for the shake tests?



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
Actually here is the order of production:

Thanks NYC777  Smile When did they change the order? (my reference was an article in FI that was released last fall IIRC)


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
ln9997 - no engines, systems ect, Static Test frame



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
ln9998 - no engines, systems, ect. - Wing Break Test

The Static test frame is the same thing as the "Wing Break test" article (though I've never actually heard that term used as an official reference}. L/N9998 is the Fatigue test frame, which will not have it's wings physically broken unless something goes wrong over the course of the fatigue tests.


Regards,

Hamlet69  profile 



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 7):
ln1 - RR powered and first to fly
ln9997 - no engines, systems ect, Static Test frame
ln2 - RR powered and test flight
ln3 - RR powered and test flight
ln4 - RR powered and test flight
ln9998 - no engines, systems, ect. - Wing Break Test
ln5 - GE powered and test flight
ln6 - GE powered and test flight

little off topic but...
Who gets ln1~ln6?

I keep thinking ln1 is for NH but I thought I heard that they get one later? The first 777 went to launch customer UA but the 1st A380 is not going to SQ.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 11):
The first 777 went to launch customer UA but the 1st A380 is not going to SQ.

The first ever 777 (the one used for flight test) went to Cathay, not United.



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineScorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3464 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 11):
I keep thinking ln1 is for NH but I thought I heard that they get one later? The first 777 went to launch customer UA but the 1st A380 is not going to SQ.

UA have Ln2 AFAIK.. This was the first delivered 777. ln1 was used for various other purposes at boeing before finally being sold to cathay pacific a few years later. Apparently boeing offered it to UA as it was originally a PW frame but they could never agree to a price.


User currently offlineDeaphen From India, joined Jul 2005, 1424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting Scorpy (Reply 13):
UA have Ln2 AFAIK.. This was the first delivered 777. ln1 was used for various other purposes at boeing before finally being sold to cathay pacific a few years later. Apparently boeing offered it to UA as it was originally a PW frame but they could never agree to a price.

Yes, The protoype 777 is with CX as B-HNL.

regards
nitin



I want every single airport and airplane in India to be on A.net!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 11):
Who gets ln1~ln6?

I'd like to know that as well. I heard something that Line Number 5 or 6 were going to NH, but they have GE engines (unless they want to use the opportunity to show the engine interchangeablility the 787 was supposed to offer with the common engine pylon).

Quoting Centrair (Reply 11):
The first 777 went to launch customer UA but the 1st A380 is not going to SQ.

A380 MSN001 was slated to stay with Airbus as a flighttest aircraft from the start. I believe it's MSN003 or 005 which is going to SQ.

Quoting Scorpy (Reply 13):
ln1 was used for various other purposes at boeing before finally being sold to cathay pacific a few years later. Apparently boeing offered it to UA as it was originally a PW frame but they could never agree to a price.

Note also that Boeing re-engined 777 Line Number 1 with Trent engines before delivery to CX. I presume it was for commonality purposes, though I wonder if it was Boeing who picked up the tab for the re-engining.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Hough
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JKSC



User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

Thanks for clearing up the 777 issue. So what about the first 6 787s? Who gets which?


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2304 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 15):
I'd like to know that as well. I heard something that Line Number 5 or 6 were going to NH, but they have GE engines (unless they want to use the opportunity to show the engine interchangeablility the 787 was supposed to offer with the common engine pylon).

These first 6 have been stated to be overweight. Boeing also stated that the deliveries to ANA will NOT be overweight. So, ANA is not getting any of the 6 test frames.


User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Why do they roll them out and first flight them at different times? Why not roll it out and then taxi to the runway and take off?

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2900 times:

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 18):
Why do they roll them out and first flight them at different times? Why not roll it out and then taxi to the runway and take off?

They probably have to do more systems checks, engine runs and some taxi tests before they can get to the first flight.


User currently offlineLY4XELD From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 857 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 18):
Why do they roll them out and first flight them at different times? Why not roll it out and then taxi to the runway and take off

Roll out is a usual ceremonial milestone for new airplanes. It's kind of like "look at what we did!" and showing that the airplane is on its way to first flight. An airplane may not be ready to fly, but the look is complete and it shows major progress (especially in the eyes of stakeholders and the investors!).



That's why we're here.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1332 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Is Boeing rollout normally done by tug or own power?

If by tug then no power is needed (except outside lighting). Inside can empty for all we know.

We have done PR rollouts, then drive it around back into the factory to finish up the last bits of work.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Great thread - I had thought to ask essentially the same question as I was driving back this weekend.

One follow-up though...

Boeing is also going to be required to prove that the composite wing will have a certain safety margin in the case of a crash and/or fire. Aluminium framed and covered wings would transmit the heat of the fire away and provide several more minutes of margin before the fuel in the wing-tanks would reach flash-point if there was a fire under the wing.

Boeing will have to prove the same time margin will exist so that their is "adequate" time to evacuate the plane (in theory).

Is Boeing going to do this test with one of the test planes (which I am sure will destroy at least a wing) - or are they just going to do this test with a wing loaded with fuel.


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 22):
Boeing is also going to be required to prove that the composite wing will have a certain safety margin in the case of a crash and/or fire. Aluminium framed and covered wings would transmit the heat of the fire away and provide several more minutes of margin before the fuel in the wing-tanks would reach flash-point if there was a fire under the wing

I do not think it is that simple. Al is an excellent conductor, but much of the heat will pass right thru to the fuel. Probably, the fuel would be at boil before significant heat was dissapated. Carbon and glass fiber composites are good insulators. The real question would be which lasts longer with flame on one side and fuel on the other. Only well designed tests would be able to determine this.

As I recall the photos of the AF 340 crash at YYZ, which by the way was successfully evacuated and had no fatalities, by the grace of god, the fuse was destroyed by fire within 5 to 10 minutes. AL burns and melts quite fast in a fir, my question would be if the resins in the CFRP are a fuel source in a hot fire and their endurance in the same.

My intuition is that the CFRP fire performance will be similar to better than AL. From my work I know their behavior is better in the 150 to 450F range but above these temperatures both are rapidly losing (except with the more exotic resins that are high temp) their strength.


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2001 times:

Quoting Jamesbuk (Reply 18):
Why do they roll them out and first flight them at different times? Why not roll it out and then taxi to the runway and take off?

Rgds --James--

Its probably going to empty and held together with duct tape  bigthumbsup 

iwok


25 Sphealey : > The second frame off the production line is the static airframe, while > the fourth will be the one destined for fatigue testing. They will be > bui
26 Ncelhr : Is there a danger that in case of a fire, the resins might emit toxic fumes? (sorry if my question may be stupid - I know nothing about composites)
27 DfwRevolution : Tug. Roll-outs have even been done inside a hangar (a la 737NG and A380) And the 787 will be no different. Boeing will need at least a month of addit
28 Brons2 : From what I understand, Boeing changed out the engines from PW to RR for CX!
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...
Boeing's 737 Test Reg. N1786B posted Fri Oct 15 2004 01:36:39 by BR715-A1-30
Boeing 787? posted Tue Oct 12 2004 14:32:23 by Vs773er
AC Pilot Banned In London Pending Booze Test posted Sat Sep 25 2004 21:06:17 by B741
7E7=787 posted Fri Sep 10 2004 13:51:52 by SNBA319
7E7 Means 787...? posted Fri Sep 3 2004 20:54:28 by Cun757
Iraqi Airways Makes First Test Flight posted Tue Aug 24 2004 15:05:32 by Angelairways
Runway Hamburg NOT Extended For A380 Test Flight posted Sat Aug 21 2004 10:15:03 by FJWH
First A380 Test Pilot posted Sat Aug 7 2004 01:01:03 by A380900
How Many Test Flights Do Aircraft Need? posted Fri Jul 30 2004 09:21:26 by Gregviperrt
Passed My Flight Test! posted Sat Jul 17 2004 03:17:54 by ZBBbird