Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Provides 787 Program Update (Part III)  
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Posted (6 years 11 months 18 hours ago) and read 15936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Note - I have received permission from the moderators to start a new thread on the 787 Program Update provided by the Boeing Company on September 5, 2007 as the current one has exceeded 200 posts.


**************

On Wednesday, September 5th, senior Boeing executives involved with the 787 program provided a conference call update. Highlights/lowlights of the call include:


  • First flight for LN0001 could be as late as November 2007 at this time.
  • Boeing has lost partial configuration control of the non-flight-specified fasteners used to get the plane ready for the 07/08/07 premiere and this is taking time to correct and document.
  • Many of the primary sub-assemblies delivered to PAE were well below the production standard Boeing expected, even knowing they would not be "production ready". As such, even with the additional staff they had in place to handle the work, there is more then they expected and it is taking longer as they can only put so many people on it.
  • LN0002 through LN0006 continue to progress at the respective factories in Japan, Italy and the US.
  • Boeing has delayed delivery of the primary sub-assemblies for those planes, allowing the workers to continue to bring them closer and closer to "production standard", which will reduce the amount of work needed at PAE prior to final assembly.
  • LN0001 through LN0004, all with Rolls-Royce Trent power, should be in flight-test and certification support by January 2008 and will handle the bulk of the certification and flight-test duties for the 787 program.
  • LN0005 and LN0006, both with GEnx power, will concentrate mostly on systems testing and certification for GEnx aircraft.
  • Boeing has performed a great deal of the testing and certification that does not need a plane in the air already. This will allow LN0001-LN0006 to concentrate on actual flight-related test and certification duties.
  • The third and final 787 drop test from last month was a success and has validated Boeing's crash analysis computer models (I am guessing to the satisfaction of the regulatory agencies since that is how Boeing will provide crash certification, I believe).
  • At this time, Boeing expects to deliver LN0007, the first "production" 787, to NH in May 2008 as contracted.
  • August 2007 was the best sales month for the 787, with over 200 sold.


***********

Discuss!  Smile

122 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15686 times:

What is Revolutionary?
The term "Revolutionary" has many interpretations in the context of a multitude of recognized fields of endeavor. It is not unusual for synergy between seemingly unrelated disciplines to inspire creative paradigm changes resulting in "Revolutionary" breakthroughs. In the context of a focus on advanced concepts, NIAC defines "Revolutionary" as possessing one or more of the following six attributes:

1. The genius is in the generalities, and not the details.
2. The new idea illuminates a pathway toward an expansion of knowledge and may address a significant roadblock.
3. It inspires others to produce useful science and further elaboration of the fundamental idea.
4. It contributes to a major change in the framework of aerospace possibilities,
5. It triggers a transformation of intuition.
6. Revolutionary paradigm shifts are simple, elegant, majestic, beautiful and characterized by order and symmetry.

This is not my definition but NASA's @ http://www.niac.usra.edu/revolutionary.html

1. The 787 is the first wide body full composite airliner. With no bi-pass air.
2. Full assembly of stuffed sub-sections from around the globe. The addressing of ramp rash on composites. The addressing all electrical systems and no bleed air. Composite knowledge will now be learned and used on all new jetliners to greater extents than the 787 (Except the A350 which suffers from the lack of knowledge to do so)
3. The amount of Composites on airliners will only go up because of the 787. The A350 was made to adjust to composite sections to be competitive.
4. Fully electrical designs open the window ot a host of passenger related possibilities. Also composites will last years longer and provide a useful airliner with less costly maintenance.
5. Like stated before the A350 changed from metal to composite to match the 787. All new airliners will be composite.
6. Unlike what most on anet want to hear. The 787 is a simple revolutionary change in how airliners are manufactured. To simple for those whom pom pom do not have its manufactures name on them.

Also the 787 will go down in the history books as revolutionary regardless of any opinion here. Search the NASA site. It has already been decided. Any further discussions are welcome and expected. Arguing why you don't agree with the experts at NASA is like crying over split milk. I welcome any additions also.



BK
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15672 times:

From Part 2:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 209):
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 206):
Everything is derivative.

Not so. Raytheon were the first to have a composite fuse aircraft! ATR were the first to use a composite wing box. As for your example, it is not even close... wheels vs logs allowed much greater speed and mobility... there was a huge leap, a revolutionary leap. Please point out where the 787 will have the same revolutionary effect!!

The word "revolutionary" is hyperbole, but the 787 is a significant advance in commercial aviation. I put it on par with the 707 as a milestone in the evolution of jet transports. You seem to argue that it's all been done before, but it hasn't all been combined at once in a project of this significance...not even close.

It's a matter of degree and of audacity. I appreciate just how far Boeing is pushing the envelope in all aspects of manufacture - materials, industrial methods, and use of software tools. Add to that the unprecedentedly short time span from announcement to planned EIS (the primary thrust of this entire discussion has been disbelief that Boeing can accomplish all this in such a short time). Take all this together, and you've got to appreciate that Boeing is doing something very different this time. Each element of the achievement has a precedent, but the combination of all these elements on such a scale is an achievement in and of itself.

The end result is not a revolution in air travel, but it does mark a change in the way we will build airliners from now on.

(My apologies to Stitch for not returning to the specific topic).



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineLorgem1 From Canada, joined May 2006, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15665 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): Many of the primary sub-assemblies delivered to PAE were well below the production standard Boeing expected, even knowing they would not be "production ready". As such, even with the additional staff they had in place to handle the work, there is more then they expected and it is taking longer as they can only put so many people on it.

Maybe Boeing should have placed a portion of this 'additional staff' as QA/QC inspectors at the suppliers plants to mitigate a 'not ready production ' state and eliminate a "below the production standard Boeing expected". Let's face it Boeing RUSHED their suppliers to meet the 7/8/7 date. It even included a 'pass' on 'stuffing' as per the contract. It is impossible for such an industry leader to not apply QC at its vendors such as it did at Vought?? So as quoted by Stitch and others, all the succeeding sub-assemblies should arrive at PAE 'stuffed' as per contract and hence the DELAY in arrivals of same. If I was a guessing man, I'd guess the real problem is in the mating software of each suppliers' sections.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15656 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
August 2007 was the best sales month for the 787, with over 200 sold.

that doesn't sound right, and their website shows no orders in August and 47 in July and 236 sold Jan through August.


User currently offlineBlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15637 times:

Fair use exerts from the experts:


2005: The Year in Technology
NASA Tech Briefs, Dec 2005
In 2005, NASA's space shuttle fleet returned to flight following a two-and-a-half-year wait. The year was also marked by a record hurricane season that required all currently available technologies for storm prediction, tracking, and response - and even some new technologies. Other milestones were reached this year in the launch of Boeing's revolutionary new 787 Dreamliner, and in the development of other technologies with potential impact that reaches far beyond the coming year.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3957/is_200512/ai_n15936120

The 787 features lighter weight construction. Its materials (by weight) are: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10% steel, 5% other.[28] Composite materials are significantly lighter and stronger than traditional aircraft materials, making the 787 a very light aircraft for its capabilities.[29] By volume, the 787 will be 80% composite. Each 787 contains approximately 35 tonnes of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, made with 23 tonnes of carbon fiber.[30

It will also be the first major airliner to use composite material for most of its construction.[5]

Engine interchangeability
The two types of engines compatible with the 787 will use a standard electrical interface, potentially allowing any aircraft to be fitted with Rolls-Royce or GE engines at any time. This flexibility will allow an airline to switch from one manufacturer to the other in the event of technological developments that conform more closely to their operating profile. Boeing's goal is to make changing engine types as simple as a standard same-manufacturer replacement.

Revolutionary 787 fleet support program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

Aviation - The shape of wings to come

Such a revolution would require a new generation of smaller, lighter, quieter airliners. Enter the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a new low-cost, 200-seater twin-jet. The 787's engine and airframe design will reduce fuel consumption - and emissions - by as much as 20%, which is vital if the plane is to fly into airports in city centres.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn7552

Top 10 Most Notable-Looking Post-War Aircraft


Credit: The Boeing Company @ #4 Boeing 787 Dreamliner
http://www.aviation.com/travel/top10-notablepostwar-1.html


The Battle Between Airbus And Boeing

"Why Airbus is losing altitude" (News: European Business, June 20) was an interesting article that highlighted the current problems encountered by the leader in civil aviation manufacture. In the same issue of the magazine there is an article lauding Boeing and its 787 Dreamliner ("A plastic dream machine," News: The United States, June 20).

We have to look at both articles more closely. If we look at technology, Boeing, which has been dragging its feet for years, is trying to make a quantum leap to have the 787 become the first large composite civil airliner. Composite materials are a major part of the A380 strategy: The all-important central caisson of this plane is composite, as are many other major components, but the body and wings are still mostly aluminum. Boeing's 787 Dreamliner isn't flying yet, and revolutionary new technologies can lead to delays, as Airbus is discovering. The A380 is flying and will enter service, if a little late, in 18 months time. The wonderful new composite technology used in the B787 that may change this won't be flying in Boeing's livery until late 2008.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_28/c3942131_mz030.htm



BK
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Elger (Reply 1):
The part 2 is still not archived. As long this does not happen, some people will continue to post there, confusing the issues !!

I did post a link in that thread.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 5):
that doesn't sound right, and their website shows no orders in August and 47 in July and 236 sold Jan through August.

You're right. I meant to say 2007 was the best year.  embarrassed 

If Boeing has sold 200 787s in August, nobody would have cared about anything else Mike B. said on Wednesday. Big grin


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15598 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 5):
that doesn't sound right, and their website shows no orders in August and 47 in July and 236 sold Jan through August.

"Could be as late as November 2007" doesn't sound quite right either, but no point in being picky  Smile

Cheers


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 8):
"Could be as late as November 2007" doesn't sound quite right either, but no point in being picky.  Smile

I recall November as being the date while listening to the conference call. *shrug*


User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 15541 times:

they said first flight would be anywhere from mid november to mid december in the call.

Did they also not mention that the static test frame would be completed before LN002, a change from previous plans.


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 15487 times:

I think Boeing can pull this off. I like the strategy: Do all the ground testing that is possible right now, and once the 787s start to fly, fly them nonstop until May.

Boeing should try very hard to make the may 2008 Delivery date. Think of the confidence it would inspire in their next all composite project(737RS), and in the -10 / -11 or whatever else.


User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 15437 times:

They aren't really doing any ground testing right now. They are busy putting the plane together to get it ready for ground tests and later onto flight tests. Boeing has its plan for testing, and i doubt that the actual testing procedure is changing other than being compressed further. I hope there is lots of updates with respect to the flight testing. It will be interesting to read about what is happening and when.

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 15430 times:

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 6):
Such a revolution would require a new generation of smaller, lighter, quieter airliners.

I rather suspect that the 'revolution' is only just starting. Until quite recently, increased fuel economy through reduced weight was seen as the primary benefit that it offers. Even informed industry opinion reckoned that all-composite construction was mainly going to be relevant to midsize ultra-longhaul types - that the extra cost and complication would rule out applying the technology to city-hopping single-aisles, because improved fuel economy has much less effect on operating cost for those.

Now some other advantages are emerging - in particular the fact that the strength of the new material appears to be exceeding all expectations (witness the 'unbreakable' 787 wing). It also seems likely that the new material will reach a 'fatigue floor' at which it will stabilise, allowing a given aeroplane safely to accumulate far more pressurisation/de-pressurisation cycles than aluminium types can. That won't be 'proved out' until fatigue testing of the 787 is completed; but my guess is that Boeing will seek to continue that testing to maybe double the 'normal' number of cycles.

City-hoppers accumulate cycles much more quickly than longhaul types; and often have to be retired not because they show any sign of being worn out, but because the 'book' says that they've reached the end of their working life. So, if it can be shown that all-composite construction can increase (for argument's sake, maybe double?) that working life, the method will HAVE to be extended to cover all types of pressurised civil aircraft very quickly.

There have really been only two fundamental 'step-changes' in civil airliner design - stressed-skin aluminium construction in the 1930s, and jet propulsion in the 1950s. It could very well be that all-composite construction (always assuming that Boeing manage to pull it off) will one day prove to have been the third one.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineEbbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15367 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 13):
It could very well be that all-composite construction (always assuming that Boeing manage to pull it off) will one day prove to have been the third one.

And will they pull it off NAV? Your unbiased opinion given that the issues Boeing has admitted to on the 787 sound serious even though they've communicated it in a muted fashion. Or is it just me?


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15357 times:

It occurred to me that there is a distinction between 'May 2008 EIS' and the less stringent 'May 2008 delivery'. I searched through Boeing's news archives, and I could not find anywhere that they promised anything else than delivery in May 2008. Usually, the press releases are worded even more appropriately, as "certification, EIS and delivery in 2008". All references to May 2008 EIS are from sources other than Boeing (the press, a.net, etc.)

I have added this distinction between delivery and EIS to my comparative timetable, originally posted in part 2 of this thread. Detailed notes provided in my previous post: Boeing Execs To Provide 787 Update, Part 2 (by IAD787 Sep 4 2007 in Civil Aviation)

The 787 EIS dates are now estimated by adding 3 weeks to the delivery date. The dates for power-on of the 777 and A380 are estimates because I only had the month when this milestone occurred, not the exact day.

I also added a chart for more intuitive (graphic?) comparison. I left the A380 out of the chart because it blew everything out of proportion (for obvious reasons ), and focused on the 777 to 787 comparison.

787 Timetable Comparison (updated)


Food for thought.

[edit]grammatical error[/edit]

[Edited 2007-09-07 06:49:52]

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15311 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 209):
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 206):
Everything is derivative.

Not so. Raytheon were the first to have a composite fuse aircraft! ATR were the first to use a composite wing box. As for your example, it is not even close... wheels vs logs allowed much greater speed and mobility... there was a huge leap, a revolutionary leap. Please point out where the 787 will have the same revolutionary effect!!

Careful how you word things. Burt Rutan was building all-composite aircraft long before the Starship was a gleam in Mrs. Beech's eye. The Windecker Eagle was, I believe, the first production composite aircraft built (I admit I could be wrong about this).

The first all-composite jet was built by Honda and Mississippi State University.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15289 times:

Was there any word on build rate? AvWk reported earlier they planned to have 40 aircraft (above test A/C) built by EIS date.

User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15289 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
I also added a chart for more intuitive (graphic?) comparison. I left the A380 out of the chart because it blew everything out of proportion (for obvious reasons ), and focused on the 777 to 787 comparison.

If you had data relating to the 747-400, it might be a little more representative of the 787 pickle. Power on occured well after rollout.

Regards,


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4782 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15271 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 10):

Did they also not mention that the static test frame would be completed before LN002, a change from previous plans.



Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 12):
They aren't really doing any ground testing right now. They are busy putting the plane together to get it ready for ground tests and later onto flight tests. Boeing has its plan for testing, and i doubt that the actual testing procedure is changing other than being compressed further. I hope there is lots of updates with respect to the flight testing. It will be interesting to read about what is happening and when.

What then does the news heading "Boeing says 787 fuselage test a success" mean?.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...vX8AAAEAACIzzOUAAAAD&modele=jdc_34

[Edited 2007-09-07 07:18:19]


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15251 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
The word "revolutionary" is hyperbole, but the 787 is a significant advance in commercial aviation. I put it on par with the 707 as a milestone in the evolution of jet transports. You seem to argue that it's all been done before, but it hasn't all been combined at once in a project of this significance...not even close.

We agree... "revolutionary" is certainly hyperbole. In one of my original posts I said that the significance is that Boeing is combining a variety of proven technologies and processes into a large commercial airliner.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 3):
The end result is not a revolution in air travel, but it does mark a change in the way we will build airliners from now on.

That it WAS a revolution in air travel is the point that was originally made by someone... and when he couldn't support the assertion he went off on this tangent of how revolutionary the aircraft is! However, apart from the high CFRP content, I don't agree that it does mark a change in the way we will build airliners from now on.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 16):
Careful how you word things. Burt Rutan was building all-composite aircraft long before the Starship was a gleam in Mrs. Beech's eye.

Yes, I know. But he didn't use a mandrel to wind the CFRP around as Raytheon and, now, Boeing use... and that was the obvious point... not the use of CFRP.  Smile



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineElger From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 15248 times:

I have not seen this herenor on Part 2

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/06/ap4091000.html
Boeing Says 787 Fuselage Test a Success
By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE 09.06.07, 5:37 PM ET

Elger


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 15205 times:

Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 14):
And will they pull it off NAV? Your unbiased opinion given that the issues Boeing has admitted to on the 787 sound serious even though they've communicated it in a muted fashion. Or is it just me?

Short answer is, EbbUK, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.  Smile Not even Boeing management, everyone is working on 'estimates' for the moment.

Anything could happen in the next few months - up to and including 'catastrophic failure' of some part of the aeroplane during ground or flight testing.

So far, though, Boeing's problems seem to be entirely in the area of integrating the supply chain (particularly in the fields of fasteners and 'pre-stuffing') rather than any emerging design problems. Recent big successes for Boeing are that the 'out-sourced' parts all snapped together almost perfectly (in the case of the wings, literally perfectly) and that crash tests so far have vindicated both the design methods and the proposed evaluation techniques.

On present indications I'd put the chances of the underlying design proving itself valid at 95% or better. I see a bigger question-mark over whether Boeing can reach their planned 'one every three days' production rate on time (i.e. 2009 on) a shade lower; I see the chances as say 80% at the moment.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMach3 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 15133 times:

Boeing will prevail!!!!! No other aircraft manufacture makes any finer aircraft. The longevity of Boeing aircraft is a proven fact!!!! The B-52 is over 50 yrs. Look at the years and thousands of hours the KC-135 has flown (really a 707), if you like it or not no other airplane maker can make that claim. How many European commercial aircraft are still flying in pax. service? 707, 727. 737-1 are still flying.

Boeing is just playing safe to make sure what they build is as good as they can make it from the start. Almost all aircraft have teething problems after introduction, some worse then others. The 787 will fly loner, better!

This new outsourcing program was bound to have problems, just like any other new manufacturing process, at last Boeing had the guts to attempt it, and in the long run will prove its ability to spread the load with others in the industry in development of new products. The 787 will be airborne is shoter time the the Whale Jet!



If you pull on the Tiger's tail, better be prepared for him to bite you in the ARSE
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 14929 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
First flight for LN0001 could be as late as November 2007 at this time.

They said it could be as late as December and that is still optimistic.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 9 hours ago) and read 14647 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
Note - I have received permission from the moderators to start a new thread on the 787 Program Update provided by the Boeing Company on September 5, 2007 as the current one has exceeded 200 posts.

I started a less neutral titled thread: "Second Delay 787 Could Cause Certification Issues" a few hours BEFORE this one & it got deleted because of double post with reference to this one  Wow! This is a way things can be fixed. I think it is disrespecting everyone who added to it before deletion.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 1):
Also the 787 will go down in the history books as revolutionary regardless of any opinion here. Search the NASA site. It has already been decided.

 Smile Since when does (deeply involved) NASA determine what goes down as revolutionairy in History ?  Big grin

Lets leave that to to the public opinion over a longer term OK?

I think the 787 is a great aircraft but not a game changer and many with me.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2664716


Back to the topic I thing the analists / press are turning a soft eye at Boeing at this moment.. e.g. many are saying a two month delay.. in general I think the uncritical / carefull / respectfull way they are simply repeating what Carson / Bair / Randy say, without questioning is less then impressive journalism.

From what I heard it is possible composite structure was damaged when bad rivets were replaced on the 787.

New issues like this that delay the first flight could cause the FAA to have a deeper look at e.g. repair procedures / strenght testing involving damaged composites structures, requiring additional time.

Boeing said it has no remaining slack in the program if further issues surface.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2003871017_boeing06.html

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
Quoting Ebbuk (Reply 14):
And will they pull it off NAV? Your unbiased opinion given that the issues Boeing has admitted to on the 787 sound serious even though they've communicated it in a muted fashion. Or is it just me?

Short answer is, EbbUK, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Not even Boeing management, everyone is working on 'estimates' for the moment.

I think (hope) Boeing knows much more then they are communicating and that the analists / press are surprizingly soft / encouraging / understanding, like in this Seattle Times article on this second delay resulting into up to 4 months later start of flight testing.

I don´t share the IMO unfounded optimism with regards to entry into service of the 787.

- Composites aren´t easier to certify then metal fuselages, contrary.
- Compared to e.g. the 777 the 787 introduces more new systems / technology.
- The supply chain is probably less under control because Boeing outsourced more then just manufacturing.
- Completing a test program in winter conditions 24/7 with less aircraft isn´t the kind of solid time line I think the FAA likes.
- Many on a.net have been saying Boeing simply must speak the truth (legistation) & therefor it is the truth they are communicating. Boeing was very optimistic on the first flight for years but now has confirmed they were wrong twice. I think we have to spell out their words carefully & not fly blind on what they say again.

Adding all I don´t think flight testing / certification will require less time then on the 777 and a september / october 2008 delivery of the first Boeing 787 to ANA with restricted operational capabilities doesn´t seem an unlikely / unreasonable scenario to me. I hope a production ramp up after that will be realized (remember that´s where A380
problems started..).

I'm 100% sure Boeing & the FAA will do a good job on the testing & certification of the 787. Safety First remains the most important guideline in Aerospace. As a result time to market is less important.



25 Andhen : I think that Boeing will push forward the first flight date even further when we come to mid december. If the plane flies in mid december, I guess we
26 Parapente : Firstly no aircraft can be described as revolutionary until it does what its supposed to do - AIRcraft. There is a clue in there somewhere. Having sai
27 Post contains images Glideslope : Very good guess IMO. I was wondering the same thing. The Flight Software should not a huge deal as the 787, as far as I have seen, is not an inherent
28 Abba : That is true as far as Boeing is concered - Airbus has been building aircrafts by joining pre assembleled sections ever since the 320... You might ta
29 Scbriml : It can be argued that Concorde did revolutionise air travel, but only for those that could afford to fly it. Getting from London to New York in half
30 Joni : This group of people is negligible. The Concorde was a cold-war era curiosity, similar in relative weight to the Republic of San Marino on the global
31 EbbUK : It is still very optimistic of you. Mind you Boeing will just pump billions of extra dosh to get the job done. So the development costs will shoot th
32 DAYflyer : What the heck does that mean?
33 Ncelhr : Of course, that's what they'd like you to believe. There's still a lot of non-composite keeping it together. Uh? These statements are all unconnected
34 Post contains images Stitch : I see nothing that says Boeing can't. The 787's initial production is late, but so far nothing has come to light that says the plane is fundamentally
35 Stitch : Why even make a statement like this? [incredulous] It should be, I would think, obvious that Boeing and the FAA (as well as Airbus and the EASA), eve
36 Stitch : What the heck does that mean? It's a fancy way of saying Boeing does not know with full certainty which fasteners installed on LN0001 are "flight-wor
37 ScrubbsYWG : They dropped a 10 foot section of fuselage from a height of 15 metres. As far as i am concerned, 'ground testing' means taxi tests, braking tests, po
38 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Someone posted "will revolutionize air travel", and my original intent was to respond to that post...but work got in the way (what a bother!). The 78
39 Swallow : And we look forward to seeing those wings flex in flight. It will be quite a sight!
40 Post contains links NAV20 : The optimism comes partly from having had a lot of fun in my working life by being involved in similar projects, EbbUK - buildings, not aeroplanes, b
41 Planemaker : Not neccessarily... the CSeries will not have a composite fuse (if the program is ever launched!) Do not misunderstand me... I think that the 787 is
42 Dakota123 : Didn't I read somewhere that flight control software had been preliminarily checked out on a leased AA 777? Dakota123
43 Sphealey : The problem being that that is an inevitable outcome of combining "lean" with "supply chain management" (or its predecessor, "vendor optimization").
44 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Well...a cynic might argue that the C-Series pre-dates the 787.
45 CaptainX : Look, if something as basic as fasteners, and as fundamental as documenting what types are where, has flipped the program on its back for 6 months, im
46 Stitch : While it would not be immediate, total failure of the 787 program would indeed end Boeing Commercial Airplanes because they could not afford to produc
47 Post contains images TeamAmerica : So...you have nothing specific at all? Just your gut feeling? That's what I suspected, but given that some A.Netter's have declared you "100%" reliab
48 Super98 : Speaking of Boeing longevity -- and I do agree that they are designed to last longer than Airbus products, but not as long as McDonnell Douglas produ
49 Stitch : This is the same fallacy those who blindly disparage the A380 make: "If they can't get something as basic as the wiring right, how can they possibly
50 BoomBoom : I thought they already launched and signed firm contracts. You think they would withdraw it a second time? How?
51 BlackKnight : Nice dodge, I bet it is the only way you could denounce NASA. NASA uses the following points: (Use them to make your point) What is Revolutionary? Th
52 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW that's just about the best post I've ever read on Airliners.net. Superb. Like you, I feel (strongly) that it would be remiss (of us) to make the
53 NADC10Fan : I'm curious: If this is so - and I have no reason to doubt the reportage - would it perhaps simply be wiser to remove EVERY fastener now on the aircr
54 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Thanks, BlackKnight. That's an interesting definition of "revolutionary". Applying these attributes to the 787: 1) Yes - it is the whole of the effor
55 BlackKnight : As I noted in reply #2 1. The 787 is the first wide body full composite airliner. With no bi-pass air. 2. Full assembly of stuffed sub-sections from
56 Post contains images HawkerCamm : A catastrophe can only be the loss of one or more flight test aircraft? So do you think the 787 will................. "crash"? Come on... It will mak
57 Wsp : If these assumptions are substantiated in any way, please immediately contact the FAA to prevent this from happening.
58 Thorben : Great work, thanks. I must say I start doubting that the EIS and the delivery dates of the 787 will be met. Power-on and first flight still have not
59 Drahnreb : The big question is if the first airplane is missing fastners, what about the others? In the rush to push body sections to Everett were the partners d
60 Post contains images Stitch : I thought they already launched and signed firm contracts. You think they would withdraw it a second time? If CFRP is so dangerous, as Captain X beli
61 Post contains images Stitch : I like to think the lessons of Comet and the aerospace industry's version of "Sub Safe" will prevent such a thing happening with the 787, the A350, o
62 Post contains images Planemaker : Oh, well, you can call me a cynic then since I have, in the distant past, called the CSeries a warmed over BRJ-X! (Though they have switched the wing
63 Post contains images Ncelhr : I am thoroughly enjoying this thread! Some participants have definitely been smoking the right stuff. You are 100% correct on this one. It is in nobod
64 Post contains links BlackKnight : Strange I didn't take you as one to blindly seek to be flamed. The program NIAC was funded as many by NASA for a limited time http://www.niac.usra.ed
65 Post contains images TeamAmerica : That is true. The weight advantages of CFRP tend to be overstated. On the other hand, the manufacturing advantages of CFRP with automated layup and s
66 Post contains images Planemaker : If your post is an attempt to flame then I am still waiting to feel just a bit of heat!!! Look, you still haven't listed a valid reason why the 787 i
67 Abba : Not even - yes... Most likely not. However, I wonder if there is a price to pay when Boing plans to compress the test flight period as much as they d
68 JoeCanuck : I agree with the assertion that the 787 is revolutionary, at least in construction. It's a similar step as going from wood, to steel tube and fabric,
69 BlackKnight : I am sorry you persist in your attempt to degrade the level here to flaming each other. I paid you a complement and suggested you research the issue
70 GeorgeJetson : Although the KC-135 and the 707 look very much alike, in many ways they are quite different: The fuselage cross section on the 707 is wider. I am sur
71 Planemaker : It is appreciated because Raytheon has been doing it for 10 years and that is what makes the higher cost CFRP viable versus cheaper aluminum alloys..
72 TeamAmerica : That's exactly the assertion that is being challenged. If experience with the 787 shows greater advantages to CFRP than expected, then we can derive
73 Planemaker : I haven't read nor heard of it being challenged anywhere... but I would be interested in any article if there is one. On the other hand, a good indic
74 WingedMigrator : This comparison (previously also made by Zvezda) is a bit extreme. The switch to aluminum was also a switch to efficient stressed-skin semi-monocoque
75 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : For those who are wondering, here is one example of what a fastener looks like: Alcoa supplies more than one million fasteners. Several different type
76 Post contains images Astuteman : Without getting involved in this "revolutionary" discussion (well, it does go round-and-round.. ), it might be worth a reminder that the fuselage ski
77 Joni : One wonders, how you compute these probabilities.
78 Post contains images TeamAmerica : You heard it from me... We need to go back a few years to the debate within Boeing over construction of the 7E7. At the time, the conclusion was that
79 Planemaker : Oh, but there is a specific weight advantage to CFRP over aluminum alloys... on a weight basis it is stronger and, more specifically, CFRP monolithic
80 N14AZ : That's exactly what I was asking myself, too. I also remember that someone reported in part I of this thread that they were planning to build a consi
81 Post contains images WingedMigrator : What's interesting is that the 763ER weighs less, per seat, than any 787.
82 TeamAmerica : I will need to do a little research and test my recollections on the specific weight of CFRP vs. alloys. You are correct that the cost of manufacturi
83 Post contains images Astuteman : Ha! Fortunately, I know you know better...... For the others.... Another case of weight before wings............. The 763ER has a wingspan of 47.5m v
84 Pygmalion : The 787-8 has about 30% less wiring than the smaller 767-300ER...
85 NAV20 : Periodic maintenance is a large - and hitherto unavoidable - element of any airline's month-to-month operating costs. All the signs are that all-CFRP
86 EbbUK : If there is only one thing to remember you by NAV is for the fun you generate into the discussions on this site. I really get it so thanks, keep gene
87 NAV20 : Taking that at face value, EbbUK, I'll add a bit more. This '07-08-07' business takes me back to a Project Meeting on a 55-storey building in Melbour
88 Post contains images Baroque : Thanks BB, I was trying to summon up the courage to ask. Could you also tell us how that fiendish looking bit of apparatus is used? Also what sort of
89 Abba : Structual versus aerodynamic efficiency relative to operational efficiency - right? Abba
90 Post contains links ScrubbsYWG : take a look at the alcoa fasteners website http://www.alcoa.com/fastening_systems/aerospace/en/home.asp for some more pictures and some explanations(p
91 Mach3 : How many Comet's, Viscounts, Tridents, Nord's, Fooker's, BAC's in numbers as are Boeing's? European aviation and British manufactures went for the fas
92 XT6Wagon : It went from cheaper than a 767 to priced "market correct". One also notes that list price has nothing to do with real price, or the cost of manufact
93 Maersk737 : Fooker's ? Cheers Peter
94 Post contains images Planemaker : Before you post vague generalities you should first know a) what % of total operating costs maintenance represents, b) what % of maintenance does the
95 Joni : They're retired if there are more efficient planes that serve the intended purpose better. In that way they do go out of fashion but they still have
96 Post contains links Zeke : Interesting analysis of the Boeing call... http://www.iag-inc.com/pods/787confcall.mp3 Boeing did a good job of communicating what was going on Flight
97 AirNZ : A pretty much deluded and rather ludicrous statement.
98 HawkerCamm : Well I hope for Boeing's sake that they take European Commercial aviaition a lot more serious than you do. Did you know that Boeing has an Engineerin
99 Baroque : Thanks, now it is a mystery wrapped inside a PDF file. What happens if you take one out?
100 Astuteman : Not convinced of that - I suspect that there is usually a (loose) relationship in both cases....... Regards
101 Stitch : It may not be immediate, but some senior maintenance managers at airlines I have talked to believe it will be substantial and that does have some inf
102 ScrubbsYWG : Well, in my totally uneducated opinion of fasteners, if you look at a lot of them, they dont actually have helical threads. It is more just grooves a
103 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Thanks A'man for explaining the riddle. I just liked throwing it out there to trip up the CFRP pom-pom crowd I can just picture them feverishly grabb
104 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : I would tell you if I knew, but I don't. Perhaps one of our resident experts can answer your questions. By the way, that was only one fiendish exampl
105 Post contains images Baroque : Oh well, that seems to be two plus of us. The second one looks helical. If the other one does not have a helical thread, I imagine extracting it will
106 Post contains images Astuteman : What? you mean the 787 isn't a hollow CFRP flying tube without wings or engines??? The actions of airlines would seem to support this. The serious qu
107 Ncelhr : Although I agree that all information points to lower maintenance on CFRP than metal airframes, I am not sure about the "simpler to repair" assertion
108 Pygmalion : For those inquiring minds... re: BoomBoom's photo in reply 75 of the "sleeve bolt".... the stainless bit is the sleeve and is cylindrical on the outs
109 Pygmalion : Engines would not be 787 specific. The maintenance savings in out years to reduced corrosion maintenance is large... IMHO the larger savings is the r
110 Post contains images Stitch : My contacts won't tell me the specifics, just that they are impressed ( one noted he "almost wept with joy" ). I expect they want to keep it as close
111 Post contains links BoomBoom : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/business/06boeing.html
112 Post contains links NAV20 : In fairness, I think you have to add Geoffrey de Havilland to that list. Not only did he design the first jet airliner to enter service, the DH Comet
113 Post contains links and images Astuteman : Not data, but feedback. (Not so good, either (yet) ) Jetstar Warns On 787 Costs (by Scbriml Sep 10 2007 in Civil Aviation) Do you know any other name
114 Post contains links Bringiton : Some articles worth a read - Randy's new blog on the 787 confrence - www.boeing.com/randy Aviation week article which is quite comprehensive - http://
115 Stitch : I think the jury is still out on that one, but I have commented in that thread since it's more appropriate to do so.
116 Danny : Aboulafia gives Boeing a benefit of doubt. That's a surprise really.
117 Baroque : Well it was difficult to tell which was the business end of the item illustrated by BB. So the smooth part hides an expanding bolt if I understand yo
118 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Most of my postings are looking to the longer term. As I know you know, I'm very pessimistic on future energy costs. Interesting that you noted the A
119 Post contains links Drahnreb : Hi, on http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/ there is a new update about the latest issues in Everett.
120 Post contains images EbbUK : Quick get the Yorkshire man at Boeing pronto. Break up the Do take it at face-value, as it represents the value at which it was given. Sorry for dela
121 Drahnreb : Who has an objective update about the latest status?
122 Post contains images Stitch : Likely nobody on this forum based on the 787-related threads started subsequent to this one. Seriously, Boeing will be giving another 787 program upd
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...
787 Program Update posted Thu Nov 17 2005 11:27:47 by N1786b
Boeing Execs To Provide 787 Update, Part 2 posted Tue Sep 4 2007 22:20:56 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part V III posted Mon Aug 6 2007 01:51:24 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed W/ Pics) - Part III posted Wed Jun 13 2007 19:00:28 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part VII posted Sun Jul 22 2007 01:23:24 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part VI posted Sat Jun 23 2007 04:20:10 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part V posted Fri Jun 22 2007 02:52:46 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part IV posted Fri Jun 15 2007 17:09:25 by IAD787
Risks Faced By The Boeing 787 Program posted Fri Jun 8 2007 13:01:50 by Deaphen
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part II posted Tue Jun 5 2007 16:00:23 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed) - Part V III posted Mon Aug 6 2007 01:51:24 by IAD787
787 Assembly Update (Detailed W/ Pics) - Part III posted Wed Jun 13 2007 19:00:28 by IAD787
B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 2 posted Wed Nov 9 2011 00:55:42 by NZ1
B737Max Specs, Boeing Provide Update - Part 1 posted Wed Nov 2 2011 08:27:39 by odwyerpw