Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Flightblogger: New 787 Milestones For Early 2009  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21131 times:

Our fravorite 787 blogger got ahold of some great new information on the upcoming milestones for the 787.

Read it here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ew-year-to-bring-dreamliner-o.html

Among the immediate milestones:

Dreamliner1 leaves the final assembly floor for the last time and will go to the 767 final assembly area for one month to finish up some assembly tasks and fastener replacements.

Lots more...


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21087 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So ZA001 is finally "complete" at this stage? As in she has all her parts, all the right fasteners, and such?

User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21031 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
So ZA001 is finally "complete" at this stage? As in she has all her parts, all the right fasteners, and such?

No she won't be factory complete until the end of January I believe.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineVirginblue4 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 21006 times:

I cant wait to see this beauty up in the sky!

Jordan



The amazing tale of flight.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20906 times:

It seems they are dealing with the fastener issue one by one.

It therefor could be the available aircraft capasity for flight testing is lower then foreseen.

Likely Boeing cannot compress the flight test program.



Is there a new date for completion of the flight test program and certification process?


User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 20795 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Is there a new date for completion of the flight test program and certification process?

I seem to remember there will be a quarterly update in January for the stockholders - you know, those people who demand short term financial performance in an industry that deals with long product cycles, thereby compromising the success of the business. Smile

I expect a program update will given then.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 20376 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
It seems they are dealing with the fastener issue one by one.

So it seems indeed...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
It therefor could be the available aircraft capasity for flight testing is lower then foreseen.

It is a logic consequence...

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Is there a new date for completion of the flight test program and certification process?

Not officially, but the ones still standing today aren't realistic anymore given the above information...

Quoting Art (Reply 5):
I seem to remember there will be a quarterly update in January for the stockholders; I expect a program update will given then.

I expect yet another 3-month delay to be announced there, not on FF this time, but on EIS...


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 20358 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
It seems they are dealing with the fastener issue one by one.



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 6):
So it seems indeed...

Eh?

"Paced by fastener replacement, the Global Aeronautica integrated center fuselage section, remains in Charleston. In some cases, excessive fastener over sizing has forced the replacement of key titanium parts that need to be installed prior to delivery, says a Charleston-based source familiar with the issue."


User currently offlineR12055p From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 20220 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
Likely Boeing cannot compress the flight test program.

The probably won't be able to reduce the time for the actual flight tests, but they have already begun static airframe testing. This will significantly reduce the overall time-till-certification on the 787. So while they don't have a flying airframe, they can and have reduced the delays for testing and certification.


User currently offlineFlyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 582 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 20185 times:

I still believe that we will end up with a 12-15 months flight test program.
Given that first flight is in April and the other birds will not be completed as previously planned I expect EIS actually between July 2010 and Sept 2010, Q3/ 2010 so to say.

This is an armchair CEO opinion, but so far the armchair CEO's have been proved better in forecast then the none armchair CEO.

regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19773 times:



Quoting Virginblue4 (Reply 3):
I cant wait to see this beauty up in the sky!

Considering that Boeing is now closer to first flight than it ever has been... how many people are expected to be around Paine come the first flight? Are people planning to go out especially to see 787 fly? I'd wager there are not many good venues for the public to see the plane from Paine.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 10):
I'd wager there are not many good venues for the public to see the plane from Paine.

Never been to PAE, have you?  Wink

The Museum of Future Flight and it's parking lot both overlook the factory, the paintshops, the entire flight-line and the runway. It is a favorite spot (pun) for spotters to watch operations and parked planes. There are also other areas to watch flight operations at both ends of the runway, so whichever way she takes off and lands, you'll be able to see her in all her glory.  thumbsup 


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17130 times:

Well right now LN 1 doesn't seem to be the long pole in the tent but LN 2 certainly is. If Boeing can make very good progress on LN 2 then they have a shot at meeting certification and EIS targets.


The other long pole would be LN 5 as that is the GEnx test aircraft and the fuselage sections for that airplane won't start arriving until the end of this month.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16933 times:

What is the difference between the final assembly floor and the final assembly area?

LN 1 has been in final assembly for 590 days and some people still think that Boeing can assemble a 787 in three days?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16886 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
LN 1 has been in final assembly for 590 days and some people still think that Boeing can assemble a 787 in three days?

There's a big difference between the time to assemble the 1st and the time to assemble the 100th, etc.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16866 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
What is the difference between the final assembly floor and the final assembly area?

Nothing. The 787 FAL in Building 40-26 encompasses four positions where planes are actually produced as well as a pre-staging area where parts are stored prior to be moving to the first production position.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
LN 1 has been in final assembly for 590 days and some people still think that Boeing can assemble a 787 in three days?

Because ZA001 was the first plane and it became the worst-case scenario. No 787 should take that long to build, including ZA002.

And over time, the production process shrinks significantly as the line reaches natural efficiencies. Boeing can build a 777-200A today significantly faster then they built the first one.

And even when at optimum flow-through, Boeing will not build a 787 in three days. It will spend longer then that at all four positions, but the flow will be that every three days a plane will enter Position One as a plane exits Position 4


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 16746 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And even when at optimum flow-through, Boeing will not build a 787 in three days. It will spend longer then that at all four positions, but the flow will be that every three days a plane will enter Position One as a plane exits Position 4

And thus one would say it spends 12 days in final assembly.

I think Boeing could have used this number instead of the 3 day number.

It'd sound a lot more plausible, and thus would need less explaining.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16694 times:



Quoting 474218 (Reply 13):
some people still think that Boeing can assemble a 787 in three days?

Some people will continue thinking that for a long, long time.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
The other long pole would be LN 5 as that is the GEnx test aircraft and the fuselage sections for that airplane won't start arriving until the end of this month.

Will they arrive requiring no remedial work, and fully stuffed? If that is the case, how long will it take to assemble LN5 - less than a month?


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16673 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):

And thus one would say it spends 12 days in final assembly.

I think Boeing could have used this number instead of the 3 day number.

It'd sound a lot more plausible, and thus would need less explaining.

What Boeing actually said was "Ultimately, a 787 will roll out of the factory every three days."
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q2/070521c_nr.html

This is entirely accurate, and entirely plausible. It's exactly the same as the statement that Boeing builds about 1.5 737's per day. I'm not sure where in the press that got screwed up into "building a 787 in three days" but it wasn't Boeing that said that.

Tom.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5762 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16673 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 16):
Will they arrive requiring no remedial work, and fully stuffed? If that is the case, how long will it take to build - less than a month? I guess it will be longer if a lot of test equipment needs to be installed.

Nope, there will be some traveled work. It is expected that LN 7 will arrive with 98% of all the required work done and LN 8 will arrive with 0 traveled work and thus setting the stage for the start of production as Boeing has originally envisioned.

The amount of traveled work should decrease from LN 5 to LN 7.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16591 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And even when at optimum flow-through, Boeing will not build a 787 in three days. It will spend longer then that at all four positions, but the flow will be that every three days a plane will enter Position One as a plane exits Position 4

You expect it to take 12 days to build a plane now? At that rate, with 5 day work weeks, they'd only be able to get 7 planes a months off the line.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16468 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 21):
You expect it to take 12 days to build a plane now? At that rate, with 5 day work weeks, they'd only be able to get 7 planes a months off the line.

Boeing runs three shifts and I believe they run them seven days a week, which would mean 10 planes a month (assuming one leaves the line every third day and 30 days in a month).


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16459 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 19):
I'm not sure where in the press that got screwed up into "building a 787 in three days" but it wasn't Boeing that said that.

Come on...Boeing said at multiple instances that it would take three days to assemble a 787. At some point Boeing started to back-pedal and said they planned for an intermediate objective of six days to be reached by LN100.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/316621_dreamliner22.html
"Eventually, Boeing hopes to deliver a finished Dreamliner after only three days in final assembly. It should be able to reduce the flow time to six days in final assembly by the 100th plane, said to Steve Westby, vice president of manufacturing and quality for the 787 program."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ing-begins-787-final-assembly.html
"Boeing is planning to reach a six-day completion rate, but ultimately plans to cut this to just three days. Initial manufacturing will be done on a ‘pulse’ basis, although it has the potential to become a moving line like the 737 and 777 setup. The first aircraft will take about seven weeks to assemble."

Re Jon's latest article:
"The recently mounted twin Rolls-Royce Trent 1000s are new-build engines, not the ones originally re-hung earlier this year, having come off the line in September 2008."

So what was wrong with the first pair of engines?

"In some cases, excessive fastener over sizing has forced the
replacement of key titanium parts that need to be installed prior to delivery, says a Charlestonbased source familiar with the issue."


Wouldn't that still leave oversized holes in the skin?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 23):
So what was wrong with the first pair of engines?

Maybe the original engines, lacking lubrication of their moving parts for so long (being inactive), need to be re-built?


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 16384 times:

I remember Boeing spokesmen quoted as saying "Assembled in three days", but with four positions that doesn't really make much sense.
I've never known the media to misquote anyone or get a fact wrong, but I suppose that could be the first.



Andy Goetsch
25 474218 : What I questioned? What I asked! What you answered. So please explain how LN 1 can be moved for the assembly floor for one last time and go to the fin
26 474218 : I knew all this, just thought I would stir the pot a little, and as you see it worked. But it continues to amazes me that some people actually believ
27 Stitch : Got it now. ZA001 is being moved from the 787 assembly area to the 767 assembly area. Since 767 production is so low, Boeing never uses both final 76
28 474218 : Is the plan to install the 787 interior on the final assembly line or will it be installed they go to a different location for interior fitment?
29 Stitch : I would expect it is installed at assembly time on the FAL. This is usually done on the 767 and 777, as well, but the AI birds, for example, had thei
30 EPA001 : Well, to use the space which is free on the B767 line is a good move to avoid any further delays on the B787. Like I said in another thread before I h
31 PlanesNTrains : Since the person asking didn't say it, let me just say Thank you for explaining this. I was wondering the same thing. -Dave[Edited 2009-01-01 12:19:0
32 AirNZ : Well now, Boeing themselves clearly said they could.......should we not have believed them?
33 PlanesNTrains : Well, after reading the various quotes, it is pretty clear that people are taking - in some cases, for their own purposes - the EVENTUAL goal of a 3
34 Post contains links Zeke : From the current 787 "Program Fact Sheet", http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html At times we have had legitimate reasons to qu
35 Tdscanuck : As far as I know, they only normally run five days a week (although the third shift on Friday would bleed into Saturday). I expect the 787 might run
36 Flyglobal : Please don't forget that increasing the speed workhours, floorspace etc. at Boeing will not increase the production. This may work at a 777 and 737 b
37 Tdscanuck : Sorry about that, Zeke...you and I posted less than a minute apart and I didn't see your reply before I sent mine. Yep, that Boeing post is absurd...
38 Gsosbee : If the work is done 24/7 that means they can assemble one every 72 hours (3 days). Not sure about that, especially during 2009. The one every 3 days m
39 A10WARTHOG : Boeing does not count Saturday and Sunday as manufacturing days. It is 3 shifts, 5 days a week. (3rd starts on Sunday night and the week ends on Frid
40 Rheinbote : Numerous statements by Steve Westby, Mike Bair and Pat Shanahan that at least aimed to create the impression that Boeing aims for an assembly flow ti
41 QFFlyer : Not really, it is the way YOU interpret what is being said. To me it is very clear that one 787 will come off production every 3 days, not one will b
42 Art : I never knew that 777's were assembled so quickly. You make a good point - I always had the impression (from the Boeing PR, I presume) that the pre-s
43 Post contains links Rheinbote : http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070707/ai_n19356965 "Boeing has said it will deliver 112 of the 787s during its first two years of
44 Nomadd22 : True. It would just make the routine a lot more complicated. Moving once a day or once every two days at the end of the same shift, the same shifts w
45 AirbusA370 : Could it be that there is a bottleneck at Boeing caused by something that simple than the limited assembly space? What's this moving of the 787s to th
46 Nomadd22 : Why wouldn't they use an empty assembly position on the 767 line? The bottleneck is that they need to get the procedures wrung out before they go ful
47 Post contains links 474218 : The attached sketch shows the 787 finial assembly line. For those that say Boeing is going to assemble a 787 in three days, could you show me how airf
48 AirbusA370 : Well, experience has shown that there is no real routine in aircraft building. What if, for example, one supplier delivers the customer specific gall
49 Stitch : Boeing deals with these types of problems by moving the plane to other buildings within the PAE complex. Before 40-26 was converted to the 787 FAL, 7
50 Tdscanuck : Boeing doesn't have the facilities at Everett, as far as I know, to run the engine without it being on an aircraft. Those are at RR. If you want to p
51 ER757 : I'm saving a vacation day from work specifically for this purpose. Of course I saved one in 2008 and finally had to "use it or lose it" at the end of
52 Post contains links Brendows : That is the times it takes from the sections are placed at the end of the moving assembly line till the aircraft rolls out of the FAL? (and not inclu
53 Post contains links 474218 : Then what does the next to last paragraph of this Boeing press release mean? http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q2/070521c_nr.html I am still
54 AirNZ : And perfectly equally, one can point to it being the way YOU want to interpret it. It is also very clear what the Boeing 787 Program Fact Sheet state
55 Tdscanuck : Yes, it is. It's not at all clear whether the fact sheet is correct though. The problem is that other Boeing press materials, written and produced by
56 Post contains links Rheinbote : I'd go along with an earlier post by Nomadd22: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo..._aviation/read.main/4220151/1/#117 "The line doesn't operate 30
57 Scbriml : But the application of common sense helps (not suggesting you don't have any!) It's already been confirmed that Boeing works a 5-day week, so, on ave
58 Scbriml : Alternatively, you could explain why, using your "three days per station" scenario, it would take Boeing as long to assemble pre-stuffed 787s as it d
59 EPA001 : You left one factor out here imho. If the time to assemble the B787 is indeed identical to the B777, but if they can do it with only 25 to 50% of the
60 Scbriml : I did consider that, but IMHO, the savings to be made there are minimal. The production line would cost just as much for Boeing to run whether it was
61 OyKIE : Have the 787 been moved just yet? Did anyone get some pictures of the plane movement?
62 Post contains links Nycbjr : check our Flightblogger http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/ Nice Video of LN1 moving out
63 Post contains links 474218 : Because the 777 assembly line has more work stations. Actually the 777 line moves like a automobile production line only very slowly. But rather than
64 Scbriml : But, one every three days still only gets you 7 per month. As far as I can recollect, Boeing has always been aiming at 10 per month, and before the p
65 Tdscanuck : Same rate, *far* less resources. Anyone who doesn't see how big as deal this is for the 787 needs to take the Everett factory tour and compare the 77
66 Pygmalion : The goal is a 3-day assembly, one day in each of the first 3 positions. The fourth is a just in case. 1 day join, 1 day for gear, engine instl and pow
67 AirNZ : I would completely agree with you Tom, and the point of my post was that it is incorrect to state that one's personal interpretation is definitive wh
68 Tdscanuck : Absolutely agreed. I appologize if my reply came off as aggressive, that wasn't what I intended. Tom.
69 Revelation : I guess we're arguing about definitions. In your example, I'd say it took X days to build a given P-38, not one day. It's the same in computer networ
70 Rheinbote : Absolutely no need to apologize. You are fully right about the ambiguity of press releases and trade press reports on the matter. I wasn't really awa
71 AirNZ : Not a problem in the slightest Tom, and I certainly detected no aggressiveness at all so no need to apologise whatever. Actually, I was only explaini
72 474218 : I will take you word for your explanation of 'bandwidth' and 'latency' since you are a software engineer, a subject I know next to nothing about. Sin
73 Art : Do you know, I am quite touched to see such an open expression of civilisation on a.net.[Edited 2009-01-04 15:56:12]
74 A10WARTHOG : Pipe dream! So you only give two days for functional test. I do not see it happening.
75 IAD787 : I think the real problem here is that the fact sheet has been poorly worded for about three years now. What's meant by "every 3 days" is how frequentl
76 Gsosbee : Thank you Jon.
77 EPA001 : Oh yes. You can be sure that this helps. That should end that discussion . Now how much shorter is this assembly time compared to a B777? Then we kno
78 474218 : Thanks Jon, That is exactly what I have been saying for over two years. Carl
79 Rheinbote : No, not really. Could you please elaborate a little how you get to a 10/month rate from there with a single production line? Is this calendar days?
80 Osiris30 : Rheinbote: Yes that's calendar days. You have a new frame entering/exiting the above system every 3 calendar days, hence 10/month.
81 IAD787 : If you assume you're already at full production and on day 0 you already have four positions filled it comes to 10 a month. So by the time the airplan
82 Ikramerica : I agree that it has always been stated in a way that made it sound like 3 days from start to finish, but production number goals alone would indicate
83 Post contains images Keesje : The bad fasteners were installed on the testframe. That's were the problems surfaced. Earlier on there were problem with the wingbox that had to be st
84 Tdscanuck : In the past, you keep going with cycles after the modification. I don't see why they'd change it this time. No aircraft should ever survive the fatig
85 Pygmalion : 1) that is the static test not the fatigue test. The fatigue test article is on the flight line. the static frame is not "cycled" 2) At least until yo
86 Rheinbote : Okay then, here's another "unofficial" official word on flows, from 2006. Quote: "Flows at maturity – wing-body join through roll out (Manufacturin
87 Art : I'm convinced. I always thought the aim was 1 x 787 emerging from the FAL every 3 working days. Now I see the aim (at LN100) is 1 x 787 emerging from
88 474218 : Is this basically what you say will happen? It is only going to take one day (two eight hours shifts) to move the three major sections of the fuselag
89 Tdscanuck : All of the scaffolding and most of the stands are artifacts of the travelled work. Almost all of that should disappear when the final assembly line i
90 Post contains links Rheinbote : No, this is what Boeing says (said?) is the target. Personally, I think the concept and the technologies behind it are sound, but in practice everyth
91 Ckfred : Assuming that Boeing does get the flight testing going before the end of Q2, what is the chance that Boeing will have a Dreamliner on display at the a
92 Rheinwaldner : I agree that bad fasteners weaken the structure thus passed tests are anyway valid. But here is a problem: The measurements are also used to validate
93 Art : I see there could be a problem here as Rheinwalder points out. Will Boeing need to redo the test to get valid data for analysis? In particular I thin
94 Nomadd22 : That would only be the case if the failure point had something to do with the out of spec fasteners. It seems like most of the reasons I here for fai
95 Parapente : I note that Boeing now accept that the "20% better" claim only relates to the 767. And they now also accept (prior to flight testing) that it will be
96 474218 : The "bad" fasteners were not under strength, they were installed improperly. The improper installation would effect the joint strength but could effe
97 Khobar : They've said that for years now. And I'm not sure the original claim against the A330 is wrong if you use the right parameters. The number of A350XWB
98 Art : I'm starting to think they should have done both the A350XWB and a "cheap and cheerful" XWB engined A330. An A330XWB would cannibalise fewer A350XWB
99 Zeke : I think that will still happen, just no real point at the moment as the existing aircraft has another 20t MTOW growth left in it.
100 Tdscanuck : Only if the original tests were also done with improperly assembled fasteners, which is probably unlikely. The whole mess with the fasteners appears
101 Rheinwaldner : Also at the 787 there is hardly any monolithic component. Typically components are made of many smaller components. And those are assembled with fast
102 474218 : If I remember correctly (which I do) the fastener problem was that the chamfer under the head of the fastener was omitted or too small. This cause th
103 Tdscanuck : You mean besides the fuselage barrels? The barrel skins and stringers are co-cured, then fastened. Which means the composite bond is the primary load
104 Astuteman : Possibly. The large number of A330 orders might point to a different answer.... In truth, I suspect the A350XWB didn't originate from Airbus looking
105 Rheinbote : ...and the horizontal stabilizer box! Wing covers are pretty large single-piece parts as well. [clever-bugger mode] Please note that the meaning of '
106 Revelation : Then we shouldn't have to worry about retesting previously passed tests, because this improper installation would be weaker than a proper installatio
107 474218 : If the test was passed who is going to fund a re-test?
108 Flighty : Source? Sorry, Boeing is not a believable source for 787 information. Recommend deletion... The A330 and A350 are different segments. The A350 is rea
109 Stitch : Boeing would be the one to pay for the re-tests, but have any certification tests been run on parts with incorrect fasteners installed? I expect Airb
110 Ikramerica : Agreed. They realized that customers wanted 6000nm aircraft now, and the A330 is a great aircraft for that. And it could always take new engines late
111 Khobar : Airbus realized customers wanted 6000nm aircraft now, so Airbus did...what exactly? Not close the line? I'm just not sure what Airbus had to realize
112 Tdscanuck : The fuselage barrels, horizontal stab box, and wing skins are all solid, not sandwich structures. So they're monolithic in the context you mean...now
113 Ikramerica : Khobar, why not read the whole statement and try to understand. They realized customers wanted 6000nm aircraft NOW, and thus scrapped the initial A33
114 Astuteman : I'd also suggest that when the "old A350" was first mooted, Airbus weren't faced with the cataclysmic ending of the A340NG's marketability. The "old
115 JoeCanuck : I find it interesting that while some of us tend to obsess about how one not yet flying, new fangled airplane is superior to another not yet flying ne
116 Rheinwaldner : But the frames are mounted. The barrels are "no single piece" part. Counting frames and fasteners to mount the frames you get a large number of singl
117 Keesje : Capasity also played a role. I think the A330-300 is 300 seater. The comparable 787-10 is not even on the horizon. Looking at recent A330 sales it al
118 Part147 : I've lurked around these boards through the height of the A vs B wars and have come to a similar conclusion... Today's new aircraft will eventually b
119 Rheinwaldner : All true, the A333 is mainly unchallenged by the 787 so far. IMO a A332 sale can not be justified well if at delivery time a 787 slot could be bought
120 474218 : I thought Airbus had decided upon carbon fiber panels attached to titanium frames for the A350XWB fuselage. If true how do they co-cure the FRAMES to
121 Keesje : Sign the NDA first. I think a lot of energy has been put in that technology recently and good progress is made on automation, quality, modelling and
122 Rheinbote : We're fully agreeing here, my comment was addressed at Rheinwaldner. Yeah, if they were co-cured, but they ain't. Why is it so difficult for you to a
123 474218 : Could you please translate?
124 Ikramerica : I think it was clear as soon as the 77W entered service, but Airbus refused to admit it, and finally, when they couldn't even sell the A340NG even af
125 Khobar : It fizzled at 100 "sales", there abouts. The outstanding sales of the A330 since the A350XWB happen to coincide with the delays in the 787. Imagine w
126 Ikramerica : And delays in the A380. Airlines needed capacity and replacements for old aircraft: 767s are just not going to cut it A350s were years off 787s were
127 EPA001 : Good post. I think this is a realistic scenario! But if and when the re-engining of the A330 will take place is still a question. As is the B777-NG!
128 Tdscanuck : You're right that the frames are mounted separately. Rheinbote covered this more eloquently than I did. You're applying a definition of "one-piece" t
129 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : I said IF because I don't know. It is a condition, if not true my statement is of course false. If my assumption that Airbus is able to achieve a hig
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...
New 787 Orders For 2008? posted Sat Jan 5 2008 19:38:00 by BoeingFever777
Structural Reinforcements For The New 787-9 posted Wed Jan 4 2006 22:11:12 by Atmx2000
LOT - New Launch Customer For 787? posted Sat Sep 10 2005 00:00:02 by Amirs
New City Announcement For B6 Early Next Week posted Fri Jul 30 2004 01:55:06 by AirlineFanatic
New JFK Plans For Delta? posted Mon Nov 24 2008 08:05:29 by CokePopper
New European Destinations For DL/NW posted Tue Nov 4 2008 17:48:51 by Flydl2atl
The New 787 Anticipated Delivery Schedule posted Tue Oct 28 2008 18:01:17 by BP1
New Tatl Routes For The New Delta? posted Sat Oct 4 2008 10:38:50 by DeltaL1011man
New ATC Tower For CLE posted Tue Aug 26 2008 06:39:20 by CLE757
New Simulator Experience For The Public posted Fri Aug 1 2008 20:41:48 by Jokestar
New ATC Tower For CLE posted Tue Aug 26 2008 06:39:20 by CLE757
New Simulator Experience For The Public posted Fri Aug 1 2008 20:41:48 by Jokestar