Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q3 2010 Likely Boeing 787 Entry Into Service?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 26420 times:

First flight for the Boeing 787 is now foreseen late June 2009. As Jon (Flightblogger) explained a series of tests has to be finished before first flight. 3 Months from now to be ready for first flight is not a conservative estimation it seems. The following tests have to completed in fast order from now:

1. 1g Checkout, 2. Wing Limit Load, 3. Gauntlet Testing, 4. Factory Gauntlet, 5. Intermediate Gauntlet, 6. Final Gauntlet, 7. Final Testing, 8. Hot Run, 9. Slow/Medium Speed Taxi Tests, 10. High Speed Taxi Test.
Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...etting-from-here-to-there-787.html

http://paineairport.com/images/kpae4913.jpg
Photo: Paine is preparing for 787 ground & flight tests http://paineairport.com

Previous Boeing test programs have taken 11 months or more. Boeing is scheduling a period of between 6 and 9 months nett. A lot depends how fast they can bring the proto's in the air and have the crew / test capacity / data processing available. Analysts like Leeham see a 12 months as a reasonable assumption.
source: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009...hs-in-on-787-flight-test-timeline/

The proto's from the flight test program will be different then aircraft #7-20, most of which will be delivered to ANA. The FAA has to be convinced the test results are translated well onto the production aircraft.


Photo: David Thulin, Flickr

I think 11 months from first flight until certification, like previous aircraft is not a overly pessimistic assumption. After certification the first ANA machine #7, has to be prepared for service, shipped to Japan and included in ANA's operation. Take another 4 weeks.

I think all easily adds up to 12 months after first flight. Late june 2009 leads to EIS July 2010 (Q3). IMO the chances of the Dreamliner entering service Q1 2010 are slim (5%), Q2 low (20%), Q3 likely (55%), later the Q3 not unlikely (20%).

Sofar I've heard few issues around 787 system integration, software, wiring, EMI etc. Those have caused issues before in later stages of devlopment (e.g A400M, A380). So  thumbsup  for Boeing so far.


photo 787 FMC, from http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/

-> Does anyone have indications that put the most likely EIS of the 787 earlier or later then Q3 2010 ?

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 26341 times:

Later? If no further issues arise, not likely.
Earlier? Given the fact that almost every new airframe took close to a year to obtain the FAA certification, I find it very unlikely.

Personally, I never bought the "6 months and we're done" story Boeing was selling around. Based on the 777 flight test programme, which took 11 months, I'd guesstimate that the period between the first flight and certification of the 787 will be somewhere between 8 and 10 months long. One advantage that 787 has over its larger sibling is the need to certify only two, not three, airframe/engine combination.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 26264 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1):
One advantage that 787 has over its larger sibling is the need to certify only two, not three, airframe/engine combination.

are you sure about that? Can't they do one type at a time? ie- Rollers first, then GE's... and as soon as Rollers get the okay they can start?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 26020 times:



Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 2):
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1):
One advantage that 787 has over its larger sibling is the need to certify only two, not three, airframe/engine combination.

are you sure about that? Can't they do one type at a time? ie- Rollers first, then GE's... and as soon as Rollers get the okay they can start?

For reference:
- A380 with Trent 900 received FAA/EASA type certification December 2006.
http://www.sbac.co.uk/community/cms/...iew/news_item_view.asp?i=15244&t=0
- A380 with GP7200 received FAA/EASA type certification December 2007.
http://www.enginealliance.com/release121407.html

So 787 type certification with Trent 1000 seems to allow delivery to ANA right after..



User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 25983 times:

June 30 for first flight will be tight, it seems.

An interesting--although in the big scheme of things irrelevant--question is whether first flight will take place before the second anniversary of roll-out, i.e., before 7/8/09.

Hopefully, Boeing has learned its lesson and will not attach any particular importance to this date, but for us on the sideline it would be symbolic of the travails (and mismanagement) of the B787 if LN001 would still not have taken to the skies by then.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 25880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe the flight test program can be accelerated. However... I've been optomistic before on the 787 and now its up to Boeing to prove they can deliver and didn't force too many engineers who were 'slowing the process' into early retirement. (I've seen that happen at other companies...)

With enough test engineers/aircraft, there is no reason not to certify the GE's shortly after the RR powerplants. The A380 certification of the GP7200's was held up by the Catia 4 'fix.' Those engines could have been certified *much* earlier. Heck, they sat in a warehouse for close to a year!  hissyfit 

I'm curous to see the initial quoted range and the range quoted with the first engine improvements.

Note: If they do end up doing a longer flight test program, I would expect Boeing to optimize the vortex generators and other aerodynamic features to help the range. Too many of the customers will need the promised range to make a profit in this economy.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
1. 1g Checkout,

 rotfl 

This tickled my funny bone; the joke in the industry is the "1g checkout" is 'does it fall off the aircraft after you integrate it?'  rotfl 

When we're bored about writing procedures on inspecting an aircraft, we retitle them, "1g checkout of XXXXX subsystem." It drives QA nuts.  Wink

Quoting Scipio (Reply 4):
An interesting--although in the big scheme of things irrelevant--question is whether first flight will take place before the second anniversary of roll-out, i.e., before 7/8/09.

This is a milestone I never thought we would be discussing on A.net.  Sad It would take but finding one more major fault to keep the planes grounded prior to this date.  Sad But since it would take a huge fault to delay that long... I would guess first flight will happen before then. But at this point, the question must be asked...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 25596 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
1. 1g Checkout, 2. Wing Limit Load, 3. Gauntlet Testing, 4. Factory Gauntlet, 5. Intermediate Gauntlet, 6. Final Gauntlet, 7. Final Testing, 8. Hot Run, 9. Slow/Medium Speed Taxi Tests, 10. High Speed Taxi Test.

Is there any info when the first of these tests will commence, perhaps some of them have already started? I remember NYC777 reported that gauntlet testing was very imminent. What is a realistic timeframe to complete these tests, can we compare it with 777 or A380 tests?

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Previous Boeing test programs have taken 11 months or more. Boeing is scheduling a period of between 6 and 9 months nett. A lot depends how fast they can bring the proto's in the air and have the crew / test capacity / data processing available. Analysts like Leeham see a 12 months as a reasonable assumption.

It may very well take so long, after all the snafu's nothing would surprise me anymore  cry  But, even the 747 test program didn't take that long, and that wasn't without its hick-ups. So, chances of Q2 EIS isn't that low - IF the thing is flying within 3 months.


Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):
Quoting Scipio (Reply 4):
An interesting--although in the big scheme of things irrelevant--question is whether first flight will take place before the second anniversary of roll-out, i.e., before 7/8/09.

This is a milestone I never thought we would be discussing on A.net. It would take but finding one more major fault to keep the planes grounded prior to this date. But since it would take a huge fault to delay that long... I would guess first flight will happen before then. But at this point, the question must be asked...

Have to agree completely, sadly enough. Never thought Boeing would make a bigger mess of its 787 program than Airbus did with their A380  Angry



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 25178 times:

Wasn't the 747 the test bed for the engines? Couldn't they have had some kind of certification beforehand? Or does it need to be certified on the intended aircraft it will be flown on?


757: The last of the best
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3598 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25069 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 7):
Or does it need to be certified on the intended aircraft it will be flown on?

The engine has a separate certification via Part 33. This is usually done prior to first flight, but not always.

Later the airframe/engine combination get a Part 25 cert.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSirSheldon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 23667 times:

Why does it seem that all aircraft coming out these days are delayed? Are the companies just wanting to have really quick release dates, or what?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 23290 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SirSheldon (Reply 9):
Why does it seem that all aircraft coming out these days are delayed? Are the companies just wanting to have really quick release dates, or what?

That is part of it. R&D is very expensive and a negative drain on the balance sheet. The quicker you can get planes into customer's hands, the quicker you start earning those billions back and making your shareholders happy again.

The latest generation of planes are also incorporating new technologies, techniques, materials and other things which means they really should be spending longer gestating them and the failure to do so has come back to bite the manufacturers.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23167 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Previous Boeing test programs have taken 11 months or more

You keep saying this.

The last completely new aircraft program was the 777.

The 777 PW program took 10 months.

There were extra things the 777 had to prove that the 787 does not: the viability of giving ETOPS 180 at EIS, the viability of the most powerful passenger aircraft engines ever put on a wing.

The 777 also had 5 PW test birds for certification, then 2 of each other engines to certify the other two engines, but those tests were not concurrent. The 787 is using all 6 birds for initial certification (4/2). Thus effectively, the 787 also has 5 planes for initial certification (4 RR + 1 GE) of the RR type, and 1 bird for the GE engine certification.

So, Boeing is planning a tighter test schedule for the 787 vs. the 777 by 1 month with the same number of planes, but we've known this for 3 years now.

Unless you have evidence that the 777 program testing could not have been done any faster no matter what changes were made to the program, I'm not sure how you can decide that the 787 should take the same amount of time, let alone 1 additional month, if the 787 program is scheduled to be more "dense" than the 777 was...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 23137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
The last completely new aircraft program was the 777.

The 777 PW program took 10 months.

And the 787 benefits from over a decade's worth of improvement in "pre-certifying" components so they should take less time to actually prove the results in actual testing, meaning less time overall is needed.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22738 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
The 777 PW program took 10 months.

The 777 program took 11 months. First flight 12 June 1994, First delivery 15 May 1995.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22652 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 13):
The 777 program took 11 months. First flight 12 June 1994, First delivery 15 May 1995.

Certification: April 19, 1995 (for PW). 10 months and 4 days. That's the flight test program.
First delivery May 15, 1995. That's production related.
EIS June 9, 1995. That's operationally related.

The month between delivery and certification is not 100% relevant because the 787 program has been designed to have many production ready aircraft set for delivery at certification, much like the 747 program. I don't believe that was the goal of the 777 program, as birds were intended to be "near ready" at certification.

To meet the delivery benchmark, Boeing has to deliver a jet to ANA by March 31, 2010. It could be as early as 1 week after certification or as many as 4. The way the program is laid out, it's more likely to be short unless some major modifications need to be made to #7 that can't be made during the period between delivery and EIS, when the Boeing and ANA mechanics pow-wow on operational maintenance. EIS could be anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 weeks, but hardly Q3 as Keesje wishes to be true.

Now, if something goes WRONG during the flight testing, all bets are off. For example, if the flight software integration leads to bugs that were not found in software testing (flight software has been a delay issue that unlike a physical issue, isn't as simple to "find and replace/fix").

But if the tests go as planned (meaning only the "usual" uncertainties are encountered), this 8-9 month schedule for the RR birds is one that Boeing has been preparing for for 4 years. The extra time has only given them more opportunities to prepare, to certify more systems ahead of time, etc.

Keesje's premise is that even if the tests go fine, Boeing won't finish until May 2010, with delivery a few weeks later and EIS a few weeks after that.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 22583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The latest generation of planes are also incorporating new technologies, techniques, materials and other things which means they really should be spending longer gestating them and the failure to do so has come back to bite the manufacturers

Although I have to say that from my seat, the delays to both the A380 AND the 787 were organisationally based, not technology based.
What I see is these two great manufacturers changing the organisation of their business in order to drive down costs, and when the changes are not properly comprehended in the business processes, these delays are the result.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
To meet the delivery benchmark, Boeing has to deliver a jet to ANA by March 31, 2010

What "benchmark" is that?

Rgds


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21998 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 13):
The 777 program took 11 months. First flight 12 June 1994, First delivery 15 May 1995.

Certification: April 19, 1995 (for PW). 10 months and 4 days. That's the flight test program.
First delivery May 15, 1995. That's production related.
EIS June 9, 1995. That's operationally related.

It took the 777 a yr from first flight until EIS (& thats the topic of this thread). So if we project that on the 787 we have Q3 2010. I have no indication the 787 maturation process will go any smoother then the 777 sofar.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Now, if something goes WRONG during the flight testing, all bets are off. For example, if the flight software integration leads to bugs that were not found in software testing (flight software has been a delay issue that unlike a physical issue, isn't as simple to "find and replace/fix").

That's what I think. I think the timeline used by Boeing sofar is a nett planning. History often proves not everything goes smoothly, bugs are found. The A380 hit a nearly 2 yrs EIS delay after first flight. The flight test program is to get bugs out & prove the design's safety.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 15):
What I see is these two great manufacturers changing the organisation of their business in order to drive down costs, and when the changes are not properly comprehended in the business processes, these delays are the result.

I hope you are Not right Astuteman. Boeing is reorganzing the flight test department. It hopes to reduce costs of flight testing by 10%, saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009...1/12/boeing-groups-flight-testing/

I wonder, is lightning also tested on the completed aircraft? I know it's done on seperate components but I wonder if its also required on the complete composites aircraft. How is this taken care of, or has this phase already been completed?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/seattletimesdominicgates787lightnin.jpg?t=1239093648
Source / picture : Dominic Gates / Mark Nowlin, Seattle Times / http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...skManagement/lightningstrikes.html


Youtube ANA 747 Lightning strike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX6Xk0DRVvE


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 21908 times:

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 7):
Wasn't the 747 the test bed for the engines? Couldn't they have had some kind of certification beforehand? Or does it need to be certified on the intended aircraft it will be flown on?

The baseline GEnx-1B was originally certified on 31MAR08. The GEnx-1B with improvements from GEnx-2B is scheduled to be recertified when needed (before EIS).


Rolls Trent 1000 was certified on 07AUG07 will have upgraded engines for ZA004 and ZA006 (and later). And in Late 2011 will have another round of upgrades.

[Edited 2009-04-07 02:14:26]

User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 20857 times:



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 1):
Based on the 777 flight test programme, which took 11 months, I'd guesstimate that the period between the first flight and certification of the 787 will be somewhere between 8 and 10 months long. One advantage that 787 has over its larger sibling is the need to certify only two, not three, airframe/engine combination.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
The 777 PW program took 10 months.

There were extra things the 777 had to prove that the 787 does not: the viability of giving ETOPS 180 at EIS, the viability of the most powerful passenger aircraft engines ever put on a wing.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
And the 787 benefits from over a decade's worth of improvement in "pre-certifying" components so they should take less time to actually prove the results in actual testing, meaning less time overall is needed.

The T7 was/is old technology. The 787 has a wrath of new bits on including composite which, I for one, would hope those certifying the plane would want to spend more time pouring over the data rather than working to Boeing's schedule. We all know what happens when the agencies employed to rate companies start playing to the companys' tune? That mustn't happen in aviation.

Just one example, will those electric window blinds really work for the life of the plane?( I am obsessed by them) or will they allow harmful UV rays when they fail to work while I am asleep at 36,000 feet? And what is the back up in case of failure? Are they still on the 787?


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 20767 times:



Quoting EbbUK (Reply 18):
including composite

Oh so like the A300, A32x, A380, A330, 777, etc.

Aircraft have included composites for ages. It's not the material itself that's so new as how extensively it's used and the manner in which it's put together. How composites perform (in this case CFRP) is *really* well known in engineering circles. It's always been 'how the *&$^ do I make xyz with it'.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 18):
Just one example, will those electric window blinds really work for the life of the plane?(

That technology is OLD. It has existed in commercial and residential buildings for well over 10 years. There's very little that's 'new' on the 787. It's all been around for a while, it's just the application thereof that's new.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 18):
We all know what happens when the agencies employed to rate companies start playing to the companys' tune? That mustn't happen in aviation.

 Confused  Yeah sure And why would you even think it was worth mentioning in this case. If we want to play the subtle insinuation about government agencies bowing to aircraft manufacturers we can, but really, why?



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20670 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I find it...interesting...that folks on the one hand argue that composites are something "old hat and found in copious quantities in Airbus planes going back to the A300 so Boeing is not doing anything special in putting them in the 787" and yet on the other hand argue they are something "terrifyingly new and risky materials" and the 787 test and certification program should be extended by months to ensure that they actually work when used in commercial aviation.  sarcastic 

User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2305 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20644 times:

Given that Boeing will be able to fly the plane by the end of June 2009, I believe they have a pretty good chance of achieving certification and first delivery before the end of March 2010. Let's be honest about this: I'm fed up with popcorn!!! And I want to see new threads on a.net with passengers discussing the actual in-flight experience of the 787 compared with the 380.


Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 20518 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
I find it...interesting...that folks on the one hand argue that composites are something "old hat and found in copious quantities in Airbus planes going back to the A300 so Boeing is not doing anything special in putting them in the 787" and yet on the other hand argue they are something "terrifyingly new and risky materials" and the 787 test and certification program should be extended by months to ensure that they actually work when used in commercial aviation.

I find it more interesting that given a particular need for an argument, the same folks can argue that the 787 is a "game changing" aircraft and will blow the competition away, or that its technology is "old hat" and therefore a no-brainer to build and certify.

(Not meaning you Stich, of course. You have always provided a very well reasoned justification for whatever you say.)

The truth is of course somewhere in between. The 787 has many new technologies, or at least new technologies in the aircraft context. The flight testing program is the last element of trying these technologies out in practice before commercial service. We do not know what will be uncovered; hopefully everything goes smoothly, but all new planes experience some number of issues in flight testing.

From my perspective the big unknown is Boeing's new flight testing process, which AFAIK amounts largely to having one team run the testing for several aircraft and aircraft types. In theory, this should work well and make things more efficient. However, it is critically dependent on the number and seriousness of issues found; from other fields of engineering my experience is that if you run into major problems it would be better to have a dedicated team. A well-orchestrated joint process can be run into disarray if one part does not behave as it should


User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20376 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
Oh so like the A300, A32x, A380, A330, 777, etc.

Aircraft have included composites for ages. It's not the material itself that's so new as how extensively it's used and the manner in which it's put together. How composites perform (in this case CFRP) is *really* well known in engineering circles. It's always been 'how the *&$^ do I make xyz with it'.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 18):
Just one example, will those electric window blinds really work for the life of the plane?(

That technology is OLD. It has existed in commercial and residential buildings for well over 10 years. There's very little that's 'new' on the 787. It's all been around for a while, it's just the application thereof that's new.

And it is that application that needs testing. After all residential and commercial buildings do not take off and land, nor do they sit up above 35,000 feet for hours on end

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 18):
We all know what happens when the agencies employed to rate companies start playing to the companys' tune? That mustn't happen in aviation.

Confused Yeah sure And why would you even think it was worth mentioning in this case. If we want to play the subtle insinuation about government agencies bowing to aircraft manufacturers we can, but really, why?

There wasn't anything subtle. Boeing will be cracking the whip to get it's plane earning them bucks. Someone has to be impartial to that pressure. That person has to be the government agency and not just a-nutters


User currently offlinePITIngres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 20290 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 16):
I have no indication the 787 maturation process will go any smoother then the 777 sofar.

No. You've been given reasons, some on this thread. You just don't choose to pay attention.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
25 Osiris30 : The window tinting technology is a) not a concern for certification, b) not something that's likely to be affected by landings and take offs. Unless
26 Post contains links Keesje : It was suggested in the US press last month; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ospace/2008719843_lightning08.html About composites, I think comp
27 EbbUK : Well you don't sound so sure. I would be interested to hear or see some facts. I can wait, while I obsess about it, I am not losing sleep. With regar
28 Osiris30 : I just haven't read on it in a few years, given the length of delay in the 787 programme it seems like years ago I read about it, so I don't want to
29 JoeCanuck : I believe there is plenty of certification stuff that has been done while the planes were waiting for fasteners and whatnot. In theory, this should s
30 Dvincent : This technology has been in use in bizjets for quite a while, and it's the same technology (transparent LCD) used in calculators, camera viewfinders,
31 Post contains links Stitch : Old Randy touched on the system a year ago. And here is a press release from the supplier. And an industry article on the shades.[Edited 2009-04-08 17
32 Ikramerica : it's already in use on the 744 for crying out loud! QF has it in the F lav. when you lock the door, the window goes opaque. do some research guys bef
33 Keesje : Well maybe it's the impressions the 777 maturation porcess went smoother then the 787's are so blinding, the positive assumptions offered by some are
34 Scouseflyer : I've seeen it used on internal glass walls in offices to give privacy to meetings etc - IIRC the default state is opaque and the current makes it cle
35 CHRISBA777ER : Well, lets assume that EIS finally happens November 2010 after a couple more small delays and certification issues etc. What would this do for the pro
36 Part147 : No! not more possible delays? Really, who would have guessed, it's been going sooo well so far - Sure it's ONLY been 2 weeks since it came out of the
37 Ebbuk : Ok thanks to all who have contributed to my learning experience regarding the blindless windows. Like Imramerica says I could have looked for the info
38 Ikramerica : That is simply a choice. LCD is twisted/charged by electricity, and depending on which orientation it is in uncharged, it will either be opaque or se
39 Ikramerica : Sure would. Luckily, nobody is claiming anything like that. Now, DELIVERY 1 week after CERTIFICATION? I have no idea if that's some kind of record. I
40 Stitch : I could see ZA007 being delivered to NH within a week of the 787 receiving her FAA certification, though I am not sure how quickly the Japanese Aviati
41 Osiris30 : Airbus A380 rollout Tuesday 18 January 2005 EIS: 25 October 2007 Days: 1010 So hey, let's just call it a trend!
42 Scipio : Fair enough A very unfortunate trend, though. One difference, of course, is that the A380 was actually flying during most of those 1010 days. Imagine
43 Part147 : Hey that's a good point! So how long after was it's maiden flight after roll-out? Surely modern technological advances would shrink these times, not
44 Stitch : Problems? The wiring issue affected only customer-supplied equipment, did it not? It clearly wasn't a flight-safety issue.
45 Osiris30 : Well for what it's worth the trend has been continued (or perhaps started by?!?) the A400M, which is about a million years into development :P (Sorry
46 JoeCanuck : Remember the fasteners...? They must be the single largest contributor to the delays in the 787 program. It's still Boeing fault, absolutely, but I be
47 PGNCS : And you too have been given reasons that you have elected to ignore as well. I think that you make a good point here. It's the old "halo and horns" e
48 Stitch : Maybe the 787 should have been designed and built by IDS instead of BCA. It's almost as complex a design and production system as a military project a
49 Rheinbote : The root causes are multiple and more fundamental than what you think. A clear pattern, not just a trend. The real root causes range from unrealistic
50 Revelation : Maturation? We're not talking about wine. It's flight testing. Things either work or they do not work. Touche! Right, but shame on Boeing if they did
51 Osiris30 : Rheinbote: I agree 100% with the underlying root cause you're driving at. The days of the engineer running the engineering companies are sadly over,
52 Ikramerica : Or even built a great product but misread the market for it. One reason the troubled 787 program hasn't lost more than 5% of the order book is becaus
53 Pygmalion : CAD was never the real cause of the A380 delays. it is merely a symptom of leaderships failure to pay attention to the "system" underlying their busin
54 AirlineCritic : No. Generally speaking, while computerized design and manufacturing can speed up the process, technology in the end product itself tends to have a di
55 Baroque : Just as well it is not like wine for QF, as it has been a rather bad year for wine in Aus! Then again, judging by the noises coming out of QF, it mig
56 Keesje : Yes, or do do work but fail after only 10 yrs / 40.000 hrs. Aeropace is a slightly different business..
57 Astuteman : Absolutely, absolutely spot on, Mr. P. From personal experience, it seems far too many people in complex engineering, moving over to CAD and other in
58 Revelation : It's not clear if the leadership was being given the whole truth. Various sources say the Germans doing the electrical design didn't want to use the
59 Ikramerica : 1 month. And it would be interesting to know the first flight date of each of the first five 777s used for certification of the PW airframe.
60 Rheinbote : couldn't agree more. yep, and a tool is just that. A world class wrench doesn't turn a schoolkid into a world class mechanic. That's what they want y
61 AirlineCritic : Yes. However, I would like to point out that problem is not just that the bean counters and MBAs that don't understand the tasks ahead. Even if you g
62 Post contains images WingedMigrator : I don't have all the dates, but I do know this: the 4th 777 took to the air on October 28th, 1994, or 138 days after the maiden flight of the type. H
63 Stitch : I imagine the fourth 787 will beat that record thanks to the 787s being built simultaneously instead of in sequence (as I am guessing the initials 77
64 SunriseValley : Do we know that? So far as I am aware the guarantees that Boeing gave the purchasers have never been disclosed.
65 Post contains links Keesje : Jon (Flightblogger) reports roll out to the flight line appears to have slipped until after the aircraft is declared shop complete later this month fo
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...
Air China A380 : Waiting Entry Into Service....... posted Sun Jul 22 2007 22:39:17 by FCKC
A380 Entry Into Service (EIS) Reliability - 99% posted Wed Jun 29 2005 09:34:08 by Astuteman
How To Hack Into A Boeing 787 posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:41:01 by WepaMan
Travel Service Order The Boeing 787-8 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 11:18:20 by PanAm_DC10
Aeroflot Boeing 787 Deal Likely At WTO posted Wed Jul 12 2006 12:25:04 by Keesje
747 And 777 Entry Into Commercial Service posted Sun Feb 19 2006 06:07:13 by SATX
Boeing 787-300 & 787-900; Available After 2010 posted Wed Mar 23 2005 14:08:42 by Keesje
Great Quality Boeing 787 On The Move Video posted Sat Jan 3 2009 05:05:01 by Keesje
Northwest Boeing 787 Order, Re-negotiate? posted Thu Jan 1 2009 01:36:02 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Production Frozen. posted Mon Nov 24 2008 08:40:30 by WINGS
A380 Entry Into Service (EIS) Reliability - 99% posted Wed Jun 29 2005 09:34:08 by Astuteman
How To Hack Into A Boeing 787 posted Tue Feb 19 2008 12:41:01 by WepaMan
Travel Service Order The Boeing 787-8 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 11:18:20 by PanAm_DC10
Aeroflot Boeing 787 Deal Likely At WTO posted Wed Jul 12 2006 12:25:04 by Keesje
747 And 777 Entry Into Commercial Service posted Sun Feb 19 2006 06:07:13 by SATX
Boeing 787-300 & 787-900; Available After 2010 posted Wed Mar 23 2005 14:08:42 by Keesje
The Boeing 787-3, Gone Or Winter Sleep? posted Fri Jan 8 2010 03:39:49 by Keesje