Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Further 787 Delays, Bigger Range Shortfall?  
User currently offlineSankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31964 times:

That's the assessment of New York-based Bernstein Research, after attending the latest Boeing briefing. Full article at http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=16495

Fair use excerpt:

"Boeing's 787 customers face delivery delays of up to an additional six months, according to a report issued Friday by New York-based Bernstein Research that also suggest a 10%-15% range shortfall for early delivery aircraft.

The May 1 client report, a wrapup after Boeing's 787 certification briefing on April 29 (ATWOnline, April 30), is Bernstein's sixth reassessment of 787 production and forecasts that the manufacturer will not reach its target production rate of 10 aircraft per month until mid-2013, six months later than the latest target (ATWOnline, Feb. 9)."

Not good news if true.

227 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31758 times:



Quoting Sankaps (Thread starter):
That's the assessment of New York-based Bernstein Research, after attending the latest Boeing briefing. Full article at http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=16495

"8% overweight" - ouch. How does that leave it against the newer A330-200s?

Design changes and slower production are going to affect production costs too. Originally (IIRC) it was thought it would kill the A330 on performance but even more on lower production costs. Is not this latter advantage now be in some doubt? Plug this into airlines now tending to be short of capital or with capital at higher costs, not good timing.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31682 times:



Quoting Sankaps (Thread starter):
Boeing's 787 customers face delivery delays of up to an additional six months, according to a report issued Friday by New York-based Bernstein Research that also suggest a 10%-15% range shortfall for early delivery aircraft.

I doubt there will be these "six month delays" if they are looking toward 2012 and beyond because there will be deferrals before then that will even out this problem.

As for the range shortfall for early builds, don't we KNOW this already? Isn't that why the first 6 are not allocated anymore and 7-19 are rumored to be going to NH and JL for regional service? I thought this was basically a given?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 31601 times:



Quoting Sankaps (Thread starter):
"Boeing's 787 customers face delivery delays of up to an additional six months, according to a report issued Friday by New York-based Bernstein Research that also suggest a 10%-15% range shortfall for early delivery aircraft."

Already known; even Airbus did an internal study a while ago suggesting the initial B787 frames might only get 6300+ nm instead of the expected 7650-8200 nm for the 788. Even if the actual range is higher, the 10-15% shortfall number sounds about right.



DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 31322 times:

Sounds like cold coffee, the same written again. OK, we know any fact here long before it becomes a fact...

User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 30814 times:

With such a history of over-promising and under-delivering from Boeing on this plane, I guess I can't fault U.S. flag carriers for largely ignoring the 787. Why hop on board the 'Hysteria Express' when you're continually faced with delays, pullbacks, and plain old wrong technical information?

Granted, many of the U.S. flag carriers were (are) in no shape to order any planes...never mind the 787...but I imagine they're pretty happy about the whole debacle seeing an almost endless parade of 787 'bad news.' "Come back when you get something truthful to tell us," they seem to be saying to Boeing.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29055 times:

Bad news about the 787 is almost as prevalent and hysteria filled as bad news about the U.S. president. I have to give a.netters their due; most are pretty good about waiting out the storm and seeing what the end product will do. When all is said and done, I'm with those a.netters who believe the 787 will be a magnificent airplane. I wonder if America at large could learn something from you guys.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
"8% overweight" - ouch. How does that leave it against the newer A330-200s?

Amazingly, shorter ranged. If its really as bad as 6,900nm, that is too short of a range for Japan/Korea to Europe. It also allows the A332 to have near CASM parity.  wideeyed 

Its also on the short side for TPAC with cargo. I do not expect this short of a range, except perhaps on the first dozen birds. When estimates were out on a 7,400nm to 7,600nm range we discussed how that would impact the airframe's economics. 6,900nm is weak. It opens up little to no new point to point. I really hope this is an exageration.

Sadly, its not going to be until flight testing is well underway that Boeing will have any information on the airframe's true range. But if it is 8% overweight... that will kill the range. Neither engine is expected to hit promised fuel burn. The last hope is that the wing aerodynamics excel.

The 788 needs a minimum of 7,400nm to start living up to its promises. I have no doubt it will get to its 8,000nm range. But when?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 28735 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
Amazingly, shorter ranged. If its really as bad as 6,900nm, that is too short of a range for Japan/Korea to Europe. It also allows the A332 to have near CASM parity.

NRT-LHR is 5,974nm (remember, nautical miles are about 1.15 x statute miles):

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=n...STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

NRT-ORD is 6,200nm:

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=n...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=

So, really, while it falls short of target, 6,900nm is not too bad and given that NH intends to start its aircraft on short routes to China as it builds up experience, it's not all that bad.


User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 28636 times:



Quoting Sankaps (Thread starter):
"Boeing's 787 customers face delivery delays of up to an additional six months, according to a report issued Friday by New York-based Bernstein Research that also suggest a 10%-15% range shortfall for early delivery aircraft.



Quoting DingDong (Reply 3):
Already known

You get me confused guys.
Bernstein Research predicts an additional 6 months delay after Boeing's latest briefing.
You react saying it's old news.
So, are these 6 months additonal to what was announced before, or is Bernstein serving old news from a recent briefing?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 28577 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 7):
Neither engine is expected to hit promised fuel burn. The last hope is that the wing aerodynamics excel.

Have there not already been posts in this forum pointing to reports stating that GE was on-target (and looking to improve) and Rolls has closed the gap from 4-5% below target to within 1% (and also looking to be on target or better by ZA100's EIS)?

Quoting Breiz (Reply 9):
So, are these 6 months additional to what was announced before, or is Bernstein serving old news from a recent briefing?

Bernstein's comments about EIS being pushed to Q3 2010 or later are new. Boeing stated at the conference NH would get ZA100 in February 2010 and Bernstein doesn't believe it will happen.

As for the range short-fall and MEW overage, we've known that for about a year now, so that part is not new.

[Edited 2009-05-04 09:11:25]

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 28401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Have there not already been posts in this forum pointing to reports stating that GE was on-target (and looking to improve) and Rolls has closed the gap from 4-5% below target to within 1% (and also looking to be on target or better by ZA100's EIS)?

I have no doubt both will improve. RR should do well.

However, I must have missed GE being on target. If that is true, that is a job well done. However... the people who would really know would also be rubbing mud in my face if GE was going to meet/exceed expectations; they have not been doing so. This leads me to believe its a small shortfall. Probably even within warantee (within 2%). I personally believe GE is on target to deliver fuel burn by 2011, perhaps 2010.

Overall, I think this report is too bearish. But only flight testing will show otherwise. I do wonder if the payload/range charts will be very engine dependent.  spin 

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineOldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 28397 times:



Quoting Breiz (Reply 9):
So, are these 6 months additonal to what was announced before, or is Bernstein serving old news from a recent briefing?

This is a additional delay and indeed not old news.

Quote:
... according to a report issued Friday ...

Axel



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 28187 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Bernstein's comments about EIS being pushed to Q3 2010 or later are new. Boeing stated at the conference NH would get ZA100 in February 2010 and Bernstein doesn't believe it will happen.



Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 12):
This is a additional delay and indeed not old news.

Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated.


User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 27847 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 8):
So, really, while it falls short of target, 6,900nm is not too bad and given that NH intends to start its aircraft on short routes to China as it builds up experience, it's not all that bad.

The range and weight problems would not be too bad if this was an ordinary aluminum skinned aircraft developed with evolutionary technology from previous aircraft. Often, weight and range problems get worked out (as happened with the MD-11).

It is a bigger problem because the principal reason for building the composite fuselage was decreased weight and increased fuel economy. If the purported benefits of the composite fuselage are not realized, then the whole strategy and cost of the composite fuselage comes into question.

If the weight problems are not solved, there certainly will never be a composite fuselage narrow-body and Airbus may even decide to use more aluminum in its A350XWB than currently planned.


User currently offlineDallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 27616 times:



Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 5):
With such a history of over-promising and under-delivering from Boeing on this plane, I guess I can't fault U.S. flag carriers for largely ignoring the 787. Why hop on board the 'Hysteria Express' when you're continually faced with delays, pullbacks, and plain old wrong technical information?

Granted, many of the U.S. flag carriers were (are) in no shape to order any planes...never mind the 787...but I imagine they're pretty happy about the whole debacle seeing an almost endless parade of 787 'bad news.' "Come back when you get something truthful to tell us," they seem to be saying to Boeing.

Didn't AMR ordered 42 + 58 last year?
CO is still getting theirs.
DL has not cancelled their order even those it was inherited from NW.
US took a different route and ordered A350.
UA is the only one out of legacy carriers that haven't ordered anything

Your statement that US legacy carriers ignored 787 doesn't seem to make much sense



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 27135 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I don't really think there is any new news here. Boeing is saying they can get flight testing and certification done in 8 months. Most analysts seem to disagree - there is little to no wiggle room and if any issues come up it will most eat away at the already thin time line.

The pessimistic (some would say realistic) people I have spoken with say 12-14 months is more likely. If you add 6 months to 8 you get 14 months.

A new delay has not been announced. Hopefully Boeing has learned some lessons and is not basing time lines on the most optimistic of scenarios.

Only time will tell.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 26997 times:



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 16):

The 6 months delay is more on the ramp up to 10 planes/mo time line, not the flight testing.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24636 times:

I am just wondering...

Maybe having this 787 overweight issue in mind Airbus signed a huge titanium deal with Russia a couple of weeks ago  Big grin ???

I had always been quite sceptical reg. "all-composite breakthrough".
Just stopped posting here after some strong language responds.
Well, some "stiches" remained  Smile

Things are getting more and more interesting for A & B.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31007 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 19):
Maybe having this 787 overweight issue in mind Airbus signed a huge titanium deal with Russia a couple of weeks ago?? Big grin

Boeing signed a similar deal with Russia a few years before 787 assembly began.

Why?

Because CFRP and Al do not always play well together, so many fasteners are manufactured from Ti.

That Airbus is also planning large-scale usage of Ti fasteners implies they plan to continue (or their airline customers are still requiring them to continue) forward with significant CFRP in the A350XWB's structure, as well.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Because CFRP and Al do not always play well together, so many fasteners are manufactured from Ti.

Not to mention there must be some rather large metal structures in a CFRP aircraft. For example, the landing gear bays are Ti in the 787. They could be Aluminum, but at a weight penalty.

CFRP is the future. There are huge advantages to its utilization over beer can for the large structural pieces.  spit  I think the 787 is a great concept that will fullfil its promises. My only issues is 1) variety of fasteners (too many), 2) weight, and 3) engines needing tuning to reach full promise.

But look at the wing. You would not have that large of a span with a wing made from Beer Can (the optimum span would be less due to the weight/span tradeoff differences between CFRP and aluminum). My rumor mill is 'gooshing' over the wing's predicted aerodynamic capabilities.  spin 

As an enthusiast, I'd also wish the 787 was already flying too.  hyper  But it will. Soon. I really cannot wait to compare the Trent vs. GEnX range curves... Both on the 788 and versus the A332.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 24061 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 21):
But look at the wing. You would not have that large of a span with a wing made from Beer Can

They Can .. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/3/4/7/0973743.jpg

About CRFP, I think Boeing / the 787 has the unwanted role of trying it out the hard way on the fuselage. Wings, tails, wing boxes etc already proved their value. If it appears some parts are better be build from beer can, wood or grass reinformed mud they will..


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13138 posts, RR: 100
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 23709 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 8):
So, really, while it falls short of target, 6,900nm is not too bad and given that NH intends to start its aircraft on short routes to China as it builds up experience, it's not all that bad.

You are neglecting winds.
6,000nm range (about NRT-LHR) needs ~6,800nm to 7,200 nm to deal with winds. Do also note, the Asia to Europe market is cargo heavy. So the direction against the winds is when you forfeit the higher revenue for cargo. (Albeit, not as high of revenue in today's economy.)

Quoting Keesje (Reply 22):
They Can ..

They could. At too much of a weight penalty (sorry if I wasn't clear, but I believe the part just after what you quoted made that clear in my previous post). I'm seeing a clear trend with CFRP designs to longer wingspans. The weight savings have shifted the optimum design point.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 23482 times:



Quoting Breiz (Reply 9):
You get me confused guys.
Bernstein Research predicts an additional 6 months delay after Boeing's latest briefing.
You react saying it's old news.
So, are these 6 months additonal to what was announced before, or is Bernstein serving old news from a recent briefing?

My mistake -- mea culpa. Smile Duly corrected; thanks.



DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 23110 times:

I think Bernstein Research' comments on weight / range have been out in the informal media for some time. I agree with their comments on the flight test program.


Bernstein cast doubt on the ambitious certification timeline for the 787, which it termed "challenging." ...... There will also be the challenge of getting all six aircraft ready for testing as planned


Boeing now calls it "Aggressive" on SeatlePI http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/167790.asp

I feel Feb 2010 for first delivery to ANA is "Highly Unlikely" and think Q3 '10 is a more "realistic" assumption for 787 EIS. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4375242

Boeing would have to rush #2 - #6 into the air in no time..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28320862@N04/3499501529/


25 Osiris30 : Just to share soemthing from the other 787 thread that's relevant here, but Jon (flightblogger) who just got back from Boeing WA, seems to be hinting
26 Tdscanuck : Keep in mind that all of the shortfalls in performance are relative to the *787*'s performance guarantees. It's entirely possible for the 787 to miss
27 Eghansen : The 787 may well be an excellent aircraft. But it may also never be very profitable. Airbus has already sold 1,403 copies of the A330/340 family whic
28 Osiris30 : You are kidding right?!?!?! There's enough orders on the books for there to be a profit once delivered through, and I'm sure any cancellations will b
29 Tdscanuck : That really depends on what you mean by "very". Boeing's annual reports show them pulling something like 10-15% profit overall even in a very good ye
30 Astuteman : Indeed. It will be - very much so. It should improve on the A330-200 which is already a magnificent airplane. The 787's "only" problem from my seat i
31 Flighty : It is early to make that kind of statement. Even if the 787 never achieves its goals (which it will, fairly soon), the investment has provided a new
32 NCB : The advantages of CFRP are known but there's a difference between making a wing or a tailpane in CFRP and making an entire fuselage out of CFRP. The
33 NCB : I think that that is true. The B787, though a big failure itself up to now, will probably change the way Boeing makes aircraft in the future. They ar
34 PolymerPlane : If I remember correctly, Boeing did not promise 20% lighter aircraft. It promised 20% more efficiency, 5% comes from weight, 5% comes from engine, et
35 Post contains links and images Keesje : I expect many 787-8 orders will be converted into 787-9's. The 787-9 will probably be even more modified from the 787-8 then Boeing thought last year.
36 Baroque : It will be interesting to find where the weight gain has been and to what extent it can be recovered. The Faraday cage looks to be one area, and it i
37 Stitch : History will likely prove that the 787 will be profitable. Boeing spent more then $10 billion on the 777 and it's considered a profitable airplane wi
38 RedFlyer : One of the few times you've said something that made sense. Imagine if Airbus had a crystal ball back in 2005 and could have foreseen the problems on
39 PolymerPlane : The problem with just investing with a 350 v1.0 is that Airbus is basically leaving the 350 pax market to Boeing with its 777, while having to compet
40 RedFlyer : Very true. But with their move on the current A350 (v5.0), they've also left the 787 without a true competitor.
41 Post contains links VirginFlyer : I actually think this could turn out to be quite prescient, and not for the original reasons it was touted. There has been an increasing amount of di
42 Stitch : Electrical power generation systems continue to improve in performance even as they grow smaller so, over time, these systems should become both smal
43 SEPilot : This ignores the fact that one of the biggest advantage of CFRP is fatigue resistance, which is much more of an issue with short range planes than lo
44 Astuteman : Beat me to it I think one of the biggest drivers behind the -XWB was the nose-dive of the A340NG sales It would appear to me that the A330-200 is cur
45 RedFlyer : Interesting. So you think they will respond to the 787 market space with a 330NG, or what was the original A350 v1.0 concept?
46 Astuteman : Yes, primarily because I don't think there's room for an all-new model underneath the A350XWB. That's just my though. Rgds
47 Stitch : I just wonder if these half-measures for both the A330-200 and the 777-200ER are just the aerospace equivalent of putting lipstick on pigs? The Trent
48 Khobar : And those orders will evaporate if the plane fails to deliver on its promise. Considering one of the major weight issues the 787 faces is in its CFRP
49 JoeCanuck : I was under the impression that all 777's were the same height with the same ground clearance. I imagine that engines of any size available could fit
50 Astuteman : I would expect putting GEnx/T1000 on a modified A330 to deliver double digit SFC improvement.. Rgds
51 NCB : The arguments are divided. There are arguments in your favor, which state that some aircraft like the Avro RJ have bleed air induced bad cabin air qu
52 Khobar : Well, such Trents and GenX engines (alone) on the 787 give it a 4% improvement over the 767, and the 767 is supposedly less efficient than the A330.
53 Stitch : Well if Boeing can halve the A350-900XWB's fuel burn advantage over the 777-200ER by just hanging the same engines, when you factor in the higher rev
54 Post contains links and images Keesje : Not realistic. GE claims a 15% better SFC of their GENX engine over their CF6-80E1 (specific bigger fan CF6-80 version for the A330). It will also ne
55 Cba : I agree. The 788 will ultimately prove to be a successful aircraft, but will likely go the way of the 762 once the 763 became available. The 789 is l
56 Khobar : At the moment, there is no 787 to worry about.
57 NCB : I don't see why Airbus should launch an improved version of the A332. At this point they've got the A358 XWB which is a notch between the A332 and the
58 Post contains links Keesje : I guess for that market segment a new wing and stretch would be required to realize the payload range capabilities of aircraft like 757, 762 and A310
59 Stitch : While they're at it, they might as well make it supersonic and fly a sub-orbital flight-path. An A321-200 can't even fly 3250nm so that center fuel t
60 DingDong : Jet A weight will vary depending on temperature and slight sample variation in a given batch, but it's roughly 6.75 lb per US gallon at ISA, or about
61 Lightsaber : It should. As others have noted, this is a v1.0 product. But... its not the promised product. 103" No links. Just take it as my opinion. I believe wi
62 Tdscanuck : Actually, it has a much more obvious weight advantage on the fuselage (at least on widebodies) than it does in the empennage or wings. CFRP has lots
63 Post contains links NCB : You are right Stitch and the others. It's not a 1, 2, 3 process, hence the 1B$ program cost. Putting the 40 000lbf engines would require higher groun
64 PolymerPlane : You are basically describing the 757. Cheers, PP
65 NCB : O³ converters on existing aircraft are about the size of a microwave oven and weigh about 50lbs. (A330), very true. That is on aircraft that decompo
66 JoeCanuck : Wouldn't gen speed be optimized for a fairly narrow rpm range? It would seem very silly to not match the generator with the typical engine speed. Sin
67 Tdscanuck : It means they'll be proportional to the engine, but they'll still get whatever step-down is in the auxiliary gearbox, so it won't be at engine speed.
68 StressedOut : The purported benefits of the composite fuselage will definitely be realized. Boeing chose the composite route for a number of reasons, not just weig
69 Rheinwaldner : That is true but we must not forget that the technology is >100 years old. Taking the current technology and make further improvements will only be p
70 Brendows : You'd also need a new (and larger) wing to carry a viable payload that distance.
71 Shankly : Love the 787, but Boeings issues in pushing the envelope here kind of proves what a magnificent aircraft the A330 is as a benchmark
72 ComeAndGo : . . . and no electric powered wing surfaces . . . must be either troublesome or expensive . . . going back to hydraulic power.
73 Burkhard : Isn't is settled that the A350 will have a composite structure with a mixed material panel surface, compared to the Al structure on the 787 with a co
74 JoeCanuck : With the exception of construction methodology, the 350 and 787 will be almost identical in technology and materials. For Boeing not to be able to co
75 Post contains links Lumberton : Boeing's response. Range closer to 8000nm than 7000nm. Production will be 10 by 2012. http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=16514
76 Post contains images Keesje : Various scenarios are possible. I think a new wing, wing box and under carriage for the A330 is not that likely / neccessary, and could even weaken t
77 Post contains links Baroque : I should know better than to argue, but if you are correct, what is this for? http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...actory-for-new-a350-xwb-2009-01-
78 Rheinwaldner : The following reasons could be an explanation why the 787 is heavy: - First large scale CFRP application caused a cautious approach. The 787 could be
79 Par13del : Except none of those assumptions are theoritically correct. The B-787 is a replacement for the B-767, Airbus decided to increase the size of its a/c
80 Nomadd22 : So, you're calling future refinements of the 787 "fictional" but refering to A350 specs as if they've already been achieved. Kinda redefines "cheap"
81 Post contains links Keesje : 'reasonably priced" Ah ! You're doing risk management Jon did an update. there has been a glitch on the LDG on April 25. No wonder first flight mostl
82 Nomadd22 : Seems kinda strange they'd switch power in mid gear swing. You'd have a hard time ever doing that in a real world scenario, unless the ground cart ha
83 Post contains links OyKIE : According to Guy Norris GE is working on an improve LP turbine, that will make the GEnx in line with the SFC goals! Finally http://www.aviationweek.co
84 Rheinwaldner : Sorry you understood me wrong (I was probably not clear). That fictional 787 did not refer to the future improved 787. I meant a fictional 787 which
85 DocLightning : I don't see why they couldn't go a bit bigger. Your drawing shows a larger fan with the same ground clearance as the current A330. But the current A3
86 Nomadd22 : Got it. If I only wrote something when I understood it, I'd never write anything.
87 Aerodog : You seem to be forgetting history yourself...the decision to go plastic on the 787 was hardly a unanimous decision amongst Boeing engineers even afte
88 Khobar : Yes, but in combination with what other factors??? The 748i uses GEnx engines and altogether is 15% more efficient than its older sibling. If the GEn
89 Stitch : The original plan was CFRP panels on an Al frame. Then they considered CFRP panels on a CFRP frame. Where they are now, I do not know. The airlines d
90 Keesje : Aerodynamic refinements, composites (black metal), reducing cabin weight, lighter systems What other factors account for 20%? IMO its the engines tha
91 Stitch : If the GEnx and Trent 1000 / Trent XWB really are innately 20% more efficient then any other commercial aerospace engine in service, the airlines woul
92 Bennett123 : Lumberton I understand that Boeing are edging down on range projections, less clear how many aircraft will be affected.
93 Lumberton : Taking them at their word from the ATWO article I quoted, "closer to 8000 than 7000" is at worst 7501 NM. How can that be with the aircraft 8% overwei
94 Stitch : Because maybe it isn't 8% overweight? Maybe because the engines are expected to hit their SFC targets? Maybe because better-then-expected aerodynamic
95 Post contains images Khobar : See - not just the engines alone. Please make up your mind. You just said it wasn't just the engines.   Anyway, fortunately we don't have to rely on
96 Lumberton : So maybe that report from Bernstein was out to lunch, assuming of course that Boeing knows more about its airplane than this "analyst"?
97 Stitch : Boeing and Airbus have both been keeping performance projections and numbers on the 787 and A350XWB very close to their vests. Most of what we hear a
98 Keesje : If GE says their GENX is 15% more efficient then their CF-6-80, its hard to believe it will only do 7% better on an identical airframe. Where would t
99 Clickhappy : We are getting off topic, talking about a refreshed A330, but where would Airbus get the resources for such an effort? Surely they have their hands fu
100 Nomadd22 : Back when the 7E7 had a shark tale, the claim for engine efficiency improvement was 8%. Part of the other 12% was weight savings from having to carry
101 Par13del : Workers are not a problem, financing is not a problem, those two are the major factors, definately not an issue. Let's not forget the B-767's, B-757,
102 Clickhappy : Are you sure about this?
103 Astuteman : I suspect Airbus design staff are pretty much fully booked with the A350 ramping up, and the A400M on their hands Depends on what you mean by "proble
104 Nomadd22 : They need to worry about the climate and backlog in 2014, not today. Not to mention (then why am I mentioning it?) getting the several hundred XWBs d
105 Astuteman : I have a suspicion we're agreeing.. Rgds
106 JoeCanuck : I just can't buy that. CFRP has been around for at least 30 years. Boeing has used it extensively in military projects. It's just another constructio
107 Tdscanuck : Anecdotes are fun, but you need to get ahold of a delay report, bucketed by ATA. Electrical isn't usually in the top 10. Pneumatics are almost always
108 Astuteman : Just need to bear in mind perhaps the differences in sizes - 787 = fractionally bigger than A330 - A350 = fractionally smaller than 777 I'd guess hyd
109 Tdscanuck : Hydraulics are always annoying, but don't get high on the delay drivers list that often because they drive the flight controls, which means they're a
110 JoeCanuck : CFRP construction is significantly different for an unpressurized tail cones than a fuselage wall or wing. But the requirements are well known. Layup
111 AirNZ : Just to clarify this......are you stating that airlines pay Boeing list prices for their aircraft? Again, can this be clarified please.....a reductio
112 ComeAndGo : AFAIK they are not allowed to use military knowhow on commercial jets. Yes and No. It has been tested extensively but also had a bunch of failures on
113 Keesje : During the last decade Airbus got orders for and delivered hundreds of A330s. Current 8.5 per month. The competition was 767-300ER and 767-400ER whic
114 Nomadd22 : I keep hearing that, but aren't most 787s being sold in 9 across, which would make them more of a smaller 350 rather than a big 330?
115 Clickhappy : Are you saying that "since the A330 has sold 500 copies since the 787 was launched" that is a viable competitor to the 787? That Airbus should be in
116 Stitch : No, I am stating that Airbus' published average list price for the A330-200 is $15 million more then Boeing's published average list price for a 787-
117 Post contains links NAV20 : Thanks to Flightblogger (Jon Ostrower) we now have formal and uncompromising confirmation from Boeing that Bernstein Research's speculations are inacc
118 Lumberton : I thought that Geoff Thomas was the guy that confirmed Boeing's response yesterday? " target=_blank>http://www.atwonline.com/news/story....16514
119 TristarSteve : They have done that by allocating later production frames to early customers, and I assume offering lower guarantees for the early frames to other cu
120 NAV20 : Sorry, Lumberton, missed your earlier post. In any case, the whole Bernstein thing is a 'beat-up' - given US stock market rules, Boeing couldn't possi
121 Post contains links Lumberton : NAV20, you might find this interesting. Scott Hamilton addresses the issue here. His conclusion: nothing new. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009...0
122 Post contains links JoeCanuck : They are not allowed to use classified know how on commercial jets. CFRP has a superior strength to weight ratio than fibreglass. It's also significa
123 Stitch : I took a look at the Piano-X document they generated. It shows that flying 6000nm with a 50,820lb payload, an A330-200 would burn 152,600 pounds of f
124 Lumberton : Keep it up, Stitch, and you'll kill this thread.
125 Stitch : You know me. I'm a killjoy at heart.
126 Par13del : Out at work, away for awhile. Unless I have been reading wrong, the major problems with the A400M are beyond the design stage, the prices/cost origina
127 JoeCanuck : The A400 is reputed to be significantly overweight. Redesign can be more intensive than original design.
128 Lightsaber : You mean the a.net estimates of 7,600nm seem to be about right? Thanks for the numbers. Even with 20,000lbm of extra fat, the 788 will have a good ma
129 Autothrust : Never heard about it. TP400 and FADEC problem yes but not extensivly overweight. Do you have a source for this?
130 Post contains links Osiris30 : Article citing and article, but has been covered heavily in mil-av: [quote]The FTD cited sources which said the current version of the A400M can carr
131 Pellegrine : This range shortfall is beyond terrible, i hope Boeing can get the range out to 7700nm - the 777-200ER's range - by LN20 or whatever the regular produ
132 Lightsaber : If the first frames are doing 7,600nm, they'll be past the 77E's range as soon as the first engine improvements hit the fleet. With frame 20 supposed
133 Stitch : ZA100 (the first production frame and the seventh 787 built not counting the two static test frames) is said to be thousands of pounds lighter then t
134 JoeCanuck : Has Boeing actually stated how many pounds overweight these first planes are? Where did the 20,000lbs number come from?
135 Tdscanuck : I need to retract that...I looked at some data today that had hydraulics in the top 10 (though well below pneumatics). My statement about electric re
136 NAV20 : Worth bearing in mind that, as far as range is concerned, all we have so far is an estimate anyway. Boeing will now know the weight of the first coup
137 Astuteman : Huh? Only the RLI component of Airbus financing is different - everything else is open market. Airbus haven't applied for RLI in nearly a decade. Muc
138 Ikramerica : Interesting news that the first six frames are now "confirmed" to be BBJs. Would also make for the whole D-check situation and structural fatigue wit
139 Pellegrine : According to whom? Just asking here. Everyone's numbers contradict themselves currently. Now this is some really good news. Best thing I've read in a
140 StressedOut : This is true, but there are plenty of engineers on the program with lots of composite know how gained on both commercial and military programs. This
141 Post contains links JoeCanuck : That's according to Boeing. They said that the range will be closer to 8000 than 7000 so that means it's between 7501 and 7999. 7600 was pulled out o
142 NAV20 : Pellegrine, the '6,900' figure is now exploded. Boeing have since confirmed, in a formal statement, that the range will be at least 7,501nms. The low
143 Tdscanuck : The standard reference for material allowables for "normal" aerospace materials used to be a military handbook (MIL Handbook V)...so somewhere along
144 Post contains links NAV20 : Agreed, Astuteman - although they're now asking governments to give 'soft loans' to their customers and suppliers.. "BRUSSELS -- Governments should h
145 StressedOut : I am not exactly sure why it is called the mil-handbook. I don't know if it is because some of the materials were developed for military applications
146 Ikramerica : Isn't there a pesky little treaty though that means that the airline business can't be treated the same way as other industries?
147 Nomadd22 : It may be virtually impossible to physically test all layups, but it's not physically impossible to virtually test all (well, a lot anyhow) of them,
148 Boeing4ever : There's some confusion here brought on by the introduction of the A400M into the discussion. Frankly, concerning Airbus' finances on the commercial s
149 AirNZ : I understand what you are saying, yes, but I also feel it to be a stretch to accept various specifics as definitive fact. Unfortunately, Boeing have
150 Rheinwaldner : That's what I meant. Thus I postulated that fictional 787 that differs from the A330 the same way like the A350 differs from the 777. In other words:
151 Osiris30 : Have you read the thread? Boeing has PUBLICLY said closer to 8K and 7K, which means 7,501 or more. Airbus's "analysis" of the 787 program. So you hav
152 Stitch : Boeing has not formally announced a figure of how much they are overweight. Airbus has publicly stated that the six test frames (at a minimum) are 20
153 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Done a bit of research - Bernstein's figures appear to be drawn almost precisely from the 'Airbus Dossier,' which was compiled in April 2008 and relea
154 Stitch : What is also intriguing is that while Boeing does not give "green weights" - what the plane weighs prior to the installation and fitting of a customer
155 Pellegrine : Yes thank you. I generally don't believe such "band-aid" statements from any public company, as it is just face saving and PR, regardless of legal re
156 Stitch : We should all remember that within the next seven weeks ZA001 is supposed to be in the air. If it makes it, within the next 10-14 weeks Boeing will ha
157 Ikramerica : That's true. If it's anything like the 777 longer range program, they will update the status after the first few flights, and in that press release t
158 AirMad : First post, please be tolerant. The first public electricity network went live in 1882. Electricity generation, distribution and conversion back into
159 Ikramerica : Or reducing the electrical draw of the motors and electronics in the first place. This miniaturization has been going on since those days. Smaller mo
160 Prebennorholm : We can have this type of discussions endlessly. The real issue is that the 787 is the first Boeing baby being born under the "new market economy syste
161 AirMad : In principle, agreed. However cables, relays, contactors, circuit breakers etc are not available in infinitely varied sizes. You need a step change b
162 Par13del : Veteren of the wars my friend, its why I made sure to mention launch aid, new programs today are long and expensive, the initial funds invested are r
163 Stitch : I imagine it's not being able to fly 20t (passengers + bags only) 8000nm that is such interest to airlines who have ordered and who are considering o
164 Prebennorholm : Computers, avionics, lighting and such will be a very small part of the 787 electric power demand, way below one percent. The big power consumers are
165 Caryjack : Welcome to A.net If you look at a new light rail system you'd see an overhead catenary system that could be 100 years old connected to an electronic p
166 Ruscoe : That is a very good explanation as to why both the 380and 787 have run into trouble. (I would be interested to know why you think this all started in
167 AirMad : Electrical power generation systems continue to improve in performance even as they grow smaller so, over time, these systems should become both smal
168 Prebennorholm : Na, don't think that what troubles the world's two most important, ongoing arliner design projects is very much off topic. It didn't happen overnight
169 MCIGuy : You seem to contradict yourself here, unless I'm misunderstanding...
170 SunriseValley : This depends on what weight you are talking about. If you are talking MTOW then 560t for the A380-841 and -861 is correct. If you are talking OEW you
171 Stitch : Per the FAA Type Certificate for the A380-800, (at least) three MTOWs are available: 000 - 560t 001 - 510t 002 - 569t EK stated they would be taking
172 NoWorries : I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth --- but I think these are two separate arguments. The second point says that if both A and B have an elec
173 PYGMALION : The 787 is not a house, Aviation cable is much, much better than anything you could ever buy at the big box store. It's the insulation and shielding
174 Ikramerica : The 8000nm benchmark is important because it allows the 787 and A350 to run on the same routes as the 77W and A346, and then the A380. The idea of th
175 Tdscanuck : Yes, it is physically impossible to virtually test all of them...the whole problem with laminates is that there's no good theoretical model that cove
176 XT6Wagon : Its also the range that airlines currently expect for thier routes, and have found marginal use for longer ranges unless its of minimal extra cost ei
177 Ruscoe : When the A3XX specs were given by Airbus in July 1994, it was an aircraft with max seating of 840, or 570 in 3 classes, with a range of the 747 but 1
178 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Try living here, Par13del - we don't have much alternative, unless we book on an amphibian!   Melbourne-LAX is around 14 hours, sometimes more; and
179 Jbernie : Agreed, the endless talk of QF serving cities other than LAX/SFO direct might finally happen, SEA, DFW etc become possible as they don't waste a 747
180 Ruscoe : Yes certainly the Sonic Cruiser would have allowed point to point, but I think the appeal of the Sonic Cruiser was not to be seat mile costs but spee
181 FrmrCAPCADET : One of the permutations not mentioned is that with all of the 8000 mile aircraft you are only a 737/320 hop to the closest airport flying that 7-8,000
182 NAV20 : Or 'lack of appeal' - the market 'crunched the numbers' and realised that the extra speed didn't translate into significant 'door to door' savings of
183 FrmrCAPCADET : I think that Boeing shopped what the new technology could do, either with great performance improvements, or with great efficiency improvements. The
184 Post contains links Zeke : I always think at times like this it is worth looking back to see what they were saying about the aircraft performance and weight back when airlines
185 Pylon101 : Nope. It was not Aeroflot. Details of Aeroflot BD meeting of 5/5 were not disclosed. But it is rumored that the discussion was about near 2009 Airbus
186 JoeCanuck : The weight didn't start going up on the 787 until well into construction. Whether or not the 350 can meet is goals won't be known until Airbus starts
187 Rheinbote : Another benfit is expected in maintenance, where basically the number of C and D checks would be halved in the long run. Also, the scope of the remai
188 Stitch : Correct. We were looking at roughly 777 trip costs for 767 capacity. We may be overlooking it, but I know of at least a few airlines who did not. OEW
189 Zeke : I would disagree with that, e.g. FAA lightning protection increased weight before production began. That is for another thread. I disagree, it would
190 NAV20 : Heck, Zeke mate, of course that's true - as far as it goes. But the very next questions are, "Did the checks reveal any damage?"; "How long will any
191 Post contains links Rheinbote : I didn't say anything to that effect. Again: Over an in-service period of 12 years, the 787 is advertised to need half the C-checks and half the D-ch
192 Post contains links Baroque : Welcome indeed. You would think you could not get into trouble citing physics, but you never know. On the subject of wiring, in relation to the A380
193 XT6Wagon : Sonic Cruiser was supposed to have the same trip fuel burn as a 767, people are thrown off by the fact that the fuel burn per hour was far higher as
194 Revelation : Some other claims I have read is it's easier to match generation to demand with electronics vs with hydraulics (and thus drive up efficiency), and th
195 Zeke : That is a question we will not know the answer for at least for another decade, and a question regulatory bodies will not know for another decade, or
196 Keesje : Good point. The process has taken so much time and mutations it's easy to get confused. Hopefully the 787 will have longer maintenance intervals and
197 Pygmalion : you are incorrect Zeke. Damage Tolerance is based on inspection of the airplane at regular intervals based statistically determined crack growth betw
198 Ruscoe : So as a matter of interest do you know if the CRP panel approach of the 350, will give the same fatigue and other benefits as the 787 fuselage? Rusco
199 JoeCanuck : I imagine the panels will be bonded as well as fastened to the frames. There is no reason this can't be just as strong and durable as the barrels.
200 Tdscanuck : The *main* reason for the C&D checks is that it's the input to the damage tolerant calculation...you can't go beyond that and be statistically confid
201 Zeke : FAR 25.571 does not mention the material being used in the structure, the application of FAR 25.571 as I indicted earlier is independent of the mater
202 Post contains links Stitch : Here ya go. It was not Mr. Clark, but Emirates vice-president route and fleet planning Richard Jewsbury. Of course, he's a better source then Mr. Cla
203 Zeke : Interesting, thanks. I do not see that as much of an issue, long term you will see payload improvements to the A350 over the weight variation 1, just
204 StressedOut : As others have pointed out this is absolutely, unequivocally incorrect. Damage tolerance design takes into account crack growth rates which are mater
205 Astuteman : Bear in mind the A350 based freighter will have a 30 t higher MTOW than the A350-900.. So they turn a 471t plane with a seat-mile cost advantage of 1
206 Ruscoe : Yes. It allows smaller aircraft to compete with a much larger craft, on a seat basis. not just trip basis, and thus limit the market potential of the
207 Post contains links Zeke : Incorrect, all new aircraft need to meet the requirements of FAR 25.571, it does not matter what is it constructed out of (i.e. damage tolerant desig
208 AirNZ : So I guess SQ, EK and QF so far, and others coming, have all made a huge mistake then and haven't a clue about running airlines.
209 Astuteman : You'll have to excuse my ignorance. I am completely at a loss as to understanding why making a plane carry the same number of passengers much further
210 Par13del : Almost sounds as if the folks are trying to defy the laws of physics, composites are composites and metal is metal, however as you listed this in quo
211 Trex8 : I suspect to make that 1300kg more profitable than a 20% lower fuel burn, it would all have to be premium pax body weight!
212 Revelation : I think what he's saying is that if Airbus had managed to make all the improvements they did, and ALSO keep the extra 20% weight off the plane, it'd
213 Keesje : Many operators introduced MSG on 747 and 737 too. You need a solid maintenance concept and organisation to prove authorities and OEMS. MSG is basicly
214 Astuteman : Impossible to argue with that. I think Scottie would have been able to furnish the appropriate quote, though.. Perhaps you interest may be answered b
215 Tdscanuck : FAR 24.571 doesn't mention the material because the principle of damage tolerant design isn't material dependent...the *result* is extremely material
216 Astuteman : Although this would appear to be just what Airbus are aiming for on the A330 just now - without the weight increase..... As I said before. It will be
217 Keesje : Many operators introduced MSG on 747 and 737 too. You need a solid maintenance concept and organisation to prove authorities and OEMS. I think the 78
218 Khobar : But they lost 50 seats along the way.
219 Astuteman : Well, 30 anyway. But they kept the space which provides the capacity.. Rgds
220 Zeke : Actually the FAA agree, the heavy checks for the 787 are presently set at 12 year intervals, the same interval you get with an A330/A340 these days.
221 Tdscanuck : So the "out-of-the-box" maintenance interval on the 787 is as long as a mature airplane that's been in service for 17 years...that sure doesn't sound
222 Astuteman : That does indeed have to be recognised for the achievement that it is, Tom. Kudos to Boeing That said, it also has to be recognised that it isn't the
223 Boeing4ever : Well, you're both right. But what are the odds that the interval for the 787 won't be increased from its "out-of-the-box" interval later on in its li
224 Zeke : We have just gone full circle, that is what I said above in reply 201 The 787 and the composite fuselage has exactly the same heavy check period as p
225 Astuteman : For what it's worth, I wasn't claiming it wasn't... What I have been interested to see has been the effect of competition...... It's very clear that
226 Rheinbote : The 787 has double the ab-initio heavy check interval over a lightweight aluminum aircraft.
227 Boeing4ever : Might I suggest we travel in a square next time? Or perhaps a triangle? OOOOO, how about a rhombus? I'm sorry, but I just had to... Sorry I missed wh
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...
Jetstar/Qantas 787 Delays posted Fri Dec 12 2008 21:36:57 by Dkramer7
CO & Mounting 787 Delays posted Sat Dec 6 2008 16:26:19 by CB777
Further A380 Delays? posted Sun Sep 14 2008 04:16:58 by Rigo
Boeing Strike = More 787 Delays? posted Sat Aug 30 2008 15:31:36 by BoeingFever777
BA Will Lease 767/777 A/c Due 787 Delays posted Tue May 6 2008 02:12:19 by BALHRWWCC
Air Canada And The 787 Delays posted Thu Apr 10 2008 05:38:23 by CF105Arrow
JQ To Lease A330's Due To 787 Delays posted Wed Apr 9 2008 17:01:56 by Aussie747
Virgin Atlantic Calm About 787 Delays posted Thu Mar 6 2008 00:21:11 by PlaneHunter
WSJ: Boeing To Announce 787 Delays posted Tue Jan 15 2008 11:47:07 by Maverick747
Chicago Tribune: Behind Boeing's 787 Delays posted Sat Dec 8 2007 06:50:18 by Hoya