Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 3  
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 37171 times:

Part 2 is getting close to 300 replies, so it is time to start a new thread on the subject:

Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 2 (by WILCO737 Jun 24 2009 in Civil Aviation)

Please continue here and stay on topic and within the rules. Debate the topic not the [b]user[/b[

Thanks.

254 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2243 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 36840 times:

Quote from Tdscanuck, reply 282 previous thread:

Quote:
Why do the claims that ZA997 needs a new wing make sense to you? I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just curious about which pieces of evidence you find compelling because, from the same evidence, I get the opposite conclusion.

I've read so much about the 787 the last week, and I can't remember where I read all the different pieces. I would probably have to spend a couple of hours to try to find that information again, and honestly, this question isn't that important to me. I'm prefectly satisfied with just waiting to see what will happen in the next few months.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineFlood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 36798 times:

Life goes on...

Number two comes to life:
http://kpae.blogspot.com/2009/07/n787ex-initial-engine-run.html


User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 36618 times:



Quoting Flood (Reply 2):
Life goes on...

Speaking of life going on, there seems to have been a deathly silence on the final gauntlet. Clearly it's no longer on the critical path for first flight, but we were assured that the gauntlet and taxi tests would continue while things were resolved.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8467 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 36484 times:



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Clearly it's no longer on the critical path for first flight, but we were assured that the gauntlet and taxi tests would continue while things were resolved.

Logically speaking, won't they have to wait the 16-24 weeks to sort out this part? (my estimate). Sure, the gauntlet still has to be done before first flight, AFTER they get the aircraft v1.3 assembled... IMHO.


User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 869 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 36081 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Sure, the gauntlet still has to be done before first flight, AFTER they get the aircraft v1.3 assembled

In the conference call they said that the final gauntlet and some taxi tests would procede while the fix was being sorted. It would be an opportunity to retire risk early rather than come to another potential grinding halt later.

I hope the required time is at the lower end of your estimate, though it's possible if things go right (big if) that it could be 3-ish months.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30859 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 35303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Seattle Times had a flurry of articles in this morning's paper on how Boeing buying Vought's 787 operations may be a strong indication they will set up a second FAL in Charleston.

Speculation grows for Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina

In assessing Boeing move, easy scapegoats won't fly

Scott Hamilton of Leeham.net also weighed in with an opinion piece.

How to keep Boeing in Puget Sound when South Carolina beckons


While in the past I've been skeptical of a second FAL, now I am starting to think it's going to happen and happen sooner rather than later. Clearly, the subs will need to beef up their infrastructure to be able to handle a combined production rate of 16-20 frames a month, but I think Boeing is going to launch a second FAL designed around the 787-9 (and perhaps 787-10) in a place like Charleston and leave Everett to handle initial production of the 787-8 and 787-3.

With the 787-9 not due for almost four years, that does give Boeing time to help the subs get ready to support the second FAL and for Boeing to prepare the FAL itself.


User currently offlineBlackKnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 34904 times:

The problem is that the union's last strike caused enough concern with Boeing's customers that the second line is a response to the customers desire to have insurance against another strike. Bottom line is that Washington union members should get a refund because the last strike sold them down the river. Hind sight is always 20/20 but the strike was really not a great idea. They should have waited one more cycle. Now they will even have less of a leg to stand on next round.

You can be sure the next line will have the capacity to run at least 15 per month.

Sorry Washington thank you union leaders for a lack of vision.



BK
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 34658 times:

So, there may be a second line in Charleston.

Very nice when the order book is full and deliveries are delayed.

But, when there will be no need for two lines, a few years down the road, which one will be closed?


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2510 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 34223 times:



Quoting Aircellist (Reply 8):
when there will be no need for two lines, a few years down the road, which one will be closed?

The answer to that will probably have a lot to do with whether the Charleston line is a union shop or not and what the next IAM contract in Everett looks like when the current one expires in four years.


User currently offlineFlood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 33794 times:



Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 3):
Speaking of life going on, there seems to have been a deathly silence on the final gauntlet. Clearly it's no longer on the critical path for first flight, but we were assured that the gauntlet and taxi tests would continue while things were resolved.

Jon's been rather quiet on the 787's progress since explaining the delay on 6/24. Just a tweet here and there, including today's “Boeing confirms ZA001 final gauntlet underway.”


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 33629 times:



Quoting Flood (Reply 10):
Jon's been rather quiet on the 787's progress since explaining the delay on 6/24. Just a tweet here and there, including today's “Boeing confirms ZA001 final gauntlet underway.”



Quoting Flood (Reply 10):
Jon's been rather quiet on the 787's progress since explaining the delay on 6/24. Just a tweet here and there, including today's “Boeing confirms ZA001 final gauntlet underway.”

He probably takes anything coming from his Boeing sources with a grain of salt nowadays.


User currently onlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 33081 times:

First Boeing 787 flight will happens only when Clickhappy allows it.

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 32262 times:

Tomorrow's issue of Aviation Week quotes that industry insiders fear the wing issue "might add another 18 month delay".

A delay of this magnitude would indicate to me that the permanent fix comes down to some serious redesign. Would be interesting to know what role the previous failure of the center wing box plays in all this.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30859 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 32230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

An 18 month redesign could hint that Boeing is scrapping the existing 787 design and starting over completely in-house and then issue a new design to the subs. A couple billion will keep the subs running as well as allow them to increase their infrastructure to start at a 10+ unit per month production rate.

On the flip side, this might not be a bad thing. Develop a new wing and undercarriage and launch four models:

787-8: 60m and 250 passengers and a 225t MTOW
787-9: 65m and 300 passengers and a 250t MTOW
787-10: 70m and 350 passengers and a 275t MTOW
787-11: 75m and 400 passengers and a 300t MTOW

GE will either be forced to develop a 95-100k pound thrust version for the 787-10 and 787-11 (which would then also work for the A350XWB) or Rolls can sole-source supply those two models with a bleedless version of the Trent XWB, offering the Trent 1000 for the two lower models.

That way, Boeing has a single 767 and 777 replacement and offers one family to handle 250-400 passengers where Airbus has to offer two (A330 and A350XWB). The 787 would also benefit from the lessons learned over the past five years on the original design, so it should be more "advanced" than the A350XWB (since the pundits claim the A350XWB's later EIS made it more "advanced" than the 787 Mk I).

Then Boeing can call up Washington D.C. and have them drop the WTO complaint and the Department of Commerce can issue Boeing $5 billion in RLA to pay for it.

I mean heck, it worked for Airbus.  Wink

[Edited 2009-07-05 12:54:35]

User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 32042 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Tomorrow's issue of Aviation Week quotes that industry insiders fear the wing issue "might add another 18 month delay".

A delay of this magnitude would indicate to me that the permanent fix comes down to some serious redesign. Would be interesting to know what role the previous failure of the center wing box plays in all this.

A delay of 18 month would be - in my opinion - absolutely possible if their are stress and sizing issues with the massive titanium forgings that are used to splice the wing and centre wing boxes together. These components have very big lead time (12months) for aircraft which are currently in production.

From an industrial point of view I am very surprised that the wing joint structure was not sized for the -9 or even -10 at perhaps 265t? MTOW. The cost of the engineering and manufacture of the joint forgings I believe would offset the penalty on the -8.
Perhaps the big question is "Was the joint 'meant to have been' sized for bigger loads than the baseline -800?"


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19498 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 32028 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):

Tomorrow's issue of Aviation Week quotes that industry insiders fear the wing issue "might add another 18 month delay".

At that point, you're better to scrap the design you have. Maybe maintain the original mold lines for the fuselage and the avionics and just start working on a 787-NG. But re-work the structural interior. 18 months will put less than a year between the 787 and the A350.

And that will be a bad thing for Boeing. Very bad.


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31976 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
At that point, you're better to scrap the design you have. Maybe maintain the original mold lines for the fuselage and the avionics and just start working on a 787-NG. But re-work the structural interior. 18 months will put less than a year between the 787 and the A350.

And that will be a bad thing for Boeing. Very bad.

It would take longer than 18months to redo all the specific design work.


I'm think we'll see an interim fix that'll be possible in 6months and a serial aircraft mod in about 18months.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12462 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

TBH, a new delay of 18 months would be very bad news for Boeing. However, without any special inside knowledge, it seems inconceivable that something Boeing discovered just a few days before 1st flight could add another 18 month delay to the project. Six months I could just about see, but 18 sounds way too pessimistic to me.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31877 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 13):
Tomorrow's issue of Aviation Week quotes that industry insiders fear the wing issue "might add another 18 month delay".

EIGHTEEN months?

If this is true, I think we'll see many airlines cancelling orders and looking to Airbus. The A330 could see a massive boost in orders...



Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31867 times:

There are basically only two alternatives for Boeing right now:

1) Patch the first aircrafts up with as much band-aid as necessary to make them flightworthy and look how the following aircrafts can be redesigned
2) Start over again and go back to Design Phase and do it "right"

Alternative 1) seems very risky. The current design is apparently flawed to some (yet unknown) degree, which could have catastrophic consequences during flight test or early service. This could result in a total loss of credit in the industry (end of BCA), alongside the loss of human life.

I would expect therefore alternative 2) including following steps:

a) Give a realistic schedule even if it hurts! (18-24 months is minimum for a comprehensive structural redesign). No more "compressed flight testing" bullshit, 12-18 months is minumum here.
b) Get the suppliers to deliver quality components. Establish an effectiv quality control system.
c) Get all design activities back in house, to have an comprehensive overview of the current work. Hire skilled engineers and fire the bean counters.
d) Work out a strict certification plan with FAA. Address currently problematic areas like e.g. fuel tank lightning protection.
e) Train local workers and subcontractors, so that they are actually capable of delivering high quality work. No more "trained (cheap monkeys) on the job", get skilled personal, even if it is much more expensive.


User currently offlineTheredbaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31858 times:

First af all happy a net birthday Stich.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
An 18 month redesign could hint that Boeing is scrapping the existing 787 design and starting over completely in-house and then issue a new design to the subs. A couple billion will keep the subs running as well as allow them to increase their infrastructure to start at a 10+ unit per month production rate.

After reading this I cant hekp it but think that the 787 will be the Windows Vista of Airliners.



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30859 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 21):
After reading this I cant help it but think that the 787 will be the Windows Vista of Airliners.

Perhaps the second try will result in the OS X of Airliners.  


Anyway, if it does require a new wingbox and wing/body join, I really hope Boeing decides to scrap what they have and develop a new wingbox that can handle double and triple axle undercarriage and consider a new, larger (swept area) wing design so they can build a 787-10 and 787-11 with MTOWs up to 300t to have a solid 777 family replacement.

[Edited 2009-07-05 14:11:25]

User currently offlineAerodog From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31821 times:

A fall back position may be a metal wing,,,sanity at last.

User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31765 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Then Boeing can call up Washington D.C. and have them drop the WTO complaint and the Department of Commerce can issue Boeing $5 billion in RLA to pay for it.

Why bother the B787 is probably the most subsidized airplane ever.
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...enders-stirs-up-subsidy-row-again/

Factor in the Japanese and Italian gov investment and the state tax relief schemes

"Boeing has amassed more than U.S.$5 billion in government subsidies to pay for its development and production" http://wotnews.com.au/like/boeing_78...ing_a_negotiated_solution/1685734/

On the subject of subsidizes I know that the EU govs do very well out of Airbus and recieve handsome (indefinite) royalities on each A320/A330.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Subsidies

It would be very interesting (delays aside) to know what BCA's finanical stake in the B787 is? 33-40% $4-5b?

[Edited 2009-07-05 14:20:14]

[Edited 2009-07-05 14:21:43]

25 Stitch : Boeing isn't hurting for money at the moment. Revenues are stronger this year than last even with deliveries in the toilet and cash is growing nicely,
26 AirframeAS : If that is the real case, I would then begin to question what the point is to this airplane now. WTF?! 18 months delay = a pointless airplane, IMO, t
27 Astuteman : Must admit that I feel that 18 months seems incredibly pessimistic, too, although I've absolutely no knowledge of what's really going on in this case
28 Chiad : Well hey ... I installed Windows 7 RC1 a few weeks back. It's awesome! Very stable and ..... spends so much less system resources If this comparison
29 HawkerCamm : I would fully support Boeing developing a -10 and -11 based from the current -8/-9. However I think the Wing/Engine/MLG optimization should not be co
30 Stitch : Well whether it is one foundation that is modified as necessary (ala the A350XWB) or two families sharing many parts with specific changes as needed,
31 WingedMigrator : that would put delivery in 3Q11 and EIS in 4Q11. This is stunning, if true. Are these the big cross-shaped members that form the intersection of fuse
32 Racko : I seriously doubt that if they really need another 18 months it would be a smart decision to go for an even more ambitious design, Stitch. As nice as
33 Flood : It'll be very interesting to see how Boeing responds to the article. I don't see how they could afford not to respond, especially if those "industry i
34 MillwallSean : Well on the first day Boeing told customers that there would be a 3 month delay but that they would come back when they had some more definite inform
35 Baroque : The main lesson from the A380 and B787 stuff ups seems to me that you can survive amazing amounts of damage provided you have lines like the A32x and
36 AirlineCritic : First off: 18 months sounds like the end of the world. But its not. Boeing needs to get their design right, and they will. And the plane will be a gre
37 HawkerCamm : Yes
38 Astuteman : To be fair, that's hardly a good way to engender long-standing trust and loyalty in your customer base.. Rgds
39 Dynamicsguy : Take it as you like, but the bloggers were reporting what Boeing had released. If you listen to the podcast of the conference call they stated that t
40 Bestwestern : 18 Months will absolutely murder the NPV on this project, and push the number of aircraft needed to break even into the stratsosphere.
41 Burkhard : If the economy recovers in 2010 back to 2007 level, yes. If it takes longer, just enough to keep that line busy at 8.5x11 months and balance delayed
42 BoeingVista : 18 months redesign and voila! 787v4 (maybe 787-XWB???) are you serious? In 18 months with any luck they might just get ZA001 in the air. If they star
43 Scouseflyer : I beleive that it's CRFP but Airbus has done this once already the A380 box is made of CFRP.
44 BrianDromey : I suppose Airbus has an advantage of having far, far more experience of working with CFRP. every aircraft from the A300 has used much higher % of CFR
45 AirlineCritic : True. And there may be penalties, too. I just wanted to point out that there are other factors as well, and that the best estimate you can get from t
46 SEPilot : There was a poster on this forum some time ago who worked for a lab that tested CFRP samples for both Boeing and Airbus. He stated that when Boeing s
47 Starrion : 18 months to do what? Redesign/ rebuild the center wingbox and wing join? If so, what does that mean for the frames already on their wheels? Can they
48 Stitch : Break-even is overrated on this board. Even if the program never turns a dime in RoI, 1000+ deliveries will ensure enough cash flows through to both
49 AirNZ : In which case why does the "overrated" break-even figures seem to be so 'crucial' on this board when a thread is about Airbus? So it's okay for a no
50 Bestwestern : The investors dont think so.
51 Clickhappy : Break even is overrated One cannot achieve profit with breaking even, so, by extension, making a profit is overrated? I'd say some of the "analysis" o
52 RedChili : Anybody has a link? I haven't been able to find anything about this on the web. No, 18 months will mean first delivery in September 2011, while I bel
53 MSYtristar : A further 18 month delay? If true, at this point, it's almost laughable. I've been a huge Boeing supporter for the most part although I'm certainly no
54 Post contains links BestWestern : Where's The Crisis? (by Saab2000 Jun 22 2009 in Civil Aviation) Link above is a prime example of this - shows some of the thinking around here - basi
55 DocLightning : See, Boeing needs to level with the public. We're talking about 18 months when Boeing said "several weeks." This sort of wild speculation is not good
56 Post contains images Stitch :    I've consistently said it doesn't matter to Airbus and the A380 as well. The investors only care how the stock is doing at the moment. I doubt f
57 Manfredj : So do we have an update? At this point is this just rumor, or is it looking like the 18 months is going to be a reality? I thought we were talking ab
58 Lightsaber : I'm floored by this estimate. If Boeing cannot bring it in, its like a gift on a silver platter to Airbus. Or Boeing could sell 77W's at a discount (p
59 HawkerCamm : Boeing said several weeks to work out the new schedule
60 Lumberton : I was going to ask the same thing. Did AW&ST report on what "insiders" fear?[Edited 2009-07-06 11:09:20]
61 EPA001 : You are absolutely correct on this one. The strong sales and deliveries keep the cash flowing to overcome these huge set-backs. You are fair, and the
62 Allegro : The quote is: "At the moment, [the] way forward has been clouded by negative wing-stress tests that some industry insiders fear might add another 18-
63 SEPilot : Yes, they did. However, it could be because they tried cutting the safety margins a little too much; or it could be that the computer models imperfec
64 Astuteman : Presumably the same CFRP they so successfully made the worlds largest CFRP wingbox out of for the A380......... To be very fair to Stitch, he has bee
65 Starrion : You know between the Airbus CATIA 4.5/5.0 debacle and Boeing's Materials don't behave in real life like they do in Simulation, it reminds me of an old
66 Scbriml : That in itself suggests a not-insignificant delay. However, I'm still really struggling to believe that Boeing could have screwed up another 18-month
67 BrouAviation : You do believe the A350XWB will have her EIS on schedule? There are only few companies able to stay within the promised schedule nowadays when it com
68 AirNZ : I would absolutely agree that there wouldn't be. I wasn't particularly 'getting at' Stitch and it just happened to be his comment which I was comment
69 EPA001 : See my earlier post: This implicates that is not guaranteed imho that Airbus will keep their schedule. Although they planned a 7 year development tim
70 DocLightning : then why waste money on making a 787 and not just go to the 737 RS? That claim is like saying winglets are only on a plane to make it look pretty. If
71 BestWestern : I doubt that this will be the case, but considering the amount of investment already made (anyone have the figure?) by boeing - the interest bill loa
72 Stitch : I won't argue that, but if it keeps Boeing relevant as a widebody commercial airplane maker and viable as a commercial airplane maker overall, then i
73 DocLightning : And yet it will be LOSING MONEY. And Boeing isn't in the business of funding tax dollars. Boeing is in the business of building airplanes.
74 BestWestern : It could kill the company - such huge loans - and no future 787 revenues to pay back those loans. But guys, its not going to happen - the 787 will fl
75 WingedMigrator : That's certainly true of day traders, i.e. a minority of investors. Ah, yes, I believe the saying goes, "we lose money on each sale but we make it up
76 Stitch : Every new airplane program loses money at first. Even if the 100th 787 was being rolled off the line right now, chances are that frame would be losin
77 Ikramerica : If Boeing believed it would be 18 months delay, they wouldn't have brought #1 out of the factory again, done more gauntlet testing, and be preparing f
78 Par13del : Sarcasm on: Which Boeing are we talking about, the Boeing that knew about the wing box problem after the static test, or the Boeing that was actually
79 Barbarian : The A350 centre wing box will be CFRP as is it is on the A380, biggest difference on the A350 is that the main wing box components (covers, stringers
80 ADent : I feared a lot of things that could happen, but did not happen. When I lived in SoCal I feared The Big One. Didn't happen. There was a good sized eart
81 Ikramerica : Considering the second Boeing only exists in the minds of biased people, it would be the first one. Boeing had never intended to fly the plane "as if
82 Racko : I still don't believe the 18 months to be true. They would have to warn the airlines and it would have leaked by now.
83 WingedMigrator : Because that would compromise their sources inside Boeing, or compromise themselves (if they are insiders) ? This is no time to be shooting the messe
84 Ikramerica : That's how I see it. I've never designed CFRP, only steel, but it shouldn't take 18 months to fix this. You can design and test changed components fo
85 AirNZ : But surely that's a complete contradiction to what you clearly implied? I thus don't fully understand what you're actually claiming to say.
86 BrianDromey : It does seem unbelievable. My guess is this could be anything from weeks to months. Boeing are clearly taking this very seriously. Their plan to take
87 Par13del : No evidence at all, not stirring any pots, only stated that because they had the a/c on the flight line, fueled her up, and was within what a day or
88 Stitch : Well Lockheed Commercial only had one family of aircraft. A more appropriate model might be McDonald-Douglas in the 1980s prior to Airbus launching t
89 Stitch : I wonder if it was a case of Boeing talking to the FAA and at the last moment the FAA issued a ruling that if ZA001 went up as-is, the data collected
90 Racko : Does the FAA have to "pre-certify" a prototype before it's first flight? I.e. could the FAA say to Boeing "You're not flying it until you fix this"?
91 Tdscanuck : They need to issue an experimental certificate, at least. That's not really "pre-certification" in any sense, but you do need a piece of paper from t
92 Post contains links Stitch : Randy reports that ZA001 has completed final gauntlet on Friday. I really hope they start some taxi tests soon, even if they have no intention of putt
93 Dynamicsguy : I think Clickhappy clarified that ZA001 had not yet returned to the factory. They laid out the timeline. They found the problem late May and realised
94 WingedMigrator : Ha! After a Potemkin roll-out two years ago, you're now suggesting a Potemkin first flight? Will Tom Brokaw narrate? A risk is something that might h
95 Dynamicsguy : There was a problem. The risk was that what they found would delay the first flight and require a fix. That was what might happen. Until they had eva
96 Astuteman : What "huge" loans? That's my understanding too That sounds like a pretty good summary to me, Barbarian. Let's hope that this turns out to be the form
97 AirFRNT : I still can't believe how fscked Boeing has made this development - I was worried the second Mullaly left the program - but Boeing has no choice but
98 Theredbaron : Now to put more thing into perspective.... PR guys and Aircraft builders will think again when making wild promises on new technology, because lets fa
99 Ikramerica : I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm asking for someone to explain why Boeing would be starting #2 and preparing or taxi test on #1 if ther
100 Post contains links BestWestern : Total R&D costs for the 787 are estimated at $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion. Source: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...ews+index+-+temp_news+%2B+an
101 Dynamicsguy : That sounds very very low. Maybe it's just the cost to Boeing, which if true would indicate just how much of the risk and cost that partners took on.
102 Dynamicsguy : Sorry, I didn't mean to pick. Just trying to dispel the a.net myth that ZA001 had returned to the factory.
103 BestWestern : This is what Im getting at - the interest bill alone for the already two year delay would criple the majority of companies. At 5% interest and a loan
104 Burkhard : I still hope the 18 months is just too pessimistic and the reality is 18 weeks. I must say that I'm less embarrassed by this delay than the earlier on
105 RedChili : Boeing cannot warn the airlines about anything because Boeing, right now, officially does not know how long the fix will take. There are probably som
106 Scouseflyer : It sounds very low to me too (quoted development cost for the XWB IIRC was about $10B) but as was stated earlier in this thread, it's under stood tha
107 Flighty : Boeing execs might have no idea in the whole world how long this will take. Their grasp on reality has been vaporous. Even if they did know, they mig
108 Cerecl : Boeing did the same with ZA001, fuelled it up, started the engine, all while knowing that it was not going to fly. The point I think some are trying
109 Dynamicsguy : I was using risk in the way it is used in this context, as in a risk to schedule, retiring risks, proceeding at risk, etc. It is correct to use it as
110 SEPilot : This is one of the dangers of an overly ambitious schedule. When you screw up it often costs more time that a more realistic initial schedule would h
111 Post contains links and images Keesje : that would be dramatic. probably the smallest and largest version would be less competative because oversized / undersized parts of the aircraft. One
112 AirNZ : With all due respect, I disagree and I feel I'm rather clear on what I was stating with no irony whatever being involved from me. If you are 'now' se
113 Burkhard : They could of course have invested the money is some brilliant shiny high profit offers that were around until a year ago, and it would be away too.
114 SEPilot : They could have also have had daily bonfires of $100 bills. It's not to say that it doesn't hurt having to spend that much money and not reaped the b
115 Post contains images Stitch : Well it wouldn't be the optimum solution, but it would be the quickest. That being said, if they don't need to redesign the wingbox, then they can pr
116 Post contains links and images Keesje : History in the making.The USAF was the 707 launch customer. It placed an order for 600 KC-135s to be delivered between 1959 and 1964. At the time, Bo
117 Theredbaron : Geraldo would say the pitot tubes were flawed. LOL. BTW, what about the rigidity of carbon fibre, does anyone know that in the event of a hard landing
118 PITIngres : This sort of thing has been discussed many times in various contexts (hard landing, ramp rash, etc). Short answer is that you build the airframe stro
119 WingedMigrator : You also need to keep in mind that a dollar spent in 1994 is worth $1.43 today.
120 BoeingBus : Keesje I couldn't agree with you more... My postings on a.net have decreased when moderators increased their "lets merge everything into one post and
121 Nomadd22 : Rigidity in CFRP isn'y some undesirable aspect you have to live with. It's somethiing you can design in to be whatever you want it to be. One of the
122 Post contains links Mham001 : There seems to be some dispute in regards to Boeings cash flow.... "Cash levels have dropped alarmingly, with huge cash requirements coming due in ju
123 Stitch : I would imagine Mr. Hamilton has access to the same public financial records on Boeing that I do and those records showed year-on-year revenue for th
124 SEPilot : You need to recheck your history. When the original contract for the jet tanker was issued, Boeing did not win, Lockheed did. It was only because Cur
125 Nomadd22 : A year ago Boeing had about $9 billion on hand. They also had about $19 billion in debt. They're not like some companies who go begging for loans to b
126 Post contains links Keesje : You're bending the facts. lets put it straight. Because the prototype was constructed to sell first as a military-tanker transport, it had few window
127 XT6Wagon : Kessje, unfortunately for you, "condensed" history isn't ACCURATE history. SEPilot has it correct. The KC135 was a temporary stopgap for the winning t
128 757GB : Loved it
129 Keesje : Nobody denies the KC135 was temporary a stopgab or that the KC-135 was narrower. But, it doesn't change a thing! Read what Boeing says : " target=_bl
130 Pellegrine : Estimates for 787-3/8/9 are $12-15 billion. Boeing's share is less than half the total.
131 BoeingVista : Estimates from when? Source please.
132 Nomadd22 : Estimates vary so much because the definition of cost varies so much. The biggest thing is how you figure debt servicing. You can ignore it and come u
133 Pellegrine : I'm not a googleator. There are many press articles where development cost has been mentioned. In mid-2006 it was $11 billion for all partners. (It o
134 Post contains links Astuteman : Absolutely correct. .... There are massive interractions between the different programmes at corporate level that make isolating one at the top level
135 Nomadd22 : The $7.5B was money owed. Total includes obligations and deferred taxes. End of 2008 wasn't a year ago. Look at the difference between 3Q 2008 and 4Q
136 Post contains links WestWing : Today, July 8th, happens to be the two-year anniversary of the "rollout" of "Rock Star" ZA001.
137 Stitch : There are no "sources". Boeing does not publicly announce what their commercial aircraft program R&D costs are. The analysts are all just taking "inf
138 Astuteman : Understand that. Total money "owed" will also include short-term liabilities, such as supplier invoices not yet paid, which in a $60Bn a year turnove
139 SEPilot : Yes, they were trying to sell it to the Air Force; I have never disputed that. BUT THEY LOST THE COMPETITION. Lockheed won it, and it was not until l
140 PlanesNTrains : My memory is fuzzy now, but I specifically remember thinking at the time of his departure that perhaps he knew something that we didn't.....yet. That
141 Post contains links Rheinbote : The 777 was budgeted at $6bn and ended up costing twice as much http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_27/b3739179.htm The Boeing board repo
142 SEPilot : To expand what I said earlier, what Boeing did with the 707 was transform them from primarily a military contractor to the dominant player in the civi
143 Stitch : The 777 is an expensive plane to build and the 787 lists much closer to a 767 than a 777. As for the total program cost, Scott Carson did note a few
144 Pellegrine : Granted, demand is such that even if dev. cost balloons to $20B+, Boeing and their partners will recoup their investments as this plane is on track t
145 Flighty : No, because the plane is in such high demand. If the A380 had 450 orders right now, it too would be highly profitable. But, not the case quite yet. I
146 Scipio : That depends entirely on the prices at which these frames have been or will be sold, and on production costs turning out broadly as planned. It is qu
147 Post contains links Keesje : [ Apparently I'm not the only one: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fir...87-delivery-may-be-in-2011-analyst At Airbus I heard people use "A320 equiva
148 Pellegrine : While I don't doubt it would be possible for a second, that would seem really really really improbable. I'm not going to make any break even guesses,
149 Post contains links Scbriml : True, but they've just spent another $1bn buying out Vought's 787 share ($580m cash plus $420m+ in forgiven advanced payments). That's $1bn+ that the
150 Rheinbote : 50 give or take. But the $1bn+ Boeing spent includes inventory for approximately 20 airplanes, in varying state of completion.
151 Scbriml : Given the risk-sharing with the remaining partners, I'd be very surprised if Boeing alone was making $20m per 787. Parts of 20 planes presumably, not
152 Nomadd22 : My sole intent was to be a jerk, so I guess I can call it a day. Can't really blame any company for presenting the numbers in the manner that best se
153 NCB : I feel some people are getting out of hand on the 787 delays, including some media. I think that we will not wait another 18 months to first flight. R
154 Stitch : If you believe the pundits and the first batch of 787-8s went out at $90 million a piece (based on a $120 million list), Boeing would have been looki
155 Keesje : I think Mitsubishu, Kawasaki, Alenia, Spirit and others will be there to claim their piece of the cake. The other side of the medal being not only a
156 Stitch : Well I'm factoring in the shipset payments to those partners as part of the production costs, of course. And those would be for stuffed shipsets, I i
157 Dynamicsguy : There's a full static test program to complete before they get to the ultimate load test on the wings. This is usually done in parallel with flight t
158 BestWestern : Stitch, you are being too positive. Vought were probably making a small margin for this ship sets. Boeing now own the factory, company debt, can still
159 Rheinwaldner : Fantastic plans! Outclasses the original 787 business case both in attractiveness and cost! The only minor fault: The number 18 before the word month
160 Superfly : Wake me up when Boeing resurrects the B2707 SST or when the 747-8 makes it's maiden voyage. Hard for me to get excited about another twin engine subso
161 Nomadd22 : I know that's it's usually a good idea to save the test that destroys the plane for last, but since they said that they stopped the one load test at
162 Dynamicsguy : You keep making this assertion. The test airframe does not have to duplicate exactly the production configuration. The FAA needs to be convinced that
163 Dynamicsguy : It did strike me as odd that a test planned to only go to 100% (or at least that was what was stated publicly) was taken that much further. Maybe at
164 Baroque : Does anyone know if the test article itself (not the gauges) had suffered inelastic strain at this point? It it had, surely they will need a new one
165 RedChili : Sleep well. for another year or so, perhaps Even if the new twin engine will give you, as a passenger, a more pleasant flying experience?
166 Stitch : I won't argue that. If I wasn't. I'd have deleted my account years ago.
167 AirNZ : Yes, and whilst I understand where you're coming from it must also be noted that many are also trying to ignore/repudiate the 18 months scenario out
168 Superfly : I hope you're right. A few cocktails will make my flying experience great.
169 EPA001 : I for one am happy that you decided not delete your account years ago.
170 Tdscanuck : Thursday, actually. CFRP doesn't really yield...it stays elastic almost to failure. Delamination and disbond may result in lower strength, but may no
171 Post contains links 757GB : Pretty extensive commentary on flightblogger regarding communications at Boeing... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/
172 BoeingVista : I am surprized that no-one noted that it has been 2 years now since the infamous rollout and it still hasnt flown; this HAS to be a record for a come
173 Baroque : Mmmm. Our views on the effects of the delays seem to have converged over the years. A critical factor in costs must be whatever production rate can b
174 Jambrain : I have never understood how 787 can be so cheap to build, if I look at the price of carbon fibre bikes vs Al / Ti, they are 2x more expensive. How is
175 Derik737 : From what I have heard (and of course it's unofficial), they never did go beyond 100%. The failure supposedly occurred below 100%.
176 Post contains links Clickhappy : Wow, that is a great article Jon has written Please read it if you have not seen it yet: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ommentary-its-time-for
177 Nomadd22 : Compare how many workers it takes to build a conventional fuselage compared to a couple of guys watching a computerized tape laying machine. With bik
178 Stitch : It was an interesting article. But I'm inclined to think that the reason ZA001 didn't take to the skies was because the FAA refused to sign-off on he
179 Pygmalion : i think what the FAA said was that, You can fly under a reduced envelope but we won't count any of those flights towards certification. So... once you
180 UALWN : But not flying ZA001 if it was ready might end up being more expensive: since the delay was announced, Boeing stock has lost almost 20%, meaning Boei
181 Starrion : Which is not money out of Boeing's pocket. No executive wants to see the share price go lower, but once there is evidence that the program is back on
182 Post contains links Dynamicsguy : That's interesting. I've just tried to find something direct from Boeing, and everything I can dig up (media releases and Randy's blog) only says tha
183 Tdscanuck : A delam or disbond don't change the part dimensions at all...hence, no inelastic strain (no permanent deformation). It's (vaguely) analogous to a fat
184 Stitch : Yes it would be. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why Boeing believes that they can't get any useful data flying ZA001 before the fix. It's bee
185 Sphealey : Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the first set of flights include basic flutter testing? They don't expect to encounter flutter, but if they do
186 Tdscanuck : I'm not sure that they every said they can't get any useful data. During the conference call for the latest snafu, Carson said "Consideration was giv
187 Baroque : We might have a definitional problem, but with that we seem to get back on the same channel. As for the rocks, the most useful measures are in triaxi
188 Stitch : Okay. Now it is starting to make sense. Thanks, gentlemen.
189 Nomadd22 : I'd gathered that they needed to keep the 50% margin, so if they started having structural problems at 120% they wouldn't be able to take the airfram
190 Pygmalion : Normal process is to clear envelope ahead of the flight test. So, early static testing supports early flight tests with limited envelope testing... as
191 Castillo : FYI CFRP is actually only weaker in tension with regards to pure fracture failure modes like delamination, etc. Your basic strength allowables (which
192 Tdscanuck : If you delam and release the stress, the strain should go back to zero. There will be a step in strain (at constant stress) when the delam occurs, bu
193 Baroque : Which I would still count as inelastic strain. But in terms of conclusions, no difference at all then! Odd things that terminology can do even when y
194 Castillo : ...but it is not because, except for a very small region around the crack front, the stress-free state is still strain-free since you have not yielde
195 Baroque : A strain is a strain is a strain in my book, small or not matters relatively little. And stress free, the article still retains that "very small regi
196 Tdscanuck : Agreed, but with a fracture you don't have any residual strain you can measure. There is a very small strained region around the crack tip, but it's
197 JayinKitsap : It seems possible that Boeing tested the "quick fix" on the static test frame a bit before the delay was announced, but the "quick fix" didn't fix the
198 Baroque : I understand (well more or less) but the bit that has me puzzled is why is the crack itself not considered as an element of the strain? I mean it ain
199 Castillo : "delamination" starts with fracture of the resin-rich layer between two adjacent layers but as it grows it will sometimes crack vertically through an
200 Tdscanuck : Because it's got zero thickness when it's un-stressed. The fracture surface represents a loss of bond between adjacent parts of the material, but the
201 Post contains images Baroque : I wonder if they check for penetrative deformation within the graphitic material. Its phys props are a bit different to those of the resin!!! Graphit
202 Tdscanuck : The modulus mismatch is so large between the fiber and resin that I don't think you could get propagation. The difficulty propagating faults from fib
203 Slz396 : That's definitely a fine article Jon and hopefully it is a sign you've finally woken up to the reality of having been used in Boeing's PR campaign for
204 Post contains links Dynamicsguy : I think someone was having a joke. A little searching shows that a vertical fin was unveiled in March 2007, and according to Jon shipped on the 7th o
205 Amicus : Tom. Re your reply 202, you are wrong and are ignoring both ILSS and, just as importantly, sigma 3-3, the short transverse. Both are totally matrix do
206 Tdscanuck : I'm not ignoring it, I'm talking about a different question. Baroque was specifically talking about fiber cracks and their ability to propagate into
207 Castillo : But fortunately most composite stress engineers know how to tailor a layup so that inplane matrix failures do not occur.
208 Banjo76 : Ok you can design the thing so that stresses are born by the fibers and not the matrix. On the flip side, what happens when you have a stress conditi
209 Dynamicsguy : I'm not sure what exactly you mean by not normal, but here's a very quick and rough answer. We analyse for a large range of possible failure scenario
210 Amicus : Tom, Re your reply(206), all sincere thanks and very glad we are in agreement, much appreciated as ever. And re Castillo's input (reply 207), I can ag
211 Slz396 : May I suggest you guys move over to the technical forum if you want to get into all the details of CFRP structures and more precisely their design and
212 Baroque : Seems like a good idea even if I only understand about 30% of what they are saying!! (100% for Tdsc though!). Any offers to start it?
213 Tdscanuck : Sorry to go down the techincal rabbit hole on a CivAv thread, so I'll keep my replies here light. Basically, there's two mitigations to an atypical s
214 BoeingVista : They are going to have to say something about this on the earnings call next week I would have thought.
215 Post contains links 757GB : Some reshuffling on the factory line, making space for production aircraft: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/
216 Slz396 : Quite frankly, I don't care what Boeing will (have to) say, because it will likely be the usual "everything is fine, but for a small issue which we'v
217 Dynamicsguy : The people who have enough real inside knowedge on this one to know that are probably working extremely hard to make it happen right now. You may or
218 Zeke : In compression ? if so, that is a hard fix.
219 AirFrnt : To do so would violate all sorts of insider-trading rules if anyone here took a stock action because it. Let them do their job.
220 Aeropix : I think it's ironic to poing out, that BOTH A and B uses the number "8" extensively in their nomenclature specifically because it was a LUCKY number
221 WINGS : Airbus intention on using the A380 designation was so that the ''8'' resembled a double decker airplane. Regards, Wings
222 LY4XELD : A lot of the "schlock" was for marketing purposes. The number 8 is considered lucky in China, and guess where Boeing hoped to sell a lot of airplanes
223 Scipio : Agree on that. I find it doubtful that an A888-888 or B888-8 would have sold better than a simple A380-800 or B787-8, or for that matter than an A360
224 Stitch : Of course, the 747 (to say nothing of the 747-400) and the A340 families did okay in Asia, even though the symbol for the number four is associated wi
225 SEPilot : How boring is that? Except for the -9; isn't its range shorter than the -8?
226 Post contains links Stitch : The 787-9 was always the longest-ranged member of the family. Original nominal ranges were 3000-3500nm for the 787-3, 8000-8500nm for the 787-8 and 8
227 Tdscanuck : That would be nice to see in terms of knowledge, yes. The problem is that anyone with good inside knowledge is ethically and legally bound not to tal
228 PlanesNTrains : I thought you were John Leahy? My bad... If no one has commented in the thread specifically devoted to the topic, who are you supposing is going to s
229 RedChili : To spread an unsubstantiated claim under a false nickname on an Internet forum would violate insider trading rules? Come on! Nobody will have a clue
230 AirFrnt : Lawsuits have been filed for much less.
231 Tdscanuck : By itself, no. Unless the information is actually used to make a trade with information that wasn't public ally disclosed, it's not insider trading.
232 RedChili : So, if somebody sold Boeing shares two years ago because of the doom-and-gloom posts of CaptainX, that would mean that CaptainX could be taken to cou
233 Iwok : that is true regarding lucky 8. However, it turns out 8 was real unlucky for Airbus and VERY unlucky for Boeing. 8 will likely be the total number of
234 Burkhard : The internet is the last place on earth where there is anonymity. It takes Boeing and any US company 5 minutes to get the personal coordinates of any
235 Rheinwaldner : I'm a native C programmer. I like to start counting at 0! No, because he was not so wrong about the delays. Those hundreds who joined the hype of ove
236 Scouseflyer : I guess we'll never know if the "X" really did have fantastic insight or was just a bullsh*t artist who's got lucky........ Secondary point really al
237 Pellegrine : Ok the insider trading debate is ridiculous, go read a definition of what insider trading is. I doubt very many people here are insiders. The 787-10 w
238 Slz396 : Not if the person in the know happens to know what he knows not because he works for Boeing or one of the subcontractors directly, but because he wor
239 Dynamicsguy : Actually they didn't say 2 weeks, nor did they even promise an exact timeframe for the updated schedule (I think it was "several weeks", but I'm not
240 Slz396 : If you say it will take you several weeks to work out a new schedule, only hours before you're supposed to make the first flight, it's not because yo
241 Dynamicsguy : I don't disagree. I said bag them for what they actually did. But they never said 2 weeks for a new schedule, and that was the statement I was replyi
242 FlyingAY : You put a little too much faith on the internet service providers. Having worked for one, where our job was to solve this kind of things for the poli
243 Slz396 : That statement from Boeing seems to be fully inline with their other statements in which they constantly minimize the problems and present things in
244 Kappel : The 8 was never solely for the purpose to please the Chinese as has already been discussed above. In the a380, the 8 also reflects the double deck de
245 Slz396 : Because some aviation freaks have actaully started believing all the hype Boeing has made about their latest plane and genuinely see the 787 as somet
246 Keesje : . . Moderators, I think this thread has become 5 in 1 and is drifting away. I prefer to just close it but to not create a "part 4" collecting everythi
247 Dynamicsguy : Actually, I think it was "several weeks", and there is a nuanced difference. I think several pushes it a little further out than few. It was quite cl
248 PITIngres : Back to your old tricks ... you're redefining English to suit yourself again. A few weeks means a few weeks: more than one, probably more than two, p
249 Slz396 : I may not be a native speaker of your language, but 'few' means 'not many', so in relation to weeks that is 2 to 3 then, give or take a couple of day
250 757GB : It might be the right time for me to step in as a "non native" speaker and say that for me "several weeks" means more than one, probably not a whole l
251 PW100 : Very well said. Couldn't agree more, you do have my full sympathy. I can accept and usually even appreciate your level of [moderate] defending you do
252 Post contains links RedChili : Exactly. You could only take somebody to court if: a) They would give you false information; b) They would trade based upon information that's only a
253 Tarheelwings : Based on your track record, you won't believe anything Boeing says......we get it, you don't like Boeing. Can we move on?
254 Tdscanuck : No, unless the person who made the trade had good faith reason to believe that the information CaptainX was spewing was actually insider information.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 1 posted Tue Jun 23 2009 06:05:41 by Pilot21
Boeing: 787 First Flight "Within 3-5 Weeks." posted Wed Apr 1 2009 00:37:44 by DocLightning
Official:Boeing Re-Schedule For 787 First Flight posted Wed Jan 16 2008 06:12:22 by OyKIE
Boeing 787-8 First Flight posted Thu Apr 5 2007 01:11:35 by AeroplaneFreak
787 First Flight Today 6-10-09? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:04:24 by Sunking737
Pay To Watch 787 First Flight posted Wed Jun 3 2009 07:46:53 by LY4XELD
ATW: 787 First Flight Q2 2009 & Other Developments posted Fri Dec 5 2008 00:49:27 by Oykie
787 First Flight Delayed To 1Q2009 posted Wed Oct 8 2008 17:09:31 by Observer
787 First Flight Slips Ahead Of Strike Vote posted Tue Sep 2 2008 16:06:58 by IAD787
Boeing 777 Freighter First Flight 7/14 10:00am PST posted Thu Jul 10 2008 17:09:05 by UAL747-600
Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 2 posted Wed Jun 24 2009 09:17:32 by WILCO737
Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight Part 1 posted Tue Jun 23 2009 06:05:41 by Pilot21
787 First Flight - 15th December 2009 (Part 2) posted Mon Dec 14 2009 08:33:21 by Jayeshrulz
787 First Flight Delayed At Least One Year? Part 2 posted Thu Jul 30 2009 12:36:40 by Scbriml
Boeing: 787 First Flight "Within 3-5 Weeks." posted Wed Apr 1 2009 00:37:44 by DocLightning
Official:Boeing Re-Schedule For 787 First Flight posted Wed Jan 16 2008 06:12:22 by OyKIE
Boeing 787-8 First Flight posted Thu Apr 5 2007 01:11:35 by AeroplaneFreak
When Is The 787-9 First Flight? posted Sun Jun 20 2010 14:00:50 by hannahpa
787 First Flight - Dec 22, 2009 posted Thu Nov 19 2009 23:37:44 by AeroPiggot
787 First Flight Today 6-10-09? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:04:24 by Sunking737