Mattcawby From United States, joined Mar 2006, 114 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 29929 times:
They have taxied down 16R twice now, looks like they are getting ready to do a high speed. I alerted the local news so there should be a lot of pictures very soon
The grounds will be interesting to watch - especially if there is continual increase in speed. As I recall, the 777 lifted off a bit during testing on the day before FF. I'd bet my left one that some test pilot will be tempted . . .
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 29053 times:
As underwhelmed as I've been in the overall appearance of the 787 (I like it, but haven't really been overly inspired), and as disgusted as I am with the debacle of a program it has turned out to be, I must say that I found the overhead video absolutely stunning! What a great looking aircraft when it is actually in motion.
United787 From United States, joined May 2005, 1469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 28691 times:
After reading all about the deperessing potential 18 month delays and major re-design yesterday, this is a nice pick me up...until Boeing tells us otherwise, I believe the fix will be a relative simple one that will have this bird flying before we know it!
"We're Generician Airlines, Nothing Special in the Air"
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 28528 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): I think the 787-9 will be better-proportioned. She looks a little stubby forward of the wing.
I agree. In Auburn at the Supermall cinemas there is an airplane/airport theme. On the wall is a likeness of a 777, but it always looked a little off. Oddly enough, I think it is proportioned almost identically to the 787.
Quoting Mcr (Reply 16): Great to see the 787 moving under it's own power. Hope there's better news coverage for first flight!
Not only is it guaranteed to be better covered, but with all the issues to date, I can't help but think there will be an extra emphasis "just in case it comes apart". And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
AirframeAS From United States, joined Feb 2004, 9973 posts, RR: 32 Reply 23, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27875 times:
Quoting Mattcawby (Thread starter): N787BA is on the runway at Paine Field doing taxi tests beginning at 10:30 am.
CRAP!!!!!! Soooooooooooooo close!!!!! I predicted that today would be the 787's first flight. So, so, so close!!! Dammit! I hope the taxi tests went well othewise!
Quoting IAD787 (Reply 4): First Pictures!! They aren't amazing, but it's the real deal. She rolls!
Great pics!!! She looks real, real HOT ROD!!!!!!! Oh, love the anti-collisions!!! Makes it look Star Trekky!
Quoting OA260 (Reply 9): Is there not any ( video ) media covering it??
See reply 4.
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 18): I agree. In Auburn at the Supermall cinemas there is an airplane/airport theme. On the wall is a likeness of a 777, but it always looked a little off. Oddly enough, I think it is proportioned almost identically to the 787.
On the A concourse in SEA near gate A5 at the exit out of the sterile area, they had the 787 and 747-8 pics up on a wall, now they are gone. The pic of the engines were so cool though.
Quoting FlyLKU (Reply 20): Let's hope that's not all she does!
Same here.... Seeing it move on its own power, given the negative news lately, gives me more confidence that this chick will fly!!!!!
Keep up the good work, Boeing!!!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 7 Reply 33, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28848 times:
Quoting 757GB (Reply 27): Does the test on the video look like an RTO test?
I was wondering the same thing. Sure was a lot of smoke coming off the tires when she braked
I must say, it's a beautiful looking aircraft, but it belongs in the sky!! It's just a bus with wings for now (but a great looking one!).
ERAUgrad02 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 1034 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28588 times:
Quoting Deaphen (Reply 17): Love the dual flashing lights on the tail cone! Brilliant.
Though personally not as smashing looking as i imagined!
Good going.
Nitin
I noticed that the switched from strobes to more energy efficient LED's for the anti-collision lights. I'm sure the landing lights are HID's like on newer CRJ's. Only other jet i know to use LED anti-collision lights is the Dessault Falcon jets.
Rbgso From United States, joined Jun 2006, 382 posts, RR: 0 Reply 40, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28145 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 11): I must say that I found the overhead video absolutely stunning! What a great looking aircraft when it is actually in motion.
Agreed. That is one sexy looking aircraft.
Now if they could just get the thing airborn......
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2909 posts, RR: 12 Reply 43, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 28090 times:
From KOMO, the TV station providing the video above:
"Test pilots were taking the 787 for a low-speed taxi test around Paine Field's runway and taxi lanes. They were checking the steering and braking system, a Boeing spokesman told KOMO News. It's the first time the 787 has moved on a runway under its own power."
More on the story and pics to drag to your desktop at:
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16246 posts, RR: 64 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 27361 times:
I tend to think it wasn't a full RTO, but more of a braking test.
When I used to work around PAE, I'd occasionally see a 777 really rev up the engines with her spoliers deployed and motor about a third of the way down the runway then hit the brakes and idle-back the engines. She'd then taxi off over to the flight line where I expect engineers would take a look at the results.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26304 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 46): I tend to think it wasn't a full RTO, but more of a braking test.
Indeed and RTO test is usually done with fire crews standing by on taxiways.
Also no way that it could achieve V1 seconds at less than 10 seconds from spool-up, even on an empty plane.
Congratulations to Boeing and all the people who work(ed) on the 787 program for this milestone, the first true milestone.
It is not flying yet, but the skies are getting closer and the 787 truly is a gorgeous aircraft.
We all hope to see this airplane flying very very soon!
And indeed, we all deserved that bit of tire smoke, proof that the 787 is starting to live.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7511 posts, RR: 50 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 25738 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 47):
Actually, although it may be related to the spoilers deploying. There does seem to be a quick pitch up a split second prior to full braking. Wink
The wings did start to migrate upwards on that roll, however. They generated lift. She didn't fly, but those wings bit some air!
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 869 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 25619 times:
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 23): CRAP!!!!!! Soooooooooooooo close!!!!! I predicted that today would be the 787's first flight. So, so, so close!!! Dammit! I hope the taxi tests went well othewise!
Given that the Wright brothers first flight was probably not even one 787 long, if it takes off at a few feet altitude for maybe 3 seconds and then touches down again... would that not count as a first flight?
Great to see it moving... very much enjoyed seeing the 787 on the production line when I was at Boeing in January.
WingedMigrator From United States, joined Oct 2005, 1667 posts, RR: 53 Reply 51, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 25030 times:
Beautiful video
Quoting Stitch (Reply 46): When I used to work around PAE, I'd occasionally see a 777 really rev up the engines with her spoliers deployed and motor about a third of the way down the runway then hit the brakes and idle-back the engines. She'd then taxi off over to the flight line where I expect engineers would take a look at the results.
Did they smoke the tires? The puffs of smoke looked a bit unusual to me.
Quoting NCB (Reply 48): Indeed and RTO test is usually done with fire crews standing by on taxiways.
A maximum energy RTO, yes. A garden-variety RTO at far less weight than MTOW, probably not.
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 869 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 24758 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 51): Did they smoke the tires? The puffs of smoke looked a bit unusual to me.
My first thought was more they puffed smoke as it was the first time they were really being used, maybe it sitting idle for some time let to some dust build up etc they got burnt off. Or they were going faster than reported (slow?) or were having so much fun they had their first oh &(*@&$ moment and saw the end of the runway approaching quicker than they thought?
PM From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 5205 posts, RR: 60 Reply 54, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 24199 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 10): As underwhelmed as I've been in the overall appearance of the 787... [...] What a great looking aircraft when it is actually in motion.
KELPkid From United States, joined Nov 2005, 4242 posts, RR: 8 Reply 55, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 23990 times:
Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 28): Was anyone else just dying for it to rotate on that high speed run...........or was that just me?
It looks like it wants to fly, where it belongs.
I gotta admit, if I was the guy in the left seat, I would have been tempted to pull a Howard Hughes, pull back on the yoke, and take her around the patch
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 32): Well, RTO tests have to be set up so the plane can fly if necessary. Was there a fight plan filed?
Under Part 91, no flight plan is needed if you stay VFR and below 18,000 feet, so unless the field was IFR, then no flight plan was necessary Now, Boeing's flight test department might have more stringent rules than the law requires...
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Vega9000 From Portugal, joined Aug 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 23997 times:
That is one BEAUTIFUL looking airplane.
Much, much better than I thought up until now just from pictures. It's amazing how it's transformed just by the simple fact that it's now moving on it's own.
Can't wait to see it fly...
Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.
Air Force One Ship 2900 was also there. So this morning, minutes before we had the Boeing Factory tour, Air Force One took off. Great!
Minutes after the tour, 787 #1 did some taxiing test, nothing spectacular there but still nice to see. Minutes after, the beast had several brakes test at medium speed, around 60 knots. It was a somewhat smoky test.
Minutes after one of the two Dreamlifter took off in front of us. Great.
787 was resting in a taxiway for brakes cooling. Another set of brakes tests were done. It was supposed to occur at a higher speed, around 90 knots. For some reasons, it was done at the same speed. Quite a show!
I also had a very interesting discussion with guys involved on the project. I'm definitively lucky
In the meantime, some nice activities in PAE, with 737 touch and go, go-around and various GA planes on the touch and go loop.
I'm currently off-loading the camera and will keep you guys informed.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 61, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 23018 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 55): Under Part 91, no flight plan is needed if you stay VFR and below 18,000 feet, so unless the field was IFR, then no flight plan was necessary
Ah, makes sense.
So just requires clearance then, I guess.
Quoting WCS (Reply 60): 787 was resting in a taxiway for brakes cooling. Another set of brakes tests were done. It was supposed to occur at a higher speed, around 90 knots. For some reasons, it was done at the same speed. Quite a show!
How could you tell? 90knots and 60knots don't look that different from a distance, unless you have another aircraft next to it doing 60knots for reference.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Wingman From United States, joined May 1999, 1405 posts, RR: 7 Reply 62, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 22962 times:
Well at least the 787 lives up to its advertising claims. In this week's Economist Boeing has a full 2 page spread showing the 787 with the tagline "A Good Neighbor Keeps the Noise Down". I say "no kidding, how hard could it be when the thing doesn't move?"
I think that ad should change to "Time to Make Some Howling Friggin Jet Engine Noise".
WCS From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 242 posts, RR: 23 Reply 64, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 22765 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 61): How could you tell? 90knots and 60knots don't look that different from a distance, unless you have another aircraft next to it doing 60knots for reference.
Definitively impossible for me just by the sight. But as I said ...
I also had a very interesting discussion with guys involved on the project
F9Animal From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3410 posts, RR: 36 Reply 67, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21933 times:
Congrats to the 787 team! The pictures I have seen look great, and the aircraft looks stunning! Even more stunning with the brake smoke and the speed brakes activated! She came out and stretched her legs! I just can't wait to see this beauty stretch her wings and soar high into the sky! What a great day!
Glbltrvlr From United States, joined Oct 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21458 times:
Quoting WCS (Reply 60):
Air Force One Ship 2900 was also there. So this morning, minutes before we had the Boeing Factory tour, Air Force One took off. Great!
Just to be pedantic , as our fearless leader is touring around Moscow right now, it was actually Special Air Mission (SAM) "29000" – with Air Force designation "VC-25A".
Spr773 From India, joined Jun 2008, 120 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 20684 times:
Those wings look cool....Congrats to Boeing.... (its too early to pop this but a good time to buy so that it will have to be popped eventually )
At least the real testing has now started..
and all the best wishes to complete the very thorough test program....!!! Hope the 787 brings in a lots of new innovations to this industry...!!!
WCS From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 242 posts, RR: 23 Reply 72, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 20590 times:
Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 69): Just to be pedantic , as our fearless leader is touring around Moscow right now, it was actually Special Air Mission (SAM) "29000" – with Air Force designation "VC-25A".
But I'm sure it was great to see it take off!
Nice clarification, appreciate it. Could you confirm that SAM 29000 is configured just like AFO? I ask that because I noticed some missing components (with my limited knowledge of that matter) like antennas and others "bumps" on the top of the hump?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 73, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18980 times:
Quoting WCS (Reply 73): Could you confirm that SAM 29000 is configured just like AFO?
It is Air Force One when the President is on board. "Air Force One" is a callsign, not an aircraft. The 747's that are commonly called Air Force One (there's two of them) are VC-25A's, as Glbltrvlr noted.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 21 Reply 78, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17876 times:
With credible reports emerging that there could be another massive delay looming for the 787 (up to 18 months) and with a significant structural redesign currently underway, I get the feeling Boeing is still listening too much to their spindoctors who might have had a worrying look at the calendar at the wall and have seen that today is exactly 2 years after the notorious potemkin roll out event of 7/8/7....
What better way to try to get at least some positive reports out in the media on a day like this than by being able to present at least some visual progress in the form of these taxy trials on the day before?
Let's face it, there's just too much coincidence in them timed the way they were, especially as they're not in a hurry: there won't be a 787 in the air before this autumn at best; the fact it is done really gives away the fact Boeing still hasn't turned the page, hasn't changed mentality and is still trying to cook the reports.
Very worrying things indeed from a company that rolled out a new plane and then had to announce it was nothing but a sort of mock up a few weeks later, or said the 787 would fly in the next few days at this year's Paris Airshow only to admit it wasn't remotely airworthy a few days later... Yep, first taxy trials yesterday: seems like Boeing is right on schedule to announce another massive delay on the 22nd of July!
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9972 posts, RR: 52 Reply 79, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17896 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 75): Something still puzzles me, why was there tire smoke?
What everybody wants to know but doesn't ask to not spoil the party I guess. There were some issues with the braking system. Software last yr, further changes were announced earlier this year. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hnology/2008764380_webcrane19.html Perhaps a reason Boeing wanted to verify the braking system ASAP..
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 1657 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17678 times:
@Slz396
Even if the problems are as big as reports indicate some experts to fear, there is no reason not to test all those components that can be tested, and to test how they work together under real conditions. So make many brake tests as example to verify the brake system or to learn more about it so that time that may be available can be used as efficient as possible to improve the aircraft. I don't think that the wing to body problem is so massive that there is the danger the body slips of the wings as soon as the aircraft brakes.
If the tests now would not make at least some technical sense, Boeing would either have skipped them or annouced with a lot of marketing noise.
IMO Boeing needs to test, analyse, verify and re test as much as possible as soon as possible. Regardsless of the wing issue. You can''t find a snag too early..
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 12 Reply 82, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17475 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 78):
With credible reports emerging that there could be another massive delay looming for the 787 (up to 18 months) and with a significant structural redesign currently underway, I get the feeling Boeing is still listening too much to their spindoctors who might have had a worrying look at the calendar at the wall and have seen that today is exactly 2 years after the notorious potemkin roll out event of 7/8/7....
Somewhat disappointing that you couldn't resist raining on the parade, but I guess it's to be expected.
In my opinion, if you can do the tests, you do them. The plane is going to have to go back in for modifications at some point - you do what you can do now so as not to waste any time.
One thing I'll say is that, if I were Boeing, I wouldn't be trying to draw attention to a date that screams "We're two years late today. Happy Birthday." I would be going about the business at hand, and it appears that that is what they did.
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 21 Reply 83, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 17366 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 82): Somewhat disappointing that you couldn't resist raining on the parade, but I guess it's to be expected.
Excuse me for pointing out the coincidence of this first taxy trial happening on the evening of the second "Potemkin roll-out" aniversary...
It's not me who sets the time line at Boeing, I am merely observing the events as they happen and pointing out that it definitely comes in handy from a PR point of view to be able to present at least some kind of progress 2 years to date!
Knowing how much guidance Boeing has taken from their spindoctors during the entire 787 saga so far, I am not going to be easily convinced this date hadn't at least been spoken through with the PR department before and is indeed 100% purely coincidental...
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2009 posts, RR: 2 Reply 85, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16099 times:
Wow, seeing that bird running down the runway, I had a feeling that she wanted to jump up and surprise everybody with an unscheduled first flight. It looks like she can't wait until she will get up in the air!
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 83): It's not me who sets the time line at Boeing, I am merely observing the events as they happen and pointing out that it definitely comes in handy from a PR point of view to be able to present at least some kind of progress 2 years to date!
I do agree that Boeing has, in the past two years, put too much emphasis on PR and too little on engineering. But I don't agree with you concerning the taxi tests. The positive PR that will come from this is negligible. The flight test department was supposed to have the plane in the air by now. What are the pilots and the flight test engineers supposed to do? Play cards?
JetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2202 posts, RR: 54 Reply 86, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15420 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 45): Wouldn't they be expected to lock the brakes a few times before a real RTO?
Not too sure about "locking" the brakes. I dare say the 787 is fitted with an ABS system like most contemporary types. IIRC, when they do the formal maximum energy RTO test, they will need to use brake units that have been worn down to the replacement limit.
Regards, JetMech
The universe revolves around engineers as we choose the co-ordinate system!
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 87, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 15201 times:
Quoting JetMech (Reply 86):
Not too sure about "locking" the brakes. I dare say the 787 is fitted with an ABS system like most contemporary types. IIRC, when they do the formal maximum energy RTO test, they will need to use brake units that have been worn down to the replacement limit.
The ABS systems don't completely eliminate fraction of a second lockups. You still get some smoke at 100% braking.
They might be running them to the limit to verify the fix on the monitor that they had to change to keep it from overheating or just to measure temps with max braking. Smoke might also be normal the first time you get everything red hot with new brakes. Just like all the oil burning off the engines the first time they're lit.
There's no secret memo going around the test team with the new flight date. They still need to proceed like it will be ready to take off any time.
In the years I've been monitoring this site I've heard some pretty baseless claims, but the insistence of some that this will require a ground up redesign of the wing has to top everything. Is there some sort of secret CaptainX fan club or something?
With credible reports emerging that there could be another massive delay looming for the 787 (up to 18 months) and with a significant structural redesign currently underway, I get the feeling Boeing is still listening too much to their spindoctors who might have had a worrying look at the calendar at the wall and have seen that today is exactly 2 years after the notorious potemkin roll out event of 7/8/7....
Somewhat disappointing that you couldn't resist raining on the parade, but I guess it's to be expected.
After reading threads here for years, I can't say that I am surprised...
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 82): One thing I'll say is that, if I were Boeing, I wouldn't be trying to draw attention to a date that screams "We're two years late today. Happy Birthday." I would be going about the business at hand, and it appears that that is what they did.
I agree... it just wouldn't make sense to do it at this time for publicity purposes. Doing what they said they would do (continuing with the tests while they design/implement the fix) is what makes sense. If the gauntlets and the taxi tests were not done, people would be all over the thread speculating on what else is wrong (as if there wasn't enough already).
Manfredj From United States, joined Mar 2007, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 89, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 12604 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 78): With credible reports emerging that there could be another massive delay looming for the 787 (up to 18 months) and with a significant structural redesign currently underway, I get the feeling Boeing is still listening too much to their spindoctors who might have had a worrying look at the calendar at the wall and have seen that today is exactly 2 years after the notorious potemkin roll out event of 7/8/7....
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 78): Yep, first taxy trials yesterday: seems like Boeing is right on schedule to announce another massive delay on the 22nd of July!
I dunno, common sense would suggest that if they are going ahead with taxi testing, first flight could be closer than we think. Why continue testing an airplane that is going to be delayed another 18 months? The tests would have to be done again in 18 months time. There is probably a better chance we will see if fly SOONER than later.
However, on the other hand, we have seen Boeing pull some real stunts over the past two years, so anything could happen.
Again, what happened to these 18X2 patches that were going to be placed around the stress areas on the wings? I thought they were going to solve the problem. Have we heard anything more on this quick fix?
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16246 posts, RR: 64 Reply 90, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11946 times:
I don't see why Boeing should just close-up shop and send everyone home until ZA001 is ready to fly. They can learn things by continuing with tests and certification objectives that are not impacted by the wing/body join issue.
Joperrin89 From United States, joined Feb 2009, 20 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11712 times:
Sorry if some one already poasted this question, didnt have time to read the whole thread, but dose anyone know when the 787's first flight is scheduled for now?
Starrion From United States, joined Jul 2003, 913 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11610 times:
Quoting Joperrin89 (Reply 91): Sorry if some one already poasted this question, didnt have time to read the whole thread, but dose anyone know when the 787's first flight is scheduled for now?
No. And apparently neither does Boeing. They should be announcing when they think they may reschedule first flight in a couple weeks.*
*First flight date may vary depending on how many other problems they find.
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2909 posts, RR: 12 Reply 96, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10214 times:
Quoting JetMech (Reply 86): when they do the formal maximum energy RTO test, they will need to use brake units that have been worn down to the replacement limit.
I assume that both A&B wear the brake units down in testing before the max RTO test. That would seem logical, making the first trip to the runway a basic test.
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 87): the insistence of some that this will require a ground up redesign of the wing has to top everything.
Well, the 380 didn't need a full redesign of their wing. They calculated the fix and installed it. At some point (18 months later?) new production planes had an "improved" -v- "fixed" wing. Is there any real difference with the 787? A fix for existing planes and an improvement for anything new starting production?
I'm not an engineer, but I believe we'll see several things:
1. Continual non-flight testing as if things were going normally.
2. A fix for existing planes, with the fix installed as soon as practical.
3. Several 787s ready to fly as soon as first flight is completed - all with fixes.
4. An improvement engineered for all new planes, with the first "improved" planes exiting the factory in about 18 months.
5. One (minimum) of the two initial birds "lifting" off a bit in high speed tests - but not "flying".
6. Boeing's stock improving a bit after first flight. Seeing the first 787 in the air will make Wall Street very happy.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2223 posts, RR: 12 Reply 97, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10062 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 83): Excuse me for pointing out the coincidence of this first taxy trial happening on the evening of the second "Potemkin roll-out" aniversary...
Sorry, Slz, but we're past the "I'm just an innocent a.net member" period. Frankly, your entire post had nothing to do with a taxi test and everything to do with the opportunity to bash the company again. Do you have nothing else to do with your time???
Quoting Stitch (Reply 90): I don't see why Boeing should just close-up shop and send everyone home until ZA001 is ready to fly.
Other than making a few a.net members gleeful, I can't either. I wish it were a clear indication of a first flight coming sooner than later, but I doubt it's anything more than what it is - making every minute count. I still enjoy watching the first A380 flight on Youtube, and hope that the 787 is every bit as enjoyable.
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9648 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): I think the 787-9 will be better-proportioned. She looks a little stubby forward of the wing.
I agree with you Stitch. I think the same thing with the 767-200 versus the 767-300 versions. I think as well the size of the cockpit windows, the larger side windows and size of the engines, the 787 looks smaller than it really is, and gets the chunky look you mention.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 99, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9315 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 79): What everybody wants to know but doesn't ask to not spoil the party I guess. There were some issues with the braking system. Software last yr, further changes were announced earlier this year.
But you want to try to connect the two, without knowing ANY information on the nature of the test, including whether it was something like an "ABS Fail" test, one that would lock the wheels and create tire smoke. Or they could have purposely recreated a fail condition that the software had trouble with last year simply to confirm the change is correct. Who knows?
I've also never seen the initial braking tests for any new aircraft type on video to have any comparison to. Have you?
The point is, we don't know and you don't know.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8973 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96): Well, the 380 didn't need a full redesign of their wing. They calculated the fix and installed it. At some point (18 months later?) new production planes had an "improved" -v- "fixed" wing. Is there any real difference with the 787? A fix for existing planes and an improvement for anything new starting production?
One big difference is that Boeing didn't destroy the test frame in discovering the problem, so they can do a real world test to verify the fix. Airbus had to convince regulators that their model was sound and the fix would take care of the small amount they missed by.
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1146 posts, RR: 1 Reply 102, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8878 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
I also think the paint scheme helps make it look short. the plane looks a little better in the NH livery.
Definitely! Saw the scale model last week in the ANA lounge at Narita. A real beauty. I felt a bit sorry for NH though. Suffering the delays as the launch customer and at the same time seeing SQ steeling the show at NRT with the A380. I know the two don't compare and it is all about profit but still..........
Would be great to see the 787 at airports around the world.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
Very, very nice. Thanks for posting this link of the beautiful B787 in taxiing action. Your next video link should of course show us the B787 in the air.
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 89 Reply 104, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8686 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 101): One big difference is that Boeing didn't destroy the test frame in discovering the problem, so they can do a real world test to verify the fix
Wasn't that Ken777's point, in support of yours?
Airbus failed a complete wing (destroy a test frame is a bit OTT IMO), but still didn't need to re-design the wing.
Hence Boeing shouldn't need to re-design the wing when having a substantially smaller failure (would you call it "nearly destroying a test frame?" )
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1580 posts, RR: 48 Reply 105, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8635 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96): I'm not an engineer, but I believe we'll see several things:
...
4. An improvement engineered for all new planes, with the first "improved" planes exiting the factory in about 18 months.
Scott Hamilton quoted Carson saying that only 40 aircraft would be affected by the temp fix, which would then mean that the average production rate over the next 18 months would be 2 aircraft per month?
If we assume that...
- LN1 to LN6 have a center wing box with a temporary fix due to the previous issue
- LN7-LN19 have a redesigned center wing box addressing the previous issue
- from LN20 onwards the 787-8 will have an increased MTOW of 227,9t, which amongst others requires a strengthened wing and center box...
would that mean that we see a one-size-fits-all temporary fix for the wing-body-join issue that is applicable across the first 40 aircraft?
JetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2202 posts, RR: 54 Reply 110, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7939 times:
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 87): The ABS systems don't completely eliminate fraction of a second lockups.
Fair enough. I thought you meant sustained lock.
Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 87): You still get some smoke at 100% braking.
Sure, and you can smell hot brakes from a distance as well.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 96): I assume that both A&B wear the brake units down in testing before the max RTO test.
I think it is a regulatory requirement, thus A and B would have no say in the matter.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 100): Any possibility they would disable the anti-skid/ABS for initial taxi testing to make sure the crew had full use of the brakes?
Possibly. In normal operations, however, ABS will give the maximum braking performance for the prevailing conditions if required.
Regards, JetMech
[Edited 2009-07-08 14:22:53]
The universe revolves around engineers as we choose the co-ordinate system!
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 111, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7892 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 100): Any possibility they would disable the anti-skid/ABS for initial taxi testing to make sure the crew had full use of the brakes?
I have no idea if they would do it for the 787, but I do remember seeing a video of tests of the 747 in which they disabled the anti-skid in one of the main bogies. That was VERY impressive, particularly seeing that huge bird rocking after the stop, with plenty of smoke coming out.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 112, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7698 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 104): Hence Boeing shouldn't need to re-design the wing when having a substantially smaller failure
True, but Boeing is having to rebuild that section, while Airbus did not. Airbus, IIRC, was simply able to model the difference, and then fit the fix to the parts. But Boeing lost strength at 120% or so, and needs to replace the damaged parts AS DESIGNED, then apply the fix to those wrong designs to make them "right" and then retest all tests from at least the point that they noticed the gauge anomalies in previous tests.
That's a longer process. But certainly not an 18 month process. In fact, I bet that with my civil engineering (including static, dynamic and materials training) background, I could learn enough about the materials and forces of that one particular section, and the computer system they are using to design it, and design a fix myself in that amount of time. Maybe it wouldn't be optimal, but it would get the job done.
I just don't feel like it...
Quoting 757GB (Reply 111): I have no idea if they would do it for the 787, but I do remember seeing a video of tests of the 747 in which they disabled the anti-skid in one of the main bogies. That was VERY impressive, particularly seeing that huge bird rocking after the stop, with plenty of smoke coming out.
ABS fault condition is one of the braking tests they must perform. Complete system failure as well as localized to each bogey.
Anyone know if they do that test right from the start?
Also, with full electronic brakes, it just may be a different sequence of events in braking than we are used to seeing. I know that cars I've had with electronic brakes (no direct link from pedal to brakes) behaved slightly differently than linked systems.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7651 times:
I'm not that familiar with the first wingbox mod. Is there a chance that reinforcement could be the cause of the stresses not being distributed the way they expected, or was that a completely different area?
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 114, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7592 times:
According to flightblogger, the taxi tests ran up to 100knots, and included manual braking which seemed to be both with and without ABS, so that would explain quite a bit of what we saw in the videos.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
JBirdAV8r From United States, joined Jun 2001, 3085 posts, RR: 21 Reply 115, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7530 times:
Sleaze396,
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 78): rolled out a new plane and then had to announce it was nothing but a sort of mock up a few weeks later, or said the 787 would fly in the next few days at this year's Paris Airshow only to admit it wasn't remotely airworthy a few days later...
Please spare us the melodrama. That's not even close to accurate, and you know it.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 116, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7280 times:
Quoting JetMech (Reply 86): Not too sure about "locking" the brakes. I dare say the 787 is fitted with an ABS system like most contemporary types.
It is. But the ABS isn't active 100% of the time on most types.
Quoting JetMech (Reply 86): IIRC, when they do the formal maximum energy RTO test, they will need to use brake units that have been worn down to the replacement limit.
That's a cert requirement...max energy braking test must be done with the worst-case brakes (i.e. just enough brake material left to be dispatchable).
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 89): I dunno, common sense would suggest that if they are going ahead with taxi testing, first flight could be closer than we think.
Not really.
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 89): Why continue testing an airplane that is going to be delayed another 18 months?
1) It doesn't appear to be an 18 month delay
2) There's lots of testing that doesn't require flying and doesn't depend on the wing strength, hence can be done independently of the wing fix. No sense in not getting ahead of the curve where you can.
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 89): The tests would have to be done again in 18 months time.
Why? The brakes, for example, have no idea how the wing/body join is built. Why would you redo that test? There is *no* requirement that certification tests be done on an article identical to the final delivered product.
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 89): Again, what happened to these 18X2 patches that were going to be placed around the stress areas on the wings? I thought they were going to solve the problem. Have we heard anything more on this quick fix?
As I understand Boeing's delay announcement, their whole point was that, although they could do the patch and fly, the best answer for the overall program was to put the full fix on all the test airplanes.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 112): True, but Boeing is having to rebuild that section, while Airbus did not. Airbus, IIRC, was simply able to model the difference, and then fit the fix to the parts.
Yes.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 112): But Boeing lost strength at 120% or so, and needs to replace the damaged parts AS DESIGNED, then apply the fix to those wrong designs to make them "right" and then retest all tests from at least the point that they noticed the gauge anomalies in previous tests.
It's not clear that they lost strength, just that they took more damage than expected (both metals and composites can have increasing strength while taking damage). Although replacing with new as-designed parts, then applying the fix, then retesting, is one way to approach the problem, it's not the only one. There is no requirement to do so and, unless the FAA really dug in their heels, I can't see why you would.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 117, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7150 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 116): Although replacing with new as-designed parts, then applying the fix, then retesting, is one way to approach the problem, it's not the only one. There is no requirement to do so and, unless the FAA really dug in their heels, I can't see why you would.
Actually, they would have to in order to then retrofit the fix to the other planes that are already built. And that is the plan, from what has been described elsewhere. Boeing is currently in the process of repairing the existing wing box and wing root back to original spec, before they can apply the fix they are also working on concurrently.
Unless someone has more up to date information and can enlighten us.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
WCS From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 242 posts, RR: 23 Reply 118, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7101 times:
Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 109): And it apparently was an RTO test, so smoke would definitely be expected
At which point a breaks test is considered a RTO, I don't know. The plane was maybe in the fist third of the runway. One thing probable, engine were pushed full/close to power. The whole thing was as loud as a modern plane is during take off. That being said, the Pilot pushed the brakes at around 60 knots as far as I know, at least during the morning test. Another test at 90 knots was due after the first one. Once the beast had the brakes cooled off, the second was at same speed. Don't know after. Anti skid was also on to my knowledge.
I think braking was manual (at least for the first test) and somewhat asymmetric with smoke first of the right gear.
WestWing From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1604 posts, RR: 6 Reply 120, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6975 times:
For what it is worth, the latest Boeing blog entry says an RTO test was performed.
Quoting Randy Tinseth: Part of the testing involved slamming on the brakes hard at each new speed level to make sure they work like we want. We did a rejected takeoff (RTO) that generated some smoke from the brakes. The pilots also deployed thrust reversers to slow the airplane. It all went as we expected.
Question for anyone that was actually present there during this test. Was the engine noise made by the engines of the 787 significantly lower than say the engines of a 77W ?
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
WCS From Canada, joined Apr 2007, 242 posts, RR: 23 Reply 122, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6730 times:
Quoting WestWing (Reply 120): Was the engine noise made by the engines of the 787 significantly lower than say the engines of a 77W ?
Obviously hard to compare with. My only referrers for the day were VC25A and Dreamlifter; I would say yes, which is fortunate as the 77W have far more powerful engines! Overall, noise perception was fine as far as I'm concerned; Don't get me wrong, engines were pushed (I figure) full trust and the very distinctive acceleration noise generated in that scenario was there. It was obviously loud, just like a modern widebody after lined-up for taking off but the thing was far less "intrusive". We were fairly close to the bird and it was definitively manageable. It was by the way a "nice" noise, steady and consistent.
Not sure about the reverses to be honest.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 119): When the brakes are set to RTO mode, it would seem
I get you.Can't be more specific in that case. Don't have the info for the morning test, so I will not speculate.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 123, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6585 times:
Quoting WCS (Reply 122): I get you.Can't be more specific in that case. Don't have the info for the morning test, so I will not speculate.
I am not speaking from a place of confidence on this topic, someone else may have a better understanding, but if the brakes have 7 settings, and one of them is RTO, and you pass the threshold, I would assume that means it's an RTO situation. Flightblogger says that on a 777, it's 85 knots, and the 787 reached 100 knots in one of it's runs, so one assumes that 100 knots is over the 787 threshold, whether it's also 85 knots, 90 knots, 80 knots, whatever.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 124, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 123): I am not speaking from a place of confidence on this topic, someone else may have a better understanding, but if the brakes have 7 settings, and one of them is RTO, and you pass the threshold, I would assume that means it's an RTO situation.
RTO, as a brake setting, is specifically related to autobraking. It's the logic that kicks in when certain criteria (speed, throttle position, etc.) conspire to convince the airplane that the flight crew wants to reject the takeoff and assorted things happen (spoilers up, maximum braking, etc.)
That's not the same thing as doing a rejected takeoff...that just means stopping after you've begun the takeoff roll. An RTO can be low or high speed and may or may not involve the RTO setting of the autobrakes.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 123): Flightblogger says that on a 777, it's 85 knots, and the 787 reached 100 knots in one of it's runs, so one assumes that 100 knots is over the 787 threshold, whether it's also 85 knots, 90 knots, 80 knots, whatever.
That would be the theshold for the automatic RTO functions...you can still RTO below that speed, but the airplane won't automatically apply brakes and other bits, the pilots would have to do it.
Dynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6662 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 117): Boeing is currently in the process of repairing the existing wing box and wing root back to original spec, before they can apply the fix they are also working on concurrently.
Really? I have seen nothing to say that they were repairing the wing box back to original spec (and I have read the entire 3-part discussion on the issue). Can you point to a reference?
They have certainly said that they will apply the fix to the static test airframe and test it. But that does not require a wingbox at "original spec". It is possible to model the new configuration (including damage + the fix) and validate that against test results.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 18472 posts, RR: 60 Reply 127, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5812 times:
Quoting Dynamicsguy (Reply 126): They have certainly said that they will apply the fix to the static test airframe and test it. But that does not require a wingbox at "original spec". It is possible to model the new configuration (including damage + the fix) and validate that against test results.
The are rebonding the parts that came apart. So maybe it's not "original spec" but they are repairing it to an "as new" condition.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 128, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5541 times:
Guy Norris is back. Article on the EICAS tests. Interesting reading. I wasn't aware of the new concepts being implemented regarding EICAS functionality.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 129, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5207 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 125): So basically, you can just define your test as an RTO and then it's an RTO?
Sort of. You couldn't call, say, an air conditioning test an RTO and have that mean anything. But RTO just means rejected takeoff...if you put yourself in takeoff configuration, run up the engines, release the brakes, and then abort the procedure, you have rejected the takeoff. Could be at any speed, any conditions.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7511 posts, RR: 50 Reply 132, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5125 times:
Quoting 757GB (Reply 128): Guy Norris is back. Article on the EICAS tests. Interesting reading. I wasn't aware of the new concepts being implemented regarding EICAS functionality.
Things With Wings
And THAT'S what she's gonna sound like, huh? AWESOME! I can't wait to see her fly.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 133, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4980 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 130): Obviously, you haven't seen my air conditioner.
As one whose air conditioner recently bit the dust, I'd be happy with one that blows, let alone RTO's!
Quoting Racko (Reply 131): "‘dark’ or ‘quiet’ flightdeck concept"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this concept already in place in the A320 and the MD-11?
It's been in place since, at least, the 737, and maybe earlier. They weren't suggesting that the dark cockpit was new, just that they're taking it farther.
Glbltrvlr From United States, joined Oct 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4906 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 131):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this concept already in place in the A320 and the MD-11?
The concept of not lighting panel indicator lights unless there's a problem has been around for a long time, but this goes beyond that. Now they are "decluttering" the displays and only showing things (like the cited rudder trim position) when it's in a non-standard position.
It's reversing the trend of putting every possible bit of info on a display - especially as displays get larger and larger.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 16246 posts, RR: 64 Reply 137, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4805 times:
Quoting Bschusterman (Reply 135): Does anyone know if any 787's have been ordered for private or jet charter usage?
There have been a number of 787VIP orders, though a few of them have been canceled now that the bankers who bought them have lost all their money in the financial crash.
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 3793 posts, RR: 21 Reply 138, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4528 times:
Quoting Glbltrvlr (Reply 134): The concept of not lighting panel indicator lights unless there's a problem has been around for a long time, but this goes beyond that. Now they are "decluttering" the displays and only showing things (like the cited rudder trim position) when it's in a non-standard position.
It's reversing the trend of putting every possible bit of info on a display - especially as displays get larger and larger.
Still don't really get what's new about that. Where were the Trim positions shown before? Did a 744 display them at all anywhere except on the analog trim gauge?
Where was it shown on an FBW Airbus, when in a normal position? I would have guessed on the secondary ECAM. How's that different to "flight controls synoptic (pilot selectable)" - which I would guess means the MFD that's in the position of the Sec. ECAM?
Iwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1100 posts, RR: 1 Reply 139, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4453 times:
Quoting IAD787 (Reply 4): First Pictures!! They aren't amazing, but it's the real deal. She rolls!
Thanks for the update. What I don't understand is why bother with all this now, since the bird won't be up in the air for another 6-months. Is there any reason?
Dynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4430 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 139): What I don't understand is why bother with all this now, since the bird won't be up in the air for another 6-months. Is there any reason?
Well, we still don't know a new timeline for the first flight. There was supposed to be an update in "a few weeks" a few weeks ago. It could be significantly less than 6 months, but certainly in the order of months, not weeks. The reason to keep testing is to keep making progress towards certification, and to find any more surprises earlier rather than later.
Quoting Iwok (Reply 139): And the leadership is still intact........... I'll say no more.
The leadership of Boeing Comercial Airplanes maybe, but the 787 program leadership has changed markedly.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 5778 posts, RR: 56 Reply 143, posted (5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3325 times:
Quoting Racko (Reply 138):
Still don't really get what's new about that. Where were the Trim positions shown before? Did a 744 display them at all anywhere except on the analog trim gauge?
What's new is that they're actually removing the indication when it's not needed. On, for example, a 744 the analog trim gauge is always there. That goes for a lot of other dials and whistles too. On the 787 they're actually hiding these unless they have something useful to tell you.
Quoting Racko (Reply 138): Where was it shown on an FBW Airbus, when in a normal position? I would have guessed on the secondary ECAM. How's that different to "flight controls synoptic (pilot selectable)" - which I would guess means the MFD that's in the position of the Sec. ECAM?
Synoptics aren't generally displayed, you only pull them up when you're looking for something. Their point is that they're hiding the trim position from EICAS (always displayed) unless the pilots need it so the displays are less cluttered. The pilots are only presented with information they need at the time. If they want to look it up, they can pull up the flight controls synoptic.
Quoting Iwok (Reply 139): Thanks for the update. What I don't understand is why bother with all this now, since the bird won't be up in the air for another 6-months. Is there any reason?
It has to be done and it can be done now. Not doing it now means they have to do it later, which would just push delivery even farther away.
Quoting Bkircher (Reply 141): ANyways does anyone know where I might be able to get some high resolution shots of the taxi test?
Astuteman From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 89 Reply 145, posted (5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2856 times:
Quoting Iwok (Reply 139): What I don't understand is why bother with all this now, since the bird won't be up in the air for another 6-months. Is there any reason?
Early retirement of related risks would appear to be the key driver...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2006, 114 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 6141 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 16926 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2008, 81 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 86 posts, 
From India, joined Jul 2005, 1379 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Sep 2003, 2314 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 354 posts, 
Makes it look Star Trekky!
The pic of the engines were so cool though.
From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2009, 270 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1253 posts, 
From Norway, joined Mar 2006, 357 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 7 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2007, 103 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 869 posts, 
From Japan, joined Feb 2005, 5205 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2006, 158 posts, 
(its too early to pop this but a good time to buy so that it will have to be popped eventually 
I agree... it just wouldn't make sense to do it at this time for publicity purposes. Doing what they said they would do (continuing with the tests while they design/implement the fix) is what makes sense. If the gauntlets and the taxi tests were not done, people would be all over the thread speculating on what else is wrong (as if there wasn't enough already).
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1100 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
