Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Wing Test Successfully Completed  
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 8
Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24730 times:

Jon reports, from Matt Cawby's blog, that the wing test is under way.

Matt Cawby's

http://kpae.blogspot.com/2009/11/paine-field-november-27.html

Jon's report:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...hasing-the-clues-787-static-t.html

Any news, if anyone is authorized to speak?

At last! Just what we've been waiting for!

On a side note, we now have a better idea what "a few weeks" mean!

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYendig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 24518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Give me a wing stress test and make it snappy!

Oh...wait...hang on a minute...

Let's get this thing flying!


User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 319 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 24420 times:

Seems like nobody knows anything. I imagine Boeing is keeping the lid on this pretty tight.

Details, details please!!!



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 24423 times:

Yep, better get going now! A400M, 787, 747-8. Bring'em on!!!!

I mean really it's kind of ridiculous: we're waiting for these first flights for years and years and they all could happen in the same few weeks. Anyway, good times for aviation enthusiasts.

[Edited 2009-11-28 15:22:23]

User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 24411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting A380900 (Reply 4):
Yep, better get going now! A400M, 787, 747-8. Bring'em on!!!!

Just imagine all three ligned up and taking off 3 minutes apart...  cloudnine 

BEG2IAH



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 24299 times:



Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 5):
Just imagine all three ligned up and taking off 3 minutes apart... cloudnine

3 minutes apart? You're being greedy here! I don't think I could handle that too emotional!

When will we know about the results? If it has worked? If it has not?

Can someone explain again if they will have to do the stress test again with the new wings with the "built-in fix" (ie not add-on)? Thanks.


User currently offlineYendig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 24004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No news yet? Somebody out there must be able to confirm or deny the test is taking place. Put us A.nutters out of our misery, please!

User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 23919 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting A380900 (Reply 5):
3 minutes apart? You're being greedy here! I don't think I could handle that too emotional!

Just following the legal minimum for heavies.  Big grin

BEG2IAH



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 851 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 23802 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 5):
Can someone explain again if they will have to do the stress test again with the new wings with the "built-in fix" (ie not add-on)? Thanks.

No, they will not have to redo the testing with a new static airframe with the final structural configuration. It will be treated like any other structural modification or derivative design which does not require a re-test.


User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 21001 times:



Quoting A380900 (Reply 5):
When will we know about the results? If it has worked? If it has not?

You can see this in the period from first flight to second flight. The longer the period is, the worse was the result.

It's been told many times that "Boeing" knew that something was terrible wrong with the A380 because of the lenght between the first flights.

So keep you watch ready!
 checkeredflag   checkeredflag   checkeredflag 


Regards

Steen



Keep it clear of the propellers
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Seattle Times is reporting the test has been successful and ZA001 should shortly be cleared to prepare for flight.

Article Link


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5254 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14392 times:

Excellent news! Until the engineer sign off on it we won't hear anything "official" but from the article

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

posted it looks favorable. It will be good to see her running taxi etc.tests again. I wonder how much notice before first flight Boeing will provide.

Tugg

[Edited 2009-11-30 17:20:34]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21417 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14264 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The Seattle Times is reporting the test has been successful and ZA001 should shortly be cleared to prepare for flight.

This was a given from an engineering standpoint. Anyone who doubted the fix would pass knew nothing about engineering. Those who thought Boeing was "guessing" at this were also non-engineers. But it was funny to listen to all the speculation about what was going to happen when the fix didn't work...

And of course, this also confirms that Boeing would know almost IMMEDIATELY that it passed, and the first flight timing is mostly a matter of paperwork and documentation to backup the test, not many weeks of "not knowing the answer."



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14128 times:

It's pretty simple, really. Did the skin delaminate? If it did, it fails; if it didn't it passes. The engineers still need to document the test and results, but they knew what they were looking for and it does not take very long to determine whether or not they got it. There undoubtedly were numerous strain guages on the wing, and the measurements need to be recorded, and a report prepared for the record. That is what the delay on the official pronouncement is all about; but the engineers would have known exactly what to expect from each guage and knew as soon as the wing was bent whether or not they got it.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13712 times:

Although I am very tempted, I promise not to get too excited.... Just yet.

fingers crossed that all works well.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
It's pretty simple, really. Did the skin delaminate? If it did, it fails; if it didn't it passes. The engineers still need to document the test and results, but they knew what they were looking for and it does not take very long to determine whether or not they got it.

I got to thinking about this, and it seems to me that any loud noise could also help to point out any interior failures, not visible to the naked eye from the outside. In addition to strain gauges, does anyone know if there are any other post test inspections such as ultrasound, X-ray etc that are used?

iwok


User currently offlineCosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 13636 times:

Randy's blog put up an article talking about test completion but needing time to analyze results. However the article disappeared now. Is something fishy going on?

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13461 times:



Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 15):
Randy's blog put up an article talking about test completion but needing time to analyze results. However the article disappeared now. Is something fishy going on?



Quote:

Boeing Completes 787 Dreamliner Static Test

EVERETT, Wash., Nov. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today completed the static test necessary to validate the side-of-body modification made to the 787

Dreamliner. The company expects a full analysis of the test results to be concluded in approximately 10 days. A successful test result is needed to clear the airplane for its planned first flight next month.

During today's test on the 787 Dreamliner static test airframe, the wing and trailing edges of the airframe were subjected to its limit load -- the highest loads expected to be seen in service. The load is about the same as 2.5 times the force of gravity for the wing.

Boeing announced on June 23 that it was necessary to reinforce an area of structure at the side-of-body section of the 787. The modification entails installing new fittings at 34 stringer locations within the joint where the wing is attached to the fuselage. The modifications were completed on the first two flight-test airplanes and the full-scale static test airplane earlier this month.

"Today's test was an important milestone for the program. We will confirm the test results after the completion of our detailed analysis," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program.

It seems like nothting fishy is going on. Boeing appears to be on track, but will have to wait 10 days for the result to know for sure. Anyone know if they start taxi test's and other final preparations prior to these ten days?

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=966



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 13391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
This was a given from an engineering standpoint. Anyone who doubted the fix would pass knew nothing about engineering. Those who thought Boeing was "guessing" at this were also non-engineers

Fortunately for us, the "non-engineers" at Boeing know that you HAVE to conduct a test to make sure that you REALLY know what you think you really know  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
The Seattle Times is reporting the test has been successful and ZA001 should shortly be cleared to prepare for flight.

 pray 
Let's hope so, and then they can get this thing up in the air and end the speculation.

Rgds


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 13024 times:

A question out of curiosity.

While Boeing wait to analyse the results, will they take the load off the wing?

If they did leavr the load on it, would this weaken the wing in any way.

My gut feeling is it would not but I am not an engineer.

Cheers

Ruscoe


User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12907 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12):
This was a given from an engineering standpoint. Anyone who doubted the fix would pass knew nothing about engineering. Those who thought Boeing was "guessing" at this were also non-engineers. But it was funny to listen to all the speculation about what was going to happen when the fix didn't work...

And of course, this also confirms that Boeing would know almost IMMEDIATELY that it passed, and the first flight timing is mostly a matter of paperwork and documentation to backup the test, not many weeks of "not knowing the answer."

A little harsh I feel. In fact, if the engineers are THAT brilliant, and know exactly what will and wont pass a test, why the need for a second test? I mean, surely they must have known that the side of body join was a weak spot in the first place and made some modifications before conducting a test that they knew would not produce perfect results.

In other words, they did not and will not know it has passed, for sure, until it has passed, for sure!

Great news by the way if all is still on track for FF in December.

Edited for poor spelling.

[Edited 2009-12-01 02:01:59]

User currently offlineDynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 851 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12849 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
Anyone know if they start taxi test's and other final preparations prior to these ten days?

I seem to recall reading that they would require about 3 weeks to get ready once they got enough clearance from the test, which puts them starting that preparation now-ish to make December 22.

They've brought ZA001 out of the paint hangar so maybe that process has begun or is about to. Like ZA002 it was meant to spend a day or 2 on the 767 line, but I'm not sure if that will still happen.

Anyway, it's nice to read some good news but it will be nicer when enough analysis is done to know they have actually passed the test.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12612 times:



Quoting Woof (Reply 19):
In fact, if the engineers are THAT brilliant, and know exactly what will and wont pass a test, why the need for a second test?

You could go even further: why the need for a fix? The last delay was simply caused by engineering error. Engineering errors have always a probability greater than zero.

Anyway these are good news and really what can go wrong now? I hope and assume that the first flight will happen this month!


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12537 times:



Quoting Woof (Reply 19):
A little harsh I feel. In fact, if the engineers are THAT brilliant, and know exactly what will and wont pass a test, why the need for a second test? I mean, surely they must have known that the side of body join was a weak spot in the first place and made some modifications before conducting a test that they knew would not produce perfect results

Maybe we are being technical with engineers and designers, but we do know that engineers questioned the ability of the area concerned to take the loads required even before the now famous announcement of the first flight around the time of the Paris Air Show, so once again we are talking about the "screw up" of management types versus the actual abilities of the engineers.

We know this was a design error which management thought they could put on hold until the engineers finally put the clamps down, so let's see if both sides are now working on the same team, the fix was all technical, so are the results, providing the results to the public however is up to management, time will tell.


User currently offlineJpiddink From Netherlands, joined Feb 2009, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12367 times:



Quoting OyKIE (Reply 16):
During today's test on the 787 Dreamliner static test airframe, the wing and trailing edges of the airframe were subjected to its limit load -- the highest loads expected to be seen in service. The load is about the same as 2.5 times the force of gravity for the wing.

It could be me, but isn't the airframe supposed to be tested at 1,25x the limit load (or somewhere in that direction) before first flight can be authorized? As I read this statement, this is an important step in the right direction but not the 'final' stress test needed for this purpose.


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1097 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12363 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 22):
Maybe we are being technical with engineers and designers, but we do know that engineers questioned the ability of the area concerned to take the loads required even before the now famous announcement of the first flight around the time of the Paris Air Show, so once again we are talking about the "screw up" of management types versus the actual abilities of the engineers.

We know this was a design error which management thought they could put on hold until the engineers finally put the clamps down, so let's see if both sides are now working on the same team, the fix was all technical, so are the results, providing the results to the public however is up to management, time will tell.

Funny how always and everything will be attributed to management failure by the public and on this site, whereas engineers are totally untouchable.
Why is that? You really think that there are no engineers in upper management?
You really think no high engineer has given a nod to the first test and was at least reasonably confident, the test will pass?

Sorry, but the way of saying that management only is on failure is to simple and plain wrong.

And by the way,...I am an engineer, not a so called "management type".


25 Oldeuropean : This is simply another a.net myth.
26 Par13del : Never said they were, suggest you read the post my reply was in response to, if one is questioning technical merits of whether something passed a tes
27 KC135TopBoom : I believe they have tentively scheduled FF for the week of 22 Dec. I would expect to see ZA-001 and ZA-002 to resume taxi testing soon. I don't think
28 Par13del : Your original quote, I started a response to this line, somehow my response got listed when I quoted your text, apologies.
29 TISTPAA727 : I read Jon's post this morning and it states Boeing successfully completed the test which exceeded 100% of the load the wing would ever encounter and
30 Scbriml : 100% is the maximum load the wing is expected to see in service. The additional 50% is safety margin. Yes, the wing needs to pass the 150% test in or
31 Post contains links Woof : Only just realised that from the link in the OPs first post is a link to around 5 minutes of audio preparing for the test. http://paineairport.com/kpa
32 Manfredj : Very well put....my only question is: where have you been the last two months? I've been saying this until I'm blue in the face but no one else got t
33 Stitch : They just need to reach 150% which is sufficient to allow Boeing to begin flight testing under the full performance envelope required. The "wing-brea
34 Post contains links Keesje : & that's what we've been waiting for months .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK5mk8sGP3k
35 Francoflier : Does that mean that the full performance envelope will not be tested in flight until mid 2010?
36 UALWN : Yet the tests in Spring and in October failed. Were those tests needed? Anyone who doubted those tests would be successful was a non-engineers too? T
37 Stitch : No, the 787 is now cleared to fly to her full performance envelope. As Ikamerica noted in another thread, the FAA only grants a performance envelope
38 United787 : Which is it? Did they reach 100% or 150%...there seems to be some conflicting information...
39 FriendlySkies : As an engineer myself I have to agree with this...even though computer programs like CATIA and ANSYS allow very precise predictive models, the truth
40 Keesje : I wonder too, did they reach 150% limit load ? If not what did they reach? Anyway I hope the analyses shows no additional problems.
41 TISTPAA727 : From the accounts it was just over 100% and 150% won't be until Spring 2010. I couldn't find what Woof referred to. Either way, it doesn't appear the
42 United787 : If they only went to 100% at this time, it begs the question...why is 100% acceptable now for first flight when they had previously gone to 120%? How
43 AirbusA370 : The 120% is just an a.net myth with the source of a lone blogger. They only need to test up 100%+x (where x is a small safety margin) to conduct the t
44 Stitch : Evidently, the performance envelope the 787 is allowed to fly is two-thirds of the tested load. I'm going to hazard a guess that this is to allow a s
45 UALWN : I'm confused now. It is well know that in the A380 "wing break" test the wing did break at something like 147%. This happened when the test flight pr
46 Post contains links AirbusA370 : Sorry Stitch, you'r totally wrong. The Boeing press release says that they passed the limit load (2.5g, 100%). 150% is "ultimate load" (3.75g). http:/
47 Stitch : Honestly, the whole thing has confused me, as well. In late March, the wings were tested at a 1-G load - about 10 feet of deflection - to verify that
48 Post contains images Stitch : Take it up with The Seattle Times and Flightblogger.   [Edited 2009-12-01 11:18:04]
49 UALWN : I think the press release is clear: 'During today's test on the 787 Dreamliner static test airframe, the wing and trailing edges of the airframe were
50 Post contains links United787 : It seems to me they both confirm what everyone else is saying here...the recent test was just over 100%, 150% will be in the Spring. http://seattleti
51 Post contains images Stitch : We'll need to wait for the "tell all" book.   Seriously, Boeing never released a PR statement on what they were doing, just that a problem was found
52 Dynamicsguy : What test in October failed? Any engineer who relies solely on putting their design into a finite element analysis and assuming that analysis is corr
53 AirNz : Is it not then considered 'funny' that real engineers here on a.net were able to clearly state that no engineering is "a given" until something is te
54 UALWN : The fix was found lacking. Was it in October? IN September? They discovered the damage during another test? A load test? How can it be that in April
55 Astuteman : So are manufactureres, assemblers, and raw materials producers.... You HAVE to have a test to verify a whole plethora of things that the "engineers"
56 Manfredj : This is one of the more obscure comments I have ever read. Its undertones are quite clear, however. It's obvious from your post (and others pertainin
57 Tdscanuck : Why wouldn't they? Seems dangerous, to me, to have that much energy stored up, sitting there, without gathering more data. It shouldn't. Some resins
58 Dynamicsguy : The fix was still ongoing. In the process of completing the engineering it was determined that further design work was required. There is no public i
59 AirNz : In which case you'd be absolutely wrong, nor are there any 'undertones' if you'd care to actually read what it's in relation to. On the contrary, it'
60 KL911 : My sources, which have been correct for 2 years now, reveal another delay of at least 3 months untill first flight. I hope it's not true, but fear the
61 UALWN : Thanks. I stand corrected.
62 KL911 : Thats dangerous.... One individual can kill many lives by making a wrong descision.
63 UALWN : That's fine, but my question is: if the damage in April occurred after a load test that went to loads significantly beyond 100 %, wouldn't one need t
64 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Flightblogger has posted that there is a chance that 001 and 002 may get in the air this month. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...fter-two-long-y
65 KL911 : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl....html I really hope so, but my sources, which I won't and can't reveal, tell me that another 3
66 Manfredj : I wouldn't agree with anyone that thinks a new design shouldn't be tested to its full potential. As a matter of fact, I have issues with these compos
67 Sxf24 : Does your source work at Airbus? They must, 'cause this is one time where all the leaks at Boeing are saying the same thing: on track for first fligh
68 KL911 : No, source is at B. But again, I hope as everyone else that they are wrong this time. Let the bird fly!!
69 Stitch : So what's the claimed reason for the delay?
70 Cerecl : Sadly, this is pretty much the case before the last delay as well. Only one source knew all was not right, and he/she is silent so far. Having said t
71 NYC777 : I've had a couple of different surces confirm the December 14th first flight date for the 787. I think it's looking real good thus far. If the detaile
72 Tdscanuck : Due to what? No. As long as the data shows that the structure is responding the way you think it should, there's no need to go past 100%. Don't forge
73 Dynamicsguy : So does your source say whether the delay would be related to the side of body fix, or another emerging problem?
74 DocLightning : Well, statistically, anyone who predicted delays would be correct. I mean... you can be correct about that guess many times, but you can only be corr
75 Keesje : Well I hope that is incorrect. Even a Potemkin Flight might become acceptable for me now.. The current test procedure makes me wondering though. If t
76 Dynamicsguy : Did it? The only suggestion that this happened significantly below limit load is from one person in this thread. I have not read that anywhere from a
77 Keesje : I presumed they performed the same pre flight limit load test in May as they did this week. If not, why did they exceed limit load test in May? Was i
78 Dynamicsguy : Boeing only said they went to limit, both for this test and the one which caused the damage, but when they did the test back in April Flightblogger a
79 XT6Wagon : The delamination happened because the stringers were TOO stiff. The modification wasn't about strength, it was about making the stringers more flexib
80 TISTPAA727 : Did they give any indication as to why? Ughh...that would horrible...I just want to see this thing fly. What is your blog address again? New computer
81 WestWing : The Wall Street Journal (byline Costas Paris) is now (today) also reporting a "Dec 14th" first flight date by citing "a person familiar with the situa
82 NYC777 : He is talking to other sources.
83 Keesje : That's for sure. I wonder if they will pull forward Ultimate Load too. If there is a problem its never to early to discover. A skin under pressure wi
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 Completes Detailed Design On 787 Wing Fix posted Tue Oct 27 2009 03:15:46 by Keesje
Boeing Starting Work On 787 Wing Mod. (Flightg.) posted Thu Sep 24 2009 21:58:49 by Aircellist
Boeing 787 Wing Flaw Extends Inside Plane posted Fri Jul 31 2009 19:16:08 by Clickhappy
787 Taxi Test posted Tue Jul 7 2009 11:17:10 by Mattcawby
787 Evacuation Test posted Sun May 3 2009 14:57:30 by USAFDO
787 Flight Test Plan posted Wed Apr 29 2009 12:54:49 by GBan
787: Why Test To Destruction The Weak Wingbox? posted Sat Apr 12 2008 05:36:17 by A380900
Conversion Of The First 767-300BCF Under Way posted Wed Nov 28 2007 14:56:50 by LTU932
Boeing Readies Backup 787 Flight-Test Plans posted Mon Aug 20 2007 16:16:47 by BoomBoom
JAL Moving A 787 Wing Out Of SFO posted Mon Apr 2 2007 05:58:58 by Phishphan70