Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 Program Overview  
User currently offlineTomB From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 79 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19648 times:

Daniel Tsang of Aspire Aviation has written a very good article providing an overview of the Boeing 787 program.
"Challenges Remain as Boeing 787 Becomes Reality"
http://www.aspireaviation.com/blog/

Here is a summary of some of Daniel's comments:
7 to 8 B-787 deliveries in 2011
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016
Production rate should hit 10 airplanes per month by 2013 or 2014
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

Engines:
R-R Trent Package A: 2% - 4% miss on SFC
R-R Trent Package B: 1% miss on SFC

GEnx-1B: 2% to 3% miss on SFC
PIP1: Reduces fuel burn by 1.4%
PIP2: Reduces fuel burn by 1.5%
2013 spec GEnx-1B: hits original SFC target (=+)

Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

Conclusion on B-787-8: Should finally hit the original factory specs in 2013

B-787-9: Weight is ahead of curve
B-787-10X: Probably EIS in 2016

114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetak From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19604 times:

WOW, the amount overweight seems really staggering! Thanks for summarizing this article. I just posted in another thread asking the question of which AC will be delivered in the remainder of this year: Which Other Airliner Receives The 787 In 2011? (by tonytifao Sep 27 2011 in Civil Aviation)

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 19247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm a bit skeptical of those weights, to be honest. I recall other sources saying ZA001 was about 2.5 tons (5000 pounds) overweight.

Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18628 times:

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Negative gross margin on the first 1000 airplanes
Positive cash flow on a unit basis begins in 2016

What does this actually tell us? Since they do the accounting at the program level, what does this actually mean for the business?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight

Is that with or without the tons of flight test stuff on the airplane?

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Aerodynamics of B-787: Slightly better than expected

I find it odd that he's got hard numbers for all the negatives but only the general term "slightly" for the positives...is there any quantification out there?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Boeing have stated LN100 (originally LN007) and onwards meet contractual guarantees. I can't see how aero can overcome 6 tons of extra empty weight and a 4% SFC miss.

There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Tom.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1380 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 18483 times:

Gross Profit Divided By Sales is the equation for GPM.

Gross Profit is the difference between total revenue from sales and the total cost of purchases or materials.

--

So a negative GPM would indicate Boeing is getting paid less then they are paying for the parts. GPM doesn't include overhead.


This article from Flight Global ( http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...he-price-of-boeings-787-sales.html ) said Boeing charged really low prices (as low as $65 million) on the first few hundred aircraft.

But by unit 1,000 each plane will have a positive GPM, since it hasn't been sold (or Boeing should really cancel the program). I guess the report could be that Boeing won't even pay costs when divided over the first 1,000 but that seems pretty harsh.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 18332 times:

I think the whole thing is a red herring...and like the 380 talk, won't change a thing. How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research? The work done on the wing will potentially save billions when Boeing needs a new 777 wing...or the next narrow body...and it already went into the 748 wing.

If they go with a more electric architecture to save weight on the 777ng or anything else, it'll be thanks to the work done on the 787.

The windows on the 748 are thanks to the 777.

So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

Regardless, there isn't a report that will kill this program...or any other. The only thing that will kill it is lack of customer interest. How much it cost Boeing is, at this point, irrelevant.



What the...?
User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 17998 times:

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
May hit a production rate of 17 airplanes per month by 2016

Wow. That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens. That would make just over 200 aircraft per year.

(For comparison, A330 had it´s best year so far in 2010 with 82 deliveries, and the best year for 767 was 63 aircraft back in 1992, and Boeing delivered 88 777 in 2009. All according to wiki)


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17859 times:

Quoting Extra300 (Reply 6):
That´s an impressive production rate for a widebody if it ever happens

They're going to have two final production facilities, Everett and Charleston.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1562 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17823 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
How much of the money spent, for example, is essentially research?

I agree with you.

A lot of the money spent on the 787 program is an investment in the future of Boeing.

Ruscoe


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 3):
There's a big difference between targets, specs, and contractual guarantees. I suspect the definitions are getting blurred. There's almost certainly a gap between the targets and the contracted minimums, just to start with.

Agreed, but Boeing spokesfolk have specifically said "contractual performance guarantees".

I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8.  


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17604 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I guess we'll know for sure when it comes time for the delivery ceremony for QR's first 787-8

The way the whole 747-8f thing went, he's going to get LN-90!!!

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
LN-90: meets original weight targets



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17575 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 5):
So not every penny spent on the 787 impacts only the 787. The money spent that only effects the 787 is absolutely impossible to calculate.

As this is the most transformative airliner since the 707, this is very true. What has been learned on the 787 will affect every airliner Boeing designs from here on. The 707 also took far, far longer than anticipated to turn a profit by itself, but without it there would have been no 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, or 787. Boeing would probably have followed the same course as Lockheed, and by now would probably have been absorbed by either them or General Dynamics. Fortunately Boeing seems to have had access to sufficient capital to overcome the cost overruns; in the 50's it was much dicier. They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17509 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 11):
They invested more than the net worth of the company twice before, once on the 707 and again on the 747. I don't think they did this time.

Not even close. Even the most pessimistic and doom-laden projection of the cost of the 787 program is significantly lower than the company's current net worth.

Tom.


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17371 times:

Quoting TomB (Thread starter):
Weight:
First prototype - ZA001: 7.8 tonnes (21,500 lbs.) overweight
LN7 - LN19: 6.1 tonnes (13,500 lbs.) overweight
LN-20: 4 tonnes (8,800 lbs.) overweight
LN-90: meets original weight targets

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft? I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

I'm not saying that I don't believe this info, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I would like to know why.

Does it just have to do with an assumption that Boeing/supplier engineers will be able to produce a variety of parts at a lower weight, or will they learn more about the aircraft and be able to physically remove certain items (like 1,000 rivets? - just throwing that out there as an example) and therefore reduce weight through many piecemeal reductions?

Any insight would be much appreciated!



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17308 times:

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):

I don't know too much at all about manufacturing, so would someone be able to explain on why a relatively-early manufactured aircraft (talking like aircraft 10-89, based on the above info) would be overweight by so much, but at some point become more efficient and produce a lower-weight aircraft?

Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact overdesigned. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 883 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17293 times:

Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?


User currently offlinepoLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17243 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
Question, could theoretically be an airline who could pick up the unwanted frames that were already built? Or, convince the orriginal airline to take delivery and hand them over under either a lease or sale agreement?

Sure. If the original airline does not want the airframe and refuses to take delivery of it than Boeing is free to sell it to whoever wants it. No need to force the original airline to do anything. If they don't want it and there is someone else who does might as well cut out the middleman.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 15):
If those would be possible, do you think that someone would do that to jumo in front of the line for the 787?

Only if they could get an acceptable amount of frames in a short amount of time. No one is going to jump ahead for 1-2 frames and then wait 2 years to get the rest of their order for example (unless they ordered a small amount, i.e 4, then maybe). So you would have to look at some of the early customers.

[Edited 2011-10-04 07:46:03]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 14876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14394 times:

It is interesting to look at what finally was of the 787-8 if one assumes the figures from above. If the actual figures are 2-3t better per Stitchs assumptions then this whole reasoning adjusts a bit but is not invalidated. If one compare the 788 to the other A/C that one can buy today in this capacity-range class, the 332, an interesting picture emerges. They are surprisingly similar at first years as the 332 at 238t MTOW is at the pinnacle of it's career and the 787 is at the start of it's.

Table with all weights metric ton. Assumes 788 target is the 114,7t OEW B last publicized. At 787-8 spec range load of 242 pax+bags they both carry 23t, this is used for the range comparison:


......................7-19......20-50.....90-......332.........Comment
OEW..............121.......119.......115......120.........for the first 50 frames the OEWs are similar
MZFW..............?.........161.......161......168.........the 332 carries more payload below 5000nm
MTOW............220.......228.......228.......238........the 332 needs the 10t for its fuel burn deficit at longer ranges
Range at 23t....6800.....7300.....8000.....7300.......up to frame 50 the 332 exceeds or matches the 788
Fuel burn t/hr.....4,9..........4,9.......4,9.......5,6........the 788 burns 12% less fuel on a spec range trip

At frames up to say 40-60 the 2 frames are surprisingly similar (with the first 12 no fun at all) then the 788 sails away.

[Edited 2011-10-04 12:59:23]


Non French in France
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Boeing will need to make the "surge line" in Everett permanent, so the IAM complaint that the second line in CHS cost the IAM possible jobs is moot as is their case to the NLRB.

I don't think so. They just have to show that no current jobs have been effected. The union has to prove specific harm...potential or future harm probably won't cut it.

The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

If Boeing can successfully show that the Charleston line is supplementary and not a replacement for the current line, I don't think there is much the NLRB could do.

Regardless, at worst, Boeing would be issued a fine, (based on some court calculated formula determining relative harm based on what proportion of the plant was built with union harm in mind), which they would no doubt appeal and the game would continue forever. There is not a chance in the universe that the union can succeed in shutting down the Charleston line.

I doubt they could even stop the surge line from being moved if Boeing wanted.

What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.



What the...?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14094 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The union case is based on the Charleston plant being built specifically and primarily to punish the union for striking. If no current union member has lost their job or otherwise can show harm, I don't think this thing has any legs.

It stands to reason that the capacity was needed and based on the statements made by Boeing the "missing" jobs are those not created in WA.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
What I don't get is how the union can't see that every time they start an action against Boeing, they hurt their chances for any new work being placed in Washington.

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13890 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):

I disagree with a lot of what unions do but bear in mind that the only reason they exist is because how management treated employees. It is a two way street and I think there is plenty of blame for everyone. Problem is that neither side is interested in solving things.

I'm actually not placing blame...I think there is plenty to go around...but ignoring reality won't help anybody. Boeing has made it clear that work stoppages in Washington are hurting their business and they will be placing work out of state to ensure that if there is a strike in one place, it won't kill their entire production.

This is a legally viable reason to move work out and if they had just said that, the LRB wouldn't have taken them to task. Unfortunately, some Boeing pinheads said they were going to stick it to the IAM as one of the reasons to move...and since it's against the law to punish unions for striking, the LRB is looking into it.

It may seem like mere semantics but moving work to ensure production continuity can be interpreted differently than moving work to punish unions...it partly depends on what the company says but it also depends on what the company does.

As it turns out, the unions haven't actually been punished by the plant in SC...what they also haven't been, in actuality, is rewarded with new work, (big but subtle difference)...unless you count the surge line, which I suspect is on the bubble at the moment...until the noise dies down.

So the reality is, (and legalities aside), if Washington wants to see more new work, it should think twice about poking the bear with a stick. You can be sure that Boeing will never make the mistake again of having any record where punishing a union for striking is a business goal...even if it is.

As long as they can show a viable business reason for moving, (even if it means short term loss), it's perfectly ok for Boeing to not only put new business outside of Washington, (or even out of country), but to move current production as well.

That die was cast when head office went to Chicago.



What the...?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13820 times:

Quoting planespotting (Reply 13):
I can understand maybe the first 5 - 10 aircraft, but it seems like after that you should be able to figure out exactly what you want out of a certain process and piece of equipment, and therefore shouldn't have to wait for approx. 89 aircraft to be built before you can lower the weight enough to hit your target.

Part of it is the very long lead time on airliners, part is how the engineering has to be handled.

Suppose you determine, today, that you can get weigh reduction on a certain part. Changing that part may also change loads on other parts, so you need to do all that potential re-engineering too. Once that's all complete, the earliest you can possibly insert the change in to the supply chain is after *all* current affected parts are built, plus the time it takes the assorted suppliers to modify their production plans based on the new designs. If the farthest-back-corner of the supply chain is working on, say, parts for LN90 right now, that's the earliest you can cut the change in.

There's always the option to retrofit the change into already-built aircraft (i.e. issue a service bulletin) but for many changes, especially structural changes, the modification may be economically prohibitive.

Tom.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13724 times:

My fingers are crossed that Boeing is finally being conservative in their estimates and they will actually ramp up faster than officially forecast.


What the...?
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13559 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
Any design process starts with assumptions; with many, many parts to design the first iteration will make assumptions about loads and stresses. Once the part gets modeled, it gets plugged into the assembly and finite element analysis is done on the assembly. Often times it will be found that stresses were overestimated (seeing as no designer wants to design a part that will fail), and weight can be removed. With pressure on to get the plane built and flying, there are many parts that do not get sufficient review to optimize them. What I suspect is happening now is that each part is being reviewed, and many of them are in fact over designed. It might be a few ounces on some part, and maybe a couple of pounds on another, but when you total it all up savings can be significant. The point is that every good designer will tend toward the conservative on the first pass, which means extra weight.

You are describing and engineering process done some 20 to 30 years ago. And I do not believe that Boeing worked that way for the 787. Let me describe it from the side of car engineering where I am spot on how the process works and I believe the airplane engineering process isn't different.

What is missing in your description is the key element of design work nowadays and that is simulation. Today no part is designed without spending a lot on simulation to figure out the right design that meets the goals for strength, manufacturing and weight to name a few. Simulation helps you to narrow down your design options and balance to ideally one preferred type, then to to do it like in the past with more try and error type design. In the past you may have tested and refined it 2 or 3 times based on your learning, but today you will actually design only 1 time and probably calculate a refinement loop for tuning. Only in rare occasions you may actually prepare and test 2 options.

I would not believe that Boeing is designing airplanes like that. It would be crazy. They should design it based on simulation. And Boeing also should be in control of the total airplane assemblies and subassemblies to do simulation of the those assemblies.

Now what happened that this idn't work for the 787.
I assume 2 major reasons for that.
1) Simulation tools:
Simulation tools for composite materials respectively the material mix haven't been calibrated good enough, respectively have been off the reality - some could assume when you do it the first time - and you may tend to add additional safety margin in to cover for that uncertainty. However still Boeing didn't adjust the weight targets accordingly.
2) Supply chain capability
I believe the second reason was that Boeing didn't have an effective supplier selection process for the 787 - especially the portion of design and engineering capability of the supplier wasn't spent enough attention in the selection process. We could read that some suppliers even contracted the design work to design houses. With that method you will get a puzzle of engineering results based on various unaligned methods and would need to spend a hell of work to put the puzzle together for a reasonable good simulation of systems.

For me those both points are the reason for Boeing being so much off the target.

Now the only solution is to organize the identified design changes in reasonable block points, what they obviously do now.

Hope they learned for the future.

regards

Flyglobal


25 328JET : It is a big disappointment that a brandnew airplane has a fuel burn advantage of only 13 percent. Imagine how many years of design are between EIS of
26 astuteman : If I can offer a note of caution to your assumptions.... Whilst the principles may be the same, a car is a product with about 25 000 parts which will
27 qfa787380 : Assuming the thread starter is correct............................but is it???? Stitch has raised his concerns on the authenticity of the numbers. No
28 ferpe : The base design has about 15 years between them (the wing was designed for the 340 about 1990) and the engines about 12-13 years (EIS 330 1994) but t
29 justloveplanes : When Boeing releases the accounting block number this month, all will become clear.
30 ferpe : Don't want to be negative but even with Stitchs figures things don't get that much better, the general conclusions are still valid. I guess my reason
31 JoeCanuck : In some respects, Boeing might have been asking contractors for very sophisticated products but it did use some usually very reliable contractors. Al
32 Post contains images lightsaber : With the 787, Boeing failed with the interfaces. How could they let the first wingbox be delivered 1/2 cm too short and still within definition? This
33 ferpe : Fuel burn: I have calculated all with the B standard T1000 = within 1% of spec SFC, few frames will have the A std T1000. When it comes to the GEnx m
34 Stitch : At spec OEM OEW the 787-8 is a couple tons lighter than the A330-200 and it is a larger airframe with larger engines. But it does seem to be that CFR
35 ferpe : Don't want to be picky but the T700 at 6160kg is 222kg heavier then the T1000 at 5936kg, makes 0,5t on the frame level. Further they are equal in spa
36 tdscanuck : And the process that's used today. Airliners are far to complex to do full product simulation like you're describing...there isn't a computer on eart
37 Post contains images lightsaber : Ah... So they are all flying to maximum spec range (maximum fuel load for the same payload)? The later lighter examples will still have a lower overa
38 justloveplanes : My understanding was when the accounting block was released, Boeing would state whether the program was in a forward loss position or not. If it is i
39 Post contains images ferpe : A real analysis would put all weight variants and the 332 against each other taking a certain payload (eg 70% of maxpax + say 5t cargo) at a certain
40 RoseFlyer : The analysis (not necessarily the same as simulation) is tighter on airplanes than in the car manufacturing business (I've only briefly worked around
41 tdscanuck : They certainly can, but I don't think there's any requirement that they do so. If the program is in a forward loss position *and* they're taking an a
42 328JET : Take a look in reply 18, please. - The first 50 airplanes have the same range or even less range. - The empty weight is similiar, despite CFRP on the
43 astuteman : My understanding is that the A330 actually has a fractionally larger cabin by dint of being a couple of metres longer, despite the 787 being fraction
44 dynamicsguy : Where have they stated this? LN100 is not even a blockpoint, so that makes no sense. My understanding is that the 787 meets its mission from the LN20
45 flyglobal : Rose Flyer, this way I can buy in way more and it is closer to my expectation as the reply astuteman made some threads above. By the way, the automot
46 Stitch : Sorry, Meant ZA100 (LN007). And it's in the public record, so a search should bring it up. As for CFRP, even if it makes no difference to weight, hop
47 tdscanuck : Spec range on an A330-200 is 7250 nm. The 18-hour flight Boeing did on the 787 already proved they've got more range than that. Exactly. With the sam
48 Post contains images lightsaber : 1 percent per year is how fast technology is moving. About half from the airframe and half from the engines. Now that technology moves in 'fits and s
49 Post contains images ferpe : As have the 332, this statement means nothing Tom (and you know it) as long as you do not put in with what payload . Both the 788 and the 332 have hu
50 dynamicsguy : That's probably the other big difference between auto and aero - it's a long time between new airplanes, so the opportunity to learn from each succes
51 Post contains images ferpe : LN 7-19 is a true first series type of crafts, they are inferior on most accounts (except passenger comfort and fuel burn) to the present competitor.
52 Stitch : We'll likely never know. In some cases, with the huge disparity in list price between the earliest orders (NH) and later orders, I could see Boeing o
53 justloveplanes : Seems a bit hard to fathom that one. Sounds like Air India paid more early than now in order to apply some kind of refund? Is this right?
54 Post contains images mffoda : Seems to be allot of comparisons being thrown around here regarding the heavy earlier 787 frames vs. various Airbus models (present & future) as f
55 328JET : That was a testflight with an empty airplane... No. It has no smaller engines and it does not fly farther, it only burns less fuel.
56 RoseFlyer : Maybe not physically smaller but lower powered as the 787 is 64K lbs thrust vs 70-72K lbs thrust for the A332.
57 Post contains links 328JET : Boeing 787: RR: Up to 74.000lbs GE: up to 75.000lbs http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/products/largeaircraft/trent_1000/ http://www.geaviation.com/eng
58 Post contains links and images ferpe : This is a myth, the engines that got certified for the 788 is the 69klbf variant even for the first 7-19 with 220t MTOW: The 787 Weight, How It Got T
59 dynamicsguy : Probably not much. A 3-ish% weight increase is in the noise for loads, and sharpening the pencil on the analysis can usually take care of critical ma
60 Post contains images frigatebird : Don't forget the A358 still has 152 units sold. Some of them may be cancelled, some more may be converted to A359's. Still, I believe there will be m
61 SEPilot : Since the 753 is out of production and there is nothing remotely close to it available, what are you referring to? Even the most optimistic projectio
62 Post contains images frigatebird : What I'm referring to is the opinion/expectation of some that the A358 will be cancelled, due to lack of interest. My point is that some other aircra
63 SEPilot : I think the reason for the speculation that the A358 will be substantially inferior to the 789, with which it will compete head to head and come up s
64 tdscanuck : Except I do know the payload and it wasn't empty. If it flies the same distance on less fuel, it can fly farther with the same fuel. So you seem to b
65 poLOT : There are only 131 A358s still on order, and out those 131: 6 belong to Afriqiyah Airways 5 belong to Libyan 5 belong to Kingfisher 3 belong to Tunis
66 seabosdca : Focusing on thrust is a bit of a red herring as it only helps you with runway performance (and range in runway-limited situations), not with raw rang
67 ferpe : Would this mean that you can run other engine variants then in the type certificate? The EASA one only lists the engine data as: 5. Engines Two (2) R
68 Stitch : Since power settings are controlled by software, I would not be surprised if the Type Certificate lists the maximum available rating at the time and
69 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Agreed. LN90+ will be the ones to watch. However, that means 2011 and 2012 go buy without full capability. We're looking at 3.5 month by early spring
70 JoeCanuck : 90 planes sounds like a lot but even at the worst case scenario, that just over 10% of the planes currently ordered and probably a significantly propo
71 Post contains links and images mffoda : 2013 No? Not likely... OK... Lets make it 3 A/C in Jan 2012 and 5 in Dec.. Lets say the average is 4 per month. = 48 A/C? All things 787 website has
72 dynamicsguy : For a derivative still years away from its first flight that sounds pretty good to me, not a reason to cancel it.
73 Stitch : I'm still skeptical of the weights presented, but if we take the fellow at face value, that means Boeing has pulled 6.5 tons or more out of the 787-9'
74 poLOT : True, but if they can convince a majority of those customers to convert over to the A359 then they can save a ton of money by not having to build and
75 tdscanuck : Yes. Type certificate is maximum rating *for the engine*. It doesn't tell you anything about installed rating on a particular airframe. The 787-8 cur
76 ferpe : Would then LN7-19 have 64klbf (MTOW 220t) and LN20- 70klbf (228t)?
77 tdscanuck : You can have either rating with either MTOW. Also keep in mind that the TCDS MTOW isn't necessarily what the airline has...many airlines purchase "pa
78 Ruscoe : Whatever the real situation, the 787 according to Boeing, is meeting contractual guarentees for performance, and Boeing have been able to sell 800+ ba
79 JoeCanuck : It'll take a while to get them certified but eventually, composites will actually be the miracle materials folks dreamed of with the 787...and the Je
80 flyglobal : Just to give some explanation as I dodn't see it yet. the 789 ahead of the weight curve means: yes it is over weight to the end target, but according
81 Baroque : Reads as if you do not think the ground proximity warning is going to go off any time soon????
82 Stitch : The 787-9 will replace some parts that are AL on the 787-8 with CFRP to reduce the weight even further. These CFRP parts will also be available on lat
83 Stitch : So I've been investigating the claims by Aspire Aviation about the 787's weight and I believe that those figures are relative to Boeing's original des
84 astuteman : So Boeing produced an ACAP just for LN's 007-019? Rgds
85 Post contains images 328JET : Even further...? I am not sure, if this is the best wording in case of the "heavy8" from Boeing...
86 Post contains links ferpe : As I've written in my post in TechOps your argumentation is not supported by any of the analysis that one can make. Here is what Lisys (maker of Pian
87 Stitch : I would expect the ACAP would show the heaviest OEW (at OEM spec) in the fleet and in September 2007, that would have been ZA001 - which at the time
88 Post contains links ferpe : Sticth, you are referring to this document: http://www.planebusiness.com/buzz/airbus2.pdf on slide 12 it is clear that A refers B data for production
89 Stitch : I don't see anywhere on those slides where they say that weight is specific to any frame, much less LN020. Boeing have stated they will see a "signif
90 Post contains images astuteman : Not sure I can see the point in a "draft" ACAP for a single aircraft that is never going to see revenue service....... And if the early aircraft actu
91 Stitch : But in September 2007, Boeing intended that plane to see revenue service. And it was the farthest along, so it was likely the only plane they could u
92 ferpe : Sorry I don't get this, I think you mean 117t OEW. In slide 12 the MWE of the 119t version (which ANA got for first delivery) is given as 100t. Add t
93 Post contains images Stitch : No I mean a 117 MWE, but it seems we both agree that the MWE is not that high so it's of no matter. I still think LN007-019 have an MWE closer to 100
94 ferpe : As I said in the TechOps thread, I have no idea if Aspires figures are correct, Aspire is normally very positive vs B however so if these sources are
95 Post contains links Spacepope : Out of curiosity, was this another delivery today? http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...7/history/20111015/1655Z/KPAE/RJTT
96 Post contains links wale03 : I saw that also,that's the delivery flight of JA802A,and this is a video of the departure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3W4p57gU-g&feature=feed
97 Stitch : I don't think they're wrong, I just think they are in addition to Firm Configuration MWE, not actually completed frame (post-EIS) MWE.
98 starrion : So far two ANA 787's are away and the two CX 748F's What are the next deliveries to look forward to?
99 justloveplanes : As Stitch said, his figures aren't necessarily wrong, they are mixing design concept numbers with actual project numbers, or in other words, crossing
100 rheinwaldner : Not in that report. That analysis was only adressed for an internal audience. If that report would knowingly have bend the truth they would only have
101 JoeCanuck : If it was only for internal use, it never would have made it, almost immediately, into the public domain. Airbus would never let themselves be caught,
102 rheinwaldner : Silly speculation that lacks any proof, I would say...
103 JoeCanuck : Of course you would say that. No more silly than claiming that a document that was supposed to be secret almost immediately was made public. Also, no
104 fpetrutiu : Yes. It was. I believe the next one is in 2 weeks.
105 Post contains images Hamlet69 : I always loved the quote on page 8: "Affected passengers may not be happy!" Very technical briefing indeed!! Regards, Hamlet69
106 rheinwaldner : Right, there is no proof at all. But acting in good faith forbids to draw your conclusion. It just shows bad faith. I am in the engineering business t
107 PITingres : If that's a competitive evaluation template, you're doing it wrong. An internal "lessons learned" document may reasonably concentrate on the bad thin
108 SEPilot : A true engineering "lessons learned" or, more accurately, "lessons to be learned" document about a competitor's product would focus more on things th
109 Stitch : Well Airbus evidently didn't learn much, since they admitted later that they encountered the same lightning protection issues Boeing did. *shrug* In o
110 ferpe : This was my wonder as well when I heard of these delays, hmmm the frame is almost 4 years late for first EIS with the GEnx and they are still not rea
111 SEPilot : The 748 with a variant of the same engine has been certified; does anyone know what the holdup for the 787's engine is? With the 748 engine actually
112 PW100 : Uh uh . . . . which engines did Al Bakar order?
113 bonusonus : Still, bleedless engines are a new technology, and bleed-air engines aren't.
114 SEPilot : Isn't that kind of saying that when I take the turbocharger off my engine that then I am making new technology? My car engine has only been built wit
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's 787 Program Fact Sheet posted Mon Apr 25 2005 01:00:49 by BoeingBus
Boeing's Management Of The 787 Program posted Sun Jul 12 2009 14:16:07 by TomB
Boeing Provide Update On 787 Program: April 9th posted Mon Apr 7 2008 12:33:52 by Ahtohob346
Boeing Beefs Up 787 Program posted Sat Feb 2 2008 05:29:05 by Zeke
Boeing Provides 787 Program Update (Part III) posted Fri Sep 7 2007 02:36:21 by Stitch
Boeing Cut At Wachovia, Concerns Over 787 Program posted Mon Jan 22 2007 12:43:50 by UALMMFlyer
Boeing Use Of Rfid On 787 Program posted Fri Nov 4 2005 20:25:21 by MrComet
Boeing's 747 Freighters For 787 Program posted Tue Apr 19 2005 01:32:36 by Dimsum
F-blogger: The Price Of Boeing's 787 Sales Success posted Tue Dec 21 2010 13:33:48 by EBGARN
Boeing: 787 EIS Due In June/July posted Thu Dec 9 2010 15:33:24 by CHRISBA777ER