tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2115 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 11019 times:
Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 2): Any idea when they'll roll her out of the paint shop?
It went into the paint hangar on the 18th and usually takes about a week. This is a new paint job and a new aircraft size so it may take a little longer. In other words: late this week or early next week.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9863 times:
From what I heard and read, the 787-9 is doing quite well so far and seems to be ahead of the schedule. I would not surprised if we already see the first flight in the next 3-4 weeks instead end of August or early September.
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2115 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5833 times:
Quoting hannahpa (Reply 28): If I am not mistaken, the GenX engine for the -9 is about 75,000 lbs of thrust, Right???
I believe the Trent 1000 Package C (what is currently hanging from ZB001's wings) is rated at 74,000. Wiki says 71k. Trent Ten (787-10) is supposed to be 76k with the capability to go to 78k. I assume GEnx is similar in all accounts.
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2115 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5071 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 30): Per the FAA Trent 1000 TCDS (thrust figures are maximum continuous):
Trent 1000-C at 69,523 lbs thrust
So when RR says: "The Trent 1000 Package C programme will provide 74,000lb thrust for the 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft," this is a maximum thrust for TO and its really the 69.5k figure for cruise? That is a larger difference than I expected. I always thought the 74k figure was 'continuous' and there is a couple thousand available for temporary burst for hot/high if necessary/purchased.
dynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 820 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4917 times:
Quoting planeadmirer (Reply 21): Yes and no, unfortunately. Yes to the current schedule. No to the original schedule and probably a couple of revisions of the original schedule.
787-9 development has been way more disciplined than -8. The last schedule slide was nearly 3 years ago due to having to wait on flight test data. The release of engineering data was essentially on time - we didn't miss a single one of our hundreds of releases, and from what I hear this was typical of the program as a whole.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28520 posts, RR: 84 Reply 16, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3788 times:
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 31): So when RR says: "The Trent 1000 Package C programme will provide 74,000lb thrust for the 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft," this is a maximum thrust for TO and its really the 69.5k figure for cruise?
Yes. TO thrust (5 minute limit) for the C and D are 74,511 pounds and 77,826 for the Z.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33): The GEnX -74 and -78 offer the same thrust. The Trent -C and -D offer the same thrust. What is the difference between such models, then?
Per the EASA TCDS, each RR model has it's own Drawing Instruction Sheet that defines the build standard, so it might reflect different PiPs?
Per the EASA TCDS, GE appears to append a Px at the end of the GEnx1B depending on the PIP. So a GEnx-1B64 is the original engine. The GEnx-1B64/P1 includes PiP1 and the GEnx1B64/P2 includes PiP2.
The GEnx-2B for the 747-8 family shows a GEnx-2B67 and a GEnx-2B67B. The engine entered service on the 747 with the features incorporated in the GEnx-1B PiP1 so I don't know if GEnx-2B67B is the upcoming PiP2 engine or not.
tortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 2115 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2917 times:
That will work. This close up view makes it look longer than the other pictures/video. The front landing gear looks longer than on the 788. I assume it is not higher off the ground but it sure does look like it. Also, the angle of the cockpit fuse looks more pronounced/steep then on the 788 but I assume that has not changed. Looks lean and mean.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9742 posts, RR: 37 Reply 22, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2407 times:
Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 8): I would not surprised if we already see the first flight in the next 3-4 weeks instead end of August or early September.
Certainly likely to be no later than early September, provided the system checks and ground tests go smoothly. Airbus probably just set a 'world record' by getting the A350 flying within five weeks of rollout, and succeeded in getting in that demo flight over Paris. I don't expect that Boeing will see any need to better that, but they certainly won't want to be too far behind.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci