astuteman
Posts: 7071
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:27 pm

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 211):
While the total planned number for 2008 isn�t really changed (109 vs 112) it should have quite an impact on cash flow, in most cases delayed by a couple of months. And - what is more important - assuming they get certification in Nov/Dec 2008 they want to have 109 airplanes ready for basically immediate delivery

What am I missing, FlyingTiger?

Certification in November/December 2008, and 109 deliveries in 2008?
Doesn't sound right somehow.
Should that be 109 deliveries in 2009?
By end 2009?

Regards
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:36 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 251):
Should that be 109 deliveries in 2009?By end 2009?

Yes. It's a typo. 109 deliveries through 2009, vs. 112.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:51 pm

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 249):
I don't believe flying is part of the cold weather tests.

I am not sure.

You can definitely test all the systems and the engines in a cold soaked hangar should such a facility exist (otherwise, I reckon it will take some time to design and build it, let alone get it certified for certification!) and you can most likely test the aerodynamic characteristics and the interaction with ice of the wing, engines and fuselage at high and thus very cold levels and extrapolate the data to lower levels, but shouldn't you also demonstrate contaminated departures and landings at some stage???

The point is, maybe it is possible to do part of the cold weather testing in a simulation facility, and part of it by flying around at very high levels, and maybe you can then even send the plane to some remote place in the southern hemisphere where you may have found some snow to demonstrate contaminated runway operations, but the question is: how much time are all these small steps going to take? Remember the 787 is on a rather strict test program; there is not much room for it to be chasing after some snow flocks here, some severe icing there and then some runway contaminant elsewhere at the other end of the world....

[Edited 2007-10-11 10:54:47]
 
astuteman
Posts: 7071
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:25 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 252):
Yes. It's a typo. 109 deliveries through 2009, vs. 112.

Thanks  thumbsup 

Regards
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:27 pm

Isn't the cold weather testing done to test if seals maintain integrity, if the plane can start up again after sitting in cold weather, etc.? Basically "cold start" testing. I think that could be tested in a cooling shed, but not positive.

It should be cold enough in Siberia, Alaska or Northern Canada in April for this, at least at night.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:50 pm

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 253):
You can definitely test all the systems and the engines in a cold soaked hangar should such a facility exist (otherwise, I reckon it will take some time to design and build it, let alone get it certified for certification!) and you can most likely test the aerodynamic characteristics and the interaction with ice of the wing, engines and fuselage at high and thus very cold levels and extrapolate the data to lower levels, but shouldn't you also demonstrate contaminated departures and landings at some stage???

I thought the test was to allow the whole structure and the engines to cool down - which you cannot exactly do at FL400 unless you can find a suitable parking station up there!! Then, the critical test is can it all come to life again, AND take off. But maybe I was just assuming that logic to the test.

Then again, perhaps they can build a really, really big cold house and take off in it.  Wow!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18265
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:39 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 255):
I think that could be tested in a cooling shed, but not positive.

There must be a simple reason why no commercial aircraft has been certificated using such an indoor facility.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 255):
It should be cold enough in Siberia, Alaska or Northern Canada in April for this, at least at night.

But only just. Overnight lows are not enough - the plane has to soak at min temp for (I think) at least 12 hours before you try and start it up.

However, the Dassault 7X biz-jet completed its cold-soak testing in early April in Northern Canada. However, if first flight is back-end of March, that's a very tight window.

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely there's anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere you could do this.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:50 pm

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 248):
The fact that no commercial airliner has made use of this, despite it existing for almost 50 years already, may suggest not all testing can be conducted in such a facility and some real world tests need to be done as well, making the whole effort of first going indoor and then outdoor pointless.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 257):
There must be a simple reason why no commercial aircraft has been certificated using such an indoor facility.

I am hoping it is cost. It's a lot cheaper to rent a runway and tarmac in the Canadian Arctic vs. bringing an aircraft hangar down to similar temperatures.

Also, when it comes time to test in contaminated runway conditions, that is easy enough to do with snow machines and such on an existing runway.

[Edited 2007-10-11 12:52:07]
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:52 pm

Quoting Danny (Reply 226):
Quoting Teme82 (Reply 225):
I heard rumor that QF is wanting some compensation for the delay. Now if all 787 customers would follow QF then Boeing would be in big trouble right?

It depends how quickly they can ramp up production after (or even before) EIS and how many frames are delivered late. Also usually not any delay results in compensation only delay that exceed certain time. It is definitely to early to say.

Yes, there could be severe consequences as Boeing would need to find the additional revenue from within current programs. Although their cash reserves are adequate, there not as good due to all the additional R&D over the last 2 yrs.

No Bail-Out for Boeing. If they blow it, they swallow the sword. No giving it back to the locals. As in other geographic areas.

[Edited 2007-10-11 12:54:03]
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 259):
Yes, there could severe consequences as Boeing would need to find the additional revenue from within current programs. Although their cash reserves are adequate, there not as good due to all the additional R&D over the last 2 yrs.

They're pushing some 400 planes a year out the door.

If that number can fund both the A380 and A350 for Airbus, it can darn well fund the 787 for Boeing.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 257):
But only just. Overnight lows are not enough - the plane has to soak at min temp for (I think) at least 12 hours before you try and start it up.

I remember the A380 had to sit for a few days because it was unseasonably warm. They were about to fly home when a cold spell arrived.

I would assume Boeing would be able to achieve the same, in reverse.

I have not idea whether a cooling shed would be allowed. Some else posited the concept, and it didn't come from the FAA or Boeing.

It is more an academic exercise to see why it would or would not be suitable.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:09 pm

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 223):

Well, they can test in the southern hemisphere.

What level of cold do they require?

I'd guess New Zealand South Island would work. If you need to go colder, what about Marion Island or the Antarctic Peninsula (depending on the state of the airfields)?

New Zealand is not far enough south.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 243):
Umm, when it's hot in the northern hemisphere, it's cold in the southern hemisphere...

Not cold enough at the locations with suitable airfields.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 248):

The fact that no commercial airliner has made use of this, despite it existing for almost 50 years already, may suggest not all testing can be conducted in such a facility and some real world tests need to be done as well, making the whole effort of first going indoor and then outdoor pointless.

 checkmark 

It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constucting a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

It is my opinion that 787 will not enter revenue service before 2Q 2009 or will do so with a restricted certificate. The 787 project manager was either lied to by his team managers, in denial or flat out lied by himself. As I said after the first delay announcement, I take no pleasure in seeing 787 testing and delivery slipping further into the future.

The 787 project manager requires replacing. At the earliest juncture IMO.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 260):
They're pushing some 400 planes a year out the door.

If that number can fund both the A380 and A350 for Airbus, it can darn well fund the 787 for Boeing.

Thought we were funding the 787, 777F, 748i and 748F, and thinking about the 787-10 plus Y1 and Y3?

I have no doubt it will get done. I just worry about a couple of component manufactures (one in particular) causing some real issues due to QC problems. IMO, and only MO, I worry Boeing is concerned about QC in their Global Partners. The parts are arriving requiring a great deal of work. IMO, all the Polymer production should have been done in the US.

I don't buy for a minute there is a code issue in the Flight Control application.

QC baby. That is MO.  crossfingers 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15055
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:17 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constucting a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

That is factually inaccurate. It is -25C, not -30C. That -5C makes a big, big difference in finding suitable locations and timings. The arctic circle remains cold enough in early April and can get cold enough in late November, as long as the weather gods send the right winds to the right place. It is by no means a certainty that such weather will happen.

But I would assume that if it doesn't happen, the plane would be restricted from polar routes until it can be tested (and retrofitted if need be)?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:25 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
It is my opinion that 787 will not enter revenue service before 2Q 2009 or will do so with a restricted certificate.

At least Boeing, like Airbus with the A380, has a plane that has no competition, so initial deliveries will be safe. But it will force Boeing to open a second line and push deliveries to narrowbody levels (one a day) in order to protect the deliveries from 2013 onwards from being poached by Airbus and the A350.

If it does push EIS into 2009, then the only real light I can see would be Boeing formally announces the 787HGW with a 2012-2013 EIS and uses the "year off" to get it done. That way, airlines with later deliveries can just move up to the HGW (and at a nice price) which takes the pressure off Boeing to ramp production up to deep double-digits because the HGWs will arrive around the same time as the A350.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18265
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:17 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 265):
But it will force Boeing to open a second line and push deliveries to narrowbody levels (one a day) in order to protect the deliveries from 2013 onwards from being poached by Airbus and the A350.

I would have thought a second line is absolutely the last thing on Boeing's mind right now.

A second line also sounds like an exposure in the event of a downturn in sales in the next few years. If they're unlucky, it could hit right at the time the second line was ready to start pumping out 787s. The current very high level of sales is not sustainable in the long term. A downturn is on the way, it's just a matter of when. This applies equally to Airbus and its proposed ramp-up of A320 and A330 production rates and their proposed high initial A350 production rates.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
WAH64D
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:19 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 264):
That is factually inaccurate. It is -25C, not -30C. That -5C makes a big, big difference in finding suitable locations and timings. The arctic circle remains cold enough in early April and can get cold enough in late November, as long as the weather gods send the right winds to the right place. It is by no means a certainty that such weather will happen.

But I would assume that if it doesn't happen, the plane would be restricted from polar routes until it can be tested (and retrofitted if need be)?

I was 99% sure it was -30. It was covered in detail on the "Building the worlds biggest airliner" documentary about the A380. They were close to the edge of the weather window on that test and made light of the fact that it would be a major headache to miss this window (academic after the wiring issue).

I really hope that they do get into the test programme early enough to make the extreme cold weather window.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 265):

At least Boeing, like Airbus with the A380, has a plane that has no competition, so initial deliveries will be safe. But it will force Boeing to open a second line and push deliveries to narrowbody levels (one a day) in order to protect the deliveries from 2013 onwards from being poached by Airbus and the A350.

If it does push EIS into 2009, then the only real light I can see would be Boeing formally announces the 787HGW with a 2012-2013 EIS and uses the "year off" to get it done. That way, airlines with later deliveries can just move up to the HGW (and at a nice price) which takes the pressure off Boeing to ramp production up to deep double-digits because the HGWs will arrive around the same time as the A350.

I really hope they don't get to the stage where a second line becomes necessary. I honestly don't believe the supply chain is strong enough to support it. HGW early sounds like a great idea to me and the best solution if the programme slips any further. You're right on the money there my friend.
I AM the No-spotalotacus.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:33 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
The 787 project manager requires replacing. At the earliest juncture IMO.

Interesting that he was not part of the contingent answering the questions from the "scrum". He was last time!

If McInerney is a true disciple of Jack Welch then it is quite within the realm of possibility to see Bair or Carson gone.
Somebody has screwed up on the whole supply chain part of the project. Not to say that the delays in "final" drawings have not been a major contributor. I would say Bair/Carson have a short time frame to show that this project is on track otherwise the axe will fall.
 
airbusted
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:05 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:42 pm

All major engineering efforts run into delays and Boeing or Aibus are not immune. We had all new trains for sydney that the first of which was due in service in time for the 2000 olympics and did not enter service till 2005 and had software issues for the first year in service. At the end of the day Boeing with the 787 and Airbus with the A380 both have a duty of care to shareholders, employees, customers, regulators and the travelling public to build and aircraft that is safe, cost effective and supplied within the timeframe stated in the contract. That contract surely would include a delay factor (like building a new house the builder allows time for bad weather etc). The trick is balancing the technology, suppliers the finances and the schedule. All i can say is better them than me as the undertaking is huge.
CHEERS
 
StoutAirLines
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:09 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:04 pm

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 200):
Actually I could make a nasty joke about the fact that right now, it is Boeing who seems not to be able to put 2 things together in a correct way, but no worries, I won't...

You just did make a nasty joke and it was typical for you. Sad. Better luck next time.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 204):
For sure, if some a.netters react the same way they did with the A380 delays, it will become ugly. But I'm confident they will stay much more silent than before.

It already is ugly thanks to the usual Airbus supporters. See above.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 207):
I clearly remember some people here stating that if the 787 was delayed and if people at Boeing knew it and didn't say it, they would face prosecution (it was the big argument by some people against a 787 delay).
It's now clear that they know it for a while, but insisted that there would be no delays until recently.

Read up on Sarbanes-Oxley and you'll have your answer rather than you faulty assumption. Only events that materially affect shareholder value must be reported in a timely manner.

The delay Boeing has announced does not qualify in this regard whatsoever.

Quoting GBan (Reply 217):
Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 87):
Unless I'm missing something I don't see an "At Least" anywhere in the press release.....

I cannot see "at least" either - in the press release. But we have it again in the FlightGlobal article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-for-boeing-to-meet-northwest.html

Responding to the airframer's decision to push back initial deliveries -- slated for All Nippon Airways - by at least six months, ...

Where did they get this wording from?

From press reports originating in Europe. Are you surprised? Those words did not come from Boeing.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18265
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:18 pm

Quoting StoutAirLines (Reply 270):
From press reports originating in Europe.

European sources like MSNBC, Chicago Tribune, Aviation International News, International Herald Tribune? The list goes on...

Strictly speaking, those reports are correct since Boeing quoted Nov - Dec 2008, which is six to seven months, i.e. at least six months.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
StoutAirLines
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:09 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:46 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 271):
European sources like MSNBC, Chicago Tribune, Aviation International News, International Herald Tribune? The list goes on...

Nice try, but wrong yet again. The US sources you listed simply carried (copied) the news item originating from Europe that distorted what Boeing actually said.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 271):
Strictly speaking, those reports are correct since Boeing quoted Nov - Dec 2008, which is six to seven months, i.e. at least six months.

Stricly speaking, the European-based report is inaccurate and you know it. Boeing was very clear on what was communicated. I suggest you take a look at the actual press release next time.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 266):
A second line also sounds like an exposure in the event of a downturn in sales in the next few years.



Quoting WAH64D (Reply 267):
I really hope they don't get to the stage where a second line becomes necessary. I honestly don't believe the supply chain is strong enough to support it. HGW early sounds like a great idea to me and the best solution if the programme slips any further. You're right on the money there my friend.

Shifting production later by introducing the 787HGW would probably be the best way to make lemonade out of this current lemon...

I can't see how Boeing could shove one out the door every day even if the suppliers could feed it - Boeing doesn't have the production space at PAE to really do it. The 747 line needs 40-21 to store parts and build sub-assemblies and 40-22 to do final assembly) and that line isn't going anywhere. If the 767 wins the USAF tanker contract, production ramp-up will likely cause her to expand into 40-23 in addition to 40-24 and the 777 isn't going anywhere and it needs both 40-24 and 40-26 to hold planes because 40-25 is so full...

The 787 has to have exceeded their wildest sales forecasts and Boeing got greedy - both in terms of money and in terms of trying to lock out Airbus from counter-attacking within the segment. They key metrics now are both how fast can Boeing and their suppliers ramp up to the needed production level as well as how long can they sustain it.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 273):
They key metrics now are both how fast can Boeing and their suppliers ramp up to the needed production level as well as how long can they sustain it.

 checkmark 

Imagine the 787 schedule as a rug. (no, really, bear with me here! Big grin ) In September, Boeing admitted that there was a bump in the rug (schedule compression for flight testing) that they might possibly trip over. This month, instead of stretching out the whole rug to remove the bump (by delaying everything by 6 months, including the production ramp-up), they have simply moved the bump into 2009 (by promising an even steeper production ramp up, in parallel with flight testing). Sure, the bump is no longer there to trip up the imminent flight testing, but Boeing will necessarily confront that bump in the rug, which still presents a risk of tripping... only, in 2009.

The ramp-up will determine whether the 787 is merely a success, or a smashing success  Smile
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:44 am

Huh! Finally managed to log on, the site seems to go in fits and starts lately.

Certainly one in the eye for Boeing supporters. An apology to Clickhappy, who predicted this weeks ago.

As to 'cold soaking,' this can be done at Eglin AFB in Florida - the climatically-controlled hangar can apparently accommodate 747s and Galaxies, the 787 should be no problem. Incredibly, they can even run the engines indoors!

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/05/06/2584857.htm

As to cold weather flying, the whole of Antarctica will be open to them, either from here or from South America. Come to that, on recent evidence (including Grand Final Day!) Melbourne might even cold, wet, and windy enough, until September at least!  Smile
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:10 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constucting a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

The -30 might have come from somthing like this:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news06/142-AirbusA380.shtml
"MSN004, the second A380 to fly aircraft, spent five days in conditions of up to minus 30 degrees Celsius to prove full functionality of the systems under extreme weather conditions. Such trials included powering up the aircraft, the engines and hydraulic systems after a full 12-hour period at such low temperatures. The batteries were taken away overnight and kept in a warm area. The next morning, batteries were reinstalled onboard the aircraft for the tests. On the way back from Iqaluit, the A380 also carried out polar navigation tests."

I presume it means down to -30 so -25 could be possible too. But it has to remain at -25 (or -30??) for the whole period and it appears that even in Alaska, the window for such temperatures is of short duration, certainly not starting in Nov.

Forget the S Hemi, we really do have winter in J-July, but to get those temps you would have to go to Antarctica. The rest of us gave up having those sorts of winters back in the Mid-Eocene, when the rift systems surrounding Antarctica having allowed S Amer, A Africa, Aus and even NZ to drift N relative to Antarctica let the circum-Antarctica current start up (the zone of Nothofagidites asperus if you want to be picky!).

With the 787 and its bleedless engines, the cold soak tests are going to differ quite a bit from previous bleed systems. Presumably, a different testing regime will be required for the electrical systems compared with the hydraulics. Note that the batteries are taken out, but presumably the generators and the rest of the electrics are going to have to be subject to the cold soak regime. In some ways, the electrical system might be less affected by the cold, but you would have to test it as a system.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:28 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constructing a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

I posted this a few minutes ago, but just when I thought a.net was working the post disappeared.

Your -30 might have come from something like this WAH:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news06/142-AirbusA380.shtml
"MSN004, the second A380 to fly aircraft, spent five days in conditions of up to minus 30 degrees Celsius to prove full functionality of the systems under extreme weather conditions. Such trials included powering up the aircraft, the engines and hydraulic systems after a full 12-hour period at such low temperatures. The batteries were taken away overnight and kept in a warm area. The next morning, batteries were reinstalled onboard the aircraft for the tests. On the way back from Iqaluit, the A380 also carried out polar navigation tests."

I suppose "up to" actually means down to, so maybe -25 would have been the required temp, but they got down to -30. Their PR folk should read a book on clarity of expression!

Even for areas well inside the Arctic circle, reliable and continuous temps of minus 25 or lower are not found before January - so it appears.

And yes, the S Hemi does have winter in June-July, but those sorts of temps - apart from the high Andes or the top of Mt Cook only occur reliably in the Antarctic itself. And having decided to cut loose from Antarctica in the late Cretaceous, S Amer, S Africa, Aus and NZ had drifted sufficiently far N by the early Eocene (the zone of Nothofagidites asperus if you want to be picky) to allow the circum-Antarctic current to circulate and this moderates the winds coming off the polar ice-cap (thank heavens!!). It is just how the S Hemisphere works!!

Specifically the 787 will be quite a bit different to earlier planes in relation to electrical systems having replaced much of the hydraulics. The batteries are taken out and kept warm, but the rest of the electrical system has to be able to withstand the cold soak. Presumably these systems will be very new and night we require more testing than systems developed more from ones in current use.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18265
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:38 am

Quoting StoutAirLines (Reply 272):
The US sources you listed simply carried (copied) the news item originating from Europe that distorted what Boeing actually said.

Written by their own journos? Yep, it's all part of a European conspiracy to discredit Boeing. We're all in on it.  sarcastic 

Quoting StoutAirLines (Reply 272):
Boeing was very clear on what was communicated. I suggest you take a look at the actual press release next time.

You mean this one:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2007/q4/071010d_nr.html

Quote:
Deliveries of the strong-selling Dreamliner are now slated to begin in late November or December 2008, versus an original target of May 2008.

Given that May to December is seven months, the delay would be "at least six months".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:40 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constructing a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

I posted this a few minutes ago, but just when I thought a.net was working the post disappeared.

Your -30 might have come from something like this WAH:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news06/142-AirbusA380.shtml
"MSN004, the second A380 to fly aircraft, spent five days in conditions of up to minus 30 degrees Celsius to prove full functionality of the systems under extreme weather conditions. Such trials included powering up the aircraft, the engines and hydraulic systems after a full 12-hour period at such low temperatures. The batteries were taken away overnight and kept in a warm area. The next morning, batteries were reinstalled onboard the aircraft for the tests. On the way back from Iqaluit, the A380 also carried out polar navigation tests."

I suppose "up to" actually means down to, so maybe -25 would have been the required temp, but they got down to -30. Their PR folk should read a book on clarity of expression!

Even for areas well inside the Arctic circle, reliable and continuous temps of minus 25 or lower are not found before January - so it appears.

And yes, the S Hemi does have winter in June-July, but those sorts of temps - apart from the high Andes or the top of Mt Cook only occur reliably in the Antarctic itself. And having decided to cut loose from Antarctica in the late Cretaceous, S Amer, S Africa, Aus and NZ had drifted sufficiently far N by the early Eocene (the zone of Nothofagidites asperus if you want to be picky) to allow the circum-Antarctic current to circulate and this moderates the winds coming off the polar ice-cap (thank heavens!!). It is just how the S Hemisphere works!!

Specifically the 787 will be quite a bit different to earlier planes in relation to electrical systems having replaced much of the hydraulics. The batteries are taken out and kept warm, but the rest of the electrical system has to be able to withstand the cold soak. Presumably these systems will be very new and night we require more testing than systems developed more from ones in current use.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constructing a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

I posted this a few minutes ago, but just when I thought a.net was working the post disappeared.

Your -30 might have come from something like this WAH:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news06/142-AirbusA380.shtml
"MSN004, the second A380 to fly aircraft, spent five days in conditions of up to minus 30 degrees Celsius to prove full functionality of the systems under extreme weather conditions. Such trials included powering up the aircraft, the engines and hydraulic systems after a full 12-hour period at such low temperatures. The batteries were taken away overnight and kept in a warm area. The next morning, batteries were reinstalled onboard the aircraft for the tests. On the way back from Iqaluit, the A380 also carried out polar navigation tests."

I suppose "up to" actually means down to, so maybe -25 would have been the required temp, but they got down to -30. Their PR folk should read a book on clarity of expression!

Even for areas well inside the Arctic circle, reliable and continuous temps of minus 25 or lower are not found before January - so it appears.

And yes, the S Hemi does have winter in June-July, but those sorts of temps - apart from the high Andes or the top of Mt Cook only occur reliably in the Antarctic itself. And having decided to cut loose from Antarctica in the late Cretaceous, S Amer, S Africa, Aus and NZ had drifted sufficiently far N by the early Eocene (the zone of Nothofagidites asperus if you want to be picky) to allow the circum-Antarctic current to circulate and this moderates the winds coming off the polar ice-cap (thank heavens!!). It is just how the S Hemisphere works!!

Specifically the 787 will be quite a bit different to earlier planes in relation to electrical systems having replaced much of the hydraulics. The batteries are taken out and kept warm, but the rest of the electrical system has to be able to withstand the cold soak. Presumably these systems will be very new and might well require more testing than systems developed more from ones in current use.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:36 am

Quoting StoutAirLines (Reply 270):
From press reports originating in Europe. Are you surprised? Those words did not come from Boeing

This is referring to "at least 6 months late"

Boeing quotes delivery of the first aircraft in November or December (as opposed to May).
May to November = 6 months
May to December = 7 months

So "at least 6 months". It's people's interpretations of gramatically correct expressions which are far-fetched.
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting StoutAirLines (Reply 270):
From press reports originating in Europe. Are you surprised? Those words did not come from Boeing.

This is referring to "at least 6 months"

Boeing quoted that they would deliver in Nov or Dec (as opposed to May).

May to Nov = 6 months
May to Dec = 7months

So "at least 6 months". It's people's interpretations of gramatically correct expressions which are far-fetched.
 
chiad
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:13 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 273):
I can't see how Boeing could shove one out the door every day even if the suppliers could feed it - Boeing doesn't have the production space at PAE to really do it. The 747 line needs 40-21 to store parts and build sub-assemblies and 40-22 to do final assembly) and that line isn't going anywhere. If the 767 wins the USAF tanker contract, production ramp-up will likely cause her to expand into 40-23 in addition to 40-24 and the 777 isn't going anywhere and it needs both 40-24 and 40-26 to hold planes because 40-25 is so full...

Wow. Stich ... how do you know all these things?
You must either be a regular or an employee at Boeing, no?
I would love to expereince the Boeing plant to see what you're talking about.
Anyway .. thanks for the info.
 
chiad
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 273):
I can't see how Boeing could shove one out the door every day even if the suppliers could feed it - Boeing doesn't have the production space at PAE to really do it. The 747 line needs 40-21 to store parts and build sub-assemblies and 40-22 to do final assembly) and that line isn't going anywhere. If the 767 wins the USAF tanker contract, production ramp-up will likely cause her to expand into 40-23 in addition to 40-24 and the 777 isn't going anywhere and it needs both 40-24 and 40-26 to hold planes because 40-25 is so full...

Wow. Stich ... how do you know all these things?
You must either be a regular or an employee at Boeing, no?
I would love to expereince the Boeing plant to see what you're talking about.
Anyway .. thanks for the info.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:44 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 50):

To be fair, given the ambition of the programme in many ways, 6 months (to me) doesn't seem that surprising. I'll still call it a major achievement if they stick to this delay.

I agree, 6 months isn't that bad compared to certain other recent programs.

One thing I'm interested in is how much the B787 is over budget, as rushing the program is much more expensive than implementing the original plan. I also recall that Boeing would already have allocated extra funds to the B787 to shave down the weight, a long time ago.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:45 am

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 50):

To be fair, given the ambition of the programme in many ways, 6 months (to me) doesn't seem that surprising. I'll still call it a major achievement if they stick to this delay.

I agree, 6 months isn't that bad compared to certain other recent programs.

One thing I'm interested in is how much the B787 is over budget, as rushing the program is much more expensive than implementing the original plan. I also recall that Boeing would already have allocated extra funds to the B787 to shave down the weight, a long time ago.
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 273):
The 787 has to have exceeded their wildest sales forecasts and Boeing got greedy - both in terms of money and in terms of trying to lock out Airbus from counter-attacking within the segment. They key metrics now are both how fast can Boeing and their suppliers ramp up to the needed production level as well as how long can they sustain


Excellent point.  checkmark 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
NADC10Fan
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 5:03 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:14 pm

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 262):
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 248):

The fact that no commercial airliner has made use of this, despite it existing for almost 50 years already, may suggest not all testing can be conducted in such a facility and some real world tests need to be done as well, making the whole effort of first going indoor and then outdoor pointless.

checkmark

It can't be done indoors. The cold soak test requires that the aircraft is left to sit in real world conditions for a prolonged period with a temperature of -30 degrees C or less. It must then be able to start engines normally, taxi and takeoff without any cold induced anomalies. There is only one place in the world that this can be done without constucting a purpose made strip and that is the arctic circle.

Um ... with respect, but did you read the article I provided? The facility mentioned is capable of exceeding the conditions you mentioned and by a considerable amount; and as the facility's director pointed out, it is additionally capable of replicating pretty much any kind of winter precipitation normally seen within that range of conditions.

Also consider that this is a facility designed to cater to what we should ought to suspect is a much more extreme regimen of requirements; military aircraft, after all, must be capable of performing in some weather conditions which would in all likelihood keep commercial aircraft grounded, not vice versa. I believe no lesser an aircraft than the B-2 Spirit was tested in this manner, although I have no looked this up to confirm.

At any rate, I think it is most abundantly not correct to say "It can't be done indoors." It most certainly can. One must grant Slz396 may well be correct as such testing has to date has apparently not occurred there (I haven't done an in-depth study to say what has and has not occurred there, yet) - for commercial aircraft, anyway - however, I think the real questions are: Are these facilities physically capable of fitting an aircraft the size of the 787, and is it as cost-effective to do so? I think the former is probable; the latter, I'd think, it the more likely issue ... but perhaps available weather at the time the 787 needs to test will overcome that.

We'll have to wait and see, won't we?
TANSTAAFL!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:36 pm

Quoting Chiad (Reply 283):
Wow. Stich ... how do you know all these things? You must either be a regular or an employee at Boeing, no? I would love to expereince the Boeing plant to see what you're talking about. Anyway .. thanks for the info.

I did work for Boeing back in 2001, however my current job takes me past the Boeing plant a few times a day and I keep an eye on movements for some folks who provide data on Boeing aircraft deliveries and such for the public.

Quoting Joni (Reply 285):
One thing I'm interested in is how much the B787 is over budget, as rushing the program is much more expensive than implementing the original plan. I also recall that Boeing would already have allocated extra funds to the B787 to shave down the weight, a long time ago.

While Boeing will have direct costs connected to these issues and their failure to perform, the suppliers themselves are going to be paying Boeing for their own failures to perform which helped get Boeing into this position. Also, Boeing will likely be making some deals for additional planes and services both as compensation and "smoothing ruffled feathers" which will, in the end, serve to add revenue rather then remove it.

As such, I expect the final financial outcome will end up being in Boeing's favor.
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:03 pm

I don't think a 6 month delay is the end of the world, especially compared to another recent product that was much longer delayed.

What I'd be interested to know is how much the B787 is over budget - extra work and delays tend to increase costs and I recall already a long time ago Boeing allocated extra funds to efforts to shave down the weight of the plane.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26707
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:37 pm

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 281):
Are these facilities physically capable of fitting an aircraft the size of the 787?

Easily.

Quoting NADC10Fan (Reply 281):
is it as cost-effective to do so?

Compared to an 18-month EIS delay? Absolutely.
 
swallow
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:47 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 274):
The ramp-up will determine whether the 787 is merely a success, or a smashing success

 checkmark 

Yep. The proof of the pudding is in the production ramp-up. First flight and certification just indicate that mama got the recipe right  Smile
The grass is greener where you water it
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:25 pm

A link to another "take" on the topic.

http://www.designnews.com/blog/130000213/post/960015696.html

Fair use ...
the absence of 787 VP and GM Mike Bair from yesterday's call was painfully obvious although he was mentioned once. As 787 development chief, he has led the discussion on the two previous 787 update calls that I have particpated in. A spokesowman told me that he was simulateously relaying the delay news to the 787 team and answering questions.

Put forward by readers is that the avionics software is hung up by the effects of the RTCA/DO-178b standard, which certifies avionics software and their opinion causes unecessary delays in the delivery of same.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: 787- 6 Months Late - It's Official

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:33 pm

Continue here please:
787- 6 Months Late - It's Official Part 2 (by ANCFlyer Oct 12 2007 in Civil Aviation)
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos