787 'retired' At Palmdale, CA - Seattle Post

Eltomzo · Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:51 am

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...irst-787-in-retirement-3395187.php

Pretty misleading headline if you ask me. I assume it was there for flight testing, but the Seattle Post has no explanation of that.

seabosdca · Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:54 am

Quoting eltomzo (Thread starter):
Pretty misleading headline if you ask me. I assume it was there for flight testing, but the Seattle Post has no explanation of that.

No, they're correct. ZA001 has finished its flight testing and is retired. Boeing currently plans to move it to a museum at some point, but is storing it in Palmdale for the time being.

scouseflyer · Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:02 pm

AFIK the first 3 (or 4) test planes have ended up so differant to the finished 787 article that B has written them off as assets meaning that they can't be made into planes that resemble the standard build (and thus can't get type approval) in any sort of cost-effective way.

It'll be intereting if they decide to try the scrapping process on one of them?

bikerthai · Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:31 pm

Is this so? Then what's that frame sitting near the Museum of Flight without engines on?

bt

seabosdca · Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:41 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 3):
Is this so? Then what's that frame sitting near the Museum of Flight without engines on?

Not there, so can't look myself, but it's probably ZA004.

Eltomzo · Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:43 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
No, they're correct. ZA001 has finished its flight testing and is retired. Boeing currently plans to move it to a museum at some point, but is storing it in Palmdale for the time being.

Is this common when building new aircraft?

Is that why Airbus still flies around F-WWCA (A346) - because it would be too costly to convert it for regulatory approval?

ADent · Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:13 pm

Quoting eltomzo (Reply 5):

Is this common when building new aircraft?

No, especially for Boeing.

Stitch · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:03 pm

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
It'll be intereting if they decide to try the scrapping process on one of them?

I expect they'll use the static test frame, since it's performed it's purpose.

bikerthai · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
It'll be intereting if they decide to try the scrapping process on one of them?

I expect they'll use the static test frame, since it's performed it's purpose.

I would bet there would be lots of takers if they decide to cut up the pieces for souvenirs.

bt

cargolex · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:11 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):

Not there, so can't look myself, but it's probably ZA004.

That's correct. N7874.

SEPilot · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:17 pm

Quoting eltomzo (Reply 5):
Is this common when building new aircraft?

No it is not. It is certainly unprecedented that more than one of a new aircraft type does not get sold; the first 747 remained with Boeing, but AFAIK it is the only one that never entered commercial service. The -367 prototype was not a 707 or a KC-135; it was built strictly as a demonstrator and was never intended to be sold. But I believe that the first 727, 737, 757, 767, and 777 all were sold. Please correct me if I'm wrong; but certainly the #2 and forward of all of these programs did get sold. As I understand it either the first 3 or 4 787's, and perhaps all 6 used for testing will remain with Boeing until they are dismantled.

cargolex · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:21 pm

The first 757 was retained by Boeing and, as of this writing, is sitting about 70 yards away from N7874 on the BFI military ramp. Boeing also kept, and ultimately scrapped, the first 767-200.

777STL · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:27 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
But I believe that the first 727, 737, 757, 767, and 777 all were sold.

It looks like the first 757 and 767 were indeed kept by Boeing, the 757 is still intact while the 767 was scrapped while in Boeing's possession. However, the first line number 777 was delivered to Cathay and is still active today.

Revelation · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:29 pm

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
AFIK the first 3 (or 4) test planes have ended up so differant to the finished 787 article that B has written them off as assets

The linked article says that 3 frames have been written off.

jreuschl · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:32 pm

Would they re-engine ZA001 or would they truck the body up to Seattle for museum display?

SEPilot · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):

The linked article says that 3 frames have been written off.

I know that is what the article says, but I have read elsewhere that up to the first 6 will never be sold. Have any of them been allocated to customers? That is what I am looking for; until they are, their prospects of entering commercial service are nonexistent.

Stitch · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:34 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
But I believe that the first 727, 737, 757, 767, and 777 all were sold

That is correct.

The first 727, 737 and 747 are at the Museum of Flight, but the 727 is not yet on display (the current display is an AA 727-223).

The first 757 is next door at the BFI military apron (it is used to test radar systems for the F-22).

The first 767 also used to be on the BFI military apron (as the Airborne Surveillance testbed), but was sent to VCV around 2005 and was subsequently scrapped.

The first 777 remains in commercial revenue service.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
As I understand it either the first 3 or 4 787's, and perhaps all 6 used for testing will remain with Boeing until they are dismantled.

The first three planes have been moved to the R&D department. The first is destined for a museum. The second is at CHS and the third is undertaking a world tour.

Now that the flight test and certification program for the GEnx propulsion system is complete, the fifth and sixth planes will join the fourth plane and be refurbished and then delivered as 787 VIPs to customers.

seabosdca · Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:41 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The first three planes have been moved to the R&D department. The first is destined for a museum. The second is at CHS and the third is undertaking a world tour.

I thought ZA002 had also gone to Palmdale for storage.

Stitch · Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:09 pm

Quoting 777STL (Reply 12):
It looks like the first 757 and 767 were indeed kept by Boeing...

I'm pretty sure they both were delivered to customers then subsequently re-purchased by Boeing and converted.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 17):
I thought ZA002 had also gone to Palmdale for storage.

That appears to be the case. They sent it to CHS in late 2011 for testing purposes, but that is evidently completed.

n471wn · Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:11 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 15):
but I have read elsewhere that up to the first 6 will never be sold

No just the first 3 will not be sold

mham001 · Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:13 pm

I was in Seattle Friday for my father's funeral (51 years working at Boeing) and saw a 787 with no engines at BFI. What's up with that?

n471wn · Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:30 pm

This 787 debacle where 3 flying airframes see no service is really a failure by Boeing. As others have posted, quite a change from the 777 program......the only thing I can compare it to in terms of wasted airframes is the Comet 1 and 2 program......and yes I was alive at the time!!

ZBA2CGX · Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:52 pm

I think it would make an awesome vomit comet. Just need to pad the inside of it

ghost77 · Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:01 pm

Quoting n471wn (Reply 21):
This 787 debacle where 3 flying airframes see no service is really a failure by Boeing.

For the lack of time, more 787s were used to complete all type of certifications.

Boeing could sell 1, 2 and 3, but they just don't want to. Instead sending one to a Museum is good, to be there for history and 2 and 3, it isn't easy to remove all cables they have inside the frame that have been used for test. 4, 5 and 6 had external devices.

g77

Stitch · Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:04 pm

Quoting n471wn (Reply 21):
This 787 debacle where 3 flying airframes see no service is really a failure by Boeing.

If you believe the pundits, Boeing spent north of $5 billion building the three. They've also wrote off another $2.5 billion across them. At best, Boeing would have received ~$200 million delivering them, so that Boeing didn't deliver them doesn't really hurt them any more, fiscally. Especially since they would spend more than $200 million making them ready.

I look on the bright side - folks on the West and East coasts of the United States will in a few years be able to walk around them (I am sure LN1 will go to the Museum of Flight and LN2 should, IMO, go to the Udvar-Hazy Annex of the Smithsonian).

[Edited 2012-03-12 12:05:41]

NWAROOSTER · Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:11 pm

This the price of doing business, especially when you bit off more than you can chew.

KELPkid · Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:29 pm

It's a shame. Although severely overweight, they probably could have become VIP birds. Although as I understand from previous threads on the subject, ZA001-ZA006 are so far off standard 787 spec, that very specific maintenance procedures would have to be written for them for things like C-checks.

Quoting eltomzo (Reply 5):
Is this common when building new aircraft?

It depends. Some GA planes that are test prototypes spend their entire life on the experimental register, because they are so far off spec from a production bird that it is not economical to make them "conforming" to prodcution specs. Not that big a deal on a GA plane, as they won't be expected to perform revenue service flights anyways...don't know if any GA manufacturers sell test mules to the general public when they have completed certification, though

n471wn · Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:43 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 26):
Although severely overweight, they probably could have become VIP birds. Although as I understand from previous threads on the subject, ZA001-ZA006 are so far off standard 787 spec, that very specific maintenance procedures would have to be written for them for things like C-checks.

I do understand that only the first 3 will not see service and that ships 4, 5, and 6 will become corporate birds---let us hope so as we do not need 6 on static display-----as a previous poster said one should be in Boeing's Museum of Flight and one at the Air and Space Museum at Dulles and one somewhere else-----that is enough!!

zanl188 · Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:03 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I'm pretty sure they both were delivered to customers then subsequently re-purchased by Boeing and converted.

Neither the #1 757 or 767 ever left Boeings hands. The #1 737 went to NASA for test work and is now at the Museum of Flight although I beleive it is still owned by NASA. The #1 727 went to United but it has been donated to the Museum of Flight and is stored at Everett. The #2 727 never left Boeings hands.

DocLightning · Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:22 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 26):

It's a shame. Although severely overweight, they probably could have become VIP birds. Although as I understand from previous threads on the subject, ZA001-ZA006 are so far off standard 787 spec, that very specific maintenance procedures would have to be written for them for things like C-checks.

Question: if this is the case, then why were they able to be used for certification tests?

Flighty · Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 26):

It's a shame. Although severely overweight, they probably could have become VIP birds

It may seem like that to "us" (and you may have 99times more direct knowledge than I) but the colossal cost of the 787 rework program could make the value of these aircraft absolutely trivial. It's not worth 500 million dollars to customize 3 aircraft whose value is so low... that may be the equation.

seabosdca · Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:40 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Question: if this is the case, then why were they able to be used for certification tests?

They weren't able to be used for all of the certification tests. The FAA required some part of the F&R testing, at least, to be done on production-spec aircraft.

penguins · Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:07 pm

I very misleading headline, for sure.

tdscanuck · Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:44 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
The linked article says that 3 frames have been written off.

They weren't written off; that would imply they have no value. Boeing took a public accounting charge a few years ago to move frames 1-3 from "Inventory" to "R&D expense"...that means they won't sell them, not that they're written off.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The first three planes have been moved to the R&D department.

It was a shift in the accounting...the actual "department" of the planes never changed.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
Question: if this is the case, then why were they able to be used for certification tests?

There's a pervasive and wrong belief on a.net that you can only certify on production hardware. Almost all certification is done on non-production hardware. The only requirement is that what you test on is sufficiently representative of the production version *for which you're certifying for that test*. The only test that actually requires a near-production airframe is Function & Reliability (F&R) and, to a lesser extent, ETOPS.

Quoting penguins (Reply 32):

I very misleading headline, for sure.

What's misleading about it? It is Boeing's first 787 and it is retired.

Tom.

dlednicer · Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:39 am

Quoting n471wn (Reply 27):
Boeing's Museum of Flight

The Museum of Flight is a completely separate entity from Boeing. Its not Boeing's.

The #1 757 has been used as the avionics testbed for the F-22. Its listed as being owned by Boeing Logistic Spares and its operated by Boeing Military. Funding comes from the F-22 program.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Russell Hill

The #1 767 was modified into the Airborne Optical Adjunct, later renamed the Airborne Surveillance Testbed. Much of the funding for this came from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation, a DoD organization. At one point, the aircraft had Boeing and US Army titles painted on it, but its been registered to Boeing, at a Kent address, which is where Boeing Aerospace was located.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peachair

woodsboy · Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:04 am

The last time this question of the retirement of one of the testbed 787s came around and others asked about the history of prototypes going into service I made a comprehensive list of many prototypes and their fates, so if that thread is still around, its all in there.

Viscount724 · Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:37 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 33):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 13):
The linked article says that 3 frames have been written off.

They weren't written off; that would imply they have no value. Boeing took a public accounting charge a few years ago to move frames 1-3 from "Inventory" to "R&D expense"...that means they won't sell them, not that they're written off.

I thought I read somewhere that 6 (or similar number but higher than 3) 787s used for the test program would never be delivered to customers. Is the number now only 3?

tdscanuck · Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:46 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 36):
I thought I read somewhere that 6 (or similar number but higher than 3) 787s used for the test program would never be delivered to customers. Is the number now only 3?

According to Boeing, the number has never been 6. It was originally 0 (they all had owners in theory) then, a few years ago, Boeing took a charge (details in the annual report) to shift 1, 2, and 3 from "Inventory" to "R&D", signifying that Boeing never intended to sell them. 4/5/6 remain in inventory and saleable...whether they actually have future owners is unclear.

4 is clearly not retired, as it's sitting at Boeing's Military Flight Center ramp (just south of, but not part of, the Museum Of Flight) at Boeing Field.

5 is actively flying.

6 is in San Antonio...here-to-fore, San Antonio has only been doing refurbishment of 787's so it wouldn't make sense to refurb an airplane destined for retirement. Either 6 is still on the auction block or they're discovered a new use for San Antonio and not told anyone about it.

Tom.

Revelation · Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:31 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 33):
They weren't written off;

Yes, I should have used the term in the article, which is "reclassified", instead of the one that was being used here.

Thanks for the correction.

zkojq · Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:36 am

Quoting eltomzo (Reply 5):
Is that why Airbus still flies around F-WWCA (A346) - because it would be too costly to convert it for regulatory approval?

The problem with F-WWCA is that it doesn't have enough emergency exits and therefore wouldn't be able to have a standard A340-600 seating configuration installed. Appart from anything else, Airbus has been using it plenty for testing various products (eg chevrons on the engines), so it must be worth something to them as a testbed. Hopefully it will end up in a museum once its career at Airbus comes to an end.

Quoting dlednicer (Reply 34):
Much of the funding for this came from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation, a DoD organization.

Would I be correcting in thinking that part of the contract would have stipulated that the airframe had to be scrapped once the testing was finished?

boeing767mech · Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:05 am

It's not the greatest picture, was doing 65mph driving by with my cheap o digital camera. But there where taken last week in Palmdale.

David

scouseflyer · Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:04 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 39):
The problem with F-WWCA is that it doesn't have enough emergency exits and therefore wouldn't be able to have a standard A340-600 seating configuration installed. Appart from anything else, Airbus has been using it plenty for testing various products (eg chevrons on the engines), so it must be worth something to them as a testbed. Hopefully it will end up in a museum once its career at Airbus comes to an end.

I expect that it will have a long life with Airbus as I think that they still use A320 MSN001 as a testbed and that's over 20 years old now

seabosdca · Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:59 am

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 41):
I expect that it will have a long life with Airbus as I think that they still use A320 MSN001 as a testbed and that's over 20 years old now

I have read somewhere that the sharklet testing is MSN001's last mission and it will be retired thereafter.

Revelation · Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
The first 767 also used to be on the BFI military apron (as the Airborne Surveillance testbed), but was sent to VCV around 2005 and was subsequently scrapped.

Our photo DB shows it without engines and taped for long term storage in September 2003.

https://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N767BA

Quoting zkojq (Reply 39):
Would I be correcting in thinking that part of the contract would have stipulated that the airframe had to be scrapped once the testing was finished?

I imagine there was lots of "government-owned" equipment on board.

When you see what she ended up looking like:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aaron Mandolesi

you can imagine that converting her back to have a normal top fuselage would be incredibly costly.

Who knows? Perhaps the government didn't want a testbed sitting around that could be used by others. Or perhaps Boeing wanted to eventually sell a new airframe should something like star wars ever restart.

All the stickers on the side remind me of the military equivalent of fridge magnets!

777STL · Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:45 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I'm pretty sure they both were delivered to customers then subsequently re-purchased by Boeing and converted.

FWIW, Airfleets shows Boeing as the only owner/operator for both the #1 767 and the #1 757.

zippyjet · Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:20 pm

Hope Boeing put's this bird in the Smithsonian Instutution either Hazi (near IAD) or the Air and Space in the District. Chances are the former over the ladder but one can hope. And hopefully it's in tact and we are able to walk through the cabin.

tdscanuck · Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:01 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
And hopefully it's in tact and we are able to walk through the cabin.

ZA001 and ZA002 don't have much of a cabin...unless they retrofit for a museum, it won't look very impressive inside.

Tom.

BMI727 · Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:07 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 46):
ZA001 and ZA002 don't have much of a cabin...unless they retrofit for a museum, it won't look very impressive inside.

That's all the better. If you're going to put a 787 on display you don't want to see a normal cabin, you can see that by flying on one. It would be much nicer to leave it "naked" so visitors can see the structure and guts of the plane, which is what makes the 787 unique.

zkojq · Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:15 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 42):
I have read somewhere that the sharklet testing is MSN001's last mission and it will be retired thereafter.

Well, if that is the case, I hope it finds it way to an aviation museum somewhere. Preferably the one at Toulouse airport.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
That's all the better. If you're going to put a 787 on display you don't want to see a normal cabin, you can see that by flying on one. It would be much nicer to leave it "naked" so visitors can see the structure and guts of the plane, which is what makes the 787 unique.

Installing a cabin would make the aircraft less special and it would be rather expensive. Maybe if a museum could get both ZA001 and ZA002, the could install a cabin in one and leave the other as is.

gunsontheroof · Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:42 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 45):
Hope Boeing put's this bird in the Smithsonian Instutution either Hazi (near IAD) or the Air and Space in the District. Chances are the former over the ladder but one can hope. And hopefully it's in tact and we are able to walk through the cabin.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 48):
Well, if that is the case, I hope it finds it way to an aviation museum somewhere. Preferably the one at Toulouse airport.

If ZA001 does end up in a museum, you can bet your bottom dollar it will be at the Museum of Flight at BFI. As others have pointed out, it's not a Boeing operation, but the partnership between the two is strong and MOF isn't exactly short on early frames from Boeing. They've got an impressive collection already and they've got 20+ years of going after acquisitions under their belt. Udvar-Hazy might have a crack at ZA001, but I wouldn't bank on it...I'd wager that ZA003 ends up there at some point. Best of luck to the folks at TLS on getting anything from Boeing, I wouldn't count on it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net