6-month delay seen for 787 delivery

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:27

I'm pretty sure ANA was already informed about the delays some time ago.
The question is how have they reacted to the bad news?

Japanese hate delays and unrespected promises...
As I've said before, 6 months is the minimum.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:35

Well, at least now they are 'fessing up to reality. This delay should result in a better product for the custoemrs and will allow some tweaking of systems and features.

There is an old saying that has some revelance here: "We never have time to do the job right, but pleanty of time to do it over and over!"

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 10 Oct 2007, 20:07

I just read this on airliners and I should say it makes me feel good:

NYC777 From United States, joined Jun 2004, 3664 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted Wed Oct 10 2007 17:45:17 your local time (2 hours 4 minutes 41 secs ago) and read 3863 times:

'Terrible. I'm so disappointed in Boeing for allowing this to happen. They better get their s**t together and make sure this doesn't happen again!

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _

Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 8274 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted Wed Oct 10 2007 17:46:27 your local time (2 hours 3 minutes 31 secs ago) and read 3863 times:

Well at least we no longer need to have 1000 threads on whether or not the 787 will be late.

And it is now official - Boeing and Airbus both suck.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _

Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 8274 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted Wed Oct 10 2007 17:47:39 your local time (2 hours 2 minutes 19 secs ago) and read 3865 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 1):
Interesting contrast that the engines for both of the delayed programs have been ready on time when you think how complex they are.

The Trent 900/1000 and GEnx/GP7xxx draw a great deal more on previous models then the 787 and A380 did.

All I am hoping now is that Boeing, at worse, meets this new delay and doesn't have to announce new ones.

At last the Boeing chorus have admitted Boeing is not "untouchable".
I also hope they get delivered before 2009.
Can't wait to step on one of these.
I also hope it will be ready to fly for Farnborough.

Post by **ElcoB** » 10 Oct 2007, 20:37

The new Airbus A-380 flew for the first time: 27th April 2005, followed by test and certification flights, in wich 5 planes were involved.
Certification obtained: 12th Dec.2006: that's over 18 months after first flight.

Boeing now says first flight for the 787 Dreamliner March 2008 and first delivery november 2008: means only 8 months to perform the tests and obtain certification.
How in hell they are going to achieve this for a plane with a lot of tecnological innovations?

I expect further delays.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 10 Oct 2007, 21:05

ElcoB wrote:The new Airbus A-380 flew for the first time: 27th April 2005, followed by test and certification flights, in wich 5 planes were involved.
Certification obtained: 12th Dec.2006: that's over 18 months after first flight.

Boeing now says first flight for the 787 Dreamliner March 2008 and first delivery november 2008: means only 8 months to perform the tests and obtain certification.
How in hell they are going to achieve this for a plane with a lot of tecnological innovations?

I expect further delays.

Yes, 8 months is a short time for the certification flights, data collection and analyses and, certification process. This was Boeing's best chance to "buy" themselves credibility and needed time. I only hope that this delay is enough and additional ones will not follow.

Post by **ElcoB** » 10 Oct 2007, 21:28

smokejumper wrote:...
I only hope that this delay is enough and additional ones will not follow.

Yes, I'm looking forward to this too.
I hope their innovations work and aviation can take a step forwards.
But the time-shedule looks very tight for me, and I'm afraid that commercial interests will prevail over all other concerns.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 10 Oct 2007, 22:29

I guess the delay on the 787 is official, Six months for delivery.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 11 Oct 2007, 02:37

ElcoB wrote:
smokejumper wrote:...
I only hope that this delay is enough and additional ones will not follow.
Yes, I'm looking forward to this too.
I hope their innovations work and aviation can take a step forwards.
But the time-shedule looks very tight for me, and I'm afraid that commercial interests will prevail over all other concerns.

All other concerns other than safety. I am certain that the FAA will be paying close attention to test results before certifying the 787.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 11 Oct 2007, 05:54

tsv wrote:Pretty funny stuff I reckon.

The Boeing fans cheer squad was in overdrive when Airbus made basically the same mistake with the A380 (letting the little things get out of control then not coming clean about it).

Now let them walk around with egg dripping from their childish faces as their beloved Seattle Company has a little stumbe.

The 787 will still be a great and sucessful aircraft but this gives Airbus a little breathing space to get their A350 sorted.

Guilty as charged. It was so very good to see Boeing make such a tremendous leap. I always felt (and said) it was risky. Oddly, at least so far, the issues I thought would come up have not (building and getting the mandrels to work, quality needed on the barrels and wing and integrating the assemblies etc).

That does not mean that when they move to full rate production there aren’t issues, and the concern would be that they cannot crank the pieces out as fast as they need to (requiring more tooling and costing more affecting the cost structure).

And I would not resort to cutting off heads unless someone really covered up the problem. This is a pretty new team (leadership wise) who had a lot of old hands retire and Mullaly leave as well. We all make mistakes in our work, and if its just that, ok, it’s a learning experience that can stand them in good stead.. If its more malicious, then yes heads should roll.

I don't think any of it give Airbus any advantage on the A350 (well, as stated, a heads up on the fastener issues). They have to get a firm design before they can really sort things out.

I'll put out my estimate that the A350 is doing to be 1 to 2 years latter in production than the current 2013 date. We will see if I have egg on my face in a few years!

While its supposedly not a subject for this forum (civil aviation) the A400 is a major factor for two reasons.
1. Its being built by Airbus as a civilian project, not EADS as a military one. That means Airbus has to staff and support it out of their structure, not EADS.
2. The reports continue to get worse on it being seriously behind schedule in several areas (the engine is the worst). No testing without the engine. There are penalties for late deliveries ,. And this is a fixed price contract.

That impacts Airbus resources (financial as well as engineers) seriously, when they need them most both for A380 recovery, and A350 development. Getting the A350 fuselage sorted out is a huge issue, they cannot afford to get it wrong. They may do the pr thing and say its fine, but I am absolutely certain they will delay rather than come out with a bad product.

achace · Post by **achace** » 11 Oct 2007, 10:15

It would have made far more sense to allow a twelve month window for certification.

Apart from its size, the A380 really only had a high tech sewage system and high pressure hydraulics, and it still took 15 months.

The 787 is using fly by wire about which they have far less experience than Airbus, and an all electric systems configuration about which no one has any experience.

Having apologized twice, I truly wonder what is driving them to attempt timetables that other experts say are too ambitous and a lots of our forum who with respect are far less expert are also disagreeing with.

IMO, it has to be commercial pressures, but another delay will be very damaging indeed.

Cheers
Achace

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 11 Oct 2007, 11:22

achace wrote:The 787 is using fly by wire about which they have far less experience than Airbus

While I am not a Boeing fan, I have to disagree here. Boeing has experience with FBW both from the 777 and from various military planes.

achace · Post by **achace** » 11 Oct 2007, 11:46

Airbus started FBW with the A320, along time ahead of the 777

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 11 Oct 2007, 15:42

achace wrote:Airbus started FBW with the A320, along time ahead of the 777

In taking over MD, didn't Boeing get a hold of their FBW expertise? The F/A-18 was the first production fighter jet with digital FBW controls, and it was built before the A320.

regi · Post by **regi** » 11 Oct 2007, 15:56

Maybe Boeing will change the design into a frame with aluminium panels glued on it instead of a carbon fuselage.

And after some strange accidents with the B737NG they might be talking to their supplier of nuts and bolts again. (" Look Harry, I know those Chinese bolts do fine at Wallmart, but this is for an airplane f.G.s." )

teach · Post by **teach** » 11 Oct 2007, 16:59

The F/A-18 was the first production fighter jet with digital FBW controls

That was the F-16. But yes, Boeing has quite a bit of expertise with FBW, from several aircraft, including F/A-18, 777 and F-22. I haven't seen anything to indicate the delay is in any way FBW-related.

PYX · Post by **PYX** » 11 Oct 2007, 17:04

FBW came up on another board a couple of years ago and I did some research into it at that time.

I've forgotten the details, but basically, FBW was developed by NASA using a F-8 Crusader. The first flight was in 1972.

McDonnell Douglas was working on FBW for one their commerical airliners at or about the same time frame as Airbus. Some still claim MD had it first, but Airbus beat them to the market.

BTW, if you read the "features" on the 747-400 on the Boeing web site, they say it is also FBW.

RC20 · Post by **RC20** » 11 Oct 2007, 21:41

achace wrote:Airbus started FBW with the A320, along time ahead of the 777

Irrelevant, a lot of electrons have gone down the wire since then. Its a proven technology for both companies. Airbus did not invent FBW, their brilliance was moving to and successfully selling it in the civilian aircraft. For that they get a lot of kudos. On the other hand, when you are behind, it’s the sort of thing you do to catch up or pass the competition Boeing has done that with the all composite airframe and mostly electric architecture.

And while I agree that the more electric system will have its issues, a lot if not all of it has been used in other programs.

In that, Boeing has done a far better job recently of transferring military technology to its civil aviation side. Airbus structure does not work well for that to start with, and they have not kept up with the advances either, so they do not have it to transfer.

I do think Boeing needed to take a break on this, and it looks like they are doing so now. Sooner would have been better (call it the mystery still as to when they really knew it was going off track). I had expected 4 months, so I was wrong by how much a break they needed (it looks like they are taking all their lumps once and for all and getting it over with)

For the 787 I think the pushed schedule so hard, they also revealed the program weakness and problems, and that is good. If not the push, then they would not have gotten nearly as far and solved the problems on the other parts. Its not desirable sitaution to have the delay, but as long as you learn from your mistakes, its not a loss.

They also pushed Airbus into making a whole lot of mistakes, and that has set Airbus back a long ways. They could have an advanced A330 out to compete now (keeping some competition in that lower end of the wide body market) as well as working on the 777 competitor Now they have only the A350 (my opinion a 777 competitor only).

And keep in mind, they have no experience in the type of construction they are planning on doing. They have to develop the entire technology to make it work (assuming it is workable). No one has done it, no background, not basis for design. There will be a failures in execution that have to be rethought.

Then they have to come out with a completely different technology to do the barrels like Boeing did, not to mention the all electric aircraft.

And so far, everyone has said that is where the industry is going. So there is no question on that. In that regard Boeing is vastly ahead of Airbus, and will be gaining experience as they go along.

Someone will eventually catch up, that’s the way it goes, no advantage (FBW) lasts forever. Some (FBW) not all that long if its already there, just not applied.

Maybe e another way to put it is that Airbus is having to start all over again, and Boeing is already well on their way.
[/code]

achace · Post by **achace** » 12 Oct 2007, 06:55

Back to cold weather testing.

The USAF cold weather hangar apparantly cannot be used.

A Boeing spokesman when asked about cold weather tests stated "they would find a way"

There really doesnt seem to be a lot of co-ordination in BCA right now about press releases.

They really did pull the rug from under Randy Tinseths feet during his tour of the Antipodes.

I wonder how many technical people have been involved in this new timetable.

For sure it would appear that the "on-site" cold test did not figure in their deliberations.

Already it looks like a 2009 EIS, and just days after their latest admission of late delivery.

Its the A380 all over again with different technical reasons.

Who or what will they blame next time?

Cheers
Achace

PS Although a bit pro-Airbus, I just like airplanes, and I truly hope my forebodings ar proven wrong.

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 12 Oct 2007, 11:32

teach wrote:
The F/A-18 was the first production fighter jet with digital FBW controls
That was the F-16. But yes, Boeing has quite a bit of expertise with FBW, from several aircraft, including F/A-18, 777 and F-22. I haven't seen anything to indicate the delay is in any way FBW-related.

According to Wikipedia, the F-16 had digital FBW starting with the C/D models, which came after the F/A-18 A/B. The F-16 A/B had analog FBW controls.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 12 Oct 2007, 12:17

There is no questionning that the A320 was the first airliner with digital fly-by-wire and that in this area, Airbus has way more experience than does Boeing. It's a matter of philosophy and the Airbus philosophy turned out to be very good as well, which is why Boeing is going to enhance the FBW concept on the B787.

End of the discussion,

new discussion:

Sources say that there is a greater problem involved: wiring.