Acccording to the Seattle Times, the B787 is sitting in its hanger awaiting parts. It has been partially disassembled. How this will affect first flight and the test program (and delivery!) is yet to be determined.
Sometimes, haste makes waste.
See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... bly21.html
Boeing 787 - How late?
Moderator: Latest news team
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
-
fokker_f27
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
- Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium
I think they had to make the roll-out on 07/08/07 (mm-dd-yy) for marketing reasons, even though not all parts may have been finished. As stated later in the article, it was predicted that it wouldn't be completely ready on the date of the roll-out.
The most sexy girl in the sky: The Sud-Est Caravelle 12.
If the Seattle Post article is correct, we may not see a first flight before 2008.
If the plane as reported is partially dismantled, there is no way they could have powered up, which was to have been done mid-August.
The relatively simple 747-400 took 130 days plus from power up to first flight, the much maligned A380 took 90 days.
With the worlds first all-electric airliner, I think it will take a liitle longer than 90 days, to get everything interfaced. That starts to look like 2008 for first flight.
The other point is that there are supposed to be 40 airplanes completed by certification, which is almost 7 per month from now.
I know some are in production, but 40 by May,2008??????
All my comments are assuming that Seattle article is accurate.
Cheers
Achace
If the plane as reported is partially dismantled, there is no way they could have powered up, which was to have been done mid-August.
The relatively simple 747-400 took 130 days plus from power up to first flight, the much maligned A380 took 90 days.
With the worlds first all-electric airliner, I think it will take a liitle longer than 90 days, to get everything interfaced. That starts to look like 2008 for first flight.
The other point is that there are supposed to be 40 airplanes completed by certification, which is almost 7 per month from now.
I know some are in production, but 40 by May,2008??????
All my comments are assuming that Seattle article is accurate.
Cheers
Achace
There is a pic of it floating around. The only structural component that has been removed, that I can see, is the Vertical Stabiliser and rudder, so reassembly when the work is complete should not take long.
I have no idea what if any problems Boeing is having but they have been quite forthcoming during the program, so i can only expect, in the abscence of another announcement that 1st flight will be in late September, early October, and that they have contingency plans to enusure EIS does not slip.
Having said that I am going to be surprised if it does not slip.
Ruscoe
I have no idea what if any problems Boeing is having but they have been quite forthcoming during the program, so i can only expect, in the abscence of another announcement that 1st flight will be in late September, early October, and that they have contingency plans to enusure EIS does not slip.
Having said that I am going to be surprised if it does not slip.
Ruscoe
There are a couple of relevant items here.
The fasteners were one.
I just read a blurb that the environmental packs (A/C units) just arrived and were being installed.
You can guess that not only holding up the critical connections to it, but anything routed around it would not be able to be completed until they went in.
Along with that is the wiring installs (and maybe devices) that were not cojmpelted when all the main parts were shipped.
It looks like Boeing is taking advantage of a negative, and getting that stuff installed by the suppliers while the production is held up (they have to finish plane 1, before Plane 2 can be finished, and until that’s done, the line is halted).
On the other hand, putting it all back together won’t take that long.
At some point, problems were to be expected, and I am sure more problems and bugs to be worked out. Trials and tribulations of making that leap along with changing how you produce an aircraft entirely. I am surprised there were not bigger issues earlier with all that.
Note: Interestingly enough, the environmental packs are provided by Hamilton Sundstrand, who is a part of United Technologies. Another member is Carrier Company who is a huge maker of A/C units. A/C unit have begun to make huge changes in technology and application. That would be where they got the A/C core from (screw or scroll compressors at a guess), and with the all electric that is right up Carriers ally. One of those synergies we hear so much about and seldom see!
The fasteners were one.
I just read a blurb that the environmental packs (A/C units) just arrived and were being installed.
You can guess that not only holding up the critical connections to it, but anything routed around it would not be able to be completed until they went in.
Along with that is the wiring installs (and maybe devices) that were not cojmpelted when all the main parts were shipped.
It looks like Boeing is taking advantage of a negative, and getting that stuff installed by the suppliers while the production is held up (they have to finish plane 1, before Plane 2 can be finished, and until that’s done, the line is halted).
On the other hand, putting it all back together won’t take that long.
At some point, problems were to be expected, and I am sure more problems and bugs to be worked out. Trials and tribulations of making that leap along with changing how you produce an aircraft entirely. I am surprised there were not bigger issues earlier with all that.
Note: Interestingly enough, the environmental packs are provided by Hamilton Sundstrand, who is a part of United Technologies. Another member is Carrier Company who is a huge maker of A/C units. A/C unit have begun to make huge changes in technology and application. That would be where they got the A/C core from (screw or scroll compressors at a guess), and with the all electric that is right up Carriers ally. One of those synergies we hear so much about and seldom see!
Boeing and VSMPO-Avisma have formed a joint venture to machine titanium fittings for the 787, not just bulk supply.
This is the kind of work and relationships Russia should be concentrating on.
Putin wants to return the contrary to its former glory of manufacturing aircraft. What is missing is that the glory was artificial. Along with the Communist Satellite countries they had a totally captive market.
The exterior captive market is gone, and while there is huge talk about how important the Russia market is, if you look at actual sales and not talk, its pretty small.
I think Russia can come back, but they have to start from the bottom up. Boeing has been a very good partner very early in that process. Its not altruistic, its good for Boeing obviously as well as Russia, but those are the best relationships
This is the kind of work and relationships Russia should be concentrating on.
Putin wants to return the contrary to its former glory of manufacturing aircraft. What is missing is that the glory was artificial. Along with the Communist Satellite countries they had a totally captive market.
The exterior captive market is gone, and while there is huge talk about how important the Russia market is, if you look at actual sales and not talk, its pretty small.
I think Russia can come back, but they have to start from the bottom up. Boeing has been a very good partner very early in that process. Its not altruistic, its good for Boeing obviously as well as Russia, but those are the best relationships
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
It seems as though (virtually) all orders for both A and B have dried up, or at least slowed. It may just be due to the summer doldrums, or it might be something more fundamental, like a possible global economic slow-down. I do not believe the latter, but we'll have to wait and see.
There will probably be announcements realating to the 787 after a successful first flight. Other orders may well be in the pipeline awaiting financing to be worked out.
There will probably be announcements realating to the 787 after a successful first flight. Other orders may well be in the pipeline awaiting financing to be worked out.
I just think that airlines who needed new planes desperately have ordered what they want already. And the 787 will surely have a successful first flight, it's not going to blow up or anything, and no one will believe it will have issues so i don't think orders for 787 will ramp up again after its first flight.. A380 on the other hand, might have new orders coming in as it enters commercial service, if it proves it is a good money cow.
There might be a grain of truth of what CX said, but then again, as these things (orders/deals) go, perhaps they just come in spurts?
Ah, but the economics may have 'changed' in the sense that the realistic seat counts have gone down (true with the A380 and 747I) which in some way makes it more difficult to justify (than if the real seat count matched up with fantasy/marketing).
Ah, but the economics may have 'changed' in the sense that the realistic seat counts have gone down (true with the A380 and 747I) which in some way makes it more difficult to justify (than if the real seat count matched up with fantasy/marketing).
shouldn't reply to your post because it side tracks from the topic, but taking the A380, standard 3class of 555seats compared to 520 or something makes no difference, most are putting less than 500seats in the thing anyway, and Emirates is going to put over 800 in some of their's, so the seat count is just a reference.. Taking a row of first class out of the scene and you get maybe 20more economy seats already.Berova wrote:There might be a grain of truth of what CX said, but then again, as these things (orders/deals) go, perhaps they just come in spurts?
Ah, but the economics may have 'changed' in the sense that the realistic seat counts have gone down (true with the A380 and 747I) which in some way makes it more difficult to justify (than if the real seat count matched up with fantasy/marketing).
Going back to the first flight issue, has anyone seen reports on the heavy landing test carried out last week?
For anyone unfamiliar with this, it is a certification requirement that a demonstration be carried out that a simulated heavy landing will not unduly damage the structure.
Apparantly composites are more brittle than metals, and in the past have been seen to shatter rather than deform.
The drop test of a 10 feet fuselage section from 15 feet onto a 1" steel plate was to have been carried out last Thursday, but I have nott seen any mention that it was OK or otherwise.
Cheers
Achace
For anyone unfamiliar with this, it is a certification requirement that a demonstration be carried out that a simulated heavy landing will not unduly damage the structure.
Apparantly composites are more brittle than metals, and in the past have been seen to shatter rather than deform.
The drop test of a 10 feet fuselage section from 15 feet onto a 1" steel plate was to have been carried out last Thursday, but I have nott seen any mention that it was OK or otherwise.
Cheers
Achace
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I understand that the test went well, but analysis of the data will take about 2 weeks. This test (dropping the carbon fuselage onto a 1 inch (2.54 cm) thick steel plate from a 15 foot height (4.57 meters) is designed to ensure that the results are similar to that of a conventional aluminum airframe. This simulates a crash landing on a level field.achace wrote:Going back to the first flight issue, has anyone seen reports on the heavy landing test carried out last week?
For anyone unfamiliar with this, it is a certification requirement that a demonstration be carried out that a simulated heavy landing will not unduly damage the structure.
Apparantly composites are more brittle than metals, and in the past have been seen to shatter rather than deform.
The drop test of a 10 feet fuselage section from 15 feet onto a 1" steel plate was to have been carried out last Thursday, but I have not seen any mention that it was OK or otherwise.
Cheers
Achace
Apparently the structure was visually OK and the test data will (hopefully) confirm this.
Agreed its a side issue, but closely related.CX wrote:I just think that airlines who needed new planes desperately have ordered what they want already. And the 787 will surely have a successful first flight, it's not going to blow up or anything, and no one will believe it will have issues so i don't think orders for 787 will ramp up again after its first flight.. A380 on the other hand, might have new orders coming in as it enters commercial service, if it proves it is a good money cow.
I think if the A380 starts to sell, it will be in 3-4 years when production has caught up with sales (and assuming the service of the A380 proves to be satisfactory. )
The ones who wanted quantities of them have them on order, and anyone else is going to be 5-10 at most (BA aside and their upcoming order for large wide bodies).
Everyone else right now seems to be satisfied with what the 777 brings to the table as their largest bird (aside from some like Lufthansa who seem to have a need for almost all the models from both Boeing and Airbus).
Singapore seems to not want the 747-8, nor Qantas (Emirates yes, but they are a different beast from just about everyone).
Boeing Executives to Provide Update About 787 Dreamliner Program
CHICAGO, Aug. 29, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] will webcast its 787 Dreamliner quarterly media briefing on Wednesday, Sept. 5, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. (*)
Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Carson and Vice President/General Manager, 787 program, Mike Bair will discuss progress to date on the new commercial airplane.
The webcastwill be available. Individuals should check that web site prior to the event to ensure their computers are configured for the audio stream.
(*) 19:00 CET
CHICAGO, Aug. 29, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] will webcast its 787 Dreamliner quarterly media briefing on Wednesday, Sept. 5, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time. (*)
Commercial Airplanes President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Carson and Vice President/General Manager, 787 program, Mike Bair will discuss progress to date on the new commercial airplane.
The webcastwill be available. Individuals should check that web site prior to the event to ensure their computers are configured for the audio stream.
(*) 19:00 CET
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
I know Flight International tends to be a little pro- Europe, but they have some pretty knowledgeable staff, and their comments on 24 August are very telling.
ANA as lead customer fortunately for Boeing will not insist on fully qualified ETOPs, but others will, and will require it from day one.
Frankly, the way I see this programme, although it will not be as bad as the A380, it could be many months late.
Lets hope the Boeing engineers have done a better job on electrical load analysis than the Lockheed Martin JSF engineers who are a mere 30% short on their electrical requirements, having seemingly ignored starting loads on electric motors, which can be up to six times full load when the button is pressed.
We have discussed electric loads v. bleed air previously, and I think it was Smokejumper who said "lets wait and see".The biggest electical loads I believe will occur during descent when engines are at flight idle(low power setting).
Lets hope that "gear down, flaps and spoilers deployed and the aircon pack suddenly coming on load" doesn't cause everyone a severe embarrassment. The 787 has so many more electrical demands than JSF, it would be unfortunate if it proved to be the same team of consultants who defined how much power was needed for the 787.
Certainly a bleed air system would not be a cause for such concern, and even though it may be considered a bit old fashioned and inefficient, consider that the main generators are only about 87% efficient after gear drive allowance, every electic motor is between 86 and 89% efficient, associated gearboxes are about 96% efficient, and transformers and rectifiers also contribute to the overall losses which convert into more fuel.
You may start to understand that there is a lot to prove on the all electric sytem before it is shown to be superior to old fashioned ways.
Cheers
Achace
ANA as lead customer fortunately for Boeing will not insist on fully qualified ETOPs, but others will, and will require it from day one.
Frankly, the way I see this programme, although it will not be as bad as the A380, it could be many months late.
Lets hope the Boeing engineers have done a better job on electrical load analysis than the Lockheed Martin JSF engineers who are a mere 30% short on their electrical requirements, having seemingly ignored starting loads on electric motors, which can be up to six times full load when the button is pressed.
We have discussed electric loads v. bleed air previously, and I think it was Smokejumper who said "lets wait and see".The biggest electical loads I believe will occur during descent when engines are at flight idle(low power setting).
Lets hope that "gear down, flaps and spoilers deployed and the aircon pack suddenly coming on load" doesn't cause everyone a severe embarrassment. The 787 has so many more electrical demands than JSF, it would be unfortunate if it proved to be the same team of consultants who defined how much power was needed for the 787.
Certainly a bleed air system would not be a cause for such concern, and even though it may be considered a bit old fashioned and inefficient, consider that the main generators are only about 87% efficient after gear drive allowance, every electic motor is between 86 and 89% efficient, associated gearboxes are about 96% efficient, and transformers and rectifiers also contribute to the overall losses which convert into more fuel.
You may start to understand that there is a lot to prove on the all electric sytem before it is shown to be superior to old fashioned ways.
Cheers
Achace
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
How late? Seattle Times newspaper starts the hints about Boeing's upcoming press conference. See:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ing01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ing01.html
That Seattle Times article very correctly puts blame on the marketing department and the 787 rollout date, which must have been a nightmare for the poor engineers.
The crazy thing is that the programme is not exactly crying out for business, so the whole 7-8-7 show, while good to see was a complete waste of time and a few million dollars.
I expect a few heads to roll, although unfortunately it will probably be people caught in the crossfire.
Cheers
Achace
The crazy thing is that the programme is not exactly crying out for business, so the whole 7-8-7 show, while good to see was a complete waste of time and a few million dollars.
I expect a few heads to roll, although unfortunately it will probably be people caught in the crossfire.
Cheers
Achace