Status of 787 (will it fly this year ?)
JF Mezei
mid june, Boeing said that it would take a couple of weeks to fix the
structural problem. It has been a coiuple of weeks...
And now today, the Seattle Times reports grim news...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009513152_boeing22.html
The title: Boeing 787 may not fly this year. It provides some graphics
on what needs to be done to relieve stress on the skin near the join
with the fuselage body.
Can anyone comment on whether those predictions are exagerations, or
would they be realistic in terms of how long it takes to imoplement
those proposed changes ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.
Robin Johnson
The Seattle Times reports grim news...http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009513152_boei...
>
> The title: Boeing 787 may not fly this year. It provides some graphics
> on what needs to be done to relieve stress on the skin near the join
> with the fuselage body.
>
> Can anyone comment on whether those predictions are exagerations, or
> would they be realistic in terms of how long it takes to imoplement
> those proposed changes ?
> --
installation aboard the already-built 787s at www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger
in a post dated 21 July.
This reinforces the Seattle newspaper's sources, which are likely to
be pretty good.
Of course the level of resentment by the working engineers at Boeing
is likely to be
pretty high, given that the suits have taken themselves a couple of
thousand miles
away, obviously have not been listening to the engineers, and appear
to be planning
to set up new (non-unionised?) production facilities even further
away.
Yes, it's serious, quick answer! But maybe the delay will not be as
long as next
year, with a bit of luck!
Robin Johnson
Uwe Klein
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090729/BLOG01/907299958
Interesting technique to let your customers present communicated
information as insinuated official statement by Boeing.
This information has supposedly been given in the aftermath of
LeBourget.
The Seattle Times seems to have further insight into the issue at hand:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html
New for me was that the fault touches on both wingbox and wing and
that initial damage was observable @ ~100% load and thus even inside
the "no damage guaranteed" flight envelope.
I had not expected Boeing to channel significant stress
through the (upper) wingskin ( and compression forces at that ).
uwe
JF Mezei
> The Seattle Times seems to have further insight into the issue at hand:
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html
I bought shares in Boeing the week before the expected first flight,
hoping the shares would soar. Instead, they dropped 20% to about $40 :-(
I don't know what to make of it. At some level, it looks REALLY bad,
with terrible engineering mistakes, bad management, terrible suppliers
(Boeing just completed the purchase of the Vought plant, so I guess they
will try to fix that problem now). This thing looks like it is stock in
molasses, and everytime they are able to raise it a bit more out of the
molasses, more problems arise.
On the other hand, you look at the other Boeing projects, and it seems
Boeing can be on top of things and "run like the Swiss". The 777 seemed
like an incredible introduction with relatively few serious glitches.
But that was over a decade ago. Could Boeing have lost that much talent
since then ? Where would they have gone ? It isn't as if there are many
aircraft builders left.
Wouldn't it be correct to state that the joint between wings and wingbox
would be one of the most critical points in an aircraft from the point
of view of loads/stress and should have received a huge amount of design
effort and scrutiny ?
How could this have been overlooked by Boeing ? They knew that the wing
was made by A and the wingbox made by B, so coordination was required by
them to ensure they would work together.
And it also seems to me that Boeing should forget about Aircraft #1, and
now take up an unassembled aircraft, make the fixes to wingbox/wings and
assemble it. This might be faster than retrofitting already assembled
aircraft.
Boeing also has some serious time pressure with regards to cold weather
testing. One 787 must be ready in mid january to end of february to go
to the acrtic for cold weather testing. If they miss that window, they
either have to wait one year, or find some place in southern hemisphere
to land the 787 during june-july of 2010 (aka: antarctic research
station for instance).
JF Mezei
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=812
as well as listening to a teleconference.
On Aug 27th, Boeing finally announced a new schedule for the 787
In short: first flight before end of 2009, First delivery fouth quarter
2010.
Boeing hopes to get to 10- airplanes per month by late 2013.
First 3 flight test aircraft have no commercial value. Will be
reclassified from program inventory to R&D expense, causing a change of
2.5 billion in Boeing's books. (this is due to all the mucking about
they had to do to them).
Original plan was to refurbish all 6 test aircraft to be sold for
commercial operation. The 2.5 billion isn't the loss of revenue but
rather the construction costs for those first 3 aircraft. Construction
costs for the next 3 will be considerably less (but Boeing won't
disclose it).
Boeing still believes it can sell test aircraft 4 5 and 6 in the VIP
market. But customers who had original wanted them have requested later
production units.
New schedule adds some padding to reduce risk, both for flight testing,
and also extra time to fix side-of-body structural problem on already
built aircraft.
Boeing has begun to contact customers for rescheduling negotiations.
First delivery of 787-9: 4th quarter of 2013 (makes the 350 not so bad.)
Installation of the fixes limited by how many people they can fit inside
the wing. Will install the fixes concurrently on aircraft #1 as well as
static test aircraft. Fatigue testing will be redone on static test
aircraft.
Boeing will do the retrofit on aircrafts 1 to 15 in Everett. Aircraft 16
and onwards will be retrofitted by the partners before delivery to Boeing.
Boeing has also done:
-taxi tests
-software upgrades
-gauntlet testing on #1 and #2 and Boeing says they are ready to
fly on all accounts except side-of-body issue.
For development of the derivatives, Boeing is studying a rebalancing of
R&D efforts between itself and suppliers (aka: Boeing *may* bring some
of that R&D back in-house.)
Decision to go for 2nd production line to be made by end of 2009. The
target 10/month will now need 2nd production line. 1 production line can
only realistically support 7/month. Boeing says suppliers can support
10/month.
A Guy Called Tyketto
Hash: SHA1
Well.. according to FlightGlobal, it's on:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/12/breaking-boeing-completes-side.html
No word on if this includes the fixes for the freeze plugs; if
it does, that's a bonus. Otherwise, it's still grounded. But they've
scheduled 12/15/09 for the flight and are charging $250 to see it in
person.
BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyk...@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | tyk...@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLIcd4yBkZmuMZ8L8RApvGAKDsOenzVMnz7ZplNbovVenE3EwEaACfe+ng
osLdcJwGxR6OvJ8GwkCGgF0=
=01X7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----