Boeing 787 second flight !
JF Mezei
First flight had gone to 12,000feet at 160knots max.
Second flight went to 13,000 feet at 200 knots max. 2 hour flight.
Za002 is also powered by Rolls engines.
In related news, Boeing announced that it had bought Alenia's shares in
Global Aeronautica (formerly a joint venture between Vought and Alenia).
This means Boeing nows owns Vought and Global Aeronautica lock stock and
barrel.
So when Boeing builds the second production line in Charleston, it will
have full control over the critical subassemblies. So the great
"outsource everything" venture seems to have been reversed.
In unrelated news, ANA placed orders for 5 777-200ER and 5 767-300ER
jets. The order for 5 767s is puzzling as ANA is set to start receiving
787s next year. Doesn't make much sense to buy an aircraft that costs
you 20% more in fuel so soon before you start receiving a new aircraft
that replaces it.
Perhaps those 767s are "freebies" in exchange for ANA being so patient
with the 787 delays. (and the fact that ANA isn't gettint the 787-300s
it had ordered (short range version of the -800 if I recall the
nomenclature properly).
--
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.
matt weber
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On tuesday, 787 #2 made its first flight (second for the 787).
>
>First flight had gone to 12,000feet at 160knots max.
>Second flight went to 13,000 feet at 200 knots max. 2 hour flight.
>
>Za002 is also powered by Rolls engines.
>
>
>In related news, Boeing announced that it had bought Alenia's shares in
>Global Aeronautica (formerly a joint venture between Vought and Alenia).
>This means Boeing nows owns Vought and Global Aeronautica lock stock and
> barrel.
>
>So when Boeing builds the second production line in Charleston, it will
>have full control over the critical subassemblies. So the great
>"outsource everything" venture seems to have been reversed.
>
>
>In unrelated news, ANA placed orders for 5 777-200ER and 5 767-300ER
>jets. The order for 5 767s is puzzling as ANA is set to start receiving
>787s next year. Doesn't make much sense to buy an aircraft that costs
>you 20% more in fuel so soon before you start receiving a new aircraft
>that replaces it.
>
>Perhaps those 767s are "freebies" in exchange for ANA being so patient
>with the 787 delays. (and the fact that ANA isn't gettint the 787-300s
>it had ordered (short range version of the -800 if I recall the
>nomenclature properly).
There is a certain amount of mystery in these transactions, because
the published reports state these aircraft certainly were not free, in
fact it appears ANA paid full sticker price for these aircraft, which
makes no sense at all. According to FlightGlobal ANA paid about $165
million each for the 767-300ER's and $235 million each for the
777-200ER.
The only thing I can think of is there is a sweetheart deal (and it
needs to be very sweet indeed) on the backend, where Boeing takes the
aircraft in trade at an equally high trade-in value.
Paul S
appear to have been some landing gear/brake issues on the second
flight.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2010568452_secondflight23.html
Another report at the LATimes suggests the 787 may be 10,000 lbs
overweight. Any comments on how significant this may be ?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dreamliner23-2009dec23,0,1717741.story
JF Mezei
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2010568452_secondflight23.html
The A380, on its maiden flight, did not get full retraction on one gear
so they redeployed the rest just to be safe. I wouldn't make too much of
this. They may make adjustements to the design. Hopefully Boeing will
delay start of assembly of the first plane to be delivered until it has
a better feel for hos the 787 is performing. No point in installing
landing gear on a plane if you may have to take it out for some minor
modifications later on.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dreamliner23-2009dec23,0,1717741.story
I think the key phrase here is:
##
Yet Delaney insisted that Boeing still will reach the Dreamliner's
fuel-efficiency target: an average 20% improvement over today's airplanes.
##
WILL, in the future. This would mean that as it stands, the 787 doesn't
have 20% improvement. There was a time where Boeing had admitted that
the first dozen or so 787s would be overweight but still match
performance garantees. And that subsequent production units would get
imperovements to reduce weight and make the 787 even more efficient.
Now, I guess Boeing is alluding to the first production run not matching
that 20% improvement but perhaps future runs will. The fact that later
on in the article, Being is expecting engine manufacturers to make
improvemenst to meet that 20% target is scary because that basically
means that perhaps the 787 won't meet that 20% target.
I guess that Boeing can't be accused of false adveryising if its PR kept
saying 20% improvements, but the contracts with customers said 15%.
Uwe Klein
I was astonished to see it mentioned that even for current
production B777 gear(door) retraction/closing issues seem to be common.
( I don't have issues with little probs in initial test flights )
JF Mezei wrote:
> I guess that Boeing can't be accused of false adveryising if its PR kept
> saying 20% improvements, but the contracts with customers said 15%.
Remember the initial nonchalante reaction from Airbus towards the 787?
The 20% better fuel consumption was in
relation to the inhouse forerunner. i.e. the 767 ( and to make
it look even better probably compared to then EIS specs ).
My tentative guess is that current models of the A330 are competitive
against the 787-8 for the foreseeable future. ( Notice the
increased numbers for MTOW for the -8 _and_ the -9 -10 models
as annouced recently ).
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/10/315762/airbus-to-offer-heavier-a330-against-delayed-787.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/10/336055/boeing-ups-787-weights-shrinks-9-wing.html
Current Boeing announcements would imho indicate that
not the initial 20 787 will be matched but from no20 onwards
for some time to come. The initial batch of 20-6=14 airframes
will underperform even more ( overweight by same amount, no increase
in MTOW).
Better (and trustworthy) data for a comparison will not be
available before EIS + 6month or thereabouts.
seasonal greetings
uwe
JF Mezei
> My tentative guess is that current models of the A330 are competitive
> against the 787-8 for the foreseeable future.
Maintenance issues may (if they really pan out) give the 787 an edge
over the 330. And interior comfort (higher cabin pressure, bigger
windows) may give it a marketing advantage.
> ( Notice the
> increased numbers for MTOW for the -8 _and_ the -9 -10 models
> as annouced recently ).
pardon my ignorance here, but has ZA001 gained weight because it ate too
much turkey on the USA thanskgiving ? Surely, the addition of
re-enforcements on the side body/wing interface couldn't have changed
much in the aircraft weight ? Why would the aircraft suddently need an
increase in weight ?
Isn't it fair to say that Boeing has known the weight of ZA001 (and the
few others that have been assembled) for 2 years now ? And since
Boeing finished disassmbling/reassembling it last year when it finally
worked the rivets issue, shouldn't the weight have become fairly stable
by then ?
Did Boeing truly hide the weight gain from its customers and
shareholders since then ?
Or is it possible that the increase in MTOW is the result of data from
first flight which would have confirmed the aircraft is calable of
hauling more freight ?
The big question: wouldn't customers be given the real time of day with
regards to actual weight of the 787 ? I assume they are under NDA
agreements ?
I think it is fair to say that Boeing will meet contractual obligations,
but in the end, just like the 340-500, while the plane will be able to
reach its advertised range, it will not be able to do so with a full
load. But in exchange, for short hauls, it will be able to carry more
than originally advertised.
BTW, will the increase in MTOW result in increased landing costs at
airports, or do airports have the same prices for a range of MTOW, and
as long as the 787 remains in the same range, landing costs won't increase ?
> for some time to come. The initial batch of 20-6=14 airframes
> will underperform even more ( overweight by same amount, no increase
> in MTOW).
I think that there is some expectations management being done by Boeing
right now. They oversold it capabilities, and are still stuck with media
repeating that 20% number.
And they are probably now welcoming specualtion that its performance is
terrible, and then people will be happied when they learn of the real
stuff which won't be as bad as thought.
> Better (and trustworthy) data for a comparison will not be
> available before EIS + 6month or thereabouts.
I am pretty sure that 787 customers are being given the real numbers.
This is especially true when you consider that Boeing has to negitiate
penalties due to delivery delays, and those customers would require the
real weight of the aircraft to measure the financial impact to them.
If an airline like Air Canada doesn't have markets that require extreme
range, then a 787 not able to carry full load at full range won't impact
AC in terms of what it can and cannot do with the aircraft. And it is
fair to state that the 787 will be better than the 767 in just about
every metric.
Uwe Klein
> Uwe Klein wrote:
>>My tentative guess is that current models of the A330 are competitive
>>against the 787-8 for the foreseeable future.
> Maintenance issues may (if they really pan out) give the 787 an edge
> over the 330. And interior comfort (higher cabin pressure, bigger
> windows) may give it a marketing advantage.
That was the advantage Boeing had advertised for originaly.
On the other hand Airbus is extending airframe lifetimes
over all families targeting for a final of 180.000h
>
>
>>( Notice the
>>increased numbers for MTOW for the -8 _and_ the -9 -10 models
>>as annouced recently ).
>
>
>
> pardon my ignorance here, but has ZA001 gained weight because it ate too
> much turkey on the USA thanskgiving ? Surely, the addition of
> re-enforcements on the side body/wing interface couldn't have changed
> much in the aircraft weight ? Why would the aircraft suddently need an
> increase in weight ?
No it was overweight all the time. Boeings rationale was that
these fatty deposits would vanish after the prototype set of frames.
( At that time Boeing intended to sell sn1..6 to customers for
revenue use. This idea has been scrappped. )
IMHO increasing the MTOW from sn20 on forward would indicate that
Boeing does not have the (chose any/all from: time, engineers, money, expertise )
to fix the excess weight. Same goes to some extend for the optimised
( with expected expertise garnered from -8 flight data ) -9 variant.
Put into this equation the return to the -8 wing for the -9 version.
>
> Isn't it fair to say that Boeing has known the weight of ZA001 (and the
> few others that have been assembled) for 2 years now ? And since
> Boeing finished disassmbling/reassembling it last year when it finally
> worked the rivets issue, shouldn't the weight have become fairly stable
> by then ?
The weight issue was already known at the time of the "lessons ppt".
>
> Did Boeing truly hide the weight gain from its customers and
> shareholders since then ?
>
> Or is it possible that the increase in MTOW is the result of data from
> first flight which would have confirmed the aircraft is calable of
> hauling more freight ?
Probably ( er, most certainly ) not. MTOW increase was silently injected
into the public via the type guides for airports. ( and "unblogged" later )
The designlimits (~258t?) for the landing gear have become a very near hard limit.
>
> The big question: wouldn't customers be given the real time of day with
> regards to actual weight of the 787 ? I assume they are under NDA
> agreements ?
Hehe, I am not involved with any customer, so it is a clear "don't know".
>
>
> I think it is fair to say that Boeing will meet contractual obligations,
> but in the end, just like the 340-500, while the plane will be able to
> reach its advertised range, it will not be able to do so with a full
> load. But in exchange, for short hauls, it will be able to carry more
> than originally advertised.
The MTOW increase seem to boost performance towards range as originaly
projected and sold, but will certainly miss advertised sfc values by
quite a margin as a consequence.
>
>
> BTW, will the increase in MTOW result in increased landing costs at
> airports, or do airports have the same prices for a range of MTOW, and
> as long as the 787 remains in the same range, landing costs won't increase ?
Don't know, seems to go along distinct ranges.
>
>
>>for some time to come. The initial batch of 20-6=14 airframes
>>will underperform even more ( overweight by same amount, no increase
>>in MTOW).
>
>
> I think that there is some expectations management being done by Boeing
> right now. They oversold it capabilities, and are still stuck with media
> repeating that 20% number.
Boeing had been too loudly advertising that number and did not
correct those assuming a staging against A330 values.
No amount of sweet words will erase that abroad.
>
> And they are probably now welcoming specualtion that its performance is
> terrible, and then people will be happied when they learn of the real
> stuff which won't be as bad as thought.
Most people one can read on the net still turn the
"gamechanger, revolutionary, ... airplane" hamster wheel like mad.
>>Better (and trustworthy) data for a comparison will not be
>>available before EIS + 6month or thereabouts.
> I am pretty sure that 787 customers are being given the real numbers.
> This is especially true when you consider that Boeing has to negitiate
> penalties due to delivery delays, and those customers would require the
> real weight of the aircraft to measure the financial impact to them.
Probably.
But they will get gagging sweets in compensation ;-)
So no direct information gain for the unwashed public.
>
> If an airline like Air Canada doesn't have markets that require extreme
> range, then a 787 not able to carry full load at full range won't impact
> AC in terms of what it can and cannot do with the aircraft. And it is
> fair to state that the 787 will be better than the 767 in just about
> every metric.
Pfft, that's a rather surefire assumption. the 767 is a halfhearted reaction
to the original A300 and a _30_ years old design.
Interesting question on the side:
How would the original A300 have fared in the US
market if it had been from a local manufacturer?
If the vitriolic reactions to the A380 and A350XWB and Airbus in general
are anything to go by there must have been quite a bit of NIH syndrome
present even 30 years ago.
What will ANA pay for their just ordered for "immediate delivery"
compensation 5 x 767-300ERs? ( and 5 x 777 )
uwe
matt weber
<uwe_klein_...@t-online.de> wrote:
>About Gear:
>I was astonished to see it mentioned that even for current
>production B777 gear(door) retraction/closing issues seem to be common.
>
>( I don't have issues with little probs in initial test flights )
>
>JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> I guess that Boeing can't be accused of false adveryising if its PR kept
>> saying 20% improvements, but the contracts with customers said 15%.
>
>Remember the initial nonchalante reaction from Airbus towards the 787?
>
>The 20% better fuel consumption was in
>relation to the inhouse forerunner. i.e. the 767 ( and to make
>it look even better probably compared to then EIS specs ).
>My tentative guess is that current models of the A330 are competitive
>against the 787-8 for the foreseeable future.
Unlikely. The first order estimate for fuel burn is that it is
directly proportional to weight.
Fuel burn= weight * (lift/drag) * SFC
and the number I like to look at is dead weight per passenger seat.
A330-300 is realistically about 290 pax in a 2 class International
Configuration.
EW is about 275,000 pounds
275,000/290= 948 pounds per seat
What the realistic 2 class capacity on the 787-8 is open to debate.
The figures used by both Boeing and Airbus are based upon assumptions
about seat pitch that are grossly understate what is being provided
today by most long haul carriers for premium class passengers.
787-8 realistically has about 250 seats in a two class International
Configuration, The OEW is something that has been redacted from a
number of Boeing Documents visible to the Public.
The question is will the OEW be less than 948 * 250? (which is
237,000 pounds.)
However my recollection is that when the OEW was published initially,
it was in the 220,000 pound range. (It is also possible to back into
that number from other data that was available). While it is pretty
clear that the at least the early 787-8's will be significantly above
that weight, Boeing has a very good reputation for getting aircraft
down to spec weight (or lower) fairly early in the production run.
The other issue is SFC. The 787 (and A350) both involve a generation
of engine at least 1 beyond those used in the A330. The ultimate goal
is that the 787 engines will be about 10% better SFC than the last
generation of 747/A330/767 engines (CF6-80/RB211-524G-T,PW4000).
The good news is the delay in 787 production has allowed both Rolls
Royce and GE to get a lot closer to the design goals on SFC.
A330's are selling quite well at the moment for three reasons.
1). The 767 is effectively out of production, and too small, while the
777-300ER and -200LR are aircraft that are extremely capable and
priced accordingly.
2). Very aggressive pricing on the A330 from EADS (it and the A320
programs are probably the only Airbus product families to have fully
recovered their development costs).
3). Non-Availability of the 787-8/9 in the near term.
In short if you are looking for an airplane that can fly 5500 miles or
so, with 250-300 seats, the A330 is the most attractive game in town.
If you need more seats, or longer legs, the 777 is the most attractive
game in town.
> ( Notice the
>increased numbers for MTOW for the -8 _and_ the -9 -10 models
>as annouced recently ).
The -10 is unannouced, and neither article makes any mention of any
data, or even the existence of the -10 (although I don't think there
is anyone who doesn't expect the -10 to be annouced at some point).
Uwe Klein
> The question is will the OEW be less than 948 * 250? (which is
> 237,000 pounds.)
My tentative guess is that
8400kg = delta MTOW ~= Overweight + added fuel to carry the belly
This would give maxrange@nnPax as sold but slightly higher
overall fuel consumption?
empty weight was given as 242,000 lb, that seems to be old spec.
add 15klb for excess weight ?
Is Boeing currently finance, time or (human) resource restrained?
matt weber
<uwe_klein_...@t-online.de> wrote:
>matt weber wrote:
>> The question is will the OEW be less than 948 * 250? (which is
>> 237,000 pounds.)
>
>My tentative guess is that
>8400kg = delta MTOW ~= Overweight + added fuel to carry the belly
>
>This would give maxrange@nnPax as sold but slightly higher
>overall fuel consumption?
>
>empty weight was given as 242,000 lb, that seems to be old spec.
>add 15klb for excess weight ?
>
>Is Boeing currently finance, time or (human) resource restrained?
Probably none of the above.
The problems with the 787 to date have revolved around either
incomplete work by sub contractors, or unacceptable work by sub
contractors.
One of the issues early on was the availability of the correct
fasteners! The 787 that rolled intially had to be assembled with the
wrong fasteners. Unfortunately the act of removing them and replacing
them apparently damaged the fastener holes, creating still more
delays.
The moral of the story is you can outsource the work, but you cannot
outsource the responsibility. Every operation that outsources
successfully has their own QA/supervision working at the outsourcing
contractor. To be polite, Boeing didn't adequately supervise the key
sub-contractors, and are paying the price.
Unspoken, but apparently significant has been delays in getting the
software to operate the aircraft systems.
Uwe Klein
Hi Matt,
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:25:43 +0100, Uwe Klein
> <uwe_klein_...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>>matt weber wrote:
>>
>>>The question is will the OEW be less than 948 * 250? (which is
>>>237,000 pounds.)
>>
>>My tentative guess is that
>>8400kg = delta MTOW ~= Overweight + added fuel to carry the belly
>>
>>This would give maxrange@nnPax as sold but slightly higher
>>overall fuel consumption?
>>
>>empty weight was given as 242,000 lb, that seems to be old spec.
>>add 15klb for excess weight ?
>>
>>Is Boeing currently finance, time or (human) resource restrained?
>
> Probably none of the above.
Weeell, Boeing seems to have spent about twice as much as originally planned
already.
They had to withdraw workforce from the 748 to get the Dreamliner into the air.
There is a lot of redesign to be done for future frames.
they have customers breathing down their necks to get their revolutionary planes ASAP.
>
> The problems with the 787 to date have revolved around either
> incomplete work by sub contractors, or unacceptable work by sub
> contractors.
That's what Boeing is telling. ( and see below )
IMHO they botched the job of partitioning and controlling the
design and manufacture of subassemblies.
Boeing has unofficial design and manufacuring paths inhouse:
"With any issue we have an engineer down on the workfloor in 5 minutes"
This does not work in a subcontracted environment where problems are
beyond an ocean in a different culture _and_ a different commercial entity.
>
> One of the issues early on was the availability of the correct
> fasteners! The 787 that rolled intially had to be assembled with the
> wrong fasteners. Unfortunately the act of removing them and replacing
> them apparently damaged the fastener holes, creating still more
> delays.
The "lessons PPT" mentions these fasteners to be solely related to
the "nonsparking" variety used in tankage. Boeing later used this fib for
fixed all over the plane. ( Didn't notice this the first time I read it )
>
> The moral of the story is you can outsource the work, but you cannot
> outsource the responsibility. Every operation that outsources
> successfully has their own QA/supervision working at the outsourcing
> contractor.
Jup, and those must be your best.
> To be polite, Boeing didn't adequately supervise the key
> sub-contractors, and are paying the price.
This is a thing I have still to understand.
It's not that Boeing would have had to learn from scratch.
There is the perfect precedent: Airbus, 30++ year of succesfull
cooperation across political and cultural divides.
There should be enough research papers around to get an idea how
to work this.
Was it plain Hubris: what dumb Euros can do should not be a problem for US?
Was it "unknown unknowns" ( how I hate that phrase from Rumsfeld ) and
Boeing management was just not able to wrap their collective mind around this
issue.
Or did they botch it on purpose? ( Cost for their "partners" is high and
some of this can ricochet onto Airbus.)
>
> Unspoken, but apparently significant has been delays in getting the
> software to operate the aircraft systems.
There is a nice book around "The Mythical Man-Month" by K Brooks.
In an environment where even hardware is defined by software this
is the handbook for all projects to come.
( See one years worth of work going down the drain for the TP400-D6
FADEC Software not written to procedural spec )
uwe
JF Mezei
> > The problems with the 787 to date have revolved around either
> > incomplete work by sub contractors, or unacceptable work by sub
> > contractors.
Some companies are able to have high quality/reliable stuff made in
China, while others have less experience managing outsourcing
relationships with chinese contractors and end up with variable or
always inferior qiality work and lousy products.
In the end, the buck stops at Boeing. It chose the contractors and it is
the one who was responsible to ensure they deleivered stuff within
quality levels that Boeing required.
And recall that it was Boeing which told the main contractors to ship
incomplete assemblies because it was in a hurry to have that
show/celebration on july 8th 1007. (or was it august 7th ?).
> > One of the issues early on was the availability of the correct
> > fasteners!
>From what I read, it appears that the real issue is that Boeing had
chosen improper fasteners. When the mistake was realised, it took some
time for the manufacturers to re-tool and make a whole new batch of the
new design of fasteners (and then all the issues of changing fasteners
already installed).
And apparently, the documentation by Boeing given to the contractors was
not very good.
Boeing'e PR was quite good at blaming everyone else but itself.
> > contractor. To be polite, Boeing didn't adequately supervise the key
> > sub-contractors, and are paying the price.
Yep and they had to buy the main final integrators in charleston. I
suspect that there is a lot behind the scenes that we don't know about
which caused the charleston facilities to underperform. If they are told
to start integrating and then during this, Boeing continued to make
changes to the plans and components (such as fasteners) you can
understand the headaches this would cause to any integrator (experienced
or newbie).
And with the delays, there would come a point where financial hardships
would prevent those integrators from fixing problems or investing to
ramp up production. Remember that they had expected to start reaping the
rewards with deliveried starting in 2008, and now they need to live on
vapours for 2 years before first delivery. I suspsct this may be a big
reason Boeing had to buy them.
> > Unspoken, but apparently significant has been delays in getting the
> > software to operate the aircraft systems.
If you blame the fasteners for delays, then it doesn't matter that
everything else is also late. And if it wasn't the fasteners, it would
have been something else. Boeing probably got to choose which late
component it would get to blame, which allowed it to "hide" the other
late projects.
JF Mezei
> > The problems with the 787 to date have revolved around either
> > incomplete work by sub contractors, or unacceptable work by sub
> > contractors.
Some companies are able to have high quality/reliable stuff made in
China, while others have less experience managing outsourcing
relationships with chinese contractors and end up with variable or
always inferior qiality work and lousy products.
In the end, the buck stops at Boeing. It chose the contractors and it is
the one who was responsible to ensure they deleivered stuff within
quality levels that Boeing required.
And recall that it was Boeing which told the main contractors to ship
incomplete assemblies because it was in a hurry to have that
show/celebration on july 8th 1007. (or was it august 7th ?).
> > One of the issues early on was the availability of the correct
> > fasteners!
>From what I read, it appears that the real issue is that Boeing had
chosen improper fasteners. When the mistake was realised, it took some
time for the manufacturers to re-tool and make a whole new batch of the
new design of fasteners (and then all the issues of changing fasteners
already installed).
And apparently, the documentation by Boeing given to the contractors was
not very good.
Boeing'e PR was quite good at blaming everyone else but itself.
> > contractor. To be polite, Boeing didn't adequately supervise the key
> > sub-contractors, and are paying the price.
Yep and they had to buy the main final integrators in charleston. I
suspect that there is a lot behind the scenes that we don't know about
which caused the charleston facilities to underperform. If they are told
to start integrating and then during this, Boeing continued to make
changes to the plans and components (such as fasteners) you can
understand the headaches this would cause to any integrator (experienced
or newbie).
And with the delays, there would come a point where financial hardships
would prevent those integrators from fixing problems or investing to
ramp up production. Remember that they had expected to start reaping the
rewards with deliveried starting in 2008, and now they need to live on
vapours for 2 years before first delivery. I suspsct this may be a big
reason Boeing had to buy them.
> > Unspoken, but apparently significant has been delays in getting the
> > software to operate the aircraft systems.
If you blame the fasteners for delays, then it doesn't matter that
everything else is also late. And if it wasn't the fasteners, it would
have been something else. Boeing probably got to choose which late
component it would get to blame, which allowed it to "hide" the other
late projects.
BradGuth
wrote:
> On tuesday,787#2 made its first flight (second for the787).
>
> First flight had gone to 12,000feet at 160knots max.
> Second flight went to 13,000 feet at 200 knots max. 2 hour flight.
>
> Za002 is also powered by Rolls engines.
>
> In related news, Boeing announced that it had bought Alenia's shares in
> Global Aeronautica (formerly a joint venture between Vought and Alenia).
> This means Boeing nows owns Vought and Global Aeronautica lock stock and
> barrel.
>
> So when Boeing builds the second production line in Charleston, it will
> have full control over the critical subassemblies. So the great
> "outsource everything" venture seems to have been reversed.
>
> In unrelated news, ANA placed orders for 5 777-200ER and 5 767-300ER
> jets. The order for 5 767s is puzzling as ANA is set to start receiving
> 787s next year. Doesn't make much sense to buy an aircraft that costs
> you 20% more in fuel so soon before you start receiving a new aircraft
> that replaces it.
>
> Perhaps those 767s are "freebies" in exchange for ANA being so patient
> it had ordered (short range version of the -800 if I recall the
> nomenclature properly).
> --
> misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
Dreamliners are officially obese. Their B787-7 is on a strict diet.
Boeing just posted their need or mandate of having to lose 2 tonnes by
No.7
It'll be most interesting to see where that much dead/inert mass gets
removed, and how much better or worse off the Boeing 787 Dreamliner
gets.
Apparently without weight loss, the annual fuel savings and reduced
pollution just isn't sufficient to warrant the investments that owners
and operators of such aircraft are faced with, not to mention saving
the environment via one spendy Dreamliner at a time.
~ BG