Boeing readies 787 for first flight

[whereishome]

An FA once told me that the wings have to be able to bend and touch tips over the fuselage without breaking off before an aircraft could be certified.

Maybe he was full of it...

 

[straitman]

An FA once told me that the wings have to be able to bend and touch tips over the fuselage without breaking off before an aircraft could be certified.

Maybe he was full of it...

He was full of it...:!:

 

[harvyk]

An FA once told me that the wings have to be able to bend and touch tips over the fuselage without breaking off before an aircraft could be certified.

Maybe he was full of it...

That sounds like the sort of BS a FA would say to settle a nervous pax who saw the wings flexing...

Not accurate, but certainly would settle a pax down.

 

[tuapekastar]

An FA once told me that the wings have to be able to bend and touch tips over the fuselage without breaking off before an aircraft could be certified.

Maybe he was full of it...

Indeed he was (though I know you know he was)

YouTube - Boeing 777 Wing Load Test

 

[codash1099]

Looks like there are even more problems.

FLIGHTBLOGGER: Structural flaw halts production of Alenia 787 sections-14/08/2009-Washington DC-Flightglobal.com

 

[Flying Fox]

Oh no. Its such a shame that things aren't going well at all.

And there I was (back in Mar 2008) looking to book a trip on JQ for Aug 2008 first 787 flight....

 

[Evan]

787 is getting more and more ugly every day
I think QF will be more than happy not to take the first ones.

 

[codash1099]

Some people see a humorous side:

YouTube - Hitler's 787 Delayed

(Note: NSFW - some unacceptable language in subtitles)

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Some people see a humorous side:

YouTube - Hitler's 787 Delayed

(Note: NSFW - some unacceptable language in subtitles)

hahahaha nice one

 

[straitman]

This is currently doing the rounds of the Aviation Community.

[FONT=&quot]More troubles with the manufacture of aircraft using composite materials. The plot thickens.!!!!

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]There must be some airlines out there wishing they’d ordered B-777’s. Especially so if they have a clapped out ‘fleet’ - with limited spares……. And mounting maintenance costs….
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]………………………………………………
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing's hopes for its Dreamliner are turning into nightmares
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Ben Sandilands <http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=50df0699-23e7-4dd2-a1cf-f720e300db9e&amp;rid=484521c1-f262-4b20-84b8-fcd82f7be429> writes:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]There was an earnings conference call by Boeing overnight that broke more bad news about its 787 Dreamliner project.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The computer modeling relied upon in the design failed to predict the behavior of a section of the wing where it joins the main body of the airliner. The company now has to reconsider the application of those models to other parts of the design.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is, in effect, an admission that the entire design is suspect to the extent that assumptions made about how sections of it will behave under aerodynamic loads may be incorrect. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This wing root failure occurred during a static stress test in May as part of the certification program for the jet, which was to have flown by late September 2007 after the prototype, now known to have been a faked up shell with a plywood door and hardware shop rivets holding the main body together, was rolled out on 8 July of that year with first deliveries promised to airlines starting in May 2008.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing "thinks" it knows how to fix the issue, as described in words and diagrams in this story in The Seattle Times <http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=a8bf429f-09d4-4d23-8abf-a28b9c515f86&amp;rid=484521c1-f262-4b20-84b8-fcd82f7be429> , which was on the streets before the conference call.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]So it is going to "pre-test" the fix, before testing it, and then if that works, apply it to the small fleet of test flight 787s already substantially assembled, unfortunately with the critical part that failed, at Everett near Seattle.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This means that the 787 flight test program will not see first takeoff until sometime next year, if nothing more goes wrong. It means the 787 cannot enter service until sometime in 2011, and that the commitment to Qantas, to start delivering 787-9s, the second model in the Dreamliner series from mid 2013 is going to be dishonored. [/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Qantas has 50 Dreamliners on firm order following its recent cancellation of 15 of the jets that were supposed to be in service with Jetstar by now.) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Incredibly, sources in Boeing are being quoted in the US media as saying a ‘hot spot’ or problem area in the wing root design was identified by the computer models used yet ignored at the outset.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If true, this is the second time Boeing has done this to the 787. Its computer design tools identified a potential problem in the wing box area also early in the program which was then ignored until that component suffered ‘premature deformation’ and had to be redesigned and reinforced.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is thought there is an insistence on keeping to fictional parameters for component weight and load bearing capabilities in the plastics used no matter what the real limitations are of sheets of reinforced carbon fiber that are glued together with resins and then baked in a giant oven to form critical sections of the air frame. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Dreamliner 787 is now in limbo. A family of jets for which there is no first flight date, no flight testing and certification schedule, and no performance parameters for the airlines that ordered them to fly non-stop for incredible distances or save 20% in fuel burn or 30% in maintenance costs.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]All of the crucial assumptions about the efficiencies supposed to be inherent in the use of high composite structures in flexible load bearing areas of the jet have so far failed to become reality.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Several days after Boeing insisted the prototype would fly by 30 June it called it off, citing a minor fix, palm of the hand sized stuff, that needed to be applied to a ‘side of body area.’ It could not bring itself to admit that it was a wing failure. It is now apparent that the prototype 787 is unsafe to fly without whatever modification Boeing finally pre-tests, tests and then retro fits.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]How it could have reached a situation where it was assembled and ready to go with a wing that could fail in a sudden gust loading or abrupt turn remains the most embarrassing mystery in the history of jet airliner development. This project is at risk. Its management is a lying disgrace[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]…………………………………………………………………………………………………………[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Originally published July 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing 787 may not fly this year[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The structural flaw that delayed the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner is more complex than originally described by the company, and the plane's inaugural takeoff is likely at least four to six months away, say two engineers with knowledge of Boeing's problem.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]By Dominic Gates <http://search.nwsource.com/search?searchtype=cq&amp;sort=date&amp;from=ST&amp;byline=Dominic%20Gates> Seattle[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Times aerospace reporter[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The structural flaw that delayed the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner is more complex than originally described by the company, and the plane's inaugural takeoff is likely at least four to six months away, say two engineers with knowledge of Boeing's problem.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"It's got to take at least three to four months just to get something installed on an airplane," said a structures engineer who has been briefed on the issue. "It's definitely a costly fix to go and do this work."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]A second engineer, who is familiar with the details of Boeing's construction method, said the fix must first be made on the nonflying test airplane in the Everett factory. Assuming that's successful, it will take another month or two to install the fix on the first airplane to fly.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Both engineers said the issue requires a thorough redesign of the plane's wing-to-body join, and the necessary parts will be very difficult to install on the test airplanes that have already been built.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The engineers' accounts differ from Boeing's description June 23 when it acknowledged a problem and again postponed the first flight of the much-delayed plane.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Dreamliner program chief Scott Fancher said then that the fix would be "a simple modification" requiring only "a handful of parts." But almost a month later, heading into today's quarterly earnings report, Boeing has neither set a new schedule nor outlined its planned fix of the problem.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The second engineer said the problem is caused by high loads at the ends of the stringers on the upper wing skins. Stringers are the long composite rods, shaped like I-beams, that stiffen the inside of the wing skin.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]There are 17 stringers on each upper wing, all of them subject to compression forces when the wings flex upward in flight. At the point where each stringer ends, close to where the wing and body of the plane are joined, those forces pull the stringer away from the skin.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]During a wing-bending test in May on the ground-test airplane inside the Everett factory, the fibrous layers of the composite plastic material delaminated at these stress points.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Such a separation of the material isn't likely to lead to catastrophic failure of the airplane, but it would require constant monitoring and potentially costly repairs by the airlines. Any tear in the material would have to be promptly fixed to avoid spreading of the delamination.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If Boeing's initial fix fails to divert enough of the load away from the stress points, the delay in first flight could extend beyond six months, pushing the date out into 2010.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"There's no guarantee that what (Boeing) is doing will work," the second engineer said. "If the testing or analysis shows it doesn't get rid of the load, then the engineers are back to square one."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Beyond first flight, solving the structural flaw could also further slow the plan for ramping up production.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing's current focus is on an interim solution to the stringer problem for the test planes that it has already built. The first engineer said Boeing hasn't had time yet to figure out at what point in production to introduce a permanent redesign on all subsequent jets.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"None of that is nailed down yet," he said. "There's no schedule."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing has a large team of engineers working on the analysis, the redesign and how the fix could be implemented.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Those engineers are focusing on a solution that will send mechanics inside the wings of the assembled planes to trim the ends of each upper wing-skin stringer. They will create a U-shaped cutout in the end of the stringer, leaving the flanges at top and bottom untouched.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The U-shaped cut in the stringer ensures that the load on the flange away from the skin, the inner flange, will transfer entirely into the strong titanium fitting at the wing-body join and not into the wing skin, the engineers said.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The hope is that will reduce the stress point load enough to prevent future delamination.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The reshaped stringer ends must be refastened with newly designed parts to the titanium fitting, which connects the wing stringers to similar stringers on the fuselage side of the join.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And the design must accomplish this without creating another stress point somewhere else.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]To reinforce the stringer ends, mechanics will also add some fasteners that go through stringer and skin. The 17 stringers on each side don't all require the same reinforcement, but Boeing wants one design fix for all, so whatever is the beefiest reinforcement needed will likely be done for all the stringers, said the first engineer.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This retrofit will be tremendously difficult to implement on the airplanes already built because the mechanics will have to do the tedious and meticulous work inside the confined space of the wing.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Drilling holes in titanium is difficult. Drilling holes in composite is difficult. And the access will be very difficult," said the second engineer.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And when Boeing finally comes to do the job on Dreamliner No. 1, it will first have to empty the fuel from the wing tanks so that repair crews can work inside.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Previous problems[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Excessive loads at stringer ends (known to engineers as "runouts") is not something that should have struck Boeing out of the blue.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"The problem with stringer runouts has been identified in the past and recognized as a problem," the second engineer said. He said the issue has arisen on other composite airplanes.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Indeed, the first engineer said the stress point at the end of the 787 stringers showed up as a "hot spot" in Boeing's computer models before the delamination in the wing bend test — but for some reason it was never addressed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The delamination happened after the wing bend test reached ultimate load, which is 50 percent higher than the maximum load expected in service.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The second engineer said reaching that load proves that Boeing's heavy titanium structure is as strong as it needs to be. However, the delamination of the wing skin could have begun well before that load was reached, he said.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the tests of the proposed fix that lie ahead, he said, engineers will have to inspect the stress points for delamination closely at every increment up to the highest loads.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Boeing spokeswoman Yvonne Leach said the company "will provide details on the technical solution in due course as we finalize our plans for implementation."[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The company reports its quarterly earnings before the stock market opens today.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In an early-morning teleconference after the earnings news is released, Boeing management will be quizzed closely by Wall Street analysts for more detail on the expected program delay. It's likely the executives won't yet have precise answers.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot].

[/FONT]

 

[serfty]

Yes, there's more to this that is being announced.

It does mean Qantas are going to need to those clapped out 767-336ER's (AKA ZX's). :-|

 

[oz_mark]

Re: This is currently doing the rounds of the Aviation Community.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]There must be some airlines out there wishing they’d ordered B-777’s. Especially so if they have a clapped out ‘fleet’ - with limited spares……. And mounting maintenance costs….[/FONT]

If this is referring to Qantas 767's, are 777's really a good replacement for them?

 

[anat0l]

Re: This is currently doing the rounds of the Aviation Community.

That was quite a complicated read.

[FONT=&quot]There must be some airlines out there wishing they’d ordered B-777’s. Especially so if they have a clapped out ‘fleet’ - with limited spares……. And mounting maintenance costs….
[/FONT]

Oh that irony was so deliciously thick you could taste it.

Yes, there's more to this that is being announced.

It does mean Qantas are going to need to those clapped out 767-336ER's (AKA ZX's). :-|

If this is referring to Qantas 767's, are 777's really a good replacement for them?

What point are you getting at?

I like the QF 763s at the moment - they're not looking as run down as say the now getting-to-defunct QFNZ 733s, or as old-ish looking as the 734s, or as dogged down with problems as the now defunct 743s. But they are pouring on the age, and I'm not particularly enamoured with them operating medium-haul routes (763 to HNL? Seriously!!?!?!).

According to the wide world of flying (not necessarily represented by the interests of this forum or any frequent flying forum), B777s seem like some sort of God send aircraft.

Then again, as long as it is a newer aircraft, people might not care what type of equipment it is, where it comes from or who makes them. (Certainly that's what I read from the author of the verbose article supplied with the blue-coloured emphasised text).


I suppose QF are not really in any capacity - along with any other Dreamliner customer - to beat drums for some sort of....compensation?

 

[oz_mark]

Re: This is currently doing the rounds of the Aviation Community.

What point are you getting at?

My view of the argument that if they'd bought 777's then they wouldn't have 767's now. I don't buy it.

From what I can see, they'd have 777's instead of A330's and still be stuck with the 767's.

 

[harvyk]

Re: This is currently doing the rounds of the Aviation Community.

Stating that B777's could be used in place of B767's is laughable. Some of these reports are acting as if airlines had a choice of one or the other but not both, and don't seem to understand they are actually designed to operate in two difference spaces.

Otherwise airlines such as

NZ
AA
DL
BA

Would not be operating both types.

 

[Slats7]

Re: Latest decision on 787

Haha nice

Here's the latest news on the Dreamliner:

Boeing sees first 787 Dreamliner flight by year end | The Australian

BOEING says the much-delayed 787 Dreamliner airplane is now expected to make its first flight by the end of the year.

Despite booking a $US2.5 billion ($3bn) charge for a program, Boeing said it would still be profitable over time.

The first delivery, to All Nippon Airways (ANA), is slated for the final quarter of 2010, the sixth delay for an aircraft that initially had been due to arrive in May 2008.

 

[dot]

Boeing have announced yet another first flight schedule, now "...end of 2009" - I wonder how long this one will stick before another delay creeps in.

See
Boeing - Boeing Announces New 787 Schedule and Third-Quarter Charge - Aug 27, 2009

Flightblogger - Breaking: Boeing targets 787 first flight by end of 2009, first delivery in 4Q 2010 - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis

Smartplanet -Boeing 787 maiden flight reset for Q4 - SmartPlanet

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Re: Latest decision on 787

I think the whole farming out of production as it makes it cheaper and better has been discredited by the whole 787 fiasco.

If AirBus can get their A350XWB out reasonably on time then I think Boeing is in real DooDoo as their 777, 787, 747 are all pretty much outclassed by Air Bus products

 

[Flying Fox]

I think that the B787 will still beat the A350 into service and therefore will be successful for both airlines & Boeing.

I think that the A350 should also have some advanages considering it was designed second. Hopefully it won't suffer from the A380 & B787 type delayed entry into service situations.

 

[straitman]

Re: Latest decision on 787

I think the whole farming out of production as it makes it cheaper and better has been discredited by the whole 787 fiasco.

I don't agree.

This process is and has been used by manufacturers (big & small) for many years. I suggest you read the build processes for the 767 as one example of many where this process went exceptionally well.

If AirBus can get their A350XWB out reasonably on time then I think Boeing is in real DooDoo as their 777, 787, 747 are all pretty much outclassed by Air Bus products

I really see this as more like a GM vs Ford battle. Each gets ahead for a while then the other takes over for a while.
Look at the B777 vs A330. The B777 came into service 17 months later than the A330 yet has sold yet there have been an extra 170 built. If you include the A340 (essentially the same aircraft) then there have been an extra 200 Airbus built. There is no Boeing equivilant to the A340 so you need to then add the next aircraft B747 with which there is no Airbus equivalent etc. The first B747 went came into service the same year that Airbus Industries was founded. Appeox 1420 B747s have been built.

Airbus is in tight competition with Boeing every year for aircraft orders. Though both manufacturers have a broad product range in various segments from single-aisle to wide-body, their aircraft do not always compete head-to-head. Instead they respond with models a bit smaller or a bit bigger than the other in order to plug any holes in demand and achieve a better edge. The A380, for example, is designed to be larger than the 747. The A350 XWB competes with the high end of the 787 and the low end of the 777. The A320 is bigger than the 737-700 but smaller than the 737-800. The A321 is bigger than the 737-900 but smaller than the previous 757-200. Airlines see this as a benefit since they get a more complete product range from 100 seats to 500 seats than if both companies offered identical aircraft.
In recent years the Boeing 777 has outsold its Airbus counterparts, which include the A340 family as well as the A330-300. The smaller A330-200 competes with the 767, outselling its Boeing counterpart in recent years. The A380 is anticipated to further reduce sales of the Boeing 747, gaining Airbus a share of the market in very large aircraft, though frequent delays in the A380 program have caused several customers to consider the refreshed 747-8.[36] Airbus has also proposed the A350 XWB to compete with the fast-selling Boeing 787, after being under great pressure from airlines to produce a competing model.
There are around 5,102 Airbus aircraft in service, with Airbus managing to win over 50 per cent of aircraft orders in recent years. Airbus products are still outnumbered 3 to 1 by in-service Boeings (there are over 4,500 Boeing 737s alone in service). This however is indicative of historical success - Airbus made a late entry into the modern jet airliner market (1972 vs. 1958 for Boeing).
Airbus won a greater share of orders in 2003 and 2004. It also delivered more aircraft in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
In 2005, Airbus made a claim to victory with 1111 (1055 net) orders,[37] compared to 1029 (net of 1002) for Boeing[37] However, Boeing won 55% of 2005 orders by value, due to that firm winning several important widebody sales at the expense of Airbus.
In 2006 Boeing won more orders by both measures. Airbus regained parity as of mid-2007.