787 Program Review (Part One)
February 23rd, 2009
Mark Jenks is vice president of 787 Development and took on this position in November 2007.
From June 2003, Jenks was previously leading the 787 Wing, Empennage and Landing Gear Life Cycle Product Team.
While in this role, he led the international team responsible for design, manufacture and delivery of the wing, empennage and landing gear systems for the 787 program. Mark was kind enough to take time out from his schedule to discuss an array of topics on the 787, where it is today, where it’s going and the overall marketplace against a backdrop of economic uncertainty.
Due to the content length, this will be split into three parts. Part two will be published later this week and part three will follow next week.
Gearing Up For First Flight, Finalising Flight Software
Since the first components of the 787 Dreamliner started to arrive in the Everett factory two years ago, the program has been hit by at least four major delays, pushing back first flight and service entry, both of which are tentatively planned for the second quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 respectively.
From the rework of the first 787 after its premiere, to getting the fastener issues resolved, the 787’s path to first flight has been a tough one. To that end, Boeing’s learning curve from the 787 is one that the company hopes will put into good stead for future models and the eventual ramp up in production.
“There are lessons to be learned and Boeing accepts this. No other large capital component manufacturer has ever attempted what Boeing has done on the 787 on such a wide international partnership basis. It was seen by some as a recipe for disaster but in reality it is only a few segments that have failed. Parts shortages and the ability of component partners to meet the challenge have been a disappointment but were inevitable,” analyst Howard Wheeldon told me earlier last year.
The Third Flight Test 787 (ZA003) In Final Assembly
Overall, working through the last two years has helped Boeing get a better grasp of the production system and is now slowly reaping the rewards as Jenks explains.
“If you take a look at the issues that have really been causing us problems to date, for instance one is the power systems, which is one area that we have been having difficulties with; we are making very good progress. So we basically got the software for the power system required for flight in its final testing and so we’ve got the basic software developed now through the majority of this testing at Hamilton Sunstrand and also in our labs here.
Of course there are areas that everyone has heard a lot about in terms of fasteners and fastener issues which we are getting very close to being completed now. Clearly some of those big issues have been driving the scheduled delays are now close to being “cleaned up” in terms of the rework.
In terms of getting to first flight in the second quarter, those are a couple of the big issues [listed above]. In terms of the rest of the flight test program, it’s a lot about the supply chain and about the units coming in.
We’ve shipped unit five now and the completeness of those units, the condition of the assemblies coming in is much, much improved. The supply chain continues to heal up, which is really critical for the balance of the flight testing and ultimately meeting our production rate and a couple of big issues getting the software into our final integration testing successfully and getting the big quality issues we’ve had to work through in the factory are mostly behind us.”
P.P.P – Pace, Performance & Preparation: Pace Of The Flight Test Program, Performance Improvements & Preparing For The 787-9
Having been fortunate enough to visit ZA001 up-close, while work remains on the airplane in readiness for first flight, efforts to get the remaining five flight test airplanes ready to join the certification program are in full swing. In a recent message to employees, new vice president of the 787 program Scott Fancher highlighted progress on the fifth flight test airplane, which is currently finishing final body join with parts for the sixth airplane “due in Everett in the next several weeks.”
In concert with this, the static test 787 is also ready “to resume testing in support of first flight,” adds Fancher.
Jenks went on to discuss the flight test program and why Boeing believes the planned schedule is more achievable than not.
“Early on we had an even more aggressive flight test program. With the more recent schedule changes, we’ve really moved that flight test program in line with our history [of flight test programs of other Boeing airplanes].
So whereas before we needed to have flight rates that were higher or as high as we’ve ever done in the past, the current schedule is in line with what we’ve demonstrated in the past. Yes, the technology is new, every program has got a suite of new technologies – a lot of what [from a technology perspective] has really been driving the scheduling by rights would drive the schedule aren’t necessarily big flight test drivers so you know, a lot of the things in terms of the new composite structure, the fastener issues – those really aren’t things that would typically be drivers in a flight test program - it’s not the kind of thing that generally drives a flight test program.”
787 Flight Deck, Housed In The Dreamliner Gallery
“So in terms of the risk areas in flight test, a lot of it isn’t necessarily that different than what we would have had before [on previous airplanes]. There are a few things, clearly, where we have taken steps in terms of the more electric architecture for the power system from a technology standpoint, that’s a bigger step, but again for the overall flight test program it’s in line with our history and there really isn’t a reason why we ought to be outside of that [history].
With the issues we’ve had on the [787]-8, all those get addressed on the 787-9. Now there’s elements of them [production issues] that you don’t completely back out necessarily, but the vast majority of the things we’ve seen on the 787-8, we can and will and are addressing on the 787-9. Where we’ve had specific issues, the fastener one is a great example, every bit of that is absolutely “lessons learned” and directly translates into the 787-9 and we won’t do that again - I can say with a lot of certainty!
The [problem area] ones like that that we’ve hit will be fully incorporated into the 787-9 and will not happen again; you “only know what you know”.
The 787-9 is a derivative program and the kinds of things that we’ve experienced are really associated very much with the “first time on a new all composite, more electric airplane” and that’s not a change on the derivatives. The kind of change we’re implementing on the derivatives are the kinds of things we do in general on derivatives – we’re gonna take weight out of the structure where we can. We’re gonna put more weight in where we need it for higher loads for the stretched airplane, these are things that are very familiar to us, so in general, the things we’ve seen now, the timing is such that we can, will and are fixing those as we go into the 787-9 and the other things we’re doing on the 787-9 should not be that unusual for us.
When you look at performance, there are three big drivers – you got the efficiency of the engine, you got the basic aerodynamics of the airplane and also the weight of the airplane. The engines are fortunately are very “backwardly compatible”, so as the engine makers make improvements as they always do, to support the 787-9, so there’ll be engine performance that’ll continue to improve airplane performance whether it’s the 787-8 or 787-9.
There will be improvements in weight that we make on the 787-9 that will be very easy to incorporate back on the 787-8 and in fact a lot of what we’ll do for the 787-9 that’s different, where we’ve got specific ideas where we now know we can take weight out, we will do that for the 787-9 because we’ve got to get the best performance for that airplane as we can and in many cases we’ll use that back for future versions of the 787-8. There are some cases where that doesn’t work but there are cases where it does and it’s fairly straightforward to incorporate those improvements back onto the Dash 8. In fact, we want to do that where we can in terms of commonality, cost and efficiency in building these airplanes. There’s a very strong tie between what we do on the 787-9 and getting the benefits back on the 787-8.”
Factory Floor (R-L) With ZA002, ZA003 & ZA004 Test Airplanes
Stepping Up Production To Eat Into The Backlog
To cut a long story short - no, there’s no immediate plans for a second production line. Jenks explained the rationale and highlighted how the existing infrastructure and supply chain are not yet “fully maximised” to justify the outlay of another line.
“Right now, the single [production] line meets the firm production [estimates] that we have and as we go forward, if we can sell more and we need to look at being able to build more to a higher rate, we’ll have time before we have to make any decisions to see how efficient we can make the line.
Right now it works with our single line, we’ve got time to go figure out how much additional efficiency we can drive in before we would have to make decisions that if we want to go to a higher rate, can we squeeze it in on one line here [in Everett] or have multiple lines and it’s the same situation with the supply base. If there are areas in the [supplier] factories right now and we would want to push them to higher than they can do right now, we have time to get into [higher] production, get the rate up which can really start to exercise the [supply] system and then we ask “how good can we make this, how much can we lean it out” but right now, things are sized to meet with the existing facilities.
There are areas in some of the [supply] factories where they’ll make modifications, relatively minor modifications to their factories to reach to the rates we have already sold to – so for example if they have to knock out a wall and put another machine in, that’s all within the plan.
In terms of us [here at Everett] going to a full second line or a new factory, those are not yet at “lead time” to make those decisions.”
Please check back later this week for the continuation of this article.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A330, Airbus A350, Airbus A350XWB, Airbus A380-800, Boeing, Boeing 777, Boeing 777-200LR, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing 787, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787-3, Boeing 787-8, Boeing 787-9, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, FBE Categories, Howard Wheeldon, Mark Jenks
22 Comments Add your own
1. Jerrold | February 23rd, 2009 at 09:57
I hope the comments on the test flight program being in line with its (BA) history are accurate.
Perhaps the next article will elaborate on the confidence of this view. This is an altogether different plane than prior models. Is there any idea as to how many hours of flight will be required and what particular concerns are there at this time..
Others have commented that you never really know what to expect until the bird is in the air. Have those issues been suffucuently addressed in this interview.
2. keesje | February 23rd, 2009 at 11:17
Saj I screened it over and it seems to be a nice piece of info / editorial. Good for you. Your strong support for Boeing pays of in having access to them.
I would advise Mark Jenks to less focus on all the issues that will be corrected / improved on the 787-9. It makes the dozens of 787-8 customers nevous
Or does Boeing want them to switch?
3. george james | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:15
Another clueless Boeing exec. What they need to admit is “It has taken us twice as long to get to first flight as planned, so clearly we do an extremely poor job of anticipating problems, therefore, we are going to double the time alloted to do flight testing vs. our normal plan. This puts EIS now well into 2011, but it is the right thing to do. If we finish earlier - great.”
4. Jerrold | February 23rd, 2009 at 12:53
It seems that the software for the power system has required more time than anticipated and it was reported that this was the most important component that drives the time line.
Mark Jenks gives the impression that this is now in control and moving along with testing.
Keesje (above) makes a good point. perhaps Jenks just wishes to show the evolution of the improvements planned but it does make you wonder if it is a push for upgrading.
George James (above) is just putting a negative tilt on a positive reprot.
5. Leelaw | February 23rd, 2009 at 14:45
Point of Information:
“Premiere” = fake “rollout” staged on 7/8/7?
IMO, sugarcoating the abomination of 7/8/7 with a droll euphemism like “premiere” really detracts from the otherwise good quality of your reportage.
6. damn! | February 23rd, 2009 at 15:26
More lip service from Boeing’s clueless upper management. Their lip flapping means nothing until bird 1 takes flight and Boeing starts to deliver the 787 to customers.
7. JerryF | February 23rd, 2009 at 16:32
The term “clueless” management” is used quite frequently…as above. One must be oblivious to have lived through so much criticism without becoming more aware.
Jenks acknowledges the difficult beginning of the program and its subsequent failures…he seems well aware of the consequences of the past but appears to be foward thinking about where the process is and where it has to get to.
I gather there are many who still begrudge the decision to outsorce and despite the effort to smooth out that production and make it work, they would rather continue their complaints and whitewash the whole endeavor.
I look foward to part two to see if more specific information is given so as to clear up any remaining doubts that this project will be coming to fruition soon and will put an end to all the doubt and endless scepticism we are subject to
8. Skeptic | February 23rd, 2009 at 16:53
Leelaw, you really need to get past this “Potemkin Dreamliner” thing. For the first 6 months or so, it was mildly entertaining. Now it’s just boring. You have made your point.
9. DanielM | February 23rd, 2009 at 18:27
Could someone comment on the nature of the “outsourcing?” My impression is that much of it is more akin to offsets in the defense industry rather than traditional (if there is such a thing) outsourcing.
10. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | February 23rd, 2009 at 18:29
For Clarification:
The reference to the historic flight tests means that Boeing had set aside a finite time in which to test/certify an airplane.
Based on historic flight test programs, say the 11 months set for the 777, Boeing feels it has enough time to test/certify the 787 without any major hiccup.
11. JerryF | February 23rd, 2009 at 19:00
For claification: What happened to the 7.5 month special effort around the clock program. Is 11 months just an outside date with effort to get it done faster?
Are they leaving a “target” for 7.5 to 11 months as goal…or is it narrower target.
I am sure they wish to be careful on promises but their past record makes us all skeptical and the general language used in this interview once again makes it hard to know what they really have in mind.
I am a shareholder and wish them the best, but they have been not been forthright in their press releases or information so no one knows what to believe. This interview now presents another adjustment which we do not quite understand
Perhaps it is too difficult to set a target but they could even say, “We will try to accomplsih this in the most efficient way possible but expect it to take no longer than 11 months with the possibility that we can get certification earlier”
Its all the fudging and changing that is annoying and disturbing and upsetting to shareholders.
12. keesje | February 23rd, 2009 at 23:54
Yes, there seems some smoke screens around miles stones.
I expect a furious Arran Aerospace MD Doug McVitie to jump on this with a knife in his hands to rip this inconsistent and disingenuous planning apart and tell Boeing in clear words to get their act together and be fair about what really happening.
Not.
13. Ed | February 24th, 2009 at 00:12
george james said:
“Another clueless Boeing exec. What they need to admit is “It has taken us twice as long to get to first flight as planned, so clearly we do an extremely poor job of anticipating problems, therefore, we are going to double the time alloted to do flight testing vs. our normal plan. This puts EIS now well into 2011, but it is the right thing to do. If we finish earlier - great.”
Where is your criticism of the A-380 or A-400M? Boeing is still saying they expect EIS by Q1/2010. That is a year from now. What do you know about the B-787 program scheduling that Boeing does not know?
Boeing spent about 11 months certifying the B-777, using that record, and if the B-787 flys before June 2009, then the airplane will be certified sometime in Q1-2010, thus meeting EIS on time.
Leelaw said:
“Point of Information:
“Premiere” = fake “rollout” staged on 7/8/7?
IMO, sugarcoating the abomination of 7/8/7 with a droll euphemism like “premiere” really detracts from the otherwise good quality of your reportage.”
The 7/8/07 roll out date was driven by Boeing Marketing, not the engineering staff. Boeing has already said that was a mistake and the original program schedule was unreasonable.
But, you also forgot to mention the dog and pony show with just about every PM, President, or Primier of individual EU states showing up for the unveiling of the A-380, which at that time was essentially only a shell as it had almost nothing inside it, and was some 12 tonnes over weight (the A-380 still has a weight problem today, along with wiring problems).
14. B380 | February 24th, 2009 at 07:44
Ed, why are trying to drag Airbus aircraft into a story titled ‘787 Program Review’?
As far as the A380 roll out is concerned, you should really do a bit more research before coming up with ‘the A380 was an empty shell’. It was not, that is a fact. If you have a look at the Airbus press release, it has undergone ‘power-on’ in the summer of 2004, rolled out in January 2005, flew in April 2005. Seems pretty good to me.
As far as the weight issue is concerned, it is 6 tonnes over. 12 tonnes is apparently for the A400M. However it had delivered on the minimum guaranteed performance at handover to airlines.
Concentrate on the 787.
15. george james | February 24th, 2009 at 11:27
Eddie. The Dreamlifter took 3 times longer than Boeing had planned to get certified and they only had one technical problem in test, wing flutter, which was resolved by removing the winglets and controlling fuel distribution (weight in the wings) better. In other words, they avoided a redesign.
The 787 is virtually all new everything, and one would be a fool to think it will go through test cleanly. It is essentially a big experiment with very high risk. I believe the possibility of total cancellation is over 50% at this point, due to technical problems, supplier problems, or schedule problems resulting is a conclusion that the 787 will never make money. Frankly, I bet they are already at that point financially.
16. JerryF | February 24th, 2009 at 15:55
George James posts another skeptical and cynical comment.
The 787 is not a big “experiment”. An experiment is something you try without knowing the outcome. The design and implementation of a plane with new materials and updated technology is not exactly an experiment. It is a process with challenges and adjustments but it is not an experiment. Boeing is not new to the field and is in the business of designing and building planes.
It is easy to be negative and claim a failure..as does George James. Aso, a 50% cancellation rate is quite dire, but still leaves over 450 plnes to build even in those circumstances.
The Dreamliner is not an analogy…it is a unique plane and there was no particular rush to get it in the air. Obviously, they did not have to do a redesign and it is happily flying with parts for the 787.
Perhaps Mr. James can be more specific in what problems he anticipates….we all know the obvious: flutter and weight….so does management and the engineers
17. JerryF | February 24th, 2009 at 16:40
Correction: “The Dreamlifter is not a analogy ” from above
18. B380 | February 24th, 2009 at 18:29
George James, your analysis is much too sceptical, although I would agree with you on one point, that is the flight test. Everybody points out this is a new plane with a new architecture, engines, materials, production philosophy, however apparently it equals less of the usual flight test period than even what Boeing’s last programme was, 777. During the flight test, there are always issues, which cannot be foreseen with the computer models. That’s why it is a flight TEST. I am surprised by the confidence displayed by Boeing in that regard, especially with all the problems they had had so far.
19. JerryF | February 24th, 2009 at 19:48
B380: Boeing once said ( I think Pat Shanahan) that the flight test period would be made easier because they were working with the FAA in both designing the necessary testing standards and doing some preliminary testing prior and during the testing period…or something like that. That is, working in cooperation with the FAA, the scope of the testing would be facilitated by a flow of information prior and during the period that would make the confirmstion and certification work easier ( not in standards) but in flow.
Does that make any sense..
20. B380 | February 24th, 2009 at 20:33
Jeff, I am not sure you actually understand what you wrote. All you did was quote some Boeing PR and made it sound like the 787 is the first programme the FAA are involved in. The fact is both manufactures are talking to the Authorities (US and EU) regularly during the design and testing of a new aircraft. You have not just said anything ground breaking. If you know specifically which tests the FAA was not involved in before during the certification and now they are involved in, to shorten the certification, then please list them.
For Boeing to simply state that ‘… in terms of the risk areas in flight test, a lot of it isn’t necessarily that different than what we would have had before’ is silly because there are risks and plenty of them.
21. JerryF | February 24th, 2009 at 21:20
8380 Thanks…that is why I asked. I just believed what was /is obviously exaggeration. I had the distinct impression that this was some innovative cooperation that would make things easier but I could not specify anything beyond that general thought….and it probably is incorrect.
I realize there are always risks involved, but had the impression that they were somehow or other mitigated with the FAA.
Thanks again
22. Frank | February 26th, 2009 at 11:38
I think every aviation fan is looking forward to see the 787 fly but after all this “problems” nobody should be too be too optimistic about a certain date. They will be late again.
One thing is sure Boeing can not survive a failure with this bird. Their first new plane in so many years.
It is clear that the friends of Airbus have a lot of fun now after the Boeing guys had their good times with the A-380.
The problem for Boeing could be the huge order numbers and the huge payments they will have to pay for being very very late with the delivery.
But perhabs the financial crises will help here and some customers will cancel their orders.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed