Fifth Slippage In 787 Dreamliner Program
Service Entry To Be Updated
Financial Guidance Due Next Month On Impact
Boeing today confirmed that side body reinforcement of the 787 means that first flight will not now take place before the end of this quarter.
“Consideration was given to a temporary solution that would allow us to fly as scheduled, but we ultimately concluded that the right thing was to develop, design, test and incorporate a permanent modification to the localized area requiring reinforcement,” said BCA President & CEO Scott Carson.
Carson stressed that such structural modifications are not uncommon and that it is not “related to our choice of materials.”
Boeing 787-8 Wing/Engine
Image courtesy of Boeing
Key points raised by the conference call this morning are as follows:
Scott Carson
• Results discovered from testing on static airplane
• Reinforcement of side-of-body join
• Disappointed with setback but described as “manageable”
• Fundamental technology is sound
• Integrated systems maturing as normal
• No schedule yet announced – “there will be some impact”
• Customers respect decision to delay and ensure the airplane is right
• No suspension of production
• Parts can be retrofitted
Patrick Shanahan
• Discovery made during wing bending tests
• Identified stresses in excess of modelled expectations
• Concluded that productive flight test program required fix to side-of-body area
• Focussed on reinforcement solution, materials are not an issue
• Limited area of stresses
• Area consists of wing from MHI, side-of-body built/designed by Boeing & FHI
Scott Fancher
• Developing right solution
• Several planned modifications, yet to select which is best method
• Could be titanium or aluminium solution
• Components to be fabricated and undergo full scale tests
• Will not compromise for overall schedule
• New schedule due in several weeks time
• Final gauntlet tests still due in the days ahead
• ZA001 in flight ready condition
• 36 locations of required localised strengthening identified
• Require on handful of parts
• Don’t see any increase in weight, negligible impact on performance
• 1 or 2 square inches of each affected area at upper wing root section
• No external body fairing/aerodynamic adjustments/changes
• Problem does not extend elsewhere
• Gauges didn’t meet modelled expectations
• Nothing prevents final gauntlet test from starting
• ZA001 will proceed with taxi tests
• One fix to be incorporated into production stream
• Fixes can be done in situ, no factory work required
• Likely nothing would have happened if ZA001 flew
• Nothing compromises certification
• Production airplanes have lower weight, incorporated weight reduction already
Boeing has yet to update on a new revised schedule for service entry, however, given the learning curve of the way the new materials incorporated into the 787 behave, it is not totally surprising to see that another setback has occurred.
Given the relatively positive comments by Fancher with a view to providing a permanent solution to this problem, coupled with his saying that the final gauntlet and taxi tests can continue, any slide to the schedule may be limited to a perhaps two-to-three months; pushing back service entry into the late second quarter of 2010.
With the 747-8F also due to join the flight test program by the end of the year, there may be some reshuffling of how flight and ground tests are conducted, but given the legacy program in the 747 and experience the company already has, there should be minimal-to-zero impact on overlapping testing – particularly now that the 777F has entered service.
Earnings are due next month, FleetBuzz Editorial.com foresees a situation where we’ll see marginal adjustments to deliveries, but in the grand scheme of things, this setback could have been worse – particularly as this is what had been feared. Critically, the fact that Boeing has got to grips with such breakthrough technology and has been surprised by a relatively small issue, the longer term impact is minimal – especially when you see that this is an airplane the marketplace yearns to see in service.
97. chaser | June 27th, 2009 at 08:52
And Mr Venia. The problem with material properties in aviation, most especially with any revolutionary new material (glare on 380, CFRP in 787) is it’s properties are not yet defined when the design/stress work starts.
I tend to disagree. I’d say the material properties have to be known and documented, or else the regulatory authorities would never let you license the bird or fly it over populated areas. Maybe what you’re saying is that exactly how such material will behave in a certain application is unknown, and that is true, but the materials properties people can tell you pretty well what it will and will not do-if you build in the safety margin and design conservatively you’re fine.
My old man was a metallurgical engineer with his degree from MIT and I can tell you he knew his metals backwards and forwards, even after he;d been out of the field for 30 years. I remember him telling me about designing superchargers in war 2, the machinists were standing there waiting for prints so they could cut metal, they didn’t bother with prototypes, but they knew what the metals they had could do.
Parakeet:
Sorry, after five trips to same dance, McNerney and Carson’s performance at Le Bourget was bush league and inexcusable…at this point they’ve even got some of the “analysts” essentially calling them out as incompetents and/or liars.
OFF TOPIC
How many A380 did LH actually order?
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/28/328938/lufthansa-commits-to-747-8-but-braces-for-possible-delay.html
LH ordered 15, but apparently guaranteed only to take 10.
It’s similar to when the Qantas Group ordered 50 787s, but noted at the time they would be taking 65 because they were going to exercise 15 of their options (which they recently decided to subsequently cancel).
So at the moment, LH will certainly take delivery of 10 A380s, may take delivery of 15 A380s and could conceivably take delivery of up to 25 A380s if they exercised their options.
Leelaw,
I notice your complete failure in substantiating your claim. Not surprised since I don’t expect you can. Keep up the insults because without them you obviously have nothing.
http://www.oldmandarin.com
This recent, entirely moronic cyber affectation of yours, i.e. “oldmandarin.com,” is dispositive proof you are a childish “BIRDBRAIN!”
Leelaw,
Grow up and I’ll start treating you like an adult.
LH ordered 15, but apparently guaranteed only to take 10.
Thing about this more, I am now of the opinion that what Herr Deprosse was referring to was pre-assigned delivery slots. So LH and Airbus agreed on 10 delivery slots at the time the contract was signed, and would at a later date decide when to take the final five frames and Airbus would work to accommodate them.
Really “Birdbrain,” considering the constant stream of absolute drivel you post to this blog, often in the form of inappropriately emotional, retaliatory, and childish outbursts injected into otherwise civil colloquy, the notion you would have the temerity to criticize anyone else who actively participates here, least of all me, strikes me as pomposity in the extreme. BTW, kindly refrain in future discourse from your nasty habit of investing yourself with a gravitas which you do not possess.
99. Leelaw | June 27th, 2009 at 22:14
it’s not a biggie in tech terms – I do not (intend to) make comments on managerial issues.
101. Dougloid | June 28th, 2009 at 05:24
I’m sorry but you’re (mostly) wrong. Yes, authorities require the material validation is done before any flight clearance is issued. But before you request that clearance nothing is required.
Yes, the properties of alu 2024, TI 6AL-4V and 17-4PH are all very well documented and known. 787 CFRP, A380 GLARE and other new materials not so much.
106. Leelaw | June 28th, 2009 at 18:58
“is dispositive proof you are a childish “BIRDBRAIN!”” – with a sence of humor!
To the guy that called my post boring I would answer that talking about delivery slots and the financial meltdown is boring as well as off-topic. The topic here is BOEING’S TREMENDOUS DELAYS despite multiple announcements to the contrary.
Look at the top of this page. It clearly says:
Boeing 787 First Flight Delayed Again
Fifth Slippage In 787 Dreamliner Program
Service Entry To Be Updated
So, boring to you or not, my post is on topic.
They are still LIARS regardless of slots and financial meltdowns.
As for #92, there are over 20 references to Airbus in here so perhaps you can tell all the other people to STFU as well??
All I did in the very beginning was ask people to not even mention what AB did or may do simply because it was unrelated.
You still won’t admit that they are outright LIARS and you attempt to hide this fact by telling me to STFU. Go play flight simulator or something because you too are attempting to discredit my post with foul language that is entirely misplaced.
I still say: Build first, boast later.
Falcon & Leelaw, I believe you 2 are starting to be about as relevant to the topic here as Edo is, and being much more childish at it to boot.
Why has the discussion of this Boeing board wandered over to the A380?
“As for #92, there are over 20 references to Airbus in here so perhaps you can tell all the other people to STFU as well??
SOP for this board whenever the news from Boeing is less than brilliant. It’s happening a lot recently.
EDO –
The first post you made referred to Airbus. Why?
The others who have also contributed with their non Boeing comments are also as wrong as you to have done so.
And if it makes you feel any better, yes Boeing had been lying its tits off at this delay.
Hi Mike.
Your post #114 is far more civil and greatly welcome.
People are very passionate about planes and it appears they are also very passionate about which manufacturer they chose to support.
My first post did make a tiny reference to AB, that is correct. That post however, simply asked people to not bring up any mistakes, errors or miscalculations that AB may have made because this exchange is basically about Boeing hype. Some may take that as a pro AB statement. It is not.
I am sure the engineers at Boeing have worked tirelessly to offer the best possible aircraft given
our present technical capabilities and they are pushing the envelope. If anyone if acting childish it is Boeing by over-promising and then being forced to under-deliver.
I also find it childish that such complex and vital pieces of equipment that are essential to our way of life have to be hyped and pumped like some car commercial.
If Boeing had not hyped this plane so much, they could have released a statement referring to some of the difficulties being encountered by the ALL-NEW approach to building aircraft and I am certain many would have understood. Heck, I can respect that aspect even now.
It just seems like we stray from reality sometimes by building things up. Perhaps they hyped it so much they started to believe it too? Who knows?
Despite the fact that this is nothing more than a more polite recap of previous messages, it doesn’t change the fact that they have lied. I maintain that they should have become a bit more cautious with press releases after the first couple of retractions.
Could there be some intrigue behind all this? Sure. Perhaps release info out there hoping the opposition will commit to something that will wind up costing them etc. Is this what building airplanes has come to?
Lastly, to those that call me childish and misinformed etc. in an attempt to discredit my posts, I still say: Build first, boast later.
Boeing is a pioneer in the field of aviation. They have introduced countless beautiful aircraft that have carried almost everyone that has ever flown at least once. This is a proud history built on the pride, honor and great service of the 707, 727, 737, 747 and today the 777 which manages to distinguish itself despite the fierce competition. These are facts and not hype.
That history deserves a bit more than to be reduced to a hyped-up car commercial.
Boring, childish or not, this is what it is.
Do we have a revised timeline anywhere?
Maybe Boeing have gone a bit quiet due to wanting to be super thorough and making sure they meet the next one but I can’t seem to find an updated one anywhere.
2nd quarter results are out July 22, I’m guessing we might find out then unless I’m mistaken an they’ve been released already and I can’t find them?
Hi Rob
As of writing, Boeing has not provided any formal update on the 787 program, either with regard to first flight, certification or deliveries.
thanks chief
Rob