British Airways - 2
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Lincs,UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot think of any new aircraft being delivered on original dates set by the manufacturer. BA had their fingers burnt being launch customers with the B777, so hence taking a back seat on the A380 / B787, so I believe
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think BA had their fingers burned with the 777 but the previous CEO had his whole arm scorched with the A330 at Cathay and was dead against ever being the launch customer for anything ever again! I think that mantra has continued with the new CEO.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the previous CEO had his whole arm scorched with the A330 at Cathay and was dead against ever being the launch customer for anything ever again! I think that mantra has continued with the new CEO.
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787.your're having a laugh!!
Pardon me for sounding negative but............ The plastic pig hasn't even flown yet and given it is crammed packed full of new technology, the certification program is sure to have a bumpy ride.
I would stick my kneck out and boldly say no 787's will be delivered in 2008.
Tell me I am wrong!!
Coop & Bear
I would stick my kneck out and boldly say no 787's will be delivered in 2008.
Tell me I am wrong!!
Coop & Bear
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 767 have a common type rating meaning that you can maintain recency on both and do sim checks in each alternately.
This is not the same as is proposed for 777 787 where there is a shortened conversion course for transfer between these types but one must then fly only the 777 or the 787 until the next conversion course.
However it would seem difficult then to insist on a four year freeze.
This is not the same as is proposed for 777 787 where there is a shortened conversion course for transfer between these types but one must then fly only the 777 or the 787 until the next conversion course.
However it would seem difficult then to insist on a four year freeze.
Oops pardon me
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester England
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky 2 Bet
Ok Spooky but as its an American machine the bet has to be in dollars.
I bet you $5 US that it doesnt fly in 2008.
On the day its does fly the dollar should be worth around 10 pence!!!!
Coop & Bear
I bet you $5 US that it doesnt fly in 2008.
On the day its does fly the dollar should be worth around 10 pence!!!!
Coop & Bear
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 delays
Read this for discomfort:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/a...ves/116545.asp
Airbus seem to have more experience at fitting "bits" together but it doesn't sound too healthy to me. Some re-jigging needed I fancy before Boeing can be comfortable about the issue.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/a...ves/116545.asp
Airbus seem to have more experience at fitting "bits" together but it doesn't sound too healthy to me. Some re-jigging needed I fancy before Boeing can be comfortable about the issue.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....though I notice the date on that blog (June 2007) is around 5 months BEFORE Boeing announced the current delays to the 787 programme. I'd assume (always dangerous) this means Boeing have factored the issues raised in the blog into their new timetable.
Bobbsy
Bobbsy
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing had a national press conference that was mainly directed at the airlines and investment community on or around Dec. 12th and publicly stated that they felt the aircraft was on track for 1st flight around the end of the 1st quarter and deliveries to ANA before the end of the year. Unless I here otherwise, I'll have to stck with that assumption.
Actually there is more to my involvement with this subject than meets the eye!
Actually there is more to my involvement with this subject than meets the eye!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On a sunny beach
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky looks like you know something we dont.....!!! Boeing know how to build A/C properly so sound like a good bet to back for it entering service by the end of 2008 ! 
Like perviously stated every A/C has it delays, that does'nt mean it will be in the hangar for the next 2 years trying to get its wings fitted on or even to the factory !!! but time will only tell.....
With regards to the 5 days course for 777 crew over to the 787, there is nothing wrong with that, similar to the type rating of the 757 and 767 and many other aircraft out there ! Why waist time training your crew when you have A/C that are very similar most likely in systems and cockpit layout (not to clued up on the 787 maybe some one can enlighten us on the similarities) ! It will be a good selling point for the A/C as well, it will keep the training costs down for airlines and keep their A/C in the sky...
790 orders and climbing...sound like a good start to me !!!
you go 787..... spot you in the sky !!!
Like perviously stated every A/C has it delays, that does'nt mean it will be in the hangar for the next 2 years trying to get its wings fitted on or even to the factory !!! but time will only tell.....With regards to the 5 days course for 777 crew over to the 787, there is nothing wrong with that, similar to the type rating of the 757 and 767 and many other aircraft out there ! Why waist time training your crew when you have A/C that are very similar most likely in systems and cockpit layout (not to clued up on the 787 maybe some one can enlighten us on the similarities) ! It will be a good selling point for the A/C as well, it will keep the training costs down for airlines and keep their A/C in the sky...
790 orders and climbing...sound like a good start to me !!!
you go 787..... spot you in the sky !!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing build aircraft properly..
Oh - really? They are no better and no worse than Airbus and some others. As a businessman I have to say that the only dramas I have had to date have been on Boeings. None terribly dramatic but nonetheless disconcerting. The more they try to rush out the Dreamliner the worse it will be. And as for having to physically distort and force two sections of the fuselage together to make them fit - well. That says it all.
Pride comes before a fall.....
Pride comes before a fall.....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wish I could tell you that there was a lot of similarity in the two cockpits, but from the little I have seen, they don't look very much alike IMO. While colors have little if anything to do with this common type issue, for some reason Boeing has gone back to the grey motif on the 787. What is that all about?
The real interest with the BA / B787 deal is ......Who will be doing the maintenance ???
Gold Care package ? or will BA reverse many years of downsizing and upgrade the Hangars at LHR .
Gold Care package ? or will BA reverse many years of downsizing and upgrade the Hangars at LHR .
Intersting points in the Blog.
In my professional capacity I'm an engineer dealing with large (up to & exceeding 747 dimensions & wts), very close-tolerance mating and moving structures, I would hope that, as mentioned in one of the previous replies, Boeing have addressed these issues. The one thing that concerns me is the removal of internal structures being necessary before the two sections would mate, under what is very definitely impled as being a force well in excess of what was originally calculated for correctly fitting parts.
This tells me that firstly, their tolerance analysis at the joints didn't tie in with the allowances that the separate plants were working to. Secondly, It looks very likely that their assembly jigs at the two plants don't mirror each other. Thirdly, it looks like they tried to fit the parts and ground to a halt before going back to the drawing board to ask how much force they could actually apply. I'd also query how the parts came to be finished off with the quoted 1 1/2 inch bulge on the left hand side of one of the sections within the mating area.
The other possibility that springs to mind is that the manufacturing plugs for the barrels have something unusual in their design and maufacture which means that the thermal movement in each plug is different from that of its complementary plug during the curing process.
Having done considerable work with composites for hot/wet & irradiated pressure envelope service for a previous employer, I'd have some concerns about the mating process used. It sounds like the end result is a joint which has residual stresses and strains in excess of the normal values. Whilst this likely remains significantly within acceptable limits, it does tend to show up a development programme that is in fire-fighting mode rather than setting the two parts aside until other sections with a more suitable tolerance build-up for each became available and coach-building finished airframes using these two "unusual" sections.
Oh Well, We all live in Intersting Times occasionally.
Best of luck in '08 to the guys in Seattle, I wish them well & hope they can get a full production spec hull in the air before the year is out.
In my professional capacity I'm an engineer dealing with large (up to & exceeding 747 dimensions & wts), very close-tolerance mating and moving structures, I would hope that, as mentioned in one of the previous replies, Boeing have addressed these issues. The one thing that concerns me is the removal of internal structures being necessary before the two sections would mate, under what is very definitely impled as being a force well in excess of what was originally calculated for correctly fitting parts.
This tells me that firstly, their tolerance analysis at the joints didn't tie in with the allowances that the separate plants were working to. Secondly, It looks very likely that their assembly jigs at the two plants don't mirror each other. Thirdly, it looks like they tried to fit the parts and ground to a halt before going back to the drawing board to ask how much force they could actually apply. I'd also query how the parts came to be finished off with the quoted 1 1/2 inch bulge on the left hand side of one of the sections within the mating area.
The other possibility that springs to mind is that the manufacturing plugs for the barrels have something unusual in their design and maufacture which means that the thermal movement in each plug is different from that of its complementary plug during the curing process.
Having done considerable work with composites for hot/wet & irradiated pressure envelope service for a previous employer, I'd have some concerns about the mating process used. It sounds like the end result is a joint which has residual stresses and strains in excess of the normal values. Whilst this likely remains significantly within acceptable limits, it does tend to show up a development programme that is in fire-fighting mode rather than setting the two parts aside until other sections with a more suitable tolerance build-up for each became available and coach-building finished airframes using these two "unusual" sections.
Oh Well, We all live in Intersting Times occasionally.
Best of luck in '08 to the guys in Seattle, I wish them well & hope they can get a full production spec hull in the air before the year is out.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 bits "forced" together...
Donkey 497. Your point is well taken. My father-in-law, now long since retired, was Head of Production Research at one of the UKs major manufacturers back in the 60,70s and when told about this was horrified. He said there would have been no attempt to "marry" the parts but a complete re-analysis of the drawings, fabrication techniques and material studies before ensuring that the offending section - always assuming only one was incorrect - was remanufactured or altered to match spec. I can only assume that that joint in the airframe is now carrying an undesigned pre-load.
I would like to know that airframe number.
I would like to know that airframe number.
Donkey497,
I recall a chinesse saying about "I wish you not to live in intresting times". At a times I think it is right.
Isn't the Boeing 787 situation similar to the A380 problems with the poorly design wiring? Definitely history repeating itself.. And also if computers failed to produce good matching components, should we trust them on the estimation of all the other features that make the 787 so innovative, or are we going to see more surprises during flight testing?
Rwy in Sight
I recall a chinesse saying about "I wish you not to live in intresting times". At a times I think it is right.
Isn't the Boeing 787 situation similar to the A380 problems with the poorly design wiring? Definitely history repeating itself.. And also if computers failed to produce good matching components, should we trust them on the estimation of all the other features that make the 787 so innovative, or are we going to see more surprises during flight testing?
Rwy in Sight