Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Merged: Boeing Revises 787 First Flight and Delivery Plans- Again

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Boeing Revises 787 First Flight and Delivery Plans- Again

Old 1st Sep 2009, 02:02
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've got $100 that says you're wrong about the A350 being delivered first. AB haven't delivered ANY a/c on time yet......
porch monkey is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2009, 07:57
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Scott Carson announced his retirement at the end of the year. 41 years at Boeing!

J
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2009, 11:34
  #103 (permalink)  
Foie gras
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Boeing CEO wants to move to China

787's built in China?

An interesting article in the Daily Finance:-


Will Boeing move to Beijing? -- DailyFinance
 
Old 4th Sep 2009, 12:03
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbus has already done this with the first Chinese assembled A320 flying in May this year.

First A320 assembled in China performs maiden flight
mingalababya is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2009, 03:57
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Not important
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[quote]
Will Boeing delay the 787 Dreamliner another two years?

My recent post about Boeing's (BA) leak that it had shut down Alenia, one of its suppliers in Naples, Italy, encouraged several people close to the company to contact me. One of these people, who requested to remain anonymous, told me he spent two years working as a consultant with the 787 program across several of Boeing's systems and manufacturing organizations.

While I have only exchanged emails with him and spoken to him once, his concerns about the 787 program seem plausible. And he estimates that the 787's problems could take at least another two years to solve.

How so? My source told me that there are significant problems with a number of systems for the 787 -- news of which has so far not reached the public. The delays to date have been blamed on a variety of ills -- including suppliers not meeting deadlines, an insufficient number of fasteners, a machinist strike, problems with the 787's wing assembly -- which is causing problems where the wing attaches to the fuselage and most recently, fuselage skin wrinkling.

But I was stunned by his claim that several of the systems -- which are being made by Hamilton Sundstrand (HS) -- a United Technologies (UTX) subsidiary -- are not working. He identified the the 787's Environmental Control System (ECS), which is intended to pressurize the aircraft, as a particular problem. He says he believes there is not a technological solution to the problem.

When I asked Boeing for comment, a spokesperson said, "The 787's systems are working, including the environmental control system that pressurizes the airplane. We are continuing to improve and mature the systems, as is normal for a development program." A Hamilton Sundstrand spokesperson told me that he had no knowledge of such problems.

However, my source told me he spoke just yesterday with an engineer employed by a current Boeing partner who confirmed that this problem has not been solved. In addition to the ECS problems, he says that the 787's electrical system has not lived up to expectations and several redesigns are necessary before the aircraft enters into service.
I don't know what my source's motivations would be for providing this information, but given all the delays and leaks, I thought it worth reporting.

There is a deeper problem
with the 787 and that has to do with Boeing's management style. As I wrote in my book, Boeing has a long history of command-and-control leadership -- where top executives tell everyone else what to do. Under its new CEO, Jim McNerney, Boeing had adopted a so-called Transformational Leadership (TL) approach which empowered workers to make decisions, have ownership, and to take responsibility for success and/or failure.

TL was behind Boeing's radical decision to outsource 60 percent of the 787 design and manufacturing to its suppliers. In the past, Boeing had given its suppliers very detailed specifications. But with the 787, Boeing let the suppliers do the design and manufacturing. The first manager of the 787, Mike Bair, was a transformational leader.

Bair took the blame for the 787's delays and Boeing replaced Bair with Pat Shanahan from Boeing's defense unit. As such, Boeing reverted back to its old command-and-control style of leadership. My source claims that when Boeing spent three days in the spring of 2008 with HS, the supplier of the 787's electrical systems, Boeing issued orders to its supplier about how it wanted HS to fix the problems.

Rather than listen to what HS thought would work, Shanahan's team issued orders. And according to my source, HS agreed to what Shanahan wanted even though it did not believed that his ideas or time-line would work.

This story, if true, is deeply troubling because it suggests that Boeing could be panicking and reverting back to its old style of working -- but this time without sufficient technical know-how to make the right decisions. If Boeing is suffering from this deeper management problem, delivering the 850 787 Dreamliners that the airlines have ordered is going to be an even bigger nightmare than I had previously thought.
breakfastburitto is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2009, 04:05
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Will Boeing delay the 787 Dreamliner another two years?

My recent post about Boeing's (BA) leak that it had shut down Alenia, one of its suppliers in Naples, Italy, encouraged several people close to the company to contact me. One of these people, who requested to remain anonymous, told me he spent two years working as a consultant with the 787 program across several of Boeing's systems and manufacturing organizations.

While I have only exchanged emails with him and spoken to him once, his concerns about the 787 program seem plausible. And he estimates that the 787's problems could take at least another two years to solve.

How so? My source told me that there are significant problems with a number of systems for the 787 -- news of which has so far not reached the public. The delays to date have been blamed on a variety of ills -- including suppliers not meeting deadlines, an insufficient number of fasteners, a machinist strike, problems with the 787's wing assembly -- which is causing problems where the wing attaches to the fuselage and most recently, fuselage skin wrinkling.

But I was stunned by his claim that several of the systems -- which are being made by Hamilton Sundstrand (HS) -- a United Technologies (UTX) subsidiary -- are not working. He identified the the 787's Environmental Control System (ECS), which is intended to pressurize the aircraft, as a particular problem. He says he believes there is not a technological solution to the problem.

When I asked Boeing for comment, a spokesperson said, "The 787's systems are working, including the environmental control system that pressurizes the airplane. We are continuing to improve and mature the systems, as is normal for a development program." A Hamilton Sundstrand spokesperson told me that he had no knowledge of such problems.

However, my source told me he spoke just yesterday with an engineer employed by a current Boeing partner who confirmed that this problem has not been solved. In addition to the ECS problems, he says that the 787's electrical system has not lived up to expectations and several redesigns are necessary before the aircraft enters into service.
I don't know what my source's motivations would be for providing this information, but given all the delays and leaks, I thought it worth reporting.

There is a deeper problem
with the 787 and that has to do with Boeing's management style. As I wrote in my book, Boeing has a long history of command-and-control leadership -- where top executives tell everyone else what to do. Under its new CEO, Jim McNerney, Boeing had adopted a so-called Transformational Leadership (TL) approach which empowered workers to make decisions, have ownership, and to take responsibility for success and/or failure.

TL was behind Boeing's radical decision to outsource 60 percent of the 787 design and manufacturing to its suppliers. In the past, Boeing had given its suppliers very detailed specifications. But with the 787, Boeing let the suppliers do the design and manufacturing. The first manager of the 787, Mike Bair, was a transformational leader.

Bair took the blame for the 787's delays and Boeing replaced Bair with Pat Shanahan from Boeing's defense unit. As such, Boeing reverted back to its old command-and-control style of leadership. My source claims that when Boeing spent three days in the spring of 2008 with HS, the supplier of the 787's electrical systems, Boeing issued orders to its supplier about how it wanted HS to fix the problems.

Rather than listen to what HS thought would work, Shanahan's team issued orders. And according to my source, HS agreed to what Shanahan wanted even though it did not believed that his ideas or time-line would work.

This story, if true, is deeply troubling because it suggests that Boeing could be panicking and reverting back to its old style of working -- but this time without sufficient technical know-how to make the right decisions. If Boeing is suffering from this deeper management problem, delivering the 850 787 Dreamliners that the airlines have ordered is going to be an even bigger nightmare than I had previously thought.
Peter Cohan is a management consultant, Babson professor and author of eight books including, You Can't Order Change. Follow him on *******. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.
Source:DailyFinance

Is the Boeing 787's electrical system working?

After my post yesterday, which quoted an unnamed source who estimates that fixing the Boeing 787's problems could take two years, another insider approached me with details of problems with the 787's electrical system (ES). This source, also anonymous, says he worked as a software engineer at Boeing for a decade and is close to the 787 program. This source claims that the 787's ES failed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspection last year so the FAA ordered the firm responsible for the ES's software to rewrite the code. In my reporting yesterday on potential delays, Boeing spokespeople denied knowledge of any serious problems with the 787's systems.
As claims of problems increase, in my mind, this raises some serious questions about Boeing's board.


A company's board of directors is supposed to keep an eye on the store on behalf of the shareholders. But the ongoing delays of Boeing's (BA) 787 are raising questions about whether its board is fulfilling its obligations. After all, one of the most basic jobs of a public company is to disclose market-moving information to the public on a timely basis. And shareholders are beginning to wonder whether Boeing is holding back such information.
This suggests that Boeing's board does not know about the problems with the 787 or if it does, it has decided that the details of these problems do not need to be released to shareholders. But the 787 is a huge program -- it has 850 orders amounting to a $154 billion backlog. Therefore, a delay in its delivery schedule can cost Boeing billions in late fees, delayed revenues, and potentially canceled orders.
First here's some background to explain why the ES is so important for the 787. The ES is critical to aircraft operation -- it distributes power around the aircraft from the engines and the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) -- which provides the power to operate the air conditioning and to start the engines at the gate -- to all the systems requiring electricity.
My source told me that the ES is a so-called level A system (highest level of certification) -- which must pass stringent testing. Such certification Includes evidence of following processes in development and passing thousands of tests. Almost everything on the aircraft is electrical -- even the brakes -- so "it is very critical the system works flawlessly."
This source told me that the software that controls the ES was developed by HCL Technologies -- a $2 billion (2008 revenues) Indian software company that works with Boeing and its partners on the 787 and won Boeing's Gold Performance Excellence Award this February. He spoke with colleagues at United Technologies (UTX) division -- Hamilton Sundstrand (HS) -- which is the ES's primary contractor.
His ES colleagues told him that the Designated Engineering Representative (DER) -- a SWAT team of top engineers that tests aircraft software against rigorous standards -- and the FAA refused to certify the work HCL did and told HS to start over -- without HCL. Several of my source's colleagues joined HS at the end of 2008 in an effort to rewrite the software.
My source says the HCL was chosen for the software in response to Boeing's order that its suppliers outsource at least 25 percent of the work to overseas sub-contractors. And if this information about HCL is true, perhaps HS did not do the best job of picking a qualified supplier. But now that HS is re-doing the software itself, my source can't estimate when it will complete the job to the FAA's satisfaction.
I am surprised that Boeing has not disclosed this problem because it would seem difficult to fly the 787 without a functioning ES. The failure to disclose this suggests that Boeing's board was not aware of the problem or it decided that it was not in the board's interest to disclose it.
I think the SEC may need to look into whether Boeing's board is fulfilling its obligations to shareholders.
Peter Cohan is a management consultant, Babson professor and author of eight books including, You Can't Order Change. Follow him on *******. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.
Source:DailyFinance
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2009, 20:56
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The damage that spin and uncritical reporting did to the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing, and the airlines

September 10, 2009 – 3:23 pm, by Ben Sandilands
You don’t have to be interested in aircraft or flying to find a parable about corporate fantasies, outright lies, or the image spinning that can harm or destroy businesses by looking at the dismal saga of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. As mentioned in the preceding post, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries overnight publicly blindsided Boeing by dropping the use of composites in much of its MRJ project.

No doubt, Boeing will lean hard on 787 partner Mitsubishi to recant, modify, or explain away the obvious, but to what end? The Dreamliner is flirting with failure, or suspension, and has already set records for deceptive public announcements, broken promises and weasel words.

The damage done by the Dreamliner fantasy spinners that suppressed the contrary voices among this once great company’s engineers and designers reaches into Airbus, which fell for the rhetoric and committed to a largely plastic competitor, the A350, and into carriers like Qantas, which still has 50 of the 787s on order and has been left looking reckless in its unquestioning acceptance of the Boeing pitch .

Qantas officially maintains it will get its first 787s in the middle of 2013, and not just the one that Boeing can’t even get into the air, but its successor, the 787-9. Even Air New Zealand, which is the launch customer for that version, has known for some time it won’t get a –9 until 2014.

And now Mitsubishi, who made the wing section that broke unexpectedly in a stress test in May, has dropped the plastics from all the critical or ‘adventurous’ parts of its own MRJ regional jet project.

This 787 con, which featured the roll out of a shell of a jet in July 2007, and was the subject of so many seriously deficient claims by Boeing, was sucked up to by a compliant media that has only just started to ask the hard questions.

What exactly did Boeing expect to get from tame reporting? It didn’t help the project, and probably delayed to some extent the onset of reality.

Neither Qantas nor any other customer on public record, is shown to have commissioned expert independent analysis of the claims for high composite structural usage such as proposed for the 787.
Instead the college kids who look like they should have been Mormon missionaries, stomped the world talking up the 787 as a ‘game changer.’

These are the two most dishonest words in aviation language. The only game changed by the 787 has been that of getting away with fantasy claims for a 767 replacement that on all the real indications will be larger, heavier, more expensive to maintain, and with shorter range.

Boeing is a company where hype has suppressed reality right up to the last possible moment. And not been challenged in general by the mainstream media, until now.

Scott Carson, who was relieved of his ‘leadership’ role at the 787, was replaced as president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes by James Albaugh, whose previous achievements include the failure of the Connexion by Boeing sky internet product, and the failure to get a fully functioning Wedgetail airborne command and early warning aircraft ready for delivery to the RAAF at anything remotely resembling the original specifications or timetable.

Boeing is a case study of how rhetoric, spinning, and media cultivation can critically weaken if not destroy an enterprise.

Can it now provide a similar case study in how to repair itself? That depends on its customers, who had ordered over 900 Dreamliners, and are battling the GFC, as well as its own ability to make the 787 work.
Plane Talking, Crikey.com.au
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2009, 19:43
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dreamliners flight delayed by 3 years

4:00AM Monday Nov 02, 2009


Randy Tinseth


Boeing says it is working with customers to find a "win-win" solution after delivery delays for the 787 Dreamliner have stretched at least another six months for Air New Zealand.
The airline is the launch customer for the 787-9 plane which, when ordered in 2006, was expected to be in service next month. It will now get the first of its eight aircraft at the end of 2013.
The programme for the new aircraft built mostly of carbon fibre has been plagued by delays due to design flaws and problems with outsourced supply lines.
Boeing's marketing vice-president Randy Tinseth, who is in New Zealand, said it was now in discussion with airline customers to find solutions following the latest problem, stressed joints between the wing and the body of the plane.
"We clearly made some misstep in that programme. We've had some challenges especially in terms of production and supply base," Tinseth said. It was hoped the first test flight would take off before the end of the year.


One Wall St analyst has calculated Boeing's penalty fees to airlines for late deliveries of the 787 have reached US$5.1 billion ($6.96 billion).
Tinseth would not comment on the figure or deals struck with individual airlines. For Air New Zealand delivery delays have partly worked in its favour by pushing out capital spending at a tough time for global aviation.
Tinseth said: "This is a challenging time. Sometimes it's beneficial for airlines to move back a bit, sometimes it's beneficial for us to move other airlines forward. That's why we're looking for some middle ground."
Air New Zealand has previously said it is disappointed with the delays. Aviation Week reported Macquarie Equities Research's Robert Stallard as saying penalty payments to airlines for delivery slip have "significantly dented the profitability of the programme". But the cost had been manageable as customers are being compensated with "payment in kind", such as other aircraft in the interim instead of cash.
The company last week announced plans to establish a second 787 production line in Charleston, South Carolina, away from its traditional manufacturing power base on the outskirts of Seattle, Washington.
Tinseth said this would allow the company to push up production to 10 aircraft a month once the programme was fully on track. The 787-9 series, which has a longer range and greater seat capacity, would still be made near Seattle.
As part of 20-year projections for the aviation sector, Boeing estimates traffic in the Oceania region will grow by 5.1 per cent - 670 new aircraft valued at US$90 billion.
slamer. is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2009, 20:36
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
I dealt at a very low level with Boeing in the late 70's early 80's and later on more senior levels with GE, Hamiliton, Airesearch, etc. etc.

My impression from those years was that Boeing had a much better management style than McDonnell Douglas and listened closely to their customers. McD, on the other hand, always said "screw you, what would you know? We designed the DC3".

I also learned from McKinsey's that successful companies focussed on one business and one business only.

McDonnel Douglas screwed up its commercial aircraft division and was eventually taken over by Boeing.... Then Boeings leadership was taken over by the management of McDonnell Douglas! The same goons who screwed up that company! Then they moved headquarters out of Seattle and to St Louis!

Furthermore, while partnerships are all the rage, I don't think McDonnell Douglas ever ran a successful one. Boeing had, but I guess their Seattle based middle management weren't listened to.

My take on events - this was a predictable cluster****.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2009, 20:44
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Sunfish,

Don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but Boeing headquarters moved to Chicago, not St Louis.
cirrus32 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 00:38
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,864
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
"Side-of-Body" Installations Complete on First Boeing 787 Dreamliner



Completing This Work is a Significant Step Toward First Flight

(Everett, Wash., November 12, 2009) -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) has completed installing reinforcements within the side-of-body section on the first 787 Dreamliner.

The modification entails installing new fittings at 34 stringer locations within the joint where the wing is attached to the fuselage. Installations were completed yesterday.

Boeing expects to complete the installations on the static test airframe and the second flight-test airplane in the coming days.

"Completing this work is a significant step toward first flight. We continue to be pleased with the progress of the team and remain confident the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will occur before the end of the year," said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. "We will test the modification on the full-scale static test airframe later this month. As soon as we confirm the loads are being handled appropriately in the joint we will complete preflight activities on the airplane."

Once the modification is complete on the static test airframe, it will be refitted with strain gauges and instrumentation required for testing. Access doors, systems, seals and fasteners removed from airplane No. 1 to provide access are being restored in preparation for continued testing on the airplane. Boeing continues to install fittings on the fatigue test airframe and the remaining flight-test airplanes. Other airplanes will be modified in the weeks ahead. Overall, the work on modifying airplanes is progressing well, Fancher said.

"We have a strong and capable team that has performed exceptionally well," Fancher said. "I'm very pleased with the team's dedication to meet our commitment to fly before the end of the year."

After airplane No. 1 is restored, the flight-test team will perform another set of gauntlet and taxi tests to ensure that all systems are ready for flight. Fancher noted that with the exception of a single high-speed taxi test, all remaining first flight activities have been successfully completed on the first flight-test airplane.

Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 01:02
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,864
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
The B747-8 may still fly first

First Boeing 747-8 Freighter Leaves Factory



(Everett, Wash., November 12, 2009) -- Boeing (NYSE: BA), on Thursday afternoon, towed the first 747-8 Freighter out of the factory in Everett, Wash. The airplane, ultimately destined for Cargolux, will be painted and begin preparations for flight test.

"It is very rewarding to see this airplane transition to the flight test phase," said Mo Yahyavi, 747 program vice president and general manager. "Our employees, suppliers and customers have put a lot of work into making the 747-8 Freighter a reality."

The 747-8 Freighter is the new high-capacity 747 that will give cargo operators the lowest operating costs and best economics of any freighter airplane while providing enhanced environmental performance. It is 250 feet, 2 inches (76.3 m) long, which is 18 feet and 4 inches (5.6 m) longer than the 747-400 Freighter. The stretch provides customers with 16 percent more revenue cargo volume compared to its predecessor. That translates to four additional main-deck pallets and three additional lower-hold pallets.

Source : The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA)

It looks better than the Dugong
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 01:43
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sure does....just like any other 747-100/200 Ive ever seen..now thats new ?
Hugh Mungus is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 02:06
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Its a lot longer!







Jabawocky is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 03:14
  #115 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
memory problems A380-800 driver?

How many times was the Dugong delayed?

More to the point the Dugong was evolutionary and the 787 is revolutionary but the bottom line is that
It looks better than the Dugong
and that goes for the 747-800 as well as the 787.
RedTBar is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 03:38
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C'mon Red TBar,

memory problems A380-800 driver?

How many times was the Dugong delayed?

More to the point the Dugong was evolutionary and the 787 is revolutionary but the bottom line is that

The Dugong was delayed far less that the 787, and it actually didnt have design problems, it was a wiring problem, but there was never anything wrong with it structurally. No point being revolutionary if you can't deliver what you promise!
Willoz269 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 04:04
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That latest 747 is beautiful!!!! Love that Fan air exit shape , very technical , must be for better noise reduction. Must be extra wing width & stab width too??? That extra fuselage must be a nightmare on rotation, does it have a decent tailskid????
crocodile redundee is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 04:19
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 1,611
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Dugong was delayed far less that the 787, and it actually didnt have design problems, it was a wiring problem, but there was never anything wrong with it structurally
Apart from the tail section not fitting to the rear fuselage when first mated.
18-Wheeler is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 04:37
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apart from the tail section not fitting to the rear fuselage when first mated

It was quickly fixed, but at least the fuselage did not delaminate, the wrong rivets put in place, nor the wing did not achieve the results required in destructive testing, structural load problems with the wing joint, etc etc etc etc....every new bird has its problems...but they are meant to be FEW problems!

I guess the 7LATE7 is revolutionary in this way as well???
Willoz269 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2009, 04:49
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 58
Posts: 1,611
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh and the 380 centre wing section failing the 150% load test on the first try, requiring design changes and patches on aeroplanes already built.

But yes such things happen to pretty much every new design.
18-Wheeler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.