Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight
lomapaseo, an interesting and valid ‘engineering’ view (#32). However, as a retired pesky overseer I am puzzled why the management decided on the fix now.
If the problem was previously known then decisions on the oversight issues could have be made at a much earlier date; if they were, then the decision might have been political – no disclosure pre Paris etc. Alternatively the management changed their plan, or there is new management.
A more serious situation is that this problem was not known, it really is something new; then oversight, flight test content, test aircraft allocation, timescale, all enter a new decision at this late stage.
Whilst the decision is unlikely to have been taken on just one of these parameters, there is also the consideration that the Boeing management’s faith in engineering might not be as strong as everyone would wish for at this stage of the project – "will the next fix work", "what other surprises are to come".
Whilst many major programs involve change, they usually occur well in advance of first flight or as a result of flight testing. In the first instance this might result from a design review, spec change, or static testing. For the 787 it appears that it originates from static or resonance testing on a much delayed test specimen due to the previous problems – hence the overall program slip.
If the problem was previously known then decisions on the oversight issues could have be made at a much earlier date; if they were, then the decision might have been political – no disclosure pre Paris etc. Alternatively the management changed their plan, or there is new management.
A more serious situation is that this problem was not known, it really is something new; then oversight, flight test content, test aircraft allocation, timescale, all enter a new decision at this late stage.
Whilst the decision is unlikely to have been taken on just one of these parameters, there is also the consideration that the Boeing management’s faith in engineering might not be as strong as everyone would wish for at this stage of the project – "will the next fix work", "what other surprises are to come".
Whilst many major programs involve change, they usually occur well in advance of first flight or as a result of flight testing. In the first instance this might result from a design review, spec change, or static testing. For the 787 it appears that it originates from static or resonance testing on a much delayed test specimen due to the previous problems – hence the overall program slip.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heidi Wood - Morgan Stanley - Analyst:
You saw stress on the plane, but did you see delamination?
Scott Fancher - The Boeing Company - 787 Vice President and General Manager:
Yes, the area that we are talking about has got multiple materials in that region. We've got titanium. We've got aluminum. We've got composites. So when we saw the strain gauges on the aircraft during the test not meet our predictions, we went in and did some inspections and saw a number of things indicative of what the strain gauges were saying.
I think that's politician-speak for "yes"
You saw stress on the plane, but did you see delamination?
Scott Fancher - The Boeing Company - 787 Vice President and General Manager:
Yes, the area that we are talking about has got multiple materials in that region. We've got titanium. We've got aluminum. We've got composites. So when we saw the strain gauges on the aircraft during the test not meet our predictions, we went in and did some inspections and saw a number of things indicative of what the strain gauges were saying.
I think that's politician-speak for "yes"
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why?
as I mentioned in my post on the XB70
if the boeing company was coming up with a plane that would make it from New York to San Francisco in 90 minutes, that would be worth waiting for.
But to make a plane, whose sole advantage is using less fuel and a few comfort items...why bother?
Boeing made some brilliant strides in aviation and some of their gambles paid off well. I'm glad they gambled on the B17. They got a good deal from the USAF by making the B47 and the B52 and turning that info into a jet airliner by way of the tanker.
So there you go. they should have just kept building some of the planes that have proven themselves...and bean counters should not be allowed near airplanes.
if the boeing company was coming up with a plane that would make it from New York to San Francisco in 90 minutes, that would be worth waiting for.
But to make a plane, whose sole advantage is using less fuel and a few comfort items...why bother?
Boeing made some brilliant strides in aviation and some of their gambles paid off well. I'm glad they gambled on the B17. They got a good deal from the USAF by making the B47 and the B52 and turning that info into a jet airliner by way of the tanker.
So there you go. they should have just kept building some of the planes that have proven themselves...and bean counters should not be allowed near airplanes.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heidi Wood - Morgan Stanley - Analyst:
You saw stress on the plane, but did you see delamination?
Scott Fancher - The Boeing Company - 787 Vice President and General Manager:
Yes, the area that we are talking about has got multiple materials in that region. We've got titanium. We've got aluminum. We've got composites. So when we saw the strain gauges on the aircraft during the test not meet our predictions, we went in and did some inspections and saw a number of things indicative of what the strain gauges were saying.
I think that's politician-speak for "yes"
You saw stress on the plane, but did you see delamination?
Scott Fancher - The Boeing Company - 787 Vice President and General Manager:
Yes, the area that we are talking about has got multiple materials in that region. We've got titanium. We've got aluminum. We've got composites. So when we saw the strain gauges on the aircraft during the test not meet our predictions, we went in and did some inspections and saw a number of things indicative of what the strain gauges were saying.
I think that's politician-speak for "yes"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boeing - Still one of the world's great companies
But to make a plane, whose sole advantage is using less fuel and a few comfort items...why bother?
We don't live within a Soviet style command economy! We live in a capitalist system dominated by dynamic, innovative and competitive markets.
Boeing are looking to produce a commercially viable aircraft that provides the appropriate amount of comfort in a market sector where even a 0.001 improvement across the overall performance index might mean the difference between sales success or failure.
Remember that failure means no sales. No sales means lost jobs, shrinkage, organisational sclerosis and corporate death.
Want to see what sclerosis and corporate death means? Take a drive through Detroit sometime. It is heart breaking! Forty years ago what has occurred there would have been thought impossible.
If you are asking whether Boeing is an engineering led company, I believe that the answer is still a very big 'yes'. Engineering pulses thought he veins of the company. If it didn't a concept like the 787 wouldn't have made it onto the digital drawing board, let alone into production.
At no stage, as has been theorised by some, have the so called "bean counters" taken over. Such a thing wouldn't work at Airbus, Boeing or anywhere where extremely complex engineering development is undertaken.
This is not to say that Boeing is immune from financial considerations. It has a duty to its customers, its worldwide workforce and to its shareholders to be profitable. It has to be aware of market perceptions and considerations.
Will Boeing succeed with 787. You bet it will.
Will the wings fall off ?
. No. Get out out there and get a 787 rating. Prepare to travel it in. Buy a spotters guidebook .
The 787 is on the way.
Last edited by Michael Birbeck; 25th Jun 2009 at 11:12. Reason: Answer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was some years ago, and I'm sure the composite art has advanced, but a Boeing engineer said to a friend of mine--the then-Editor of Air & Space Smithsonian--"The more we learn about composites, the better aluminum looks."
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand by my post.
and I love that bit about, the better aluminium looks.
no matter what you do, metal has a 40 year head start on composites, so it is better understood.
now if the 787 could do mach 3, that would be different.
and I love that bit about, the better aluminium looks.
no matter what you do, metal has a 40 year head start on composites, so it is better understood.
now if the 787 could do mach 3, that would be different.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are asking whether Boeing is an engineering led company, I believe that the answer is still a very big 'yes'. Engineering pulses thought he veins of the company. If it didn't a concept like the 787 wouldn't have made it onto the digital drawing board, let alone into production.
At no stage, as has been theorised by some, have the so called "bean counters" taken over. Such a thing wouldn't work at Airbus, Boeing or anywhere where extremely complex engineering development is undertaken.
At no stage, as has been theorised by some, have the so called "bean counters" taken over. Such a thing wouldn't work at Airbus, Boeing or anywhere where extremely complex engineering development is undertaken.
They can not even make a simple tanker conversion anymore (ref the Italian KC-767 program), and they have been doing that since what -- 1948?
The only good thing to have come out of Boeing recently is Ford’s CEO. And I bet that is a decision the Boeing board of directors would like to do over.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t understand how anyone can look at the resumes of McNerney and Mulally, and the decision making that put them in their current positions, and conclude that “Boeing is an engineering led company”. It used to be, that is certain.
Engineers ran the programs, of course. One would think, both then and now, that once the decision is made to pursue a program at vast expense, senior management would do whatever it takes to speed the program to a sucessful launch.
I remain confused as to why the 787 program has had so much delay.
Could it be that the original timeline to first flight and certification was set without consulting the engineers at all?
Pilot of the Airwaves
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Close to the Med
Age: 74
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quantas has cancelled it's order.
QANTAS (note spelling) has NOT cancelled its order.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...87-orders.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
The 787 - A metaphor for corporate organisation?
Boeing is crushed between two imperatives:
a) Delivering the 787 - the engineering perspective.
b) Keeping Wall Street on side - the capitalist perspective.
It is a huge juggling act!
To mangle Marshall Mcluhan's meaing when he said "the the medium is the message" the 787 itself has become the medium and the message. A flying 787 would itself be a message that would transcend anything else as far as the money men are concerned.
Wall Street want the plane now and the engineers can only deliver it when it is ready, which isn't now.
This tension between perception and reality is the biggest problem the programme faces and may act to destabilise rational debate in the organisation as evidenced in unrealistic schedules and communiication breakdowns.
In many ways the Boeing example may be akin to an organisation at its limits as was evidenced by NASA at the time of the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
Ultimately it all boils down to a question of engineering ethics in balancing cost, schedule and risk.
Fallout: Boeing 787 flight delay not even disclosed privately
a) Delivering the 787 - the engineering perspective.
b) Keeping Wall Street on side - the capitalist perspective.
It is a huge juggling act!
To mangle Marshall Mcluhan's meaing when he said "the the medium is the message" the 787 itself has become the medium and the message. A flying 787 would itself be a message that would transcend anything else as far as the money men are concerned.
Wall Street want the plane now and the engineers can only deliver it when it is ready, which isn't now.
This tension between perception and reality is the biggest problem the programme faces and may act to destabilise rational debate in the organisation as evidenced in unrealistic schedules and communiication breakdowns.
In many ways the Boeing example may be akin to an organisation at its limits as was evidenced by NASA at the time of the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
Ultimately it all boils down to a question of engineering ethics in balancing cost, schedule and risk.
Fallout: Boeing 787 flight delay not even disclosed privately
Well, you've got to hand it to Boeing management for being consistent.
Two J.P. Morgan analysts said in a research note that multiple members of Boeing management assured them in private conversations that 787 Dreamliner would meet its first flight deadline.
So when Boeing said on Tuesday that first flight would slip -- again -- because the plane's body needs reinforcement at the wing, the analysts were surprised.
"We consider ourselves relatively steeled to disappointments on this program, but given everything we had heard recently, including in private conversations with multiple members of management just last week, we were shocked by this news," wrote analysts Joseph Nadol and Seth Seifman in a research note dated June 23. They titled the note, "Oh no, not again" and concluded that information dissemination is a "major problem" at Boeing.
Two J.P. Morgan analysts said in a research note that multiple members of Boeing management assured them in private conversations that 787 Dreamliner would meet its first flight deadline.
So when Boeing said on Tuesday that first flight would slip -- again -- because the plane's body needs reinforcement at the wing, the analysts were surprised.
"We consider ourselves relatively steeled to disappointments on this program, but given everything we had heard recently, including in private conversations with multiple members of management just last week, we were shocked by this news," wrote analysts Joseph Nadol and Seth Seifman in a research note dated June 23. They titled the note, "Oh no, not again" and concluded that information dissemination is a "major problem" at Boeing.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's in a name?
dreamliner, smurfliner, avroliner,airliner
what's in a name
after all, what self respecting pilot would want to fly a bus over an airliner, or a DC Jet!
;-)
what's in a name
after all, what self respecting pilot would want to fly a bus over an airliner, or a DC Jet!
;-)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 69
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightblogger and The Wall Street Journal reported online Wednesday that Boeing is in talks to buy the South Carolina plant where Vought Aircraft Industries builds the two rear fuselage sections of the 787. Both companies declined to comment.
Boeing news | Speculation grows for Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina | Seattle Times Newspaper
Boeing news | Speculation grows for Boeing 787 plant in South Carolina | Seattle Times Newspaper
