Boeing Postpones 787 First Flight
 

EVERETT, Wash., June 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today announced that first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will be postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-body section of the aircraft. The need was identified during the recent regularly scheduled tests on the full-scale static test airplane. Preliminary analysis indicated that flight test could proceed this month as planned. However, after further testing and consideration of possible modified flight test plans, the decision was made late last week that first flight should instead be postponed until productive flight testing could occur. First flight and first delivery will be rescheduled following the final determination of the required modification and testing plan. It will be several weeks before the new schedule is available. The 787 team will continue with other aspects of testing on Airplane #1, including final gauntlet testing and low-speed taxiing. Work will also continue on the other five flight test aircraft and the subsequent aircraft in the production system.Scott Carson, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes said a team of experts has already identified several potential solutions."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. Structural modifications like these are not uncommon in the development of new airplanes, and this is not an issue related to our choice of materials or the assembly and installation work of our team," Carson said. Boeing's financial guidance will be updated to reflect any impact of these changes when the company issues its second quarter 2009 earnings report in July.Boeing will hold a conference call with Carson, Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager of Airplane Programs, and Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program, to discuss the 787 program today at 10:00 a.m. EDT, 7:00 a.m., PDT. A webcast of that call will be accessible at The Boeing Company.

That's the sort of problem you tend to get using cutting edge technology.

More hype?
 

Considering this is an evoltionary aircraft rather than a revolutionary one, there has been so much hype (from the manufacturer and some airlines).
The actual aircraft bears a resemblance to early hype but, apart from materials used in construction and measly performance improvements... where's the beef? Son of sonic-cruiser? Er, no! Cheers anyway bm :ugh:

Dreamliner - The project manager's project from either heaven or hell.

Mostly hell I suspect. If this this "reinforcement" requires further significant engineering changes at this late stage then expect a delay in terms of months rather than weeks.

Methinks that Boeing's airline transport customers might argue that another delay in this programme represents an issue for them.

Qatar Airways issues stern warning to Boeing to quickly resolve 787 delay issues

Rather different from the way the 777 development went, iirc. Then it was all about the great CAD system that gave them parts that fit together like a swiss watch, and away we fly.

As an engineer who's worked in aerospace since the days of Apollo (but never on airplanes, and almost always military, not commercial) I've lived with the management trends that were supposed to give us cost and schedule accountability but instead have given us meeting rooms full of committees making shared in-decisions with far worse results.

I hope Boeing Airplanes is better than that, but have no reason to believe they've been immune. They bet the company on a new way to build an airplane - new materials, global outsourcing - and so far it doesn't look like they're going to end up with a "Boeing".

Fire away.

I can't believe the slack you guys are giving Boeing!!! Does no one remember the vitriol airbus copped off this forum when the A380 had a few delays?

It seems as if no one can do anything anymore.

I blame the business schools (and their product), but that is a topic for somewhere else.

Response to post above
 

The problem is companies hold too many meetings, and have too many discussions on doing things as cheaply as possible. If we could just get on with the job, we might actually get things done for a change.

How much of this problem was created through cost-cutting in the initial design, shaving another mm out of the thickness of the material?

Ironically, if it was as a result of a cost-saving decision at some point, the delay is going to cost FAR MORE (as always) in the future.

It will be interesting to see if anyone cancels any orders as a result of this. As said further up - this is going to be a delay of months, not weeks. They obviously think it is serious enough to even postpone the first flight.

That this came out as a result of results from the static test at this point is even worse.

ECAM Actions.

Read this guy's take on the respective A380 and 787 programmes. It is an uneven read and I certainly don't agree with all his stuff but it is interesting.

Lonely Scientist

What did Boeing think would happen? They have pushed the envelope simultaneously at too many points across the programme (materials, engineering, methodology, partners ... you name it).

This new delay appears to represent the triumph of rationality over hubris and wishful thinking.

I wish them the best. The 787 is brave step forward and I bet the programme will come to be seen to be ground breaking (not Boeing breaking) in years to come.

Listened to the Boeing conference call. They are talking about stress concentrations that were not compatible with their computer model at an attachment point between the wing and the body during static testing. The issue affects the upper portion of side of body at 18 locations. A one or two square inch area is affected (on both sides of the aircraft) and the problem doesn't appear to extend down the wings or into the fuselage.

They are talking about a small number of parts (a handful of parts) comprising of titanium integrated with aluminium and composites.

The problems affects integrated structures (produced by Boeing, Mitsubishi and Fuji). It is envisaged that any proposed fix/mod will be able to be retro fitted to production aircraft in situ or on the production line.

Quite amusing really,:) given all the stick they gave airbus over the A 380

pushing the envelope vs licking the envelope
 

the XB70 was pushing the envelope

the 787 is licking the envelope.

I remember when planes really turned heads...now they all look the same...plastic more, computers more...but not really faster...cheaper yes.

the last plane that turned my head was the Concord...and here we are 40 years later with something that looks like a 757.

PTH

From an engineering/manufacturing point of view the 787 programme is a big leap forward (some might say in the dark).

Can't argue with the asthetic point you make. Most modern passenger aircraft look the same and seem to represent the spirit of the bean counters that ultimately drive the whole thing.


The XB70 still looks futuristc.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._EC68-2131.jpg

nambifox
 

engineering and manufacturing...always high on the sex appeal quotient (NOT!)

thanks for the posting of the XB70 picture...and it was some 600 mph faster than concord!

but wouldn't you really rather be flying an XB70 than a 787?

I do like the idea of the 787 having a better . ..lower cabin altitude at cruise...but come on !

Dear moderator
 

How on earth can you move this thread to spotters corner when the subject is probably the one technology project currently under the world spotlight.

This latest delay doesn't surprise me.....

I have just come back from the Paris Air show, where the silence on the B787 was deafening!
2 years ago, at Le Bourget, the talk was all of the imminent roll out of the 787, and how Airbus had missed the bus with the A350....

Here we are, a full 23 months after the roll out, and no first flight....OK, so Boeing have 800+ orders for it, but how many will it have, if this charade goes on much longer?

So far we have had... "fastener problems with sub contractors".... "Machinist's strike".........."Flight control software problems"....."Management changes"...and now "Structural questions".....

Come on Boeing, sort it out, even the Concorde had flown by now! (Dec.67 - Mar. 69)

The A350 is looking a much better bet as every day goes by...unless Airbus are plagued by similar problems....but I wouldn't put any money on it!

What a mess!

Eye watering
 

The Boeing stock price was -6% down at last time of checking. No doubt the analysts will be trying to get some view of the likely delay to the production schedule.

Once that figure is known based upon the reality of the technical/engineering issues that Boeing faces then one might expect a couple more airlines to make a decision about baling or staying in or invoking penalty clauses in the existing contracts.

One shudders to think of the daily burn rate on a programme this large. I am sure they will be burning the midnight oil down at Everett and stress and antacid pills will be issued free to all departments.

This one's all over the place. There is another thread relating to 787 schedule slippage on DG&P. Oh well, one might get a fresh approach down here in Spotters Corner. One thing's for sure, nobody is going to be spotting the 787 any time soon!

Wouldn't bet it on it!

Down here you are only likely to meet the occasional guy with a pair of binoculars and an anorak and the odd airline pilot who, unless he is Willie Walsh, woudn't recognise the Boeing stock price if it bit him on the ar*se.:).

To design, develop, certificate and produce a new top level civil or military aircraft is a complex undertaking. It is very tempting (and pretty much normal practice) for the marketing and PR side to assume all will go according to the original plan and so ‘oversell’ the delivery timescales and costs.

At least let us be glad when the engineers have the final say re critical issues as seems to be the case with the 787 and unlike one past Shuttle launch for example.

Delighted to be oh so wrong ...
 

And then John Farley drops by.:\