787 Delayed Again – Issues?
Close
Login to Your Account
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    14

    Default 787 Delayed Again – Issues?

    Boeings most recent announcement of further delays in their 787 program was certainly a surprise. What are the issues with this plane? It’s hard to believe that they could be this far along before discovering unexpected stress loads. Or maybe not, perhaps this plane is so radical different delays like this can be expected?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    7,857
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5773
    Likes (Received)
    10159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perk View Post
    Or maybe not, perhaps this plane is so radical different delays like this can be expected?
    Radically different or not, building a new plane is a huge undertaking. A couple year delay isn't a big deal in my opinion.

    787 is going to be an awesome plane and well worth the wait.

    (I don't work for boeing or do aerospace work)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast,Queensland Australia
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default

    A couple of weeks delay is a big deal (speaking as a former airliner purchase program member and a current user). A couple of years is...proportionately worse.

    This latest issue apparently became apparent on the static fatigue test airframe (that never leaves the ground...just gets subjected to endless cycles of pressurization and flexing via hydraulic rams). The aircraft has a problem in the fuselage that requires a re-design and implementation. I imagine they are trying to bed down the numbers they need to address with the fix. I'm guessing that it will have to be a stronger hoop design at at least one section joint. Maybe more. In any event it is not trivial;the aircraft is already over weight by a large margin-this will only make matters worse.*

    At this stage they are several weeks away from knowing how long the fix will take to design, manufacture and retrofit to plane #1. As such the first test flight is on indefinite hold-at a guess I'd say Sept, which will be another three month slip in deliveries. It may even be longer.

    If the entire industry wasn't trying to preserve cash right now there would be howls of further outrage from the customers. As it is they may all get additional cash penalty payments from Boeing for the further delay, an ironically good outcome for many of them. The delay (now, when money is tight and losses high) may push deliveries out to a date closer to an economic recovery, assuming such is coming any time soon. It may also trigger clauses allowing a no-penalty cancellation for most buyers.

    Weight: one pound excess weight on an airliner means about 2,000 lbs more fuel consumed over an 80,000 hr airframe life. It's not trivial when you get to talking about airframes 15,000 lbs over specified weight. If the purchase contract was written by a pro, the airplane builder gets to pay for the extra fuel too.

    So yeah, there are some issues.

    Greg

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tacoma washington
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    it should be no real suprise that there is an issue with how the wings are connected to the fuselage

    you bore big ole honkin holes through a composite fuselage
    and the use huge bolts to connect the two?

    the question has always been, how much do you torque the bolts so
    that they are tight enough, without crushing the fibers?

    this has been a known issue for at least the last 3 years

    no i don't work for boeing, and no i am not an aero engineer, but

    it don't take a rocket scientist to see that boeing is over their head on this one.

    bob g

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast,Queensland Australia
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default

    I'd guess that Boeing has plenty of rocket scientists in-house. The problem is that (I've heard) that engineers are not leading the programs any more-its the MBA guys. The whole idea of the world's most experienced airplane builder embarking on a radical new program built around out-sourcing was wacky. I don't get contracting companies with zero experience to build sections of a brand new airplane, air freighting it all from all over the world back to Seattle for a bolt-up. There's hardly an advantage in being the world's most experienced anything if you are going to out source the work.

    I also don't get how Boeing failed to contract supply of the needed titanium fasteners-that alone caused at least six months delay. Mistakes like that make you wonder about the really critical stuff and who was in charge of oversight.

    As an aside, a local airline had 20 Airbus A-380 orders which ended up being 2 years late. Airbus paid $100 Million in penalties for 20 airplanes. They also have 65 787s ordered. Care to guess how much blood Boeing is going to be coughing up on this deal?

    Greg
    (who is still a Boeing fan, and has friends and relatives on this project.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    742
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default

    It is hard to believe how fast this affected us. We do 90% aircraft work of which roughly 45% of that is for the 787 project that have been active contracts for the last 9 months. Just one little hiccup (maybe a biggish one) and all the contracts are on hold for an unknown time. Good time to wash and sweep up the shop This DREAM-liner project is turning into a nightmare. And for the record there has been NO serious issues of any kind up till now, just the normal revisions. After having them for a customer for over 35 years I am confident they will have it straightened out promptly. We are not talking about GM engineer's here, I wouldn't fly in a plane designed by GM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tacoma washington
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    mark my words, and i hope i am wrong, but

    the dreamliner will be the plane that puts boeing into bankruptsy.

    i realize this does not make me popular, and believe me i want them to succeed, but
    that project was doomed from the start.

    the titanium bolt problem was a ruse to gain time because of many other issues nobody is going to tell me they forgot to order enough bolts.

    if they finally do get it in the air, i will not fly one for many years, i will wait for the bugs to work their way out before i trust one.

    bob g

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona USA
    Posts
    39
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Cool To fly or not to fly.

    Bob trust me there is a better chance of going down with an old 35+ year old plane than with this new one which has all the engineering attentrion focused on it at this time. Plus where is your sense of adventure. But all kiding aside I like Boeing and trust their product, I work in aerospase and see all the safety nets in place to prevent something not airworthy from taking to the blue sky.

    wishing you all the best. Matei

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    742
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    4

    Default

    Bob they did have some part shortage issues but I have seen that happen during other start up projects. I don't want to start a hate china thread here but I know for a fact a lot of shortage issues were caused from them not knowing how to count|read English (this was told to me directly by the chief buyer). China makes mostly fastener's and small parts mostly not airframe parts although ones that can be critical. We make the wing spars from 22" long up to 126" long my opinion is that they are very important structure's of the wing's. Point is on some of them we are up to REV. ZC (yes that is the second time around the alphabet) kind of scary really. It will be interesting to me to see the end result, you could be right and this will be the demise of Boeing but I think they have more money than brains and we will take it from them as long as we can. They had many many more problems with this project than either of us know about or I can say anything about.

    Just for the record I don't fly on any plane any longer I send the help to make them feel important.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    936
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D View Post
    Bob they did have some part shortage issues but I have seen that happen during other start up projects. I don't want to start a hate china thread here but I know for a fact a lot of shortage issues were caused from them not knowing how to count|read English (this was told to me directly by the chief buyer). China makes mostly fastener's and small parts mostly not airframe parts although ones that can be critical. We make the wing spars from 22" long up to 126" long my opinion is that they are very important structure's of the wing's. Point is on some of them we are up to REV. ZC (yes that is the second time around the alphabet) kind of scary really. It will be interesting to me to see the end result, you could be right and this will be the demise of Boeing but I think they have more money than brains and we will take it from them as long as we can. They had many many more problems with this project than either of us know about or I can say anything about.

    Just for the record I don't fly on any plane any longer I send the help to make them feel important.
    you seriously find a problem with them being to revision ZC? the difference between ZC and ZB might be the addition of a hole for a wire loom bracket!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    11,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5444
    Likes (Received)
    3414

    Default

    I think the problem is trying to sell a product that isn't yet a product, and giving dates as to when it will be done, without even knowing what you are building yet. Seems to be the way many businesses run now. Even better is giving the customer a set price before even knowing what building the thing is going to cost you.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    3,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    44
    Likes (Received)
    685

    Default

    mark my words, and i hope i am wrong, but

    the dreamliner will be the plane that puts boeing into bankruptsy.

    i realize this does not make me popular, and believe me i want them to succeed, but
    that project was doomed from the start.
    Wow you mean Obama now can buy an airplane company to compliment 2 car companies! Sorry I couldn't resist. I too really hope you are wrong and that American mfg can again survive to prosper another day.

    On a serious note I heard today that it was Mulally or how ever you spell his name who came up with the whole outsourcing strategy on the Dreamliner who got a job working as the CEO of Ford. I hope he learned something there.

    Adam

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tacoma washington
    Posts
    1,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    33

    Default

    i dunno, i will continue to trust proven technology over new tech any day.

    without saying more than i should, how bout this?

    (deleted)
    not saying i am that guy, and not saying i am not

    but i think the odds are better than 50/50 obama will have a crack at
    buying an aircraft company before this is over.

    doesn't it seem odd to anyone that now, today, of all times, after all the years of design, all the setbacks, all the component testing, blah blah blah,, that now they are concerned with the integrity of the wing connection to the fuselage?

    we're not talking about a side view mirror here! or some other after thought item that is to be attached to an existing product.

    this is perhaps one of the most critical connections in the whole damn plane,, and now they find they have a problem?

    guess it is better now than when the thing is aloft full of people.

    it my opinion, the dreamliner was a shrewd business attack on airbus
    much like reagan did with the soviets. you tell them you are going to build this fantastic machine and then wait for them to take the bait and go broke trying to compete with it. problem is airbus didn't take the bait and boeing was forced to follow through and build the thing.

    it was a bold gamble going all in, now we get to set back and see if boeing has a winning hand with the dreamliner. it don't have to be a royal flush but had better be at least a pair of face cards.

    bob g

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast,Queensland Australia
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default

    One big problem for Boeing is customer migration to Airbus right now. The A-330 is the only "modern" aircraft in that space available. You can bet that Airbus is leveraging airlines into its A 350 project as a cover charge for getting A-330 planes now. (or sooner than 2012 at any rate).

    A couple of years ago the 787 looked like it would deal a huge blow to Airbus, allowing Boeing a five year head start on the 777 replacement followed by a 737 replacement. Now it looks like that sword has two edges.

    Upon further reading today, it looks like :

    Wing attachment problems point to bad computational analysis of the whole structure. Apparently their model is faulty, and this is huge. Boeing now has to go back and verify/prove fatigue numbers on every structure designed using that program. It may turn out that huge chunks of the design/build done so far are scrap. This would be a definite President Obama event.

    I think that the market is behind the curve on this one so far-expect a further cratering of BA shares when the full implications are widely understood.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Opelika, AL
    Posts
    2,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    111
    Likes (Received)
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SND View Post
    I think the problem is trying to sell a product that isn't yet a product, and giving dates as to when it will be done, without even knowing what you are building yet. Seems to be the way many businesses run now. Even better is giving the customer a set price before even knowing what building the thing is going to cost you.
    you mean that isn't how to run a profitable business???

    oops!


    time for some people to go back to school.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast,Queensland Australia
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default

    Who says that military "cost plus" contracts don't breed bad habits?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Country
    SPAIN
    Posts
    3,632
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2066
    Likes (Received)
    1342

    Default

    The Dream-ON-liner...
    It will be a massive shame if this takes down Boeing.

    I worked on the A380 and the problems we had on this plane (electronic enclosures for all winged surfaces) was huge.
    Cadjockeys modelling ill-conceived concepts: It was beyond belief.
    I don't want to fly on this thing either. There's lots of composite on this as well.
    The wing spars are so long, they join the material by friction stir welding. Maybe fine when the process and testing etc is done in the lab, but when it goes out to production and they hire the cheapest hand they can find to do it...

    I'm with D, I hate flying as well.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Opelika, AL
    Posts
    2,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    111
    Likes (Received)
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post

    I'm with D, I hate flying as well.
    up until this stuff, I hated flying, too, mostly because I am tired of taking my shoes off so much. now I am getting scared of it. It's so nice that when you get your ticket they actually tell you what kind of plane you are flying. makes it easier to decided whether to stay away or not. still wondering what became of the air france airbus, probably will never know, but I have seen enough other reports of control failures to at least make me nervous. control failures coupled with poor engineering/design, forget it.

    best of luck to you boeing!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barbter View Post
    Cadjockeys modelling ill-conceived concepts: It was beyond belief.
    I'm with D, I hate flying as well.
    They not just in the airplane building business either, those pesky cad jockies are everywhere now

    Just seems like justice happening to Boeing, after all the mockery they made of the A380 with its delays

    Boris

    And I hate flying too..or more exactly....... landings

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Gold Coast,Queensland Australia
    Posts
    719
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    47
    Likes (Received)
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boris View Post
    They not just in the airplane building business either, those pesky cad jockies are everywhere now

    Just seems like justice happening to Boeing, after all the mockery they made of the A380 with its delays

    Boris

    And I hate flying too..or more exactly....... landings
    actually Boeing took the high road on that, offering frequent (if not lavish) praise of Airbus' engineering talent. Randy what's-his-name, the old sales chief let one comment slip, but that was about it. Unlike, I might point out, John Leahy, Airbus' sales chief. He's a smug SOB, more so now I imagine.

    Bad Catia juju caused the A380 problems, looks like more more CAD Capers on the 787. In both cases there was a lack of old fashioned project management and accountability. Hell, the Airbus CEO was even selling shares in his own company before making the announcement.

    It seems like aviation is going the way of food and drug approvals, Wall St oversight, and so many other things. There's no point building in quality if you can market and spin your way to a short term success, grab the bonuses and then split. By the time the drugs/additives/loans/planes kill enough people it'll be the next CEO's problem.

    I hate the landings too. Don't look at my profile

    On edit: the local airline has just announced they are canceling 15 787's out of 65, with 20 more on optional cancellation. This latest problem puts the second half of Boeing's 787 order book deliveries squarely in the A-350's delivery timetable.
    Last edited by Greg Quenneville; 06-25-2009 at 06:22 PM. Reason: more info


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •