Boeing may lose $1 billion Oman order to Airbus if 787 delayed

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010391573_webboeing30.html

Boeing 787’s wing fix passes crucial test, sources say
Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner has successfully completed a redo of the wing test that the jet failed last May, and now looks set to fly before Christmas, according to two sources familiar with the test outcome.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Related

Archive | Boeing 787 may not fly this year
Archive | Boeing doesn’t know yet how long 787 fix will take
Archive | Boeing again delays initial 787 Dreamliner flight
Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner on Monday successfully completed the wing test the jet failed last May, and now looks set to fly before Christmas, according to two sources familiar with the test outcome.

Engineers are still analyzing data from the repeat test and haven’t yet given the official thumbs-up, but the composite fibers in the wing did not delaminate when it was bent to the same point as in the previous test, the sources said.

An initial look at the data suggests the structure performed as anticipated after a complex fix Boeing has worked on since postponing the scheduled first flight in June.

Boeing’s current target date for first flight is Dec. 22, according to people familiar with the plan. That hinges on a successful outcome of the wing test.

The company issued a statement confirming the completion of the test late Monday, adding that it will take 10 days to do a full analysis of the results.

During the test, engineers bent the wings on a ground-test airplane upward until they passed “limit load,” the maximum load the wing is expected to bear in service.

Sometime next year, the wings will be bent further, beyond “ultimate load,” which is 50 percent higher than limit load. That’s the level required before the Federal Aviation Administration will certify the plane to fly passengers.

In the previous test in May, at a point just above limit load, the wings had delamination at the ends of each of 17 long stiffening rods, called stringers, on the upper skin of the wing boxes. The fibers ruptured and the stringers came away from the skin.

The damage occurred on the upper skin of the exterior wing at the point where it joins the fuselage. Corresponding damage occurred on the other side of the join on an inner structure called the “center wing box.”

Boeing attributed the failure to a design flaw.

Discovery of the damage led company executives in June to cancel a maiden flight planned for the week after the Paris Air Show.

The last-minute cancellation — marking the fifth delay to the plane’s first flight — caused consternation among industry observers, and in August Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson stepped aside, replaced by Jim Albaugh.

Responding to the failure, Boeing engineers first designed a fix that involved cutting a U-shaped piece out of each stringer end to shift the load, then reinforcing each of the stringer/skin joins with fasteners.

They tested it on computer models, then methodically began installing the fix on the airplanes already built.

Installation of the fix on Dreamliner No. 1, the first plane to fly, was completed Nov. 11. The installations were completed on the ground-test airplane and on Dreamliner No. 2 a few days later.

But No. 1 couldn’t fly until the bending of the wings of the ground-test airplane was successfully completed.

With that done, Boeing must roll out Dreamliner No. 1 again and repeat some of the systems tests done last summer.

Monday, that jet was moved outside to the fuel dock on Paine Field, where the wings will be filled with jet fuel for initial engine runs and system tests.

After that, the Dreamliner will proceed to taxi tests. Then, barring another mishap, it should be in the air by Christmas.

If it’s a weight penalty, the Customers will demand payment in lieu. (Unless they negotiated a naff contract with Boeing). Only after then will we find out the truth, once the airlines start shouting that it’s X% heavier and Y% less efficient etc. The OEM will lie until then.

But the customers aren’t always fully truthful either. Witness American Airlines a few years ago when they went public with the MD-11 range shortfall when it was really a very marginal shortcoming……most knowledgeable observers realized that they really wanted to ditch the aircraft before they lost one due to it’s atrocious landing characteristics

Any ideas on how these changes will affect the weight/ performance of the aircraft? Or will the changes be insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

If it’s a weight penalty, the Customers will demand payment in lieu. (Unless they negotiated a naff contract with Boeing). Only after then will we find out the truth, once the airlines start shouting that it’s X% heavier and Y% less efficient etc. The OEM will lie until then. Just like Airbus are doing with A400, A350 and Bombardier will have to on the C series, once they get the design to C scheme or maybe earlier.
No wonder Embraer are sticking with metal for the foreseable future. Thy’re a canny bunch, making a great aeroplane and making a profit at it too.
And Misubishi RJ is to be metal winged with carbon moveables (As per present technology). Their experience at making Class 1 structural wing parts for the 787 has made them go back to metal. Nuff said.

Any ideas on how these changes will affect the weight/ performance of the aircraft? Or will the changes be insignificant in the grand scheme of things?

I think we have lost sight of exactly what Boeing are doing.
Essentialy they’re bringing a whole new type of aircraft to the industry.
No one has used carbon fibre composite materials to this extent on such a large aircraft before.
I think its natural that the whole development process will be a learning curve.
Much like the first all metal aircraft were also plagued with issues until the technology was perfected down the assembly line.

Saying that, I agree with Shadow1, Boeing deserve a break and some success.
I have no doubt, the 787 will be a record breaking aircraft, once its matured and in service.

There have been so many setbacks for Boeing since they started working on this aircraft, it’s about time they caught a break and finally got this little lady in the air where she belongs.
As for Oman Air, I’m sure they’ll get the aircraf that suits them best.

We should have some answers pretty soon now – see the Seattle Times articles of yesterday:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010264493_boeing13.html

Boeing: 787 fix is complete on first plane
Boeing said it has finished reinforcing the wing-body joint on the first 787 Dreamliner, and the program head said he’s increasingly confident that “the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will occur before the end of the year.”

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Related

New version of Boeing 747 jumbo jet emerges from factory
Boeing may exit Sea Launch
Boeing gets $10.8M Navy pact
Boeing mechanics Wednesday completed installing reinforcements to the wing-body joint on the first 787 Dreamliner, the company said Thursday. The modification work was to fix a design flaw that has delayed the first flight of the new jet since the summer.

Scott Fancher, who heads the 787 program, said this step adds to his confidence that “the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will occur before the end of the year.”

The company laid out a schedule of tests after completion of the fix that indicates the plane won’t fly until mid-December at the earliest.

In June, Boeing postponed the new jet’s first flight after engineers discovered delamination of the composite carbon-fiber skin at the wing-body joint during tests that bent the wing.

The fix involves cutting out the ends of 17 stringers — or stiffening rods — on each upper wing skin, as well as the corresponding stringers on the wing box inside the fuselage, then adding metal fittings to reinforce the stringer ends.

Spokeswoman Mary Hanson said Wednesday that Boeing mechanics are still installing the same fix on another Dreamliner that is used for extensive strength tests on the ground. The modifications on that test plane are expected to be completed “in the coming days.”

Once that’s done, Boeing will reattach strain gauges and other instruments to that plane and bend the wing to ensure the fix works. After the test is done, sometime “later this month,” Hanson said it will take about 10 days to analyze the data and give the go-ahead for first flight of Dreamliner No. 1.

“As soon as we confirm the loads are being handled appropriately in the joint we will complete preflight activities on the airplane,” Fancher said in a statement.

In advance of the test that will prove it, Boeing appears convinced the fix will handle the loads.

“We’ve done a significant amount of … testing at a subcomponent level and those tests have been very successful,” said Hanson. “That gives us confidence we have the right approach.”

As preparations continue for the ground test, the wings of Dreamliner No. 1 will be sealed again and all access doors, fasteners and systems will be restored to readiness for first flight.

Assuming the ground test gives a green light, the 787 flight-test team must then perform another set of system tests and ground-taxi tests on Dreamliner No. 1 before it can fly.

That sequence of testing makes a first flight unlikely before mid- to late December.

Meanwhile, Boeing continues to install fittings on the second ground-test airframe and the remaining five flight-test airplanes. Other airplanes will be modified in the weeks ahead.

Fancher said the modification work is progressing well overall.

Separately, Boeing sent out invitations to a groundbreaking ceremony in Charleston, S.C. next Friday for the second 787 final-assembly facility.

Plans call for a 610,000-square-foot assembly building, plus additional buildings, including an airplane-delivery center. The plant is expected to complete its first plane in 2012.

And in Everett, Boeing’s other new jet, the first 747-8, rolled out of the assembly building and over to the paint hangar at 5 p.m. Thursday.

After painting, this newest, largest version of the iconic jumbo jet will undergo weeks-long testing on the ground and is expected to fly soon after the New Year.

The C5 wing failure was a technical management fiasco;- first they got the rib/skin thickness optimisation wrong, hence they designed a heavy wing well above the weight allocation, to hit prog they very arbitrarily took the weight out (i.e. section sizes were reduced), hey presto the wing failed the static test, so it was reset to the original size, the wing went into manufactured significantly overweight, the A/C was delivered into service, significantly overweight and underperforming;- its payload was restricted for some operations to as low as 23Tons. This was only really recovered by a bottom up redesign, requal, and rewinging all of the A/C delivered. Hence the C5a wing static failure was a symptom of a really deep systematic failure the technical management of the original project.

Come on, what does the 787 failure say about the basic quality of the wing to fuse structural modelling;- where’s the checks and balances essential for certification? When you consider the extra complexity inherently linked with Carbon, i.e. hot wet conditioning, qualifying metal parts within the carbon structure, lightening protection, etc,etc are Boeing really up to identifying all the issues in time for an EIS of Q4 2010? My guess is EIS 2012 plus (Remember the Hawker 4000 Carbon fuse took 12 years to design, qual, and cert)

Appreciate your comment.
Thanks.

The Lockheed Galaxy failed at 120% LL. The B787 wing did not fail, but there was delamination of some structural parts. I wouldn’t call that a real failure, but it was close to it.
The fact that a structural part fails does not mean the whole aircraft is a mess or unsafe, it rather points out that the processes and tools used to design the aircraft are not well established. Many structural parts needs redesign, in any aircraft program, but the general public normally doesn’t learn about it.

Schorsch, I dunno your level of knowledge in the Aerobit game but I can assure you that a delam of the carbon in a test is as bad as it can get. It failed at 70%, at what point did the delam begin…nobody knows. Where else has it delaminated….inside the ply thickness (Impossible to tell without an X ray or A scan/C scan etc.) A tiny delam in the middle of the ply thickness (Up to 2 inches on a wing skin) creates an air pocket. Upon a lightning strike that air will expand and possibly enter the fuel tank at a temperature which will create a spectacular mess. Yes the mesh and/or the bonding path will take the strike back round the faraday earth but the lightning strike policy will have been designed for a voidless cure.

An airliner has a main floor/bilge and a wing box/centre fuse. Everything else hangs off those fundemental items. Failure of the wing at test is a big major problem, and a delam is a very large nightmare for any carbon manufacturer.
It has been my deep experience that all the CFRP designs at the moment have initially grossly over estimated the strength and performance of CFRP in a Class 1 structural part. The metalwork added to the carbon which takes loads down certain paths makes the items heavier than the all metal one on Spars and beams. The weight is gained back by having a CFRP skin on the wing and floor but the weight savings of 20-30% per se have been a complete lie.
The first plastic airliner sized Spar will lift off on 25 or 26 or 27th November from Spain. The King of Spain has been asked to reserve all 3 days, such is the unpredictability) A400M. If Boeing have a dreamliner, then the A350 is a nightmareliner and the A400M is a soiled pantyliner.
(Plenty of CFRP Spars in military jets but the crew have a mummy handle and the wings are stronger by a considerable margin, stiffer too as they have 5 Spars or more)

Failed by a big margin to boot;- it only made 70 % ultimate (i.e. 105% limit)

I think that margin of failure is without precedent in the last 40-50 years

The Lockheed Galaxy failed at 120% LL. The B787 wing did not fail, but there was delamination of some structural parts. I wouldn’t call that a real failure, but it was close to it.
The fact that a structural part fails does not mean the whole aircraft is a mess or unsafe, it rather points out that the processes and tools used to design the aircraft are not well established. Many structural parts needs redesign, in any aircraft program, but the general public normally doesn’t learn about it.

Failed by a big margin to boot;- it only made 70 % ultimate (i.e. 105% limit)

I think that margin of failure is without precedent in the last 40-50 years

I took one glance at a detailed photo of the wing-skin (Cover) construction with the very tiny Stiffeners (Stringers in the olde world) and my colleague and I knew it was not strong enough. Especially as the skin itself was only about 0.5″ or 0.75″ thick at the root.

Failed by a big margin to boot;- it only made 70 % ultimate (i.e. 105% limit)

I think that margin of failure is without precedent in the last 40-50 years

Ah, fair enough.

That’ll teach me not to skip updates!

I thought it had since been retested?

Numerous reports, such as Flight Global:

Unanswered questions, cautious optimism define 787 wing fix

Seeing that the 787 wing failed the static test, it will be delayed a very long time.

It did? Source?

How long before the A350 overtakes it? :diablo:

I was thinking that. I can’t see the Dreamliner flying any time soon.

Seeing that the 787 wing failed the static test, it will be delayed a very long time.

How long before the A350 overtakes it? :diablo:

Seeing that the 787 wing failed the static test, it will be delayed a very long time.