B787 first flight delayed (again)

Also via Wikipedia….
The A300 was the first twin-engined widebody airliner in the world. It inspired Boeing twins such as Boeing 767 and 777 and paved the way for ETOPS flights.

And on Wiki itself (Airbus A300 site)
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly A300-B4. By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 300 aircraft sold and options for 200 more planes for over forty airlines. Alarmed by the success of the A300, Boeing responded with the new Boeing 767.

What wonderful nonsense.

Can you tell Wikipedia is open source? Free to be written by anyone?

Also via Wikipedia….
The A300 was the first twin-engined widebody airliner in the world. It inspired Boeing twins such as Boeing 767 and 777 and paved the way for ETOPS flights.

And on Wiki itself (Airbus A300 site)
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly A300-B4. By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 300 aircraft sold and options for 200 more planes for over forty airlines. Alarmed by the success of the A300, Boeing responded with the new Boeing 767.

I’ve heard a lot of wild claims in my day, but the claim that Airbus or the A300 were trend setters with regard to ETOPS may take the cake for the most outrageous. Truly revisionist history.

The “success” of the A300B4 had very little to do with ETOPS imho. For one thing the airplane didn’t even have the range to make it across the North Atlantic…..the later A300-600’s and A310s could barely make it, and the A310’s were often payload restricted. The A300 was the first twin engine widebody, but as for “inspiring” the 767 and 777, well, that also sounds like wishful thinking to me. But even if it were true, so what? Boeing was also second to market in the DC-9/737 competition, and we know how that turned out.

The attached chart from Boeing shows pretty graphically what a minimal player both Airbus and the A300 series has been with regard to ETOPS. To claim otherwise is simply in variance with the facts.

Also via Wikipedia….
The A300 was the first twin-engined widebody airliner in the world. It inspired Boeing twins such as Boeing 767 and 777 and paved the way for ETOPS flights.

And on Wiki itself (Airbus A300 site)
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft – its high performance and safety standards qualified it for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly A300-B4. By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 300 aircraft sold and options for 200 more planes for over forty airlines. Alarmed by the success of the A300, Boeing responded with the new Boeing 767.

It was Airbus that fought tooth and nail to get ETOPS for the A300 and A310 and won. But they still had 3 crew. IIRC the B767 was the first Twin Lumped/Twin crew A/c to gain ETOPS.

Gosh thats news to me….I always thought it started with TWA in 1985.

From wiki:
The FAA gave the first ETOPS rating in May 1985 to TWA for the B767 service between St. Louis and Frankfurt, allowing TWA to fly its aircraft up to 90 minutes away from the nearest airfield: this was later extended to 120 minutes after a federal evaluation of the airline’s operating procedures.

[edit] ETOPS extensions
In 1988, the FAA amended the ETOPS regulation to allow the extension to a 180-minute diversion period subject to stringent technical and operational qualifications. This made 95% of the Earth’s surface available to ETOPS flights. The first such flight was conducted in 1989. This set of regulations was subsequently adopted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), ICAO and other regulatory bodies.

In this manner the B737, 757 and 767 series and the Airbus A300-600, 310, 320 and 330 series were approved for ETOPS operations. .

Unfortunately, Airbus isn’t real forthcoming with ETOPS information/statistics. I’ve searched their website without luck, and even emailed them, without success. One gets the impression that they don’t really support ETOPS, as it has pretty much killed the A340 (even if it has helped the A330), and there are proabably some who would argue it is hurting A380 sales.

The ridiculously conservative requirements by some countries haven’t been found to be necessary based upon actual operations…..where are the crashes? And even though some countries may have waited the 12 months, that didn’t stop them from purchasing large numbers of 777’s, such as Japan…..which coincidentally hasn’t ordered any A380’s.

It was Airbus that fought tooth and nail to get ETOPS for the A300 and A310 and won. But they still had 3 crew. IIRC the B767 was the first Twin Lumped/Twin crew A/c to gain ETOPS.

How do A330 ETOPS statistics compare?

Back when 777 was built, Boeing got the FAA to invent such a thing as “early ETOPS”. And asked the rest of the world to give that. The answer was – no way. From both Europe and Japan. Outside USA, 777 had to earn ETOPS the hard way and fly without ETOPS till it had accomplished it.

When ANA EIS of 787 was anticipated, Boeing asked Japan again. The reply was – still no way. 787 must earn ETOPS the same hard way.

IIRC, the requirements for earning ETOPS are 12 months of non-ETOPS service AND a certain number of flight hours. How big a fleet is needed to achieve those in 12 months?

Unfortunately, Airbus isn’t real forthcoming with ETOPS information/statistics. I’ve searched their website without luck, and even emailed them, without success. One gets the impression that they don’t really support ETOPS, as it has pretty much killed the A340 (even if it has helped the A330), and there are proabably some who would argue it is hurting A380 sales.

The ridiculously conservative requirements by some countries haven’t been found to be necessary based upon actual operations…..where are the crashes? And even though some countries may have waited the 12 months, that didn’t stop them from purchasing large numbers of 777’s, such as Japan…..which coincidentally hasn’t ordered any A380’s.

This thing is going to go down in the annals of history along side the Bristol Brabazon and the Spruce Goose!!!

The BB was a commercial failure, while the B787 to date rather is a technical.
I rather see it in line with the L1011.

The B787 is a commercial success. And if Boeing doesn’t mess it up too hard (performance-wise) it will remain so.

I may again remind: the A380 issues were largely with things that didn’t it hinder from flying, so there is another undiscovered country for Boeing ahead when they achieve first flight. If maturity of the whole design is as ****ty as demonstrated, I would consider the flight test phase more than 9 month … then I doubt a B787 in commercial service significantly before 2011.

It is linear, but not a straight line. There is a formulae I’ve seen (But log forgotten).
So, it’s not “Linear” in the perfect sense, but one can draw a line on a graph.

Depends: if you increase in preliminary design, yes, it is more or less linear. But when the aircraft is basically set the issue is more tricky, especially as most operators will operate the 787 much below its design range.

Operating aircraft outside its design mission: I could write a paper about it.

Increase in OEW does not increase fuel burn in a linear way. Only when you look at it in preliminary design for a design mission. For the B787 it would much more difficult to assess, and the airlines not asking for the maximum range it doesn’t hurt that much.

A rather tricky issue, I could write a five-side essay about it.

It is linear, but not a straight line. There is a formulae I’ve seen (But log forgotten).
So, it’s not “Linear” in the perfect sense, but one can draw a line on a graph.

I thought that 767, apart from 767-200 non-ER, had never been cancelled in the first place?

ANA certainly ordered some new 767-s for interim lift.

Well, they were speculating about the USAF KC-X deal, so the line was still up, plus a couple of left-over commercial and military orders. But I think they had stopped commercial marketing efforts years ago. And if it’s true, what does it say about their own confidence in the 787 timeplan?

I heared from a guy who should know it, that Boeing is again offering 767 on the market, esp to those airlines with an early 787 slot.

I thought that 767, apart from 767-200 non-ER, had never been cancelled in the first place?

ANA certainly ordered some new 767-s for interim lift.

This thing is going to go down in the annals of history along side the Bristol Brabazon and the Spruce Goose!!!

I heared from a guy who should know it, that Boeing is again offering 767 on the market, esp to those airlines with an early 787 slot. Anyone able to confirm this?

Increase in OEW does not increase fuel burn in a linear way. Only when you look at it in preliminary design for a design mission. For the B787 it would much more difficult to assess, and the airlines not asking for the maximum range it doesn’t hurt that much.

A rather tricky issue, I could write a five-side essay about it.

Liar. And, I put a Smiley on there too.

Hey, so did I originally!

Anyway, when are you going to buy me that beer? 😀

Paul

I know, I know. I was joking! ;):D

Paul

Liar. And, I put a Smiley on there too.

I never rant. You got me mixed up :-). Emotions aside, in this case it is my mortgage.
I daily analyse the Cost of the Aerospace & Defence industry. From a $0.02 Washer to a full A/c or Air-Platform and Tank/Vehicle/Munitions. Manufacturing mainly, the Non Recurring is 2nd place in my work (But I do look at it)

I know, I know. I was joking! ;):D

Paul

The A330-200 is a direct competitor to the 767-300ER and has been around since 1998, so how can it be the closest competitor to an aircraft that hasn’t even flown yet? :confused:

Ahh, I love it when you go into one of your little arrogant ranting moods. 😀
Paul

I never rant. You got me mixed up :-). Emotions aside, in this case it is my mortgage.
I daily analyse the Cost of the Aerospace & Defence industry. From a $0.02 Washer to a full A/c or Air-Platform and Tank/Vehicle/Munitions. Manufacturing mainly, the Non Recurring is 2nd place in my work (But I do look at it)

Of course, the program delays have also caused the engine makers to be able to produce a little better burn on the engine, so perhaps some of the overweight condition will be negated. WRT the engines, the big question for me has always been how reliable will these engines be going right into ETOPS service, the engines on the 777 will be tough to match (about 81 shutdowns in 14 million flt hours for the Trent, and about 38 shutdowns in 13-14 million flight hours for the GE90). IFSD numbers quoted from memory from Boeing quarterly ETOPS report, 1st quarter 2009, so they may be slightly off.

How do A330 ETOPS statistics compare?

Back when 777 was built, Boeing got the FAA to invent such a thing as “early ETOPS”. And asked the rest of the world to give that. The answer was – no way. From both Europe and Japan. Outside USA, 777 had to earn ETOPS the hard way and fly without ETOPS till it had accomplished it.

When ANA EIS of 787 was anticipated, Boeing asked Japan again. The reply was – still no way. 787 must earn ETOPS the same hard way.

IIRC, the requirements for earning ETOPS are 12 months of non-ETOPS service AND a certain number of flight hours. How big a fleet is needed to achieve those in 12 months?

I thought that was part of the fun!

And here’s me thinking part of the fun is the fact people see things differently! :rolleyes: 😉

Paul