SchorschOnce again misleading reporting:
It should be named “Brand new engine makes emergency landing!”
Additionally: why is this concerning?
If anybody is concerned, I recommend A340. :diablo:
SchorschSound buisness descisions arent always different from sound technical descisions and from my expereince on the 787 (as an outsider working with boeing) has been that they are listening to the folks that are making this aircraft on technical issues !
A classic case where business and technical issues go different ways is testing. Flight test costs huge amount of money in manpower and bound capital. Additionally, flight test has normally not much to do with production. The temptation to save here in order to speed up the whole program is huge. But it has some drawbacks. Many tests (ground and flight) give feedback on system and structural performance. Figure these out and decide about solutions may take some time. If – for example – a structural part is found to be not compliant with requirements (fatigue, limit loads, etc), its replacement is difficult in such a short time.
Let’s see what happens. If nothing goes wrong –> people say they are the greatest. If something serious goes wrong –> people say they are the dumbest idiots of all times and they knew it from the beginning.
SchorschYes that is a serious sticking point aswell ! It would be an interesting sight indeed , they claim it to be the most well planned program boeing has ever done so lets see if they figure this part out ( they have done well up till now) .
As engineer I always expect the unexpected. “Unknown unknowns” have always been the stumbling blocks in aviation on either side of the ocean.
Friction occurs, that is why things tend to be late most of the time and rarely come out too early. I just fear that the 787-schedule was dictated by business man, without real input by engineers. Same thing happened at A380, and results are the staircase wit of this decade.
All this talking about “challenging schedule”, “new methods” and “game-changing technology” gets a second meaning when it falls apart like a card house.
SchorschI take it you mean “how”
Its simple, they’ll be using 6 planes to conduct the flight testing, 6 planes to share the workload. 6 planes flying at more or less the same time will accumulate a lot of flight hours, very quickly. This should mean a faster testing program and certification.
Its no secret, Boeing has been briefing the media on this plan for quite some time now.
I have joined one flight test program of a new and pretty big aircraft, so I know what can happen. Following bring_it_on, “my” aircraft was very conventional, compared to the revolutionary B787.
The number of aircraft is important, but a big bunch of tests can only be done by one or maybe two aircraft. Maybe Boeing affords two heavy FTI equipped aircraft, but I doubt.
Flaws that become obvious in the flight test program (and there are always flaws) are quite tricky to overcome in that short period of time.
FTI = Flight Test Installation
SchorschYes the article and the thread title seem to be wrong slightly , Boeing (nor any other OEM) will give a firm date of start of flight testing = First flight because so many things have to fall into place , The aircraft has to be completely wired —> Systems installed —> systems checked—> Power on—-> engine runs and aborted take offs etc etc etc , Also weather plays a part ! Boeing has always maintained that first flight would be aug-sept , and atleast at the rollout mike bair was confident in that it would be very close to 2nd week of september and that they can wait all september and still be on shedule for the certification meaning that even if the first flight takes place in the 3 or 4 week of september there would be no change in certification schedule ( they have some breathin room) . I have no indication that anything so far has caused boeing to either push back or bring forward the dates and they still remain on track for “Aug-Sept” first flight !
I think they initially said August, but memory maybe weak.
Anyways, many issues may shift FF a few days, nothing really to worry about.
Who they gonna test a completely new aircraft in just under 8 month remains their secret. I may add that most certification issues need to be done about 2 to 3 month ahead of actual certification, giving them a window September to February (which is BTW Winter time) for many tests.
Good luck all involved!
SchorschThread Title Is Misleading
You should read the article right before posting it: Bair says late August, early September. The newspaper makes “could begin in August” out of it (which is technically backed by Bair’s statement). You phrase your thread with “to start flight testing in August”.
You see: Your “news” is not backed by Bair’s statement. Actually, Bair’s interview was interpreted in practically all professional publications two weeks ago.
If Boeing would state that August will be the month, that would be news. Though they didn’t, and most likely are not too stupid to get nailed down on some calendarial issues.
SchorschEDITED
Furthermore US carriers in the cold war often operated a wide variety of types including the vigilante.
I guess the lesson was learned with the first supersonic jets that the variety of types must be limited. Today we see less types. Often common technology helps, in case of the Vigilante the common J79 was surely helpful.
In terms of capability per used carrier space the Vigilante surely was a looser against nearly any other type. I think the Vigilante was designed with absolute focus on performance and less focus on maintainability and cost.
The Vigilante offered the Navy an huge step in capability: a supersonic strike aircraft was futuristic in 1960, but supersonic all-weather capable, carrier-born strike aircraft with acceptable range was enormous. I think in terms of technology the Vigilante showed the edge American technology had over Soviet technology at that time.
Fortunately most design aspects found itself in later designs, the general integration of the engines for example in F-15 and MiG-25. The avcionics were definitely “transition” technology (analogue computer, radar-INS).
I remember that in an article of moderate length about the Vigilante the cost of the single piece canopy was specially remarked.
SchorschThe Vigilante had a very high approach speed – far too high for a CAP fighter that was expected to operate frequently and routinely during adverse weather conditions.
The Vigilante also lacked “bring back” weight margins to land on a carrier with a full load of very expensive, very large Eagle or Phoenix AAMs.
By today’s standards, the Vigilante probably wouldn’t be considered acceptable as a carrier aircraft.
No, it didn’t. The Vigilante had a relatively small radome, far smaller than the later F-14, which had a smaller radome than the F-111B. The frontal area of the Missileer was huge for a fighter, and there is no way that the avionics of the Missileer could have been accomodated aboard the Vigilante without a forward fuselage redesign and a far smaller antenna.
Not really. The massive empty weight and fuel load limited the payload of the Vigilante compared to most smaller tactical naval aircraft. Payload was very limited compared to a far smaller Intruder.
…but not long endurance. Endurance was important for a long range naval CAP fighter. Endurance was the driving factor behind the low performance design of the Missileer.
The recon Vigilante could fly an impressive distance, but it’s ability to loiter was rather limited.
The Vigilante was already a hugely expensive aircraft with more than a few operational deficiencies. You could have hung a few Eagle missiles under the wings, but there was no space or weight margin for the avionics.
No, it couldn’t have.
Can anyone imagine how disasterous a Vigilante based fighter would have been over the skies of North Vietnam?
Imagine for a moment the operational nightmare of two full squadrons of Vigilantes aboard even the largest supercarrier.
The Vigilante was a nearly Skywarrior sized aircraft with same turbojets as the much smaller Phantom. It was not a fighter by any stretch of the imagination.
The Vigilante was expensive to produce, expensive to operate, limited in capability. It became a recon platform not only because the strategic mission disappeared, but also because it was a poor strike aircraft.
TinWing,
congratulations on this and the following posts. You put the things straight in a very efficient and entertaining manner. I am myself are great admirer of NAA designs, especially the Vigilante. However, a closer look makes clear that the Vigilante wasn’t truly suitable, just “too far ahead of its time”, or better said: too much new and unreliable technology. Additionally, it was far too heavy.
150kts approach speed would disqualify every aircraft. That’s for example why the F-16N was cancelled, although approved by Congress as the new Navy fighter.
To make a true fighter out of the Vigilante, I guess it would have needed better engines (or three engines as proposed), more lift (bigger and more sophisticated wing), better structure (more flight hourse and more maneuvering) and new avionics. In the end it would have been a new aircraft.
With this option an update of the F-4 Phantom (which entered service same time) looks more promising. The F-4 offered everything a Vigilante could offer.
SchorschOfcourse !!!!
But could you answer these questions –
– Which other wide body features over 50% composite by weight ?
– How much composite does the 777 have or the A380 have as a % of weight (total)
– Which other widebody uses tape laying mandarels instead of the usual frame and skin layup
– Which other widebody features nearly bleedless enginesPlease specify which inovations that i mentioned are senseless ???
The 787 is what 4-5 years older to the A380 ( that is if we take the Launch date , EIS date would be only a few months 🙂 ) and yet look at the advances it has . I am sure you would call the A380 more revolutionary because it is all but 20% bigger then the 747 so a hurculean task to make the aircraft 20% bigger then the biggest commercial airliner. Or is the A350 revolutionary . Or maybe the A400 . Your total hatred of boeing is so evident.. I guess when a new boeing Widebody sells nearly as many units before EIS as its airbus competitor has for nearly 20 years It hurts:dev2:
I am not hating anything. Especially do I not hate a company. That would be quite pathetic. I do not doubt that the B787 is a marvel in technology, like the B777 or B767 or B707 was at its time.
I am just somebody who tries to have a sober look at the facts instead of happy and chearful quoting of press releases and the inflationary use of words like “revolutionary” (revolutionary aircraft don’t sell).
Your comment about the 20% bigger shows your lack of basic understanding of aviation technology. Continuous repetition of the B787 design features (well known to all insiders of the industry) doesn’t compensate for that.
Please specify which inovations that i mentioned are senseless ???
The all-electric design is doubted by some people to gain any savings weight.
SchorschSure it is . Like every aircraft that comes out , if it has two wings , engines , and is tubular it is “JUST ANOTHER AIRCRAFT” For the average passenger joe . But we are more then that:D Most jetaholics , aerojunkies etc know the difference .
The 787 is much more revoulitionary then its evolutionary as compared to aircrafts like the A380 , 748 , 777 simply because of the High % composites , mostly electrical power supply and mostly bleedless engines , and quite an impressive development and production process . Applying tape on a composite hoopy frame via a mandarel hasnt been done before with commercial widebody therefore it aint that they evolved from an existing production process but was thought out and designed to be different because they were using different materials and different production techniques. Nor has any widebody manufacterer ever manufactered single peice CFRP barrels . Also Framework was totally different. The main strength of this system comes from the Barrels themselves supporting and the frame is there to provide shape and for inner attatchements as compared to the legacy process where the frame was the main support and weight bearing structure and the skin was around it . This is quite revoulutionary easily comparable to other revolutionary tech. in commercial airliners such as Jet engines , FBW etc etc . Boeing floated a review document in late 2006 to its partners about how many Patents and Licences are going into the 787 , and the no was something like 150% more then on the 777 , i will look the document up and scan it in for you folks .
I am surprised that you keep on repeating this stuff, as you may know that I am as aviation insider quite well informed about the B787. Some stuff you mentioned can be disputed if it makes sense (and senseless additions are hardly innovations).
It is pure PR to make its own product extremely innovative and tell that the others product (in this case the A380) is conventional and “nothing new”.
The B787 is neither revolutionary, nor does it mark the onset of a new aviation age. It is just another jet that replaces the B767 with good but not extraordinary efficiency boost of 20%. That is for a 25 year period about the pace you would expect. The efficiency gain of B767 over its 25 year younger predecessor (what did Boeing pull out 1956?) was actually more.
SchorschIt looks…………………………..just like every other plane!!!!!!!!!!
It actually is just another aircraft. Careful evolution fitting within existing frameworks of operations.
I would like to see how many passengers can differentiate between:
A300
A330
A350 (whatever it finally looks like)
B767
B777
B787
I would guess the number below 20%.
SchorschThe Starfighter was the first. During the testing period two prototypes were damaged in gun tests with on crashing and the other making an one-engine-out landing (which is difficult for single engine aircraft).
SchorschWell , if someone comes up and says that boeing Used the SC as a smokescrean for the dreamliner project or something to the tune is it unreasonable to expect the same person to point to some concrete evidence to his claims? Specially if the person involved is quite well respected and is considered well informed? I think that asking the other person to prove that they didnt do it is being hypocrit , because the mere lack of firm evidence that supports the theory that they did use it as a smoke screan is enough evidence to quash any accusation . I think there is no evidence of foul play , had boeing deliberately lied to their investors regarding the SC they would be in serious trouble because public companies cannot do that , and boeing in those days was being thoroughly investigated anyways so it was hard for this to slip under the carpet . There is evidence to suggest that the Project yellowstone ( Mother of 7E7) was well underway by around 6-10 months or so before the SC finally got canned but boeing could well be in the denial phase or be too embarace to come out and say that there sonic dream just crash landed and couldnt find any customers . Infact it was common knowledge to the insiders as well as some media people that the fate of the SC would be death , the clouds were looming large for about 6 months before boeing publically came out and killed it !
Do you read what I wrote? I said clearly: They did not lie, they just did not mean it serious.
The B7E7 was underway since late 90s, as wide-body twinjet it was something something Boeing has on its hard drive ever since. Careful evolution is what makes aviation companies rich, not dramatic revolution.
Please specify what kind of evidence you expect, when even you as “insider” come up with nothing more than press releases and links from homeworkstuffs.com (yeah, google is a bitch some days).
You also failed to comment the scientific report from the DLR I linked.
Your comments about the ability of 12 engineers to do preliminary design up to a point where an at least basic design can be presented to a customer show for me a lack of understanding of aircraft’s design processes. It takes quite a lot of time to come to a point when you actually can – as self-respecting person – offer it to a customer. They didn’t have that time, and the wind tunnel model is a nice thing but totally inadequate to figure out low speed handling or detailed aerodynamics, stuff you need if you want to have a good guess on structural necessities.
Found something interesting, comments made after 2002 Farnborough airshow:
While Airbus fielded the smallest and largest of its range, Boeing remained aloof about exhibiting its products at displays, ‘it doesn’t sell airplanes’ said CEO Phil Condit. Pursued about the Sonic Cruiser project, Condit would only say that work was continuing on ‘a program that will have broad attractiveness and a long life’, but some in the industry argue that the the whole idea is a smoke screen for another type of aircraft altogether.
Schorsch…probably those dozen or so engineers. 😀
The Transonic Dozen.
SchorschActually, I think the real professionals give a **** when orders are announced, they just count in the end. And after all, it secures some additional attention and it is not in any way harmful for other companies. The “sand-bagged” orders are normally from a time-frame of 3 to 4 month. I remember some news suggesting that Airbus is in deep trouble as quarterly orders were far below Boeings.
Sign In
