sekanthttp://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.
sekantIf you buy a pair of noise-canceling headphone (Bose, Sony, Panasonic), you will get all the needed different connecting jacks including the one pictured in this thread for use on airplane.
Alternatively, you can just ask in a Bose store and ask them if they could sell you the jack pictured above. That’s what I did in San Francisco last month because I had forgotten mine on the plane (they gave me two, free of charge).
sekantWe 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.
sekantDassault-Aviation are a (Officialy) recopgnised national strategic asset if this is what you mean, and curiously they not only lead the rest of the world when it comes to demonstrated design capabilties, they also are the company in the spotlight that demonstrates this consistently by not making a mess of their design and getting their first with ceveral world first in the field.
Who are messing up their designs? EADS/Airbus ARE. Boeing ARE. Lockheed Martin ARE.
Now since we have established this as being a FACT you guys are trying to imply Dassault have lower design capabilties because the other companies are designing larger aircrafts than the Falcons?
LOL! I wish Boeing, L-M and Airbus were as capable at least their main programes wouldn’t have ran into technical difficulties and overshot their design goals by a fair margin.
No, what I am saying is certainly not that Dassault is an inferior company. But I challenge (and find ludicrous) your argument that somehow Airbus (and now apparently also Boeing and LM) are some type of crappy company. Airbus is a hugely successful company, as are most of their products. But apparently, to you, a successful product is one that is of no use to anyone.
You are talking rubish, Dassault “decided” nothing ofthe sort, they responded brillantly to the companies requierements, trying to twist the reality around doesn’t make you right.
Over the same range as requiered for the French company, and it did just that.Again spins and interpretaions of realities to try to make up a lack of design capabilties which are in fact affecting everyone else but not Dassault. 😀
That’s where you are way off the mark. The avowed intention of Dassault was to come up with a jetliner that could compete with the B737 and the DC-9. It certainly was not simply launching a programme to respond to the sole need of a small and lesser national airline that AirInter was.
And Dassault completely botched it by not realising that a plane with such limited range would interest absolutely no one. Fact, the Mercure was the worse failure in the field of commercial aviation, selling even less than Concorde. A success in its own way I guess.
sekantI don’t know what happen at that moment and why another version has been develloped, but here, again you’re talking of commercial position, not TECHNICAL.
Apparently, we are not going to agree on this, but in the field of commercial aviation there is a correlation between technical and commercial success. And if you come up with a new plane that is technically way inferior to its competitor in a key domain (Mercure in terms of range vis-à-vis the DC-9), it is a technical failure and ultimately a commercial failure. Not very complicated, but apparently it is.
sekantOr an A400M for that matter.
We all know Dassault-Aviation is your scarecrow buit its not a reason for tryingto bulr the distinction between commercial succeses and technical achievements.
From there we are standing this makes Russian fighter far better designs that that of the US.
I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that Dassault is my scarecrow, but it certainly seems to be a sacred cow for you.
The A400M is late and over budget? Certainly, like many if not most military project, including the Rafale. The fact of the matter is that many more units will be sold than the Mercure and there is even an important likelihood that the project will prove a success over time (because it responds to a real need).
The payload was a requirement of Air inter.
So, you are telling me that Air Inter asked for a range of 700 km (logical, since Air Inter was operating within French territory) and Dassault decided that it would not go beyond that even though its avowed objective was to challenge the 737 and DC-9 (whose range is easily over 2’500 km). That is a definitive technical success, as you put it.
sekantTechnically speaking, that plane was a huge sucess, end of the story.
Concorde was a technical success but a commercial failure.
The Mercure was a commercial failure (10 units sold to one company, Air Inter, because the French government requested AI to buy the plane)because it was a technical failure. The range of the plane was 700 km when fully loaded. I mean, from Paris, you are not even entirely sure of making it to Nice with such a range. When you design an aircraft, your overall package must make sense, and here it didn’t make any. Don’t even get me started on the fact that the French government paid up for all the R&D with no return on investment.
And FYI, starting from scratch to become in thirty years the largest aircraft manufacturer with Boeing as Airbus did is a huge success, not a failure. And about your rant that Airbus has botched the A350, it would seem to me that you are the one who do not understand anything a plane design – you indeed revise your design when you are a the conceptual stage to ensure that you product will respond to the market need. Indeed, you want to avoid manufacturing a Mercure.
sekantOn a different note, does anyone has data/info on the expected range/altitude of the SM-3 Block II?
I can’t find it any more but am wondering to what extent we will not be facing the same problem further down the road, that is with a larger number of interceptors (than was foreseen in Poland) of the SM-3 variety that would have capabilities not far from the mid-course system.
sekant80 tonnes? Are you drunk?
It was more like 4t, less than 3% of its OEW (it is now below 2%).
The B787 is above 6% and I don’t see them coming down to their proposed figures. Guess why Boeing had issues with the center wing box and the body-wing joint? Not because they are too stupid to design aircraft but because they took the weight saving and under-strengthening a bit too far.
. [/SIZE]
6 % overweight. Does that translate in 6 % more fuel burn? in minus 6 % as far as the overall performance goes? Or is it not that linear?
And does it means a 6 % penalty as far as the selling price goes?
In that respect, one can wonder, if performances are indeed less than promised, whether to have sold so many frames before the plane was actually flight-tested will not turn out to be a negative thing for Boeing.
sekantNew single aisle will largely depend on configuration questions (prop/fan, turbofan; high/low wing, design Mach number and range, to some extent passenger count). Very interesting indeed. Basically even Embraer could catch this market, but never underestimate the lead A&B have.
It is not only the lead A&B have. To prevent others to enter this market is key for them and they will resort to dumping if necessary (ie use the benefits made on the 777 or the 330 to sell their wares at such a price that neither Embraer or Bombardier will be able to compete – and both Embraer and Bombardier are very hesitant to enter the market for planes of a greater capacity than 100/105 seats due to this fact).
Concerning the 787, I read somewhere (Seattle Times I believe) that due to delays and associated penalties, Boeing would start making money after the 350th/400th air frame. If this is correct, and if Boeing is hit by a few more setbacks (like reduced performances due to imposed modification), it would seem to me that they are in a more difficult position that we assume it is at this stage.
sekantYet more problems just come to light for the “Plastic Pig” – this time fuselage wrinkles and a stop work order from Boeing to Alenia – although it seems it can be fixed with more re-inforcement of the areas concerned
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009658959_boeing14.html
Andy
1) Would it not make more sense from an industrial point of view to fully test the aircraft before launching production as Boeing did? Because otherwise it will have to retrofit/repair a significant number of planes and that will be both time consuming and expensive. In addition, depending on the extent of the post-production modification (and that applies to the current modification on the wing/wing box joints) clients may be reluctant to accept the item without a discount, or accept it at all.
I would appreciate the comments of people of knowledge in industrial production as I am not competent.
2) The criticism addressed at Boeing have been very mild when compared to what happened to Airbus and the 380. And this certainly includes this blog. That those who heaped scorn on Airbus and the 380 (and continue to do so) complain that some dare make jokes about Boeing is beyond ludicrous.
But I don’t think there is any surprise here.
sekant1) The reality is that the A330 is an extremely safe aircraft. In terms of number of departures/hull loses, the only plane that is on a par with it is the 777. Nothing else comes close to it.
2) The same type of article could be written about the 777. We have one case where its engines stopped running and caused a crash landing, followed by several cases of engines going into iddle in midflight. The fact that the article focused solely on the A330, without any comparison with other makes, is in this regard telling. Frankly, I do not know any model that does not have weaknesses, and the 330 has among the fewest.
3) The fact that the articles tries to build its case by adding instances where man and certainly not the plane is responsible (like for the Etihad 340) does nothing to improve the credibility of the article.
sekantMy comments were based on 3 articles I read about an hour before posting. Of course, the media can get it wrong, as they often do. If those articles were in error, that’s fine by me.
Having gone back to find the articles in question, they now all state it hits “Belly first”. Hmm
Fact is, your statement that they ruled out that the pitot tube may be a factor in the crash is incorrect. Levelling accusations on that basis is therefore dishonest. But there is nothing new here.
sekantSo, the authorities say the plane hit the water nose first at high speed. OK, I’ll buy that.
But now they are ruling out the possibility of faulty pitot tubes being the cause, without the key evidence any other crash investigation requires to determine that sort of thing: The black boxes. I’m already begining to suspect they’re looking for a scapegoat.
1) No, they did not say that the plane hit the water nose first at high speed.
2) No they did not rule out the fact that the pitot tubes may have been a contributing factor to the crash.
You may want to try and find out what they really said before levelling that type of accusation. I am not holding my breath though.
sekantBoeing officially announced another 2-3 month delay on first flight and subsequently deliveries. Some analysts expect no delivery before 2011.
Another blow for the program, will cost at least another 50 deliveries advantage to the A350.
After the 380, the 787 and the 400M, you can’t be sure that the 350 won’t be botched and come in late as well. I would not bet my airline on the fact that it may be on time.
Sign In
