Boeing 787

[mgh 89]

Today's London Tiimes reports further delay of 6 months to the 787 programme. It says that the first flight will not now take place until May 2008 and that the first deliveries to All Nippon Airline will be delayed November/December 2008. Yhe report suggests that the certification period is very tight with no slack for any unforeseen events.The Times previously reported that the 787 shown at the roll-out was not assembled to full-flight standards because of time presure It now says "Rumours in the aerospace inmdustry suggest that Boeing may simply scrap the botched first plane and apply the lessons learnt to the second, hopefully completing assembly much faster,".

[Mace 1,902]

What was wrong with the first 787 aircraft? I never heard much about it after the roll-out.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[mgh 89]

Earlier reports said it had beewn improperly assembled to meet the reoll-out date and that some of the fixings were not to the standards needed for flight ands wouls have to be redone.

[Guest bjjones]

787 #1 was held together for the large part with regular run of the mill fasteners from local hardware stores, these obviously all have to be replaced with flight standard hardware and the problem with that is there is a, a general shortage of fasteners anyway, and b, the locations of the temporary fasteners weren't properly documented.The aircraft that was rolled out was literally a plastic shell, once the party was over it was taken to bits again and has only recently been put back on it's own gear.If you saw any close up pics from the rollout of for example the landing gear, there were lots of items with red markings on them, or red ribbons tied around them, these were to mark temporary components.On the article from the times, who are less than average when it comes to anything aviation related, there are a some errors, this is the first delay to the programme as a whole, not a further one, First flight is scheduled for Q1, not Q2, and having listened to the conference call following the announcement, the schedule as it was with first flight in December and delivery in May would have left them tight with no room for errors, there only being a 5 months window, this shift brings back that buffer zone and gives them nearer 8 months in total.Boeing also stated in the call that the plans are still for #1 to be the first aircraft to fly, #2 would follow shortly afterwards, there are no plans to scrap any aircraft.

[mgh 89]

"787 #1 was held together for the large part with regular run of the mill fasteners from local hardware stores, these obviously all have to be replaced with flight standard hardware and the problem with that is there is a, a general shortage of fasteners anyway, and b, the locations of the temporary fasteners weren't properly documented."So the first airacraft was "botched" as the Times reports."Boeing (BA) postponed the first flight of its new 787 Dreamliner, pushing the test to the end of September from the end of August"Business Week July 26 2007http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas...htm?chan=search "Boeing's (BA) decision to delay the first flight of its new fuel-sipping 787 Dreamliner another two months acknowledges the enormous challenges of assembling the world's first composite-based commercial jetliner.""The Chicago aerospace giant had maintained that the first flight test of its new "plastic" plane would be in mid-December

[Guest bjjones]

Nothing to argue with in anything youve posted, just that personally I interpret 'further delay of 6 months to the 787 programme' as suggesting that deliveries are now running in excess of 6 months late, when that is infact the only delay they've officially faced to date.And no critisism for Business Week, I just dont believe anything the Times prints after numerous pieces of rubbish in recent months, usually pertaining to order predictions which traditionally, it gets spectacularly wrong, given the choice between the two publications theres no contest as to which I would (and do) read on a regular basis.

[michal 44]

>"Rumours in the aerospace>inmdustry suggest that Boeing may simply scrap the botched>first plane and apply the lessons learnt to the second,>hopefully completing assembly much faster,".While it may be good to read Times for 'rumors', for more complete and truthful information I suggest trade magazines like Aviation Week & Space Technology. The first 787 was not "botched" - was assembled with fasteners that were not flight-worthy and Boeing new about it very well. The first 787 is not going to be 'scrapped' but after the replacement of its fasteners and other remaining work will actually be the first copy of 787 to take to the air.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[mgh 89]

I should hope that Boeing knew that the aircraft was assembled with non flight-worthy fasteners! However, I don't recall Boeing announcing that when the aircraft was rolled out. IAviation Week reports:Carson said that airplane is still expected to be the first one to rotate its tires in first flight. and

[michal 44]

>However, I don't>recall Boeing announcing that when the aircraft was rolled>out. And why they should have announced? To satisfy your curiosity :-eek Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

[Cessnaflyer 56]

They did announce it.I'll have to find the article sometime later. I think it came out in the Seattle Times a few days before the roll-out event.

[KevinAu 441]

The fastener shortage and the fact that the rollout plane was sans avionics was well reported already, at least to those of us who subscribe to Aviation Week. The rollout party had to be held on 8/8 whether the plane was finished or not in defference to all the Asian customers since "8" is the most auspicious number in Asian culture. Even Airbus skipped 350, 360, and 370 to get to A380.

[Guest jboweruk]

But there is going to be an Airbus A350 at some point in the not too distant future. I think the main point here is Boeing slated Airbus for delays saying at the time their 787 was on target and on schedule, so it's more a case of Egg on face really.

[JonRD463 146]

It's rare that any aircraft debuted in a rollout is airworthy at the time of presentation. Something I noticed during the ceremony is when the aircraft was turned to face the audience, you could clearly see a side window through the cockpit windows, meaning the bulkhead between the cockpit and cabin wasn't in place. This is nothing new. -Jon>I should hope that Boeing knew that the aircraft was>assembled with non flight-worthy fasteners! However, I don't>recall Boeing announcing that when the aircraft was rolled>out. I>>Aviation Week reports:>>Carson said that airplane is still expected to be the first>one to rotate its tires in first flight. >>and>>

[michal 44]

>I think the main point here is Boeing>slated Airbus for delays saying at the time their 787 was on>target and on schedule, so it's more a case of Egg on face>really.If this is a "point" is is pure fiction, Boeing never 'slated' Airbus for being late. Contrary to such clowns as Airbus' John Leahy Boeing always took a high ground and never commented one way or another on Airbus production woes.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg