backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Jul 20 at 11:34 AM


Boeing has assembled a 787 Dreamliner, but has yet to begin test flights due to a variety of lingering issues.  (Source: Boeing)
Boeing says 787 still on schedule for first flight despite delays

Boeing’s ambitious plans for its Dreamliner 787 aircraft have been put to the test with numerous delays. The 787 promises to save up to 20% on fuel making flights cost less for the airlines and producing less pollution in the environment.

According to Reuters the 787 is still on track for a first flight in Q4 of 2008 despite its latest setback. This time the problem causing delays in the aircraft is the software that controls the braking system. Pat Shanahan, general manager of the 787 program told Reuters, “It's not that the brakes don't work, it's the traceability of the software. I'm confident it will be done. It's General Electric.”

General Electric subcontracted work on the brake control and monitoring system for the 787 to Hydro-Aire, which is part of engineering company Crane. Crane has offered no comment on the delay. Boeing maintains that the software for the brake control and monitoring system works, it’s simply that the ability to verify the brake software operates wasn’t built into the software, which is needed for the software to pass inspection.

The brake control software isn’t the only issue Boeing is still battling with on the 787 project. Shanahan says that more work is still needed on the mid-body of the first 787 and that Boeing is still dealing with parts shortages for aircraft wing components. The last major issue with the 787 had to do with the design of the wing box.

Boeing says that another test 787 known as Airplane 4 is also having delays. The fuselage of the aircraft has not yet been delivered to the final assembly plant. Shanahan says that the delay doesn't threaten the flight test schedule, but is eating into extra time built into the schedule.

The Dreamliner has seen many previous delays -- it was originally scheduled to take flight in August 2007.  The finished production aircraft were supposed to be delivered to customer in early 2008, now Boeing says they will be delivered in 2009 at the earliest.  



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hard to believe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 1:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's just me, but I find it difficult to believe software to control brakes is that terribly complex.




RE: Hard to believe
By othercents on 7/15/2008 1:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not, but you want them to work every time even if there is a failure in the system right?

Other


RE: Hard to believe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 2:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly, I just find it difficult to believe it would be responsible for a major delay in the entire program.


RE: Hard to believe
By DLeRium on 7/15/2008 2:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'd imagine you have to qualify the software with new revisions or if a bug is detected. The testing must be quite rigorous for software, and a regulated industry/product like this would be tested over and over again I'm sure.


RE: Hard to believe
By barjebus on 7/15/2008 3:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Agree'd. Just because there's no ability to audit the brake software doesn't mean that the planes can't get built. If they had 5 plans sitting on the tarmac and they claimed that they can't audit their brake system to pass inspection, then I could believe them, but when the planes aren't even built yet?? /shrug


RE: Hard to believe
By Eris23007 on 7/15/2008 5:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
If it has to be Safety Act certified, I believe it could very well be responsible. You might be surprised at some of the arcane software development rules in place to govern "safety-critical" code (which I imagine this would qualify for)...


RE: Hard to believe
By ikkeman2 on 7/17/2008 6:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
read the article. No delay was announced, just a slip into the extra time they alreade reserved for the unexpected.


RE: Hard to believe
By Mithan on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hard to believe
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 3
Wow don't we have a cheery attitude?

So why aren't you getting in line for bread then?


RE: Hard to believe
By Samus on 7/17/2008 12:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
nutrition requirements for said 'depression'

five-thousand gallons supply of water
eight quarter-kegs of Heineken
a bread making machine
five pounds yeist
two hundred bags of flour
four quarts vegetable oil
five hundred cups of chicken-flavor raman noodles
a few of those huge costco daily multivitamin jugs

bring it on judgement day!


RE: Hard to believe
By Solandri on 7/15/2008 2:30:00 PM , Rating: 5
There have been several runway overrun incidents (both Boeing and Airbus aircraft, some causing fatalities) where brakes did not engage due to hydroplaning, and the software concluding the plane was still in flight. They've added load sensors on the wheel strut to sense when weight is put on the wheel, but if that sensor fails you're still relying on wheel rotation. It's tricky because it's very bad for the brakes to engage before landing, and it's also very bad for the brakes not to engage after landing.

Anyhow, it's not like your car where the weight is usually within 10%-20%. A plane can more than double its weight between empty and fully loaded, and the brakes have to adjust accordingly, from a fully loaded aborted take-off to an empty landing on a delivery run. Plus you're dealing with a lot more wheels than a car so there are a lot more cross-influences from one wheel to another.


RE: Hard to believe
By Sulphademus on 7/15/2008 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 1
Although in most cases, they wont land a plane with full fuel tanks. Jets are filled up with how much juice they need to get to their destinations and sent on with that. They then have an anticipated landing weight after burning x% of the fuel. The suspension of these planes just cant take the landing force of the jet + a full tank of kerosine. This is why airports have aircraft either circle around for a while or do a fuel dump before an emergency landing.


RE: Hard to believe
By Solandri on 7/15/2008 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
The brakes still come into play on a fully loaded and fueled plane during an aborted take-off.


RE: Hard to believe
By Sulphademus on 7/15/2008 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The brakes still come into play on a fully loaded and fueled plane during an aborted take-off.


True enough. Probably looking at double the weight in such cases (assuming transcontinental or transoceanic).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4LFErD-yls
3000ºC? Yowch!


RE: Hard to believe
By pauldovi on 7/15/2008 5:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
The planes are fully capable of landing at full weight, it is just not preferred.


RE: Hard to believe
By ikkeman2 on 7/17/2008 6:42:50 AM , Rating: 2
Google or Wiki MTOW and MLW


RE: Hard to believe
By Dark Legion on 7/16/2008 2:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
when the problem is serious enough that they have to return to the airport they departed from, how could they possibly have time to circle around and/or dump fuel? Obviously they have to be prepared for a heavy landing.


RE: Hard to believe
By InsaneGain on 7/16/2008 11:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
A pilot I know told me that the planes are actually designed to be able to land with a full load of fuel. They just have less margin for error with runway length. With the price of jet fuel today, no pilot will be allowed dump the fuel.

quote:
The suspension of these planes just cant take the landing force of the jet + a full tank of kerosine


RE: Hard to believe
By masher2 (blog) on 7/15/2008 3:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting; thanks for the information.


RE: Hard to believe
By Some1ne on 7/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hard to believe
By Amiga500 on 7/15/2008 3:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, you don't want the brakes to be on when you touch down - chances are you'll blow out every tyre on your boogie.

Then there is also ABS for maximum braking effect, control when braking and reduced tyre wear.

However, pilots should be using the thrust reversers for braking anyway, as it reduces tyre wear quite significantly.


RE: Hard to believe
By wordsworm on 7/15/2008 10:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it's that important, then why try to automate it in the first place?
co-pilot to captain, "Sorry mate, forgot to carry the 1."

Machines don't get tired. They don't make mistakes. Programmers make mistakes. People get tired, they make mistakes. Programmers are people who make mistakes, especially when they're tired. However, if a pilot makes a mistake when landing the craft, he might learn from that mistake and never make it again. Other pilots without that experience might make the same mistake he did. On the other hand, the computer, should there be a fault somewhere because of the programmer, can be fixed so that no more mistakes are made.

Even in cars, ABS kicks serious butt over just a human foot.


RE: Hard to believe
By Dark Legion on 7/16/2008 2:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
just like in a car, different situations and conditions call for different amount of breaks applied. Coands from the pilot cannot do this, but this program can. And of course if there is the need for a split second decision, the pilot has some control over it.


RE: Hard to believe
By FaceMaster on 7/15/2008 2:42:34 PM , Rating: 5
They might be capable of playing Crysis for all YOU know.


RE: Hard to believe
By DFSolley on 7/15/2008 3:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
Having worked with programmers for automotive brake systems, this software can be very complex. You need to take into account not only simple braking, but monitor various pressures and speeds to detect other system failures and take them into account. Braking is too critical to fail if some sub-system failure occurs.


RE: Hard to believe
By Tryek25 on 7/15/2008 3:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
The software seems to already be there. The article mentions that its a problem with the traceability of the software. This just means that GE forgot that this was going into a very regulated product (huge airplane to fly huge amounts of ppl). This means that the program must leave a paper trail and be able to be audited. Therefore the software needs to be modified to make sure all its components have a record of what they do, how they do, changes made to it and an auditing tool to go along with it. Its not as simple as it sounds, trust me I worked in the pharmaceutical industry and if the FAA is as much a pain in the butt as the FDA then this is going to be painful for GE to fix.


RE: Hard to believe
By JimmyC on 7/19/2008 11:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
Can't speak to the FAA, but you ain't lying about FDA regs, the traceability requirements are crazy on the software we're doing.


RE: Hard to believe
By PandaBear on 7/15/2008 6:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Like all engineering projects (software especially) it is the failure cases that are hard to design and test. 5% of the code handles the success path, while 95% of them handle the various failure scenarios.

Test software is important, without them, you may miss a lot more fatal faults that happen once every couple of years. Then it would be very expensive to investigate and fix, let alone compensate the dead.


RE: Hard to believe
By phxfreddy on 7/20/2008 11:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
Article did not say "brake software" ...it said "brake software verification" right?

I worked for Honeywell in the early 90's doing some bizjet radio design. There are ALOT of rules about how you can do something. This is because you really can pull off to the side of the road and fix your airplane.

It must work sufficiently to get you home in one piece or its pretty much not so good in the words of Saul Rosenthal.


Hm...
By Some1ne on 7/15/2008 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't this the same company that seems to think it's entitled to be awarded some military tanker-aircraft contract, even though the contract has already been awarded to a different group? They're not doing much to help their case here. If they can't even get their commercial ventures to run smoothly, why should the military trust them with a project that is substantially more important?




RE: Hm...
By HrilL on 7/15/2008 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah it is. And I for one hope they win the new contract. I don't think our military should spend our tax dollars outside our country. I want my tax money to go back to Americans not someone else.


RE: Hm...
By Some1ne on 7/15/2008 6:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather see our armed forces using the best equipment there is, even if that means that the equipment relies on foreign designs. And I'd also like to see American companies get off their asses and start innovating again to retake the technological lead that's been slipping away, so that this sort of thing won't be an issue in the future.

quote:
I want my tax money to go back to Americans not someone else.


That kind of attitude is exactly what's at the cause of our increasing technological deficit with foreign entities. Why should an American company bother to innovate, or invest a substantial amount of profits back into additional R&D, or worry about staying ahead of their foreign counterparts, when they know that they are guaranteed a huge amount of revenue through government contracts simply due to their standing as an American company? American companies should not be treated preferentially, and should have to earn government dollars just like everyone else. They shouldn't be entitled to them just because they happen to be an American company. What we really need is a return to competitiveness, and that's not going to happen through the government giving handouts to American companies just because people don't want to see their money given to foreign ones.

If there's no real incentive to staying ahead of the pack, then American companies won't. If there's a huge monetary reward attached to being #1 in the world, then they will. That's just capitalism in action.


RE: Hm...
By ziggo on 7/15/2008 9:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone commenting here actually read the GAO's findings? You guys talk about this thing like you are familliar with the technical details of the tanker, but you comments belay another level of compentancy.

The Air Force fudged this bidding process. They used the wrong reliability data for the Boeing aricraft, and ignored the effects of choosing an larger aircraft than specified.

In any case, technical development is not something that is even relevant here. Both bids were centered around using existing aircraft with the primary concerns being the lifetime costs of these things.

The defense companies deal with much less competition, but they also have a very limited customer base. It requires congressional approval so sell anything to another country. I don't know what you are talking about with a loss of a technical lead either. I have a hard time thinking of a techology development area where the defense industry in the USA is behind any other country. Perhaps our Armor is a bit outdated compared to the british, but thats a budgetary decision. Even the Military cant afford to buy everything.

FYI, the defense industry operates much closer to the government than in the past. R&D money comes from the government to develop proposals the companies make. The government made the decision that they want to own the rights to the technology developed, so they pay for it.


RE: Hm...
By homebredcorgi on 7/15/2008 11:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent points. The GAO statement was very clear. The AF made some idiotic decisions: Giving EADS/Northrop extra credit for going over requested fuel/cargo capacity loads (even though the AF said there would be no extra credit given in the RFP) and not giving Boeing any is just one. Read the summary (its only a few pages), it's a real eye opener.

Now the AF is going to push a new RFP through quickly so Boeing wont have time to pitch a 777 version. Nice.


RE: Hm...
By Amiga500 on 7/16/2008 6:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
Now the AF is going to push a new RFP through quickly so Boeing wont have time to pitch a 777 version. Nice.

Boeing had previously prepared submissions based on both the 767 and 777.

They had also been asked did they want to change their submission in Jan of '08, but declined.


RE: Hm...
By HrilL on 7/16/2008 8:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I knew that. Which is the reason for my post but I get rated down because you know people hate Nationalism go figure. Was probably some damn foreigner no doubt.


RE: Hm...
By rcc on 7/16/2008 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
General Accounting Office has already required the award to be thrown out for "irregularities" in the way the competition was handled.


Ugh...
By Doormat on 7/15/2008 1:46:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Dreamliner has seen many previous delays. It was originally scheduled to take flight in August 2007, but has been pushed back to flying sometime this summer, for the first time. The finished production aircraft were supposed to be delivered to customer in early 2008, now Boeing says they will be delivered in 2009 at the earliest. It will compete with rival Airbus's A380 superjumbo jet, which has finally seen its first test flight after numerous delays of its own, which cost Airbus several contracts.


I dont know where to begin, just about every sentence in this paragraph is wrong...

"The Dreamliner has seen many previous delays. It was originally scheduled to take flight in August 2007, but has been pushed back to flying sometime this summer, for the first time." No, first flight is scheduled for Q4 2008. Thats not this summer, unless you're in the southern hemisphere.

"The finished production aircraft were supposed to be delivered to customer in early 2008, now Boeing says they will be delivered in 2009 at the earliest." OK, that one is fine, though you could say that Q3 2009 is the targeted EIS (entry into service).

"It will compete with rival Airbus's A380 superjumbo jet" While they were developed in the same timeframe, to say they compete is rather ridiculous from a market segment standpoint. The 787 and A350 will compete, though the larger variants of the A350 will compete directly against the 777-200ER. The A380 really doesn't have much competition - even the 748I will seat about 100 less people, though they both generally fit into the VLA or very large aircraft segment. Airlines don't choose between A380s and 787s when they go look to buy new aircraft.

"which has finally seen its first test flight after numerous delays of its own, which cost Airbus several contracts." True about the A380s problems, though the contracts that they lost were for the Cargo version of the A380, which I think Airbus had to make a tough decision, but they made the correct one to push back the Freighter development. The problems are mostly over and done with, and there are currently 5 A380s in service with Singapore airlines and Quantas. Emirates will receive their first A380 at the end of the month.




RE: Ugh...
By Solandri on 7/15/2008 2:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It will compete with rival Airbus's A380 superjumbo jet" While they were developed in the same timeframe, to say they compete is rather ridiculous from a market segment standpoint.

While they don't compete head-to-head, they do compete in that Airbus believes the future of air travel is bigger planes flying between a few hub cities, while Boeing believes the future is smaller planes flying between lesser-used spoke cities. Both planes were designed with those respective beliefs in mind.
quote:
Airlines don't choose between A380s and 787s when they go look to buy new aircraft.

But they do when deciding which routes to fly.
quote:
"which has finally seen its first test flight after numerous delays of its own, which cost Airbus several contracts."
True about the A380s problems, though the contracts that they lost were for the Cargo version of the A380

IIRC, there were also several contracts which were reduced in size, or options for more planes which were dropped. Also, some airlines which hadn't inked contracts yet opted for different planes due to the delays. Airbus' initial break-even target was 270 planes. Before the delays they looked be on track to reach that, but right now they only have 191 orders inked. The break-even point has since risen to 420 planes, so it's going to be a very long time before the plane is profitable, if it ever becomes profitable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380#Market

Still, pretty much every plane has delays. It was virtually guaranteed that the 787 would miss its first flight and delivery schedules, it requiring so much new and untried production technology.


RE: Ugh...
By Amiga500 on 7/15/2008 3:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
mmmmmm...

I wouldn't say the airlines decide what routes they will run on the basis of the aircraft they have.

I would say it was more the other way round, routes dictate which aircraft will be useful for them. You match your aircraft to your route - which is what you were kinda saying in your first paragraph.

For instance, if your BA - you will buy 777s and 380s to fly from Heathrow - simply because landing slots are so restricted. You don't go and use Bristol airport instead because you have 737s...

I myself believe (excluding any recession) that both aircraft have sizeable market areas to work in. Airports like Chicago O'Hare and London Heathrow will always lean towards an A380 over a 787 - due to landing slots and the big average load factors can be attained. While places a bit smaller (like Boston Logan or Dublin for instance) will look towards the 787 or A350 as the slots are more readily available, and PAX counts aren't quite as high.


RE: Ugh...
By Solandri on 7/15/2008 6:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wouldn't say the airlines decide what routes they will run on the basis of the aircraft they have.

I would say it was more the other way round, routes dictate which aircraft will be useful for them. You match your aircraft to your route - which is what you were kinda saying in your first paragraph.

No, no, no. I didn't mean that the planes determine the routes, or that the routes determine the plane. The routes you fly and the planes you buy are both flexible. What's out of your control are your passengers - where they're coming from and where they're going.

The airlines look at where their passengers are flying from and to, and based on that and the different size/economies of the planes available, pick which routes they will fly and which planes they will buy. For highly populated or very sparse areas, the hub and spoke model using puddle-jumpers and large planes makes the most sense. But for moderately populated areas (which the U.S. has a lot of), the direct flights on smaller planes makes more economic sense.

I too believe both planes will have sizeable markets. But right now it's questionable whether the A380 will ever break-even. Boeing is being tight-lipped about the 787's break-even point, but they already have almost 900 orders.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki