backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 66 comment(s) - last by ChipDude.. on Oct 10 at 12:28 PM


Boeing 787 Dreamliner during its official rollout  (Source: Boeing)
First test flights could begin as early as mid-November

Boeing is still going strong with its 787 "Dreamliner" program. The advanced, next-generation airliner makes use of 50 percent composite materials and is 20 percent more fuel efficient than the competing Airbus A330.

Boeing has experienced delays with its scheduled test flights, the company today said that the delays -- due to parts shortages and software programming issues -- won't affect deliveries which will being in May of next year.

"It is still our objective to meet that May 2008 delivery but in doing that we have had to compress our flight-test schedule," remarked Boeing Commercial Airplanes Vice President for Marketing Randy Tinseth.

Many had suspected that the delayed test flights, which are now scheduled to begin between mid-November and mid-December, would push back initial deliveries of the Dreamliner. Boeing, however, is confident that it can complete the mandatory 1,300 hours of in-flight testing and 3,700 of ground testing for full certification before the first deliveries.

"It is an aggressive schedule but we believe we can do it," Tinseth continued.

Photos of the first Dreamliner leaked onto the web in late June. An eager beaver aviation enthusiast was able to snap pictures of the unpainted plane fresh off the assembly line.

Two weeks later, the freshly-painted Dreamliner was rolled out to a crowd of 15,000 people and was viewed by an additional 30,000 people via a two-way satellite feed. As many as 100 million people were able to view the rollout via the Internet.

All Nippon Airways will receive the first batch of Dreamliners. The Japanese airliner has 30 787-3 and 20 787-8 aircraft on order with the option to purchase an additional 50 planes.



Comments     Threshold


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

By Martin Blank on 10/8/2007 11:58:14 AM , Rating: 3
I find it interesting that aviation buffs and common people alike in Europe and the US have been following the developments of the A380 and the 787 with a great deal of pride. As much as I disliked the past leadership of Boeing, I have to admit that they seem to have made the right call on this one, and as excited as I was to see the A380 fly -- I watched its first take-off on live TV -- I am far more excited at the thought of Boeing being able to get the 787 into production and on the flight line before the A380. It may help that I have a much better shot at flying on a 787 than an A380, since I rarely make long-distance flights, or perhaps its just taking pride in a domestically-produced aircraft. :)




By FITCamaro on 10/8/2007 12:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
I also prefer a Boeing plane which has a history of reliability rather than an Airbus which have been plagued with software issues in the past. Having been on the team that was developing the network system for the A400, I see this trend continuing.


By UNCjigga on 10/8/2007 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Are Pacific Northwest folks still upset about the corporate move out of Seattle?


By FITCamaro on 10/8/2007 12:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't know. Didn't work for them.


By Eckstein on 10/8/2007 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you are talking total rubbish.
Your claim, that Airbus has no "history of reliability", because of "software issues in the past", is plain nonsense!

Someone who really would have been "on the team that was developing the network system for the A400" would never say something like this. It sounds more like a typical bashing attempt by someone who has not the slightest idea what he is talking about.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/8/2007 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Someone who really would have been "on the team that was developing the network system for the A400" would never say something like this.

Don't know what planet you live on but engineers will criticize projects they work on if they are screwed up and they know it.

It's entirely possible the red tape, mismanagement, and beaurocratic BS made development and engineering a joke with lack of progress and constantly changing requirements (Much like many government projects I know.....)

Airbus might be a "Company" but all project decisions and top level mangagement decisions are made by a panel representing several european countries. Dealing with 1 government is a pain when working on large scale projects, but now you have 6 or more different countries with different priorities and agendas trying to manage a large scale project.... thats a recipe for frustration and disaster. Notice how Airbus has gone through a dozen or so executives in such a short timeframe? Probably because of the above.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/8/2007 1:39:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Btw.: Airbus/EADS receives much less governmental subsidies than the Boeing group.

Care to back up that claim? Last I checked they both recieved subsidies to some extent. Boeing has more cash to work with because it wins contracts for the U.S. Military and makes a decent profit off that.

On a no-subsidy playing field Airbus would likely come out in second place. Boeing has a better track record.


By Eckstein on 10/8/2007 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S. claim that Airbus received ~$15 billion in subsidies since 1970.
The Boeing group is accused of receiving more than ~$23 billion in U.S. subsidies since 1990, including clearly illegal export bounties.

http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol35/vol35n40/art...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207500_boei...


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/8/2007 2:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
Neither side ever proved the amount of subsidies given to the other. To my knowledge that debate is still on going today.


By Eckstein on 10/8/2007 2:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
For example, the Washington state deal and the income exclusion act bounties are well proven and publicly documented.

We will see the conclusion on who got more subsidies in July 2008.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/8/2007 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you pull the July 2008 date from?


By Oregonian2 on 10/8/2007 1:46:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The claim that Airbus lacks a history of reliability contrary to Boeing (because of software issues or whatever) is simply laughable and does not even worth to argue about.

I think this is true.

quote:
There are some EADS investors which are governements.
They act just as typical investors - there is no difference to the Boeing group for example.


Things I've read contradict your statement. There has been quite a bit of reporting having to do with international politics and where portions of projects are to be made. In particular, production is spread around the various participating countries to placate each national owner, and there seems to be a necessary cutback to improve efficiency, and this seems to be hitting the government related political fan. AFAIK this does not happen with Boeing. Pieces of Boeing's dreamliner are in fact being built everywhere (including Airbus countries) but there does not seem to be any government actions. Boeing even moved its headquarters from metro-Seattle to Chicago without any government actions involved -- they just announced they're going to move, and they did.

quote:
Btw.: Airbus/EADS receives much less governmental subsidies than the Boeing group.


This also contradicts what I have read. Airbus has gotten direct government huge-money loan financing for large projects, AFAIK Boeing has had nothing whatsoever like that. At best Boeing has had government contracts for doing various things -- and calling that "subsidies" is like calling Singapore Airlines a subsidizer by means of being a customer. The US Government is just a large customer of Boeing.


RE: Regional pride evident in both the 787 and A380
By Ringold on 10/8/2007 3:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
As FIT said regarding Airbus and his college professors using EADS as a case study in software glitches, my own economics professors used Airbus/EADS as a case study in governments creating nationalized industries to serve political rather than economic or competitive goals. EADS is and shall continue to be a branch of the Western European powers.

It'll also likely fail to be reliably competitive until it faces the proper risk; risk that isn't possible until the government divests fully from EADS and makes it clear that no further subsidized money will be awarded. When Airbus officials know that a product failure means financial disaster and a train ticket to the soup kitchens they'll be competitive. Until then, they're postal employees and can be expected to act as such.

That's not to say local governments can give propery tax breaks and the like; thats different from absolute cheap or no-interest bail-out money, that's being competitive on a local level. Governments could also buy product at market prices; that wouldn't be the end of the world either. EADS sovereign shareholders though are a long, long way from being even that open.

I think it's also the EADS screw-up that allowed cooler heads to prevail, to a degree, in their attempt to have a totally seperate rival GPS constellation -- just for the hell of it, 'cause, you know, Europe can't dare rely on the Great Satan's system. Last I'd heard, anyway, the government financing was drying up. I wouldn't put it past the Europeans to of abandoned economic reasoning and funded it since then though.


By Ringold on 10/8/2007 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id...

Also just happened to come across that. Possible government malfeasance? NEVER!

While shady dealings may or may not have occured, many on-going hazards of being a partly state-owned entity are laid bare in that article, none of which exist in Boeing to any extent greater than any other public firm.


By aeroengineer1 on 10/8/2007 5:38:47 PM , Rating: 4
I find your comments most interesting, and at the level of a 16 year old that has just figured out that he can talk big, but has no power to back it up. For your sake I hoe that you are 16, because at least you would have an excuse. I am also an engineer that has worked with an Airbus project. I can tell you that it is difficult working with different governments. As much as people would like to say that it does not exist, many Germans are not particularly fond of French and vis versa.

Your view that the governments involved with EADS are only in the investor role is also wrong. All that is needed to counter that claim is the political wrangling that was and still is occurring with the Power 8 restructuring deal.

As for software defects, please refer to the Airbus product that was doing a low and slow flyby at an air display. Sadly he deforested the area at the end of the runway because the programing was not allowing the engines to spool back up. This is a highly debated topic, but similar events were reported by other pilots, though without the disastrous consequences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296


By Samus on 10/9/2007 6:57:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't know what planet you live on but engineers will criticize projects they work on if they are screwed up and they know it.


I used to work for Ford here in Chicago on an engineering team for transmission concepts and implementation. I have been pretty vocal on this forum, particularely in the auto forum, about my experience at Ford. Nobody has 'come to get me' and basically I have nothing to hide.

There were always things happening (especially in production and quality) that I didn't agree with under Nassers' wings, and I would be surprised if anybody on my team back then wouldn't talk about it today as an example of continuing tradition in failure, such as Airbus.


By asliarun on 10/9/2007 7:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's entirely possible the red tape, mismanagement, and beaurocratic BS made development and engineering a joke


Jeez.. didn't expect a fanboy comment from you, Master Kenobi. The fact of the matter is that Airbus vs Boeing have BOTH made great and mediocre products over the years. If you think that Airbus engineering was a joke, take a look at the A320 success story which was pretty much the first "fly by wire" aircraft that was easily 10-20 years ahead of its time, and almost made the pilot redundant. Boeing has similarly made revolutionary aircrafts such as the 747 "Jumbo" that still does not have any significant competition, and the 787 is simply a class apart.

BOTH organizations are plagued by similar problems, namely bureaucracy, design mistakes, and the simple fact that most modern day aircrafts become obsolete by the time they exit the drawing board and enter commercial production. Having said that, your statement that Airbus's (or Boeing's) engineering is a joke makes you sound like a fanboy and I expected better from you since you're normally much more rational.