It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

787 Delays - Sept 2009 EIS likely

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

He has sold the A350/350XWB on what promises?


They can talk the talk, without any idea of whether the product is in a position to walk the walk.


On the same promises he sold the A380 - and SQ have said several times they love the aircraft, with it coming in at nearly 20% better efficiency than their 747-400 fleet.

Airbus can most certainly walk the walk.




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The A330F hasn`t got a production line as yet - so moving it to Mobile means the US are producing that entire line of aircraft - which with the KC-45 as well means 300+ aircraft as of todays date



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

I would expect the 350 staff to consist more of 400M engineers - composite wing etc etc.

Airbus have a few programs (380, 350, 400 & ANOther) on the go at the moment, and are short staffed (compared to ideal) in engineering, but all programs are moving forward.



As I said before, 'engineers' is a broad term - the people working on aerodynamics will not be working on wiring, and the people working on materials will not be working on control surfaces.

Production staff will not be working on design, and design staff will not be working on production.

There is very little design work going on for either the A400M or the A380 programs, which means there is little to take people away from the design of the A350XWB.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
There is very little design work going on for either the A400M or the A380 programs, which means there is little to take people away from the design of the A350XWB.


3 basic stages of design/build:

conceptual -> detail -> production


There was a bundle of detail (re) design going on with A380, and they were throwing people at the problem to (try to) fix it quicker.

With that now stabilised, eng/CAD people are coming off it and going to A350.

Your right that the 400M would not have needed too many eng/CAD hands lately - but most of those were diverted to fighting fires with A380.


The 350XWB has already been passed from conceptual team to detail, with the conceptual division turning more of their attention getting ANOther into the hands of the detailers (it was previously ongoing in the background anyway).



A350 isn't due until? 2012? So thats 2008, 2009 and 2010 to get detail design work done and out of the road and get the thing built and flying 2011 and in service 2012.

Busy times.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

3 basic stages of design/build:

conceptual -> detail -> production


There was a bundle of detail (re) design going on with A380, and they were throwing people at the problem to (try to) fix it quicker.

With that now stabilised, eng/CAD people are coming off it and going to A350.

Your right that the 400M would not have needed too many eng/CAD hands lately - but most of those were diverted to fighting fires with A380.


The 350XWB has already been passed from conceptual team to detail, with the conceptual division turning more of their attention getting ANOther into the hands of the detailers (it was previously ongoing in the background anyway).

A350 isn't due until? 2012? So thats 2008, 2009 and 2010 to get detail design work done and out of the road and get the thing built and flying 2011 and in service 2012.

Busy times.


And you still haven't grasped that one engineer doesn't cover every area covered in aircraft design and production.

An engineer working on the A380 doesn't necessarily mean an engineer position empty on the A350XWB, or the A400M.

An engineer working on defining the A350XWB probably wouldn't be of any help to those redesigning the wiring on an already defined aircraft.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
And you still haven't grasped that one engineer doesn't cover every area covered in aircraft design and production.

An engineer working on the A380 doesn't necessarily mean an engineer position empty on the A350XWB, or the A400M.

An engineer working on defining the A350XWB probably wouldn't be of any help to those redesigning the wiring on an already defined aircraft.



I KNOW that there is a world of difference between the many different disciplines involved in making aircraft.


But you need to understand Airbus were throwing anyone and everyone at the 380 problem.



A350 is defined (its only a team of around 20-30 people that does the conceptual design at Airbus). Some of them weren't even working on A350.


Its now passed to detail designers, yes, that includes separate specialist groups covering aerodynamics, flight dynamics, structures, electrics, powerplant systems, weight & balance and manufacturing - all make refinements to the design and the process feeds back to itself constantly.


All electricians were busy as fook fire fighting on A380 - leaving A350 with a stalled detail design... no-one to do the wiring/plumbing. The process cannot be closed without a proper full feedback loop - or you'd get another problem similar to what befell A380.


So Airbus just chucked many of the others at CATIA and got them redesigning doo-hickey A, widget B and fixture C.



Now they are starting to get things back in order, and people doing what they should have been doing - but 3/4 years to get something optimised, fully detailed and built is a big ask.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316


I KNOW that there is a world of difference between the many different disciplines involved in making aircraft.


But you need to understand Airbus were throwing anyone and everyone at the 380 problem.


And I *know* that isn't true - because it would have been pointless to 'throw' a load of people at a job that they knew nothing about how to complete.

Utterly pointless.

I have a few engineer friends working at Airbus in the design department, and none of them were 'thrown' at the A380 - in-fact, when we last got together for a beer their comments were that their departments were expanding.

The situation within Airbus is nowhere near what people have been saying it has been.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
And I *know* that isn't true - because it would have been pointless to 'throw' a load of people at a job that they knew nothing about how to complete.

Utterly pointless.


Not what I heard from my friends inside.

350 was stalled waiting for plumbers/sparks to route piping, so others were transferred to 380 to fix the thing quicker.




I have a few engineer friends working at Airbus in the design department, and none of them were 'thrown' at the A380 - in-fact, when we last got together for a beer their comments were that their departments were expanding.


Expanding departments is not the same as retasking.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Boeing to update investors on the 787 program on Wednesday 9th April, with many analysts predicting another 6 month delay -

blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Ya know what's fascinating to me....

The B747, an incredibly innovative idea for its time, was conceived and designed and built and proved successful in an era before CAD and ultra-fast computers....

Yes, the impetus of Juan Tripp (PanAm) was there, but Boeing was the only gorilla in the room then, so no problems with competition from France.

Yet, the airplane got built, and did very well. With sliderules and drafting tables!

Maybe the buearocracy (sp?) of the big companies is getting in the way, in recent times. ALSO, this will be a rant, but the outsourcing of so many sub-components must be taken into consideration.

WHY have sub-contractors in China (of all places) build components for a 'US-made' airplane? Seems to me, while the hourly wages of the workers involved will be lower, the logistics needed to guarantee acceptable standards of construction would out-weigh the perceived savings gain. (not to mention the shipping of said components...)

Of course, the sad part is, jobs go overseas, instead of staying here.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ya know what's fascinating to me....

The B747, an incredibly innovative idea for its time, was conceived and designed and built and proved successful in an era before CAD and ultra-fast computers....

Yet, the airplane got built, and did very well. With sliderules and drafting tables!


As I was ranting about earlier - I blame concurrent engineering.


The 747 was designed and component tested over a much longer timeframe. The amount of actual component stress testing Boeing would have done for the 747 compared to 787 is 10s, maybe 100s of times larger.


Now, everything is done on computer simulations - and sometimes the tolerances just aren't tight enough. But, with all the concurrent engineering and tight timeframes, the manufacturer suffers a lot with any delay, and with any problems usually occurring much later in the product design cycle than before, its even harder for them to quickly rectify the issues.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Actually the 747 development is something I know a little something about.

The truth is that to put the 747 right Boeing hoovered the western world (ok slight exaggeration but you get the point) to find sufficient available qualified people to throw at the enormous problems they initially had with the 747.

It's simply not true to claim that the 747 program is an example of -accepting nothing is ever perfect - back then being about to work on the leading edge & get everything almost right & almost right on time.

.......and btw, Waynos is 100% correct.

Casting ones' mind back to all the 'Airbust' BS it is a little amusing to see the noteable absentees who can't find it in themselves to comment on Boeing's current delays & problems
(despite many of us, quite reasonably, pointing out that it was very very early days to be slamming events with an actual plane and holding up the paper plane as an example of how to do things right and great virtue).

(Kudos to Freddy tho, who at the time -unlike some - was not doing anything more than pulling a few tails in a humerous manner)

These are dark days for Boeing, they have just lost the tanker contract which must have been a huge program to see go & they are now going to be held over the same kind of barrel as Airbus was by their customers
(perhaps an even worse & more painful one given the anti-Airbus chatter at the time and the over-ambitious claims they themselves made).



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sminkeypinkey
 


sminkey, that is a very concise, though damningly precise, way to put it.

I especially liked the 'hoover' idea, very apt.

But, that was then....

So, there was an earilier post that called attention to the B787 'wingbox'...whatever in the heck that was supposed to mean? Did the 'rollout' fly yet?

Aren't we looking at software complications here?

WW



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
They are redesigning the winbox = as produced to the correct specifications , its weighs in too light - the 787 has been plagued by being overweight so alot of systems are being `thinned` to save weight ; the danger is that something is too thin and not noticed and the dreamliner falls from the sky



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Oh....OK

Thanks for the input, Harlequin.

SO, it comes down to a weight issue, as in the airframe weight? AND then the sales numbers don't fit, because of EMPTY WEIGHT?.or, OEW...really?

WW



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
the wingbox was too thin - on the computer model it was fine , but on construction was flawed (building it was fine - its just the finished product wasn`t as good as boeing hoped) , the spars didn`t have the strength to overcome buckling

www.designnews.com...

so they have to redesign them all.

the winbox is part of the inside of the wing

as for weight , they are building this aircraft to a certain weight , base d upon promised performance - if you start making it heavier , then the performance (fuel economy , speed etc) will degrade - so you need to keep the weight down , but every mistake at this late stage , is a lengthy and costly redesign;

and no the 787 has not flown yet.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



Oooohhhhhh, that is a biggie.



I would far rather have the issue of pipe re-routing than redesign the whole wing structure.


Also, how does this problem scale to the 787-9? Is the wing a direct expansion?



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
the wing i believe is the same for the -9 and the -8 so yes the issue is the same



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Other than the delays the other issue which many have missed was stated by the president of ILF. The -10 model is in serious trouble now.

Many airlines are demanding the -10 variant and Boeing was initally very reluctant as it would eat into 777 sales. Boeing had hoped that the 787-10 could just be a stretch of the -9, but now with the added weight they are looking at new gear, wing box etc which will really delay that variant above and beyond the current issues.

Edit to add: I think 2010 is more likely the EIS

[edit on 4/11/08 by FredT]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Many airlines are demanding the -10 variant and Boeing was initally very reluctant as it would eat into 777 sales. Boeing had hoped that the 787-10 could just be a stretch of the -9, but now with the added weight they are looking at new gear, wing box etc which will really delay that variant above and beyond the current issues.


The -10 was always going to require a three bogey main gear and wingbox changes - the current two bogey gear is at the edge for the -9 as it stands.



Edit to add: I think 2010 is more likely the EIS

[edit on 4/11/08 by FredT]


Of what? The 787 in general or the -10 specifically? If the latter, not a chance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join