Boeing Dreamliner Faces Six-Month Delay, Senior Says

One of the 787's sub contractors Senior says that the oft delayed a/c will not fly for at least 6 months. No doubt this is going to anger many buyers and they may lose more orders or at least have to drop prices etc.

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. may not get the 787 Dreamliner flying for another six months following its fifth postponement, said Senior Plc, a British supplier of air ducts and other parts for the plane.

“We estimate another six-month delay,” Chief Executive Officer Mark Rollins said today in a telephone interview. “Their credibility is somewhat in question.”

Boeing failed to meet a June 16 pledge at the Paris Air Show that the 787 would fly before the end of that month. Larger rival Airbus SAS has gained ground with 483 orders for its competing A350 model, scheduled to enter service in 2013. Boeing said July 2 that it had lost orders for 73 of the jets this year, bringing its order book to 850 planes.


www.bloomberg.com...

aye i did comment on the previos wing box problem that it wouldn`t fly this year - someone will get fired for this , and it migfht even break Boeing.

if Airbus wants to smell of roses it had better get the A350 right first time - but being EADS i doubt it.

reply to post by Harlequin


Yeah I have a few friends in the airline industry and thats a bone of contention that mroe heads have NOT rolled.

I said it a year ago when the A380 was having alot of issues that Boeing had better not mess it up or there would be hell to pay. But, even if Airbus gets the A350 off and on time, you will not see many defections due to delays as there are just so many slots to go around.

I wonder does this delay account for the fuselage problems they now have[1]?


Alenia have had to down tools due to buckling of the fuselage skin.


I'm pretty sure* that composites are not yet designed for operational post-buckling behaviour as its still a relatively hot research topic.

[1]Flightblogger

* =99.999% certain

Yeah I have a few friends in the airline industry and thats a bone of contention that mroe heads have NOT rolled.

It would probably be the wrong heads that roll anyway.


Ineptitude has a bad way of failing upward somehow.



The engineers in a certain aircraft manufacturer building a composite aircraft know they can build certain primary assemblies lighter* in aluminium. However, they are prevented by doing so due to marketing people dictating what is required, i.e. we need a composites aircraft 'cos that is the marketing "buzz".

What a way to run a railroad eh?


*ALOT f**king lighter!

Originally posted by kilcoo316

The engineers in a certain aircraft manufacturer building a composite aircraft know they can build certain primary assemblies lighter* in aluminium. However, they are prevented by doing so due to marketing people dictating what is required, i.e. we need a composites aircraft 'cos that is the marketing "buzz".

A lot of the general public (aviation forums included) seem to have latched on to the idea that composites are a huge weight saver - they are not always.

Something else the general public (aviation forums included) seem to have latched on to is that the 787s efficiency increase is largely due to having a composite fuselage. It is not.

The 787 only gains about 2% of its overall efficiency gain from having a composite fuselage. Just 2%. Yes, theres a website link which breaks down the efficiency savings of the 787, I will post it when I find it in my big database of aviation links.

The main reason the 787 is so efficient is that it comes with a generational leap in engine efficiency - one that hasn't happened for the past 20 years or so, and is overdue. After that comes aerodynamics improvements. Those two together add up to more than 10% savings, out of the 14% or so the 787 is supposed to have over the 767 (its total efficiency savings is much lower against newer aircraft such as the A330).

So why the composite fuselage? Well, its not just marketing - when designed correctly, composites have a fatigue floor well in excess of traditional materials, which means a longer life between major airframe checks, which means huge maintenance costs savings.

Thats why composite fuselages are a big thing.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
The main reason the 787 is so efficient is that it comes with a generational leap in engine efficiency - one that hasn't happened for the past 20 years or so, and is overdue. After that comes aerodynamics improvements. Those two together add up to more than 10% savings, out of the 14% or so the 787 is supposed to have over the 767 (its total efficiency savings is much lower against newer aircraft such as the A330).

To be fair, the composite wing is *supposed* to change the compromise ratio of weight to wing thickness:chord...

However, I've yet to see any composite wing come close to the weight targets.

Originally posted by RichardPrice
So why the composite fuselage? Well, its not just marketing - when designed correctly, composites have a fatigue floor well in excess of traditional materials, which means a longer life between major airframe checks, which means huge maintenance costs savings.

Thats why composite fuselages are a big thing.

Agreed on fatigue.


Not so sure on maintenance. Infact, very unsure on maintenance. Especially the checking procedures.


The baggage cart hits the fuselage, what happens? Who knows? This scenario scares the sh!t out of me, and a lot of others that are/were in the area.

Beyond building the thing heavy enough to try and reduce the susceptibility to low velocity impact damage, there is little you can do.


OK, assuming the baggage cart damage was detected. How do you repair a one-piece composite barrel*?

*To the satisfaction of the FAA/EASA!

Originally posted by kilcoo316

To be fair, the composite wing is *supposed* to change the compromise ratio of weight to wing thickness:chord...

However, I've yet to see any composite wing come close to the weight targets.

The problem is, is that the 787s wing is not a composite one - it contains composite major structures, but its not completely composite.

Agreed on fatigue.


Not so sure on maintenance. Infact, very unsure on maintenance. Especially the checking procedures.

As I posted above, the maintenance savings come from the major C and D checks, as you can assume that the airframe fatigue state is lessened because of the materials. This means more time in service for the aircraft, which means more revenue, and less C and D checks over the life of the airframe.

All of that saves you money.

Ramp rash is a different issue, and not one I was including - but then again, ramp rash isn't a new issue, and as such isn't exactly a problem either.

The baggage cart hits the fuselage, what happens? Who knows? This scenario scares the sh!t out of me, and a lot of others that are/were in the area.

The ramp rash issue has long been solved by Boeing, but its an argument that seemingly never dies. Its a non issue.

OK, assuming the baggage cart damage was detected. How do you repair a one-piece composite barrel*?

*To the satisfaction of the FAA/EASA!

By using the procedures that were certified by the FAA/EASA, its that simple. You think Boeing hasn't sat down with both agencies and sorted this out already?

The FAA approved Boeings repair and maintenance plan for the 787 in January of this year.

The ramp rash issue has long been solved by Boeing, but its an argument that seemingly never dies. Its a non issue.

Yes, I've heard this too. There are claims that the LVID problem has been solved.

Claims that so far have gone without a single shred of evidence* to back them up.


Unless Boeing have moved away from thermally cured composite resins, or found a magical resin** with the same CTE as carbon, then there will ALWAYS be susceptibilty to impact damage - that is just the nature of the internal stresses within a composite laminate.



*By evidence I mean a lot more than some PR guff from the Boeing version of John Leahy!!


**Which has somehow remained unknown to the rest of the world.

By using the procedures that were certified by the FAA/EASA, its that simple. You think Boeing hasn't sat down with both agencies and sorted this out already?

The FAA approved Boeings repair and maintenance plan for the 787 in January of this year.

Fair enough, now that you mentioned it, I realised I read about that many moons ago and had forgotten!

Not that I'm placing an awful lot of faith in the FAA/EASA in this instance. They are faced with the same unknowns as the rest of us.


I know all about the coupon testing programs going on elsewhere. Filled with confidence... I am not.

in alternative news:

www.flightglobal.com...

Boeing Announces New 787 Schedule and Third-Quarter Charge
CHICAGO, Aug. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) today announced that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner is expected by the end of 2009 and first delivery is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2010.

industry insiders claim 6 months from august which is Q1 next year - boeing say ` no this year`


the same boeing that also promised:

www.flightglobal.com...

However the spokesman went on to clarify that Boeing are still aiming for a 2008 first flight: "When I was referring to flight testing in the first quarter, I was referring to performance flight testing. We are still planning first flight for the fourth quarter."

exactly the same thing 1 year ago.....

$10 it won't fly till around March next year. Make that May next year actually.



Oh well,,, good luck Boeing...

[edit on 27/8/2009 by C0bzz]

i reckon it`ll fly 6 months before the A350 makes its first flight....