One day before the second anniversary of the ‘faux’ roll out of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, the prototype has moved under its own power at Paine field, Everett, near Seattle.
Dreamliner 787 rolling, courtesy KOMO News Seattle
No test flight program for the 787 has been given since its ballyhooed first flight on 30 June was cancelled at short notice only days after Boeing management insisted it would fly on that day.
Dreamliner 787 braking, courtesy KOMO News Seattle
Boeing is now considering what to do after the wing join area began to break apart in a static test late in May well short of the stress levels required for certification for operations. The wing had already been partially stress tested in April.
Dreamliner 787 turning, courtesy KOMO News Seattle
Unofficial estimates of a minimum delay of 18 months have been circulated in the US.
With entry into service not expected until sometime in 2011 for the initial 787-8 model, the delivery of the stretch, the 787-9, now promised for mid 2013 for Qantas subsidiary Jetstar looks like being pushed back to 2015.
It is going to take more than pretty pictures to make the Dreamliner a reality. Starting with a new connection between the wing and the wing box under the central section of the ‘plastic fantastic’ high composite, and it seems, high weight, airliner.
8 Comments
“….wonderliner rolls, breaks and turns….”
What part of it broke?
Oops, fixed the headline. If the ’side of body’ issue were to break while doing taxi trials it would be lights out for good.
You know what? my son was reading over my shoulder and he says “it breaks if it turns?
No – I said
But hang on to the fear
Luckily for Boeing its military sales will continue to be a source of revenue, including Australia’s recent $7 billion purchase of its Super Hornets. I suspect that the cost of fixing all the problems with the ‘wonderliner’, not to mention delayed sales, is going to drain Boeing like no other development before. I see that Airbus (of all companies) has described Boeing’s massive use of composites in the 787 as “rushed and ridiculous”. Also, relying on ‘visual inspections’ for signs of composite degradation makes me very nervous. I gather that ultrasonic and x-ray inspections like those applied to traditional materials cannot be used with composites.
Airbus must be lkcking their chops. This puts the ‘thingliner’ delivery right into the 350 time span.
Given Airbus’s bitter 380 experience, plus their better experience with composites, then I’d expect they will deliver the 350 pretty much on time.
Note the one winner out of all of this … Rolls Royce. Whoever wins the orders they win. Both the 787 and 350 will kill the 777 which is only GE powered, while the 787 is GE/RR and the 350 RR only.
Boeing is in real financial trouble, the Hornet has been a disaster in sales. Bit like that other disaster the F-111, only Oz has bought the super hornet (basically because it is crap and just about anything else is better). They have a lot of rats and mice work in partnership in various projects but LM is killing them in the military marketplace.
The 737 makes no money, the 747 is dead, the 767 is dead and the 777 is dying, without the 787 basically there is no Boeing, unless the US Govt bails it out.
“the Hornet has been a disaster in sales … only Oz has bought the super hornet”
Why are you ignoring the more than 350 F/A-18E and Fs sold to the US Navy? That’s hardly a sales “disaster”!
NickyD
After the A-12 debacle, the USN had no choice if they wanted an aircraft with ‘a new car’ smell.
The Super Hornet is what the black shoes wanted to fill the parking spaces on the carriers to, in turn, justify the carriers. Great aircraft for getting off and onto the boat a.k.a. good slow speed handling, therefore fewer incident around the boat, therefore fewer safety stand down days. This means fewer inquiries and careers tarnished/lost over ramp strikes and aircraft losses on Cruise.
Away from the boat is a whole other story.
Yep, you have to remember that the US Navy has no alternative aircraft available. It was F-18 or digging out old F-4’s from the boneyard or trying to fix up decrepit F-14s.
The F-14 was at its end, despite some boosters saying it could be refurbished .. the ever increasing maintenance costs killed it. Plus, apart from a reasonable range, its performance was woeful. While you have a bit of a chance in an F-18 vs a new Flanker, you have none in an F-14.
So the US Navy pulled a swifty, turned the F-18 into a bit of an inferior F-15 with a bit more range and payload, at the price of decreased (overall) performance. The old F-18 may have had the range of WW2 Spitfire but at least it could fight with the best of them being basically a F-16 with 2 engines.
Like the F-111 no one wants it. Unlike the original F-18 which notched up reasonable sales. But the F-18 E/F is just so outclassed by the Eurofighter, Rafaele, Grippen, Flanker, heck even the upgraded F-15, etc that Boeing don’t even put it up for trials for orders any longer.
Ah good old Oz, we always buy rubbish at top prices. When we go out in the market the dealers all lick their chops and get the old clunkers out of the back that no one else wants.