From Flightglobal.com ;

Boeing today ended speculation over potential challenges in meeting targeted weights of the 787, acknowledging that its early aircraft will be overweight.

Boeing already plans to incorporate an initial round of weight savings into its seventh airframe, which is the first production 787, followed by block point changes in aircraft 20 and 100.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/...ght-issues.html

It will be interesting to know what weightsaving are incorporated in #7, the first aircraft for ANA and how Boeing will certifify the aircraft based on data from the flight test program with the first 5 heavier aircraft.

I won't surprised is the FAA demand additional verifycation flights with #7.

Some of the improvements includes a somewhat altered electronic architecture.


Does it really matter if the flight characteristics isn't changed?


Why? Did Airbus have to do that with the improved (for example wave 2) A380s?

I'm going to hazard a guess the same way Airbus certified the A380 based on data from the flight test program using aircraft that were heavier then originally planned?



I would be, since they didn't demand Airbus do them with the overweight A380s.

Wow, here I thought you were this great aviation expert. Boeing will have zero problems with cert because of a little weight issue on the first few airplanes. This has happened on almost every single commercial airplane since day one. Boeing will easily show the newly designed hardware parts meet the same requirements as the heavier parts. Has to be done every time any supplier modifies a design through the life of the airplane.

Say the #7 is a few tonnes lighter then #1 - #7. I'm sure the FAA would be interested where they removed material before they formally approve the lighter construction. A previous effort to lighten up the center wingbox didn't work out, to state it mildly. link

Keesje-

For a short while, I too thought you had some knowledge of the whole deal. Now I know otherwise. Thanks for the comedic backdrop.

Well pls assume everything will be allright and that everybody who sees risks is prejudged and or ill informed.

I think w've seen that process multiple times during the last 3-4 yrs & learned people are hard to inform if they don't like what they read.

On topic, probably some "surprises" during certification of the production aircraft, specially for folks denying until Boeing confirms..

If Boeing is making structural changes, they may in fact require testing of some sort, but the probability of needing flight testing to certifiy aircraft 7 is a pretty low probability. If Boeing is making changes to say the flight control software, computers, or other critical systems that can not be adequately tested and certified on the ground, then one could see added test flights but these would probably occur on the flight test aircraft (i.e. those changes installed to be tested), this happens all the time. It is not likely that these areas would dramatically reduce weight tho.

You seem to have a decided bias, as indicated by your constant comparison of organges to apples, as we yanks like to say. Your constant attempt to dilute and distort merely feeds your own frenzy when you are forced by others to re-evaluate your rhetoric, and instead of offering correction you proceed on a tangent to Never Never Land. I am not suggesting that you are ageless, rather I am pointing out that you refuse to grow up and address your own inaccuracies. Your refusal to face realities has a long history on this board, and your lack of accuracy, whether in your slanted discussion of the A400M, or the current discussion regarding the 787 certification, among many others, illustrates that you ignore past practices, and is hardly even a veil in disguising your prejudice views.

I am neither alarmed nor outraged by your posts. Indeed, they are now entertaining as opposed to informative, much like a work of fiction which is exciting, but nonsense. What color IS the sky in your world, and did Tinker Bell require FAA cert prior to her first flight?

In terms of the 787 cert, I for one also believe there will be hitches, but they will be uncomplicated as Boeing and Airbus both know what they are doing when it comes to getting certs for new craft. Your sketch of some kind of calamity scenario for the 787 is just plain crazy, but you will likely continue down this absurd avenue of rationalization and unfounded postulation, and I will continue to laugh at you.

A more dramatic example: was Airbus required to re-test the A380 after the wing fractured before reaching 150% of its ultimate static load? Nope. The submitted a revised finite element analysis showing how their fix would solve the problem and it was approved.

History has shown that FAA and other regulatory bodies are very accommodating when it comes to the use of computer models/simulation to verify the integrity of structural modifications once the base model has been flight tested. How rigorous was the certification process for the A340-600 HGW?

Also: I'd really like an explanation of this "Shoot the dog" phrase in the threat title. Are you actually saying the 787 should be "put down?"

I tried to watch the "Shoot the dog" video and it still would benefit from some explaination.

Keesje,
The best way to learn about building airframes is to work at a manufacturer. That is where airframe technology is 'taught'. It is a relatively small and close-nit industry. Airbus and Boeing are the big two. There are about 100 or so (the top 100), depending on how you count, places around the world where basic competance in aerospace is demonstrated. Not a lot.

Bringing a new airframe to certification is a long and complex process. It involves many volumes of reports and data. The material properties are verified in early testing. Later there is testing of sub-assemblies both static and dynamic. A long series of testing ends up with a full scale test. Many of the sub-scale tests as well as the full scale test explore a range of conditions before they move toward the ultimate load case which may cause permanent damage.

All of the structure is analized by everything from finite element analysis to simple hand calculations. The primary structure is largely redundant which is why FEM is so useful. Where there is an advantage, the complex, redundant structure is 'modeled' or logically analized in a simple way which can be shown to be conservative. In this way when the calculation shows the structure is good, it is known to be good for all cases since the case considered is more severe than any other case.

The airframe weight due to structure is composed of primary structure which directly carries flight loads, secondary structure which may support critical flight systems or equipment, and other components which are non-structural but do need to meet static, dynamic and crash load conditions. For example the clips that hold the cabin interiors can not fail under crash loads.

Then there is weight due to everything else installed to the airframe and items like paint and sealant.
Of course after structural weight is the payload and fuel.

The weight savings Boeing will implement after LN 007 or LN 020 can be due to any of the above.

So much of the structure is verified by methods on the ground before flight test. The flight test focuses on a range of issues, some of which directly or indirectly relate to structural issues. For example, I recall that one of the few issues found in the 777 flight test was the tendency to wag the tail. Of course Boeing has anticipated and included a yaw damping system, but in spite of their best efforts, they found in flight test the yaw damping system needed a small adjustment.

Consider that the airframe is designed a light a possible so as to carry as much fuel an payload as possible. The cange in weight due to various payloads and the fuel burn is much much more than the weight savings being considered. The system is designed from the beginning to tolerate as much weight change as possible and still meet trim and stability requirement for all flight conditions.

Also consider that a significant percentage of the airframe is demonstrated by analysis. The assumption you are making is that the weight savings applies to a flight critical component which cannot be demonstrated by analysis and must affect flight test. This just seems like a remote possibility.

This can go on for hours. I have to go back to work.

James thxs for your lecture. What I've seen and heard so far from the 787 program is that the efforts to reduce weight have been going on for yrs. So much they overdid some parts of wing torsion box. Tests showed buckling despite all FEM models, structural testing. Modification were implemented on the FAL. Alltogether the amount of material added is beyond what happened to other recent programs. Knowing how focussed Boeing has been on weightreduction I'm sure they only added if neccessary. If large amounts of material soon have to be removed starting aircraft #7, #21 to improve performance, thats going to be a real challenge. The easy reductions have been realized much earlier in the project.

DFWRevolution the "shoot the dog" addition is an irritated reaction on the endless attacks by this sites chief editor and the angry Doug McVitie on basicly anything Airbus. This time Ethidad deferring some deliveries offered an opportunity. http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/05/05/shoot-the-dog2/

Jimc, I can't help noticing a lack of interesting new info, objectivity and focus in your posts, sorry.

Completely uncalled for keesje.

You should either learn some manners, or shut your hole, sorry.

I didnt intend to venture into this thread and this will be my only post on the subject:

I find it wholly disingenuous of you to claim I'm "attacking" Airbus' A380 when I have for MONTHS (probably even longer actually) stated they'd have to cut production because their ramp up plans were nothing but a fallacy. Yet by the same token, you bleat on like a broken record about the 787 and expect everyone to follow your lead, hook, line and sinker.

With traffic tanking and deferrals of the A380 coming in thick and fast, no business in their right mind (whether market share or profit orientated) would continue to build something their customers do not need/want/able to take delivery of.

I'm happy to take criticism levelled at me and what I write and stand by everything I publish - you should admit when you're playing double-standards Keesje as you can see by the reaction to your "irritation" is making you look like a laughing stock.

I admire your passion, I cringe with your logic.

And if you ARE going to cite "shoot the dog" - at least have the decency to explain just exactly how and why that reference I used came into being instead of skewing it for your own purposes:



Final thought - if this weight reduction (on the 787) is so serious Keesje, can we by the same token expect a recertification effort on the A380 for when it allegedly loses weight by 2012?

No need to answer that (yes thats another British quip I dont expect you to understand, nor is that an "attack" on you for not knowing what I inferred).

Yup it is probably time to "Shoot the Dog", meaning keesje and his beloved A380. The A380 has been a disaster for EADS, Airbus, European aerospace and the European taxpayers.

Still the 747-8i is promoted on this site at every opportunity.



The problem was/is smaller (a few percent), performance consequences were compensated. And yes if Airbus was going to deliver a tonnes lighter aircraft then the aircraft the certification was based on, weaks after final test flights, the FAA/ AESA no doubt would take a good look.



That's the odd drive behind the article. All types, also Boeing, are deferred and even cancelled. Still you pick out an unconfirmed rumour "to shoot the dog". When this blunt quote is used on the A380 everything is fine, when I use the same quote in relation to the 787, feelings are hurt & the usual suspects get aggressive.

While I lack the technical knowledge everyone else who has been speaking seems to have, I do have one question.

Has the accuracy of the Boeing computer modeling been accurate to a high degree so far?

If it has not been, then yes I see the FAA asking for additional testing of the #7 airframe. I think if Boeing/FAA were not confident they would not allow the plane to fly, a crash of a unproven plane in any matter would be a PR nightmare they would have a difficult time recovering from.

The 748i has more orders than the A380F, which you promoted at every opportunity, even after Airbus 'interrupted' it.

The A380F is dead. It has ZERO orders.

.. which would give the B748I the appearance of "playing dead", I assume ?

After all, Airbus holds A380-800 orders for some 10 times that of the B747-8I passenger frame. Further, since the A380-800F has held orders, you can hardly blame order cancellations by a number of freight companies (particularly in the time of the world's worst and largest freight downturn) on Airbus / EADS.

Frankly, with the demonstrated lack of 'oversight' at the FAA over the past 3 years, I don't know that Keesje's observation should be so 'summarily' dismissed ? Surely, if miraculous frame 'dieting' occurs, then questions should be asked by the FAA on how these weight-savings were achieved. Based on the manufacturer's response (whether it be Boeing or Airbus / EADS) - and the degree of importance / sensitivity allied with engineering changes, then it could be possible that further tests (either simulated, ground or flight) may be required.

Personally, I'd rather these questions be asked of the FAA. We've all seen where the FAA's efforts in assigning 'trust' to airline companies has gotten it. I'd hate to see a similar situation evolve at manufacturer's premises.

Following this line of reasoning, can we say the 748F has 80 times the orders of the A380F?


FedEx and UPS, canceled the A380F in 2006 and 2007, long before "world's worst and largest freight downturn" began. So you certainly can blame Airbus/EADS for the cancellations.

The A380 program delays were Airbus/EADS fault and only Airbus/EADS fault. Sorry, you can't blame the customers.

That seems perfectly agreeable to me !


While Airbus had acknowledged delivery delays, I'm afraid I can't agree with your sentiment. Those self-same freight companies still seem to be in an 'undecided' mode on their current fleet replacement plans - even with their new suppliers.

"You should either learn some manners, or shut your hole,...."

But, he IS entertaining.

The guy is fixated on possible derailments of the 787, and seems willing to pull any card to trump-up his case. In reality, any enthusiast applauds both parties of this duopoly for pushing the envelope in design and flight. Would we not all be bored if only one manufacturer existed? Would we not be all bored if Keesje were absent and his jocularity not available to read? I suggest his brand of buffoonery be enlisted on a discussion of the B797F vs A370XXWB-F, not real products in a real world. It is one thing to be an honest detractor, but all together a different thing to be a bitter one-sided apologist.

They've decided to cancel the A380F. That we know.

I think many of the expectations / rumours / forecasted delays on the 787 for the last few years have proven nothing but .. reality. Unlike Boeing announcemets and the Pavlov denials from some of the the die hard Boeing supporters hanging around here. I never found it entertaining to see any product development stall. also unlike some here apparently.

BS, you live to tar Boeing with anything you can dream up!

Please, what is "BS", used in post #25? Is this Keesje's real name/initials? Or an endearment intrinsic to these fora?

Decaf folks.

This is a very simple thing. Every new plane produced by either Airbus or Boeing always (and I mean always) starts out a little heavy. We always estimate the weights a bit low so, ergo, your finished airplane always ends up heavy.

Over time this gets worked out (it's an ongoing process even for the 737) and that's the long and short of it.

B~

PS: BS is the acronym for the extruded by-product of bovine digestion. I have no idea how to put that any more delicately.

"extruded by-product of bovine digestion"......you gotta love the extruded part of that sentence, simply priceless!

Actually I think you can blame Airbus/EADS for the demise of the A380F program. It was their mishandeling of the aircrafts development and the subsequent delays that led FedEx to cancel their orders. And it's very important to note that those cancellations came at a time when the frieght market was going very strongly indeed. UPS's cancellation was an even more direct result of Airbus's/EADS blundering about. IIRC within days of the two agreeing upon a revised delivery schedule Airbus announced it was pulling all the engineers from the frieghter to concentrate on getting the pax version into service. At that point UPS was left feeling like they couldn't believe anything Airbus told them and the order was quickly axed. The word I heard at the time was that UPS's management team was so ticked off that it will be a cold day in hell before they buy another airplane from Airbus.

The two package carriers were the ones who really could have used an A380F due to its cubic volume advantage but now thanks to Airbus's handling of the situation one customer is probably gone for good and the other is unlikely to return.

Well, you never know. Like the 747, there could be a future program to convert 380pax to 380F. Time will tell.

Well for that to happen there would first have to be a large enough base of A380s to justify the financial expense.

.

The two package carriers were the ones who really could have used an A380F due to its cubic volume advantage but now thanks to Airbus's handling of the situation one customer is probably gone for good and the other is unlikely to return.
[/quote]


Well, you never know. Like the 747, there could be a future program to convert 380pax to 380F. Time will tell.
[/quote]

Well for that to happen there would first have to be a large enough base of A380s to justify the financial expense.
[/quote]


Yes, I was begging the question lest I be accused of not providing even-handedness when discussing AvB items. So, now that the statement is made, what are the parameters to make such a program feasable, or is it really worth discussing (at this point?)

Sorry, but I don't know that I can subscribe to that level of argument.

First, it's pretty much an established industry fact that totally new aircraft designs engender production delays. It doesn't matter whether you are discussing Airbus / EADS, Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, Locheed etc. There is ample proof in examination of the A380, B747, DC-10 and L-1011 programs. Production delays are routine, expected and ubiquitous.

Were these freight carriers initial launch customers for the frames ? No, they were relatively recent orderers who chose to engage with the A380F, after EK had taken the mantle of launch customer for both passenger and freight versions.

Your comment that "UPS was left feeling like they couldn't believe anything Airbus told them" seems a little disingenous here. At the time to which you refer, Airbus had an entire order-book of customers for both passenger and freight frames that were feeling the same way. I would counter that many of these other customers (such as EK, SQ and QF) had :

- considerably more product on order
- had experienced multiple 'delay' negotiations, as opposed to UPS' first delay
- were far further up the 'food' chain than UPS.

Whether UPS managment was simply being impatient (because of their - then - relatively immediate need for the frames) or whether they had a deluded sense of their importance is another thing. But poor planning on UPS part cannot be blamed on Airbus / EADS, in my opinion. Yes, UPS cancelled with Airbus and then swapped their orders to Boeing .. and then subsequently screwed Boeing around on delivery IINM.

FX announced their order for 10 A380-800Fs on January 16, 2001, so I would not exactly consider them a "Johnny come lately". 5X didn't sign until January 2005.

ATW noted today that JQ (Jetstar Airways) wants as many first tranche 787-8s it can get it's hands on to launch a major expansion into Europe.

So it looks like JQ/QF feel that the initial 787-8s are good enough to connect Melbourne with Europe (I am guessing via BKK or DPS since the service is said to be "direct" and non-stop would be ~9000nm versus ~5000nm from Thailand/Indonesia).

So much for the wishful thinking by some that QF/JQ would be the next to cancel.

If one refuses to see, the writing on the wall is invisible.

It's not an issue of refusing to see what's written on the wall. It's an issue of the QF Group writing one thing on the wall for everyone to see and comment on and then a month later come in and erase it and write something different on the wall for everyone to see and comment on.

None of us are prescient - including, it seems, the QF Group.