Oh noes! Boeing is teh Airbus!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Yes indeed the global marketplace. The European A380 is 50% American and the American B787 is 50% foreign or whatever the proportion is.

Yes indeed, those were the days when manufacturers did it all. Well most of it. I seem to remember from my 727 days that there were plenty of vendors, although obviously not the main airframe etc.

Incorrect. Do your homework before posting from the heart.
 
Less than 10% of the A380 is made in the United States.  More than 90% of the 787 is manufactured overseas (Europe and Asia), and assembled in the United States.

 Airbus delays are attributed to miscalculations regarding wiring (330 miles of it per plane) and the complexity of the cabin wiring, its concurrent design and production there of, attributed directly to Germany and their use of a different CADCAM system that doesn't mate well with the updated CADCAM  version (we're finding this out ourselves!)

Some industry analysts suggest that the delays are due to the weight problems and that wiring alone and that weight reduction re-designs are underway.

There is a significant difference between a design delaying a new aircraft and production delays. The former can delay an aircrafts delivery by years, and the latter can delay an aircraft by months.

[comet61]

I work at the Everett plant as an Inspector on the 777 flightline. The main concern for 87 now is...fasteners. They do not have enough. They are a different type for composite to aluminum and the process for making them has not been perfected to the drawing standards that Boeing has specified. Next...as mentioned before is the wiring. It's not that there is a lack of wiring, there's a lack of WHERE to put the wiring. No brackets, no or incorrect process specs for fiber-optic installation. Another part is payloads. Payloads is all of the installations that make up the airplane before delivery including interior packages, seats, type lighting, entertainment system and so on.

There are 2 787 "shells" in the factory. #1 plane is the one we saw on the news. Boeing has decided to destroy that plane in a static test (wing busting). This is something Boeing never does with a #1 first of model. Every 1st of model (#1) that Boeing has made after 1962 was "saved" of sold to other customers. The only model they still have (#1) is the 1st 747 at Seattle Field. So, the 787 will be the first #1 plane since 1962 to be used on static testing. Now...#2 will be the sold/delivered plane as so far, but that can change.

The bottom line is that Boeing has never built a plane like the 787 before. The processes they chose to build it is innovative and "unprecedented" as far as Boeing is concerned in the way they make planes.

I happen to agree with the time frame. They said 6 months (180) days. I'm betting 150 days or less. Payload items are coming in as I type. Things are going slowly, but it is getting built. Boeing is "famous" for giving more time than necessary. It looks good in the papers and boosts stock if they beat a deadline by a significant time.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by comet61
There are 2 787 "shells" in the factory. #1 plane is the one we saw on the news. Boeing has decided to destroy that plane in a static test (wing busting). This is something Boeing never does with a #1 first of model. Every 1st of model (#1) that Boeing has made after 1962 was "saved" of sold to other customers. The only model they still have (#1) is the 1st 747 at Seattle Field. So, the 787 will be the first #1 plane since 1962 to be used on static testing. Now...#2 will be the sold/delivered plane as so far, but that can change.

Wing load test was completed long ago.
The first frame won't be destroyed. It goes to ANA (when done with flight testing) and it's first to fly. Static test frame (9997) is one behind of 0001.

[comet61]

Man are you ever wrong.

I walked past both of them today. No testing has been done because the static tool is not complete. #1 plane has been designated "0" for testing as of 20 Sept. #2 will go to ANA or opt for another. The 3rd static test plane has been redesignated at 'commerial/experimental. In other words it's not going to get destroyed. The real #1 plane cannot be static tested until all "real" fasteners are installed. That's a FAA requirement prior to ticketing. The reason for #1 going to test first is the time. It takes time to analyze the test after it is done. The #2 plane cannot be tested (if at all) untill late spring. The #1 plane could go to test by X-mas.

The 777 static test was done on the #2 and #3 plane and the analysis of the test including underwater pressure and drop testing and torsion resulting is 13 months of analysis. During this time the 777 was being fitted with wooden lavs and galleys to represent weight during initial flight.

trust me...there has been no static testing (except the drop test) of the fuselage and wings. The static tool rigging is massive and takes up half  of an entire bay and it is not complete. It is very easy at this stage to change static to commercial sale prior to it's completion. Just have to juggle numbers. Time and parts are the issue and Boeing will compensate any way it can to make any deadline it chooses.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by comet61
trust me...there has been no static testing (except the drop test) of the fuselage and wings. The static tool rigging is massive and takes up half  of an entire bay and it is not complete. It is very easy at this stage to change static to commercial sale prior to it's completion. Just have to juggle numbers. Time and parts are the issue and Boeing will compensate any way it can to make any deadline it chooses.

Correct, wing test wasn't done, I mixed it with wing box test. Also, it's not yet decided if wings will be broken when and/if 150% is reached.

As for the static frame, all I heard was swap between 0001 and 0002 in terms which one would fly first.

If 0001 is now static test frame, then that's really sad.

Anyways, thx for the news.

[comet61]

You are right....150% is usually the norm. If I remember correctly, the 777 wings snapped at 130% over it's max. The wing tips were 18ft above the fuselage before they "exploded" (broke). Which pretty much says they'll never break in flight. But yes...the wings may not break at their maximum. I was told that the rigging tool for the wings test can exceed 200%. Probably won't go that far.

[Paxil]

The A380 didn't have a 2 year delay... it had 4 six month delays. =)  I am a recent ex Boeing employee... and laughed at wackiness like outsourcing to Japan, who then outsourced the work back to us.

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by Dowding
[B"We feel that the countless, inane posts on BBS systems is a useful marketing tool. They are cheaper than marketing specialists and don't suffer from a sense of reality which would otherwise impede your average marketeer. However, there comes a point when the operations of the company are adversely affected by employees slobbing about in front of Internet Explorer. We are fast approaching this point."

Boeing's share price leapt 10 points on the release of this statement."

Source

[/B]

A most enlightening posting Mr. Dowding, and a most excellent source.     "slobbing about"... loved it...