Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again 214
An anonymous reader writes "It's not just that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner may be unsafe or vulnerable to hacker attacks. At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state. The 787's carbon-fiber construction and next-generation technology have pushed back their delivery schedule once again, this time requiring a redesign of the plane's wingbox. Airlines will have to wait 18 more months to get it delivered, which is an extremely serious blow to the credibility of the company and their financial standing, as they would have to pay penalties to the buyers of more than 850 of these planes. And we thought Airbus had problems." Good thing Boeing can still count on its patent portfolio.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
it scares the shit out of me just to think if Microsoft made airplanes.
Newfangled (Score:5, Funny)
thar newfangled plastic planes never no-how!
Delivery date met or not!
Dadnabit!
Git off my larn!
-AI
Re:Newfangled (Score:4, Insightful)
Aircraft have incorporated composites for years. (Score:2, Informative)
Your fear is unfounded. First and foremost, there is no evidence to suggest this plane is unsafe. We must compare incidents to flight cycles to know that. Considering how modern aircraft engineering is producing the safest planes historically, the odds are this model will be no exception. (The tolerances built into planes are remarkable. One such illustration of many is the 777 wing load test [youtube.com].) Furthermore, modern aircraft have incorporated composites for years [wikipedia.org].
I think you received negative moderati
Re: (Score:2)
in one of those planes. Ever? No, I will
maybe someday... if they are still flying
in 10 years+ and Acid rain and airborne
sand don't decay the wings into shreds.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, they'd never get off the ground in the first place. Weight and the endless Allow/Deny questions would see to that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.
The terminal is very neat and clean, the attendants all very attractive, the pilots very capable. The fleet of Learjets the carrier operates is immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet it explodes without warning.
Is it update time now? (Score:5, Funny)
Unix Express: Split into three operating companies.
Linux Cooperative:
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.
Apple Airlines:
The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants are attractive, the pilots very capable, the planes are beautiful, and you always reach the correct destination... unfortunately they have a fairly small fleet, most planes have no baggage compartment or overhead storage, and the seats aren't adjustable. Frequent Apple fliers are known to attack anyone who suggests that these are important features.
Legacy Air:
The terminal is neat and clean, albeit in an "industrial" style. You have to choose your plane ahead of time, because different planes only fly to different cities, and if your luggage doesn't match your plane you need to hire a baggage consultant to adjust it to fit. But the planes are fast, efficient, and always arrive on time or even ahead of schedule.
Windows Airlines:
The terminal is very neat and clean, with security barriers every few meters. The attendants are attractive, even if it's kind of creepy how much they want to "help" (especially in the restrooms). The pilots are allegedly very capable, though nobody ever sees them and there's an armed guard by the cockpit door. The fleet of jets it operates are immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet a message pops up on the seat back in front of your asking "Should this plane explode now?". Some idiot always answers "Yes".
The funny thing is (Score:4, Interesting)
OTH, Airbus pushes that crap. They (and jeppesen) went to MS to try and get MS to DO-178B ANY version of Windows. After reading it, Gates actually responded that it would be another 1-2 decades before they could even THINK about doing something like that.
Re:The funny thing is (Score:4, Informative)
Windows is used quite extensively in the airline industry as part of quite a few IFE systems.
So quit with the FUD please.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Q: What weights nothing. But, when loaded onto an airplane, can keep it from taking off?
A: Software.
It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the bill is hundreds of millions of [dollars|Euros] you don't make your decision based on whether one is made with a cooler process than the other.
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Airlines are being faced with the situation of not having the ability to add more and more flights to their schedules from certain locations. So it's not even necessarily a choice between fuel cost X and fuel cost Y. More like "We've got Z number of landing spots, and we can free up three of them with one plane. We can serve other markets with the two open spots the A380 gives us."
The Airbus isn't some magical solution applicable to all situations, and there are many where the 787 is the better option, but it's disingenuous to say the A380 is some kind of relic of a time gone by, a plane that doesn't meet the requirements of today's airlines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if your throughput is limited by the terminal facilities. But normally it is limited by the capacity of the airspace, not by the ability to process planes on the ground. One can be solved by building more terminals, or by moving to better organization. But increasing the capacity of the airspace is much more demanding. It requires near-universal adoption of new air traffic co
Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The main rationale for using a hub is fuel efficiency by reducing the overall number of flights. A fuel efficient small plane can tip the balance the other way and make point to point routes economically viable again, as well as allowing less-used airports become hubs (since the number of passengers per plane is lower, you don't need to as many passengers to justify a hub flight). Based on the number of pre-orders the 787 has gotten, it would appear that the airlines all did the math and it came out in favor of the point to point routes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350 [wikipedia.org]
Which, like the 787 is a composite carbon fiber aircraft. Airbus claims considerable efficiencies above the 787. Boeing has 930 orders for the 787 while Airbus has 580 orders for the A350 so this delay is likely to have an impact on Boeing by pushing more customers to Airbus.
]{
Uh, no (Score:2)
Composites are hard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? What do the Rutans have to do with the B787?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably still trying to work out how many Sontarans fit in an A380.
Did you see what happened when Adam Air went? (Score:2)
Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone got a clue?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The A350 is the equivalent to the 787, and yes they are exceptionally very similar. The only real advantage that the 787 has over it right now is that it will still come out earlier, and it already have over 900 firm orders...
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Airbuses delays were almost advantageous to the A380 however, since they were all post first flight and pre EIS (entry into service) - this allowed Airbus to iron out most of the issues a new type has when first put into service, with SQ having only three technical problems with their first three A380s in 6 months, which is a lot lower than other new types.
Boeing, however, are suffering their delays before they have even achieved the first 'power on' milestone in their first aircraft, and they are still relying on an uneventful flight test program to bring the aircraft in under the new schedule. This means that the 787 will probably still be subject to the usual new type issues with its first operators. And thats not even taking into account the possibility of *another* delay - which many in the industry are considering highly likely.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
What impact does this have? It drastically reduces the head start Boeing had over Airbuses closest comparable aircraft, the A350-800, from 4 years to 2 years (the A350-800 has an EIS of 2014), meaning suddenly the A350-800 becomes a much more palatable rival. This may cost Boeing sales in the long run.
This delay also pushes back Boeings production schedule a full two years - Boeing now has two years less production slots to sell, which will certainly cost them sales in the medium term.
But the biggest impact this will have is Boeing is not in a position to offer the 787-10 stretch, which airlines have been demanding for about a year now - Airbus will be able to offer a comparable product, the A350-900, in 2013 right after the 787-900 EIS. This will definitely cost Boeing sales.
Airbus on the other hand, are looking likely to deliver the A350 on time and within schedule - they have laid out a schedule which is almost double that which Boeing laid out for the 787 (7 years from industrial launch to EIS for the A350 verses 4 years from industrial launch to EIS for the 787). That padded schedule gives Airbus more breathing space.
Re:Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the weaker dollar is certainly going to harm Boeing - it pays all of its suppliers in dollars, regardless of their local currency, and there is a certain point at which the suppliers can no longer build the parts cost effectively with the dollar so devalued (they still need to pay their workforce and local suppliers in local currency, with the dollar nose-diving they get less local currency for their wares) - at that point, suppliers start telling Boeing to either cough up or go elsewhere.
Re:Comparison Boeing is getting lazy (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Boeing / MD should be broken up now under anyi trust laws.
While Boeing was scheming how far they could gouge the tax payers with the new Military tanker, they just forgot they have work to do on the 'VaporLiner'.
This is the perfect exampl
Re: (Score:2)
Then Boeing would have competition and have to actually work to be in business ... While Boeing was scheming how far they could gouge the tax payers with the new Military tanker, they just forgot they have work to do on the 'VaporLiner'.
Boeing already has more competition than they can handle. The fact that they lost the tanker bid to EADS/Northrop should tell you something. Boeing can NOT count on US military business, and they have huge amounts of competition in the commercial airliner business. BTW, the commercial and military programs are separated, so there's little likelihood that one actually impacted the other in terms of priorities.
Boeing is a terribly arrogant company but it's not for lack of competition or because they're a
Re:Comparison Boeing is getting lazy (Score:5, Interesting)
Douglass Aircraft was, for all practical purposes, dead. McD-D had no real interest in building commercial aircraft and pushed much of the process out of the company.
After McD-D lost that big fighter contract, they were dead in the water. Boeing probably could have waited for the bankruptcy sale and picked up the pieces that they wanted. But the "merger" was a bailout for the McDonnell family. Had the company gone under, they would have gotten pennies on the dollar for their shares.
In fact, there are those who suspect that the Pentagon (friends of the McDonnells) encouraged Boeing to merge, using the last stage of the fighter contract competition as bait. It was a real sucker move on Boeing's part. Worse yet, much of Boeing's management has been replaced with McDonnell-Douglas management. That might be why we are seeing Boeing Commercial head down the same path Douglas Aircraft went.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
In any state? (Score:4, Funny)
At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state.
Not me. When I catch a plane to California, I sure don't wanna end up anywhere else!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I would much prefer solid, i honestly dont think i'd trust a gaseous plane. Though I thought the article was complaining about vapourware in the first place.
Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, somewhat OT, but it's been bugging me for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cut the long flights dramatically.
I also dont know why no one is going there anymore.
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Informative)
Concorde just couldn't ride that fine balance economocally enough.
Then - most countries do not allow supesonic overflights - I remember concorde had to fly subsonic while over land and could only go supersonic while over the ocean on the trans atlantic crossing.
The Concorde was noisy - the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here - and with airports being so close to cities the overflights over suburban areas were problematic.
There is the issue of the optimum aerodynamic shape - there are basically three wing shapes: Swing wing (think B1 Bomber), works well in subsonic and supersonic flight - it is efficient during both flight profiles, but the mechanics is heavy. Probably the best option for the future.
"Normal" swept wings - not optimal for supersonic flight. Is the optimum configuration for carrying heavy loads long distances.
Delta Wings (Like the Concorde) - great for high speed flight, the Valkyrie bomber used a nice Delta wing design that "rode" the shock wave of supersonic flight at high speed to conserve fuel. It is not an optimum load carrying wing, and is not good for low-speed flight. Delta wings have a poor take-off and landing performance, i.e. it means that it lands and takes off at a high speed, and the landing profile is very "low" meaning it flies low over urban areas when taking off and landing. Also it needs a long runway to take off and land - the larger the plane the longer the runway needed. Whereas a wing for the A380 could be optimised for better performance in this flight envelope and not lose a lot of performance when it is actually airborne, for a delta the line to be walked is much finer.
Thus while the speed of supersonic flight would be great for international travel - plus the coolness factor - and there are technologies available today that were not available to the designers of the Concorde and Valkyrie (composite materials for one) there is still the trade-off of a wide range of flight envelopes (take-off, landing, subsonic flight, supersonic flight), size (the bigger you go the less efficient any design is), fuel use (supersonic flight uses a LOT of fuel - hence impacting plane size which makes the design less efficient and on and on) and then the greenies of course haha that makes large supersonic airlines not economically viable today.
Then also designing a supersonic superjumbo is a lot more expensive than is the case for a subsonic superjumbo. Development time is also much longer due to the newer tech, optimizing the design for all the flight profiles, engine design...
It is just not economically viable. It would actually make more sense to design a passenger liner that would "hop" into space to cross vast distances in the upper stratosphere and then fly down to land like a subsonic jetliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Concorde was noisy
Even flying subsonic, with reheat off, it was much louder than just about any other civil aircraft.
the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here
In terms of passengers and cargo capacity Concorde was not a large aircraft.
Delta Wings (
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:4, Interesting)
In terms of passengers and cargo capacity Concorde was not a large aircraft.
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Informative)
Another concern for continued high-speed operation is the engines. Jet engines create thrust by increasing the temperature of the air they ingest, and as the aircraft speeds up, this air increases in temperature before it reaches the engines. The maximum temperature of the exhaust is determined by the materials in the turbine at the rear of the engine, so as the aircraft speeds up the difference in intake and exhaust temperature the engine can extract decreases, and the thrust along with it. Air cooling the turbine area was a key solution, which continued to improve though the 1950s and on to this day.
Intake design is also a major issue. The engine can only ingest subsonic air, so ramps in the intake are used to create shock waves that slow the airflow before it reaches the engine. Doing so removes energy from the airflow, causing drag. The key to reducing this drag was to use multiple small oblique shock waves, but this was difficult because the angle they made inside the intake changed with changes in Mach number. In order to efficiently operate across a range of speeds, the shock waves had to be "tuned." North American had already worked with advanced inlets on the A3J supersonic bomber for the U.S. Navy, which featured multiple ramps which were moved and angled automatically.
An aircraft able to operate for extended periods at supersonic speeds has a potential range advantage over a similar design operating subsonically. Most of the drag an aircraft sees while speeding up to supersonic speeds occurs just below the speed of sound, due to an aerodynamic effect known as wave drag. An aircraft that could fly past this speed saw a significant drag decrease, and could cruise supersonically with improved fuel economy. However, due to the way lift is generated supersonically, the lift-to-drag ratio of the aircraft as a whole drops, leading to lower range, offsetting or overturning this advantage.
The key to having low supersonic drag is to properly shape the overall aircraft to be long and skinny, as close as possible to a "perfect" shape, the von Karman ogive or Sears-Haack body. This has led to almost every supercruising aircraft looking very similar, with a very long and skinny fuselage and large delta wings, cf. SR-71, Concorde, etc. Although not ideal for passenger aircraft, the shaping is quite adaptable for bomber use.
Re: (Score:2)
That in and of itself was enough to kill it, not to discount the other factors you mention.
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but not everybody can base a business on shuttling mega rich people between London and New York at mach 2.
Re: (Score:2)
explain to me what issues are there for which in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights? I wonder that sometimes (and I also wonder on Concorde's failure for the same reason)
Yes, somewhat OT, but it's been bugging me for a while.
Supersonic flight uses a lot more fuel than subsonic flight. If the cost of keeping an airplane in the air rises to the point where the time saved by going supersonic is worth the additional cost of fuel then airliners will be built which travel faster than sound.
The other way it could go is to use semiballistic transport. You would build something like a space shuttle. The engines would burn for a couple of minutes and accelerate you to 5 km/s. You would get about 30 minutes of free fall followed by aerob
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Especially if you need an extra long runway (imagine what those protesting at Heathrow would have to say were they to be told that the new 09L/27R was going to be nearly 5km
Re: (Score:2)
And ever so slightly uncomfortable for the passengers, doing that just isn't feasible or realistic. What about infants, children, the elderly etc? Hell, my aunt pukes up
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true at mach numbers approaching one (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WHY no high speed rail. (Score:4, Insightful)
About the only reason why we will see high-speed rail come here is the use of nuclear power. Our next president will no doubt be pushing nukes/AE and combine that with the expected carbon tax from EU and we will see change come here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
a few reasons (Score:3, Informative)
To get more specific, these are the top four (by passenger volume) domestic air routes in the United States:
1. Boston - New York City
2. Los Angeles - San Fr
Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly the same reasons we "have to resort to" sub-200MPH car travel...
"Getting there faster" should never be a goal in designing a commercial passenger jet. The vast majority of flights are so short that you spend more time on the ground, in the terminal, than you do in the air, so the overall improvement would be minuscule.
The Boeing 787 significantly reduces fuel consumption, which should reduce ticket prices, and hopefully put airlines in a more tenable position.
The Airbus A-380 forgoes any fuel savings, and opts, instead, for fitting far more people in a single plane, which should reduce the epic congestion problem causing delays at airports.
Both are laudable goals, and a supersonic aircraft would not-only fail to address either problem, it would make both issues far worse.
The fact that passenger aircraft have increased in speed over the years is really almost accidental. Jets became popular NOT because they were faster for the passengers, but because the maintenance costs were so much lower than traditional propeller aircraft. In fact, even slower turboprops look to be making a comeback, due to their lower fuel costs. If fuel prices continue to rise unchecked, it won't be long before we'll all be back to traveling in passenger trains, and trans-oceanic steamers. Maybe they'll rename "coach" seats "steerage".
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe instead effort needs to be put into making the time on the ground shorter, rather than longer
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
explain to me what issues are there for which in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights?
Because when you go supersonic, fuel consumption triples. [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That crash had zero to do with the problems associated with supersonic airliners. It ran over a piece that fell off another jet, blew a tire, and things escalated from there.
Fuel, sound, and money are the issues.
Cost of Carbon Fiber (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone have any idea what the current price for carbon fiber is?
Re: (Score:2)
rj
naming (Score:4, Funny)
Suggestions for a new name? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably regret calling the company "Boeing", too. I recall a comedian making fun of it once (but not their name): "Sounds like something just fell off the airplane: 'Boeing!'"
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's better than binliner.
Who writes these summaries? (Score:2)
Hence the Name (Score:2, Funny)
Safety First, After the Money (Score:2)
Well, if "everyone's" attitude towards the 787 is that they'll be happy for it to arrive unsafe mechanically or in IT security, then I will be even happier to take any other plane.
I'd like to think that after 4 planes are slammed into American territory, transforming our country and much of the world into a police state, where $BILLIONS are
Re: (Score:2)
And if a plane is hijacked by terrorists, wouldn't it be an advantage if some hacker in the economy class can take control of the plane?
You see, the unsafety makes the plane more secure from terrorists!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (Score:2)
In general, carbon fiber is strong in both compression and tension. Very strong. Where carbon fiber lacks stiffness is in bending and torsion.
However, this is quite easy to overcome. To overcome bending, just use carbon fiber strips with the fiber aligned along the length of a beam. Place them on the top and bottom of the beam; since under a downward load, the top of a beam will experience tension while they bottom will experience compression. You could possibly add a carbon shear web, aligned vertically
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The A380 and 787 aren't direct competitors. The A350 will be Airbus's 787 equivalent, but yes the 787 delays could help Airbus in the long run.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It still only has the ordinary symmetries of a plane. No supersymmetry in sight.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It still only has the ordinary symmetries of a plane. No supersymmetry in sight.
It doesn't even obey ordinary physical symmetries.
If you build one out of antimatter from plans viewed in a mirror and then try to fly it backwards through time, it just explodes on the tarmac.
Incompetent engineers if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That'd be a 747 with a bit of smoked glass and a random reordering of seating positions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but burning hundreds of m3 of oil in a few hours isn't and should never be considered efficient.
So, you prefer to burn more? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, you prefer to burn more? (Score:4, Funny)
Sailboats [google.com]
'... or simply going from NYC to LA?'
Waggons [google.com] pulled by horses or oxen - your choice!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you'll just have a different nerd saying it's the driver's fault.
Re:Aren't airplanes a little "Last Century?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not thinking about social/pleasure travel, but business travel (which accounts for a large percentage of all flyers). If you work in IT, there are very few tasks you can't accomplish over the WWW, and it seems that most of one's travel obligation has more to do with proving to management that you actually exist. "Face time" is a crutch for managers who don't get it.
Oh sure, we do fly less - in percentage terms, not in absolute terms. At my workplace it seems there is some kind of telephone- or video-conference with the other side of the world something like every other day, for various projects. A videoconference is much cheaper and convenient than an actual meeting.
But, we are now used to a much higher degree of interaction with our foreign partners. So, if ten years ago it was two meeting and two flights a year, today it's ten meetings, of which 2/3 are by videocon - and three or four by plane. Only 1/3 of the meetings involve flying, but the number of flights has gone up anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point would be a family member who works for one of the world's largest networking and comms tech companies. Now you would think that they would be leading the way in telecommuting and video conferencing for their employees. Nope, they fly her all over the world to attend meetings, many of which have questionable business value.
Though you'd be surprised that even in tech companies many members of senior management are comple
Re: (Score:2)
I do think teleconferences and videoconferences are still a poor substitute for meetings (as opposed to presentations, which aren't so interactive anyways), but we should be working harder on figuring out and fixing what's wrong with videoconferencing so it doesn't feel so socially impoverished.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what you will about inept managers, but showing up in person makes a huge difference.