Unanswered questions, cautious optimism define 787 wing fix

Mixed messages come from this posting. It is cautiously optimisitc but with some remaining problems and qualifications that coud jeapordize the 2009 first flight target.

After working around the clock, there still remains 4 stringers- the shortest and highest load ones- without a satisfactory fix design.

Scott Fancher, who optimisticlly indicated when the problem was first discovered that it could be fixed with "parts in one hand and in situ" remains positive and "is confident that this integrated team will lead the way to first flight" Of course, the question is WHEN. Also, is there another integration team in case this one does not succeed?

There will be an update on the 21st Oct. when Pres. McNerney and his team speak at the Quarterly Earnings Call. It appears that this fix has remained a challenge and that a successful solution remains in the future...and how near or far for this fix remains the question.

With the postponement of the 747 first flight and some earnings news that will be difficult to swallow, success in accomplishing a solution to the side body fix would be very much welcomed

can i get the odds on the A350 actually flying first ;)

great blog as allways

It's puzzling, to say the least, that they still "believe" that the aircraft will be able to fly this year. As the "fix" seems to be much more based on empirical design procedures rather than experience-based design procedures, it will most likely take some more time before they get it right. At this late stage in the game, perhaps Boeing should stop fooling themselves and their customers alike, and finally just present publicly, during the company's third quarter earnings call, a realistic EIS date that would come on the heels of a successful flight testing period lasting no less than 12 months. If that means the EIS of the 787 will move to the right by another 6-12 months, then so be it. Most customers would likely prefer a candid status-assessment at this stage in the programme, rather than once again, relying on the wishful promising that's been the norm so far. Also, in this challenging financial environment, I would guess that most customer airlines, if not all, won't complain about not getting their first 787 until a couple of years hence.

It's puzzling, to say the least, that they still "believe" that the aircraft will be able to fly this year. As the "fix" seems to be much more based on empirical design procedures rather than experience-based design procedures, it will most likely take some more time before they get it right. At this late stage in the game, perhaps Boeing should stop fooling themselves and their customers alike, and finally just present publicly, during the company's third quarter earnings call, a realistic EIS date that would come on the heels of a successful flight testing period lasting no less than 12 months. If that means the EIS of the 787 will move to the right by another 6-12 months, then so be it. Most customers would likely prefer a candid status-assessment at this stage in the programme, rather than once again, relying on the wishful promising that's been the norm so far. Also, in this challenging financial environment, I would guess that most customer airlines, if not all, won't complain about not getting their ordered 787s until a couple of years hence.

The following was posted by Clickhappy on 10/9/09 at airliners.com "I hate to type this, but there is a rumor that the "fix" isn't going to work. I am trying to get some clarification and/or more information."
This was posted on 10/10/09 "Sorry guys - still just a rumor, but one that is gathering momentum. I would say there is about a 75% chance that it is true. I hope that it isn't." Maybe this isn't a rumor.....

I know how to fix it!

Seriously I think that this fix ... IF it works at all ... is going to take longer than what Boeing PR has estimated ... first flight will more than likely be first quarter 2010 than this year ... worst-case scenario is that ZA001 may NEVER fly!!!

The major problem here is that Boeing management has ZERO credibility left. ANY rumor, whether true or not, just feeds this fire. I still find it mind boggling that there haven't been more of these managers bounced for gross incompetence.

You can't believe a word they say, given their past track record. Francher, Shanahan, all the way to McNerney. They all lied to us back at the Paris air show, and now expect us to believe whatever they say. Sorry, I'm going to claim Missouri on this one... SHOW ME.

responding to Just Wondering

Jon's posting is consistent with that rumor but updates it by close to a week. The failure of stringers 2-5 to pass the certification requirements was probably what was being referred to on Oct 9th.

There are still another 5 days before the Quarterly Earnings call and you can bet that there will be some statement and questions on this subject.

The Company persists in claiming that first flight will take place before year's end. Lets hope it is not a litany but some confidence that these obstacles can be met. Jon indicates "cautious optimism".

It sure seems like it will be a sweat right to the finish line.

No first flight before 2010...

No certification & first delivery before 2011

Confirmed with the reduction of the test-flight team.

Which company was recently so vocal about American jobs?

Thanks for keeping us up to date Jon, Lord knows what we would know if we had to rely on the Boeing "Spinmeisters" for 787 news

Articles of this nature are not good because they are all based on speculation. I heard comments from Matt’s Paine Field website- maybe Boeing workers discussing something about an a/c, but I don’t know who or what they were discussing. Should those conversations be posted as well? Are we now in to creating hysteria or presenting news?

Flightglobal is a aerospace news site that has the ability to validate information from real and true sources. Companies should have the right to develop and work in an environment that allows real work to take place without issues and concerns hitting the web before real answers can be developed.

Folks, when you complain about Boeing leadership it’s not that they are inept; it’s more that they are dealing with issues such as this. If the vast majority of time is spent trying to respond to articles/blogs like this, and not working on aircraft you get disconnected and disjointed conjecture. Oh I get they lied (or held back) information about the a/c’s first flight. And I know we all thought it was wrong, but I can also understand why.

This article coupled with the company laying off 200-300 people in the flight test group were weak because they challenge the company’s ability to do work. Personally, I have no issue with Boeing having challenges because I understand nothing goes together the way it was planned and simulated. It’s the ability of the company to address those issues which shows true capability and engineering, but when you tie a hand behind the company’s back because they’re worrying about sensational journalism are we as an audience being fair? There was nothing written here discussing the real technical issues causing the issue, and what I’m reading is nothing more than figurative comments about stringers 2-5. Why? Because the engineers needed to get their hands around it or was it that you were trying to get to the web first? Again, are we being fair with this form of reporting? In the future, take some time to understand what’s going on and then give us updates from real sources and not sensationalism from what is heard across the airwaves. What you don’t understand is this stuff has an impact and it could very well cost the sale of a/c, thereby causing many people to lose their jobs. Be careful what you post, and make sure you’re fair.

The structual changes have to meet fatigue specification, not just the 150% load test. Pressure is high because the projected benefits of the 787 rely heavily on reduced airframe maintenance costs. The exploration of solutions may be a bit of a black art, but must be fully justified by the engineering tools; that changes in loadpaths do not bring other structure out of specification. Solutions must also be optimized for weight. Management must bite this bullet even though goodwill has evaporated. There are many worse scenarios if any current solution turns out to be partial. Fatigue analysis must be at a point where long term tests are a confirmation, not a discovery.

SERIOUSLY, here's what's rather bewildering in my opinion.

This "wing box fix" has not even been TESTED yet on the static test airplane.

Why are they installing it onto the flight test airplanes when they don't even know for SURE that the thing will even work as promised?

Shouldn't they TEST first, and if proven successful, install subsequently on ZA001 and the remainder of the flight test fleet? I realize this approach could incur further delays, but on the other hand (i.e. the worst case scenario) what happens if the "fix" does NOT work as hoped?

I for sure hope it DOES, but with so many unknowns, it's another gamble that hopefully will pay off.

I think Vincent's comment proves to be the most coherent and truthful opinion out there, and I agree with him 100%.

I'm not discussing your journalism abilities Jon, but its quite clear that this type of 787 articles don't do more than create senseless disscussions about a plane nor I nor Vincent, nor you and nor everyone knows exactly to begin with, and if we did, why's it so important? i mean, is no news than a regular airliner jet takes about 7 to 10 years to develop and the 787 IS NO exception. I think Vincent has been quite clear here, and so i am trying to.

But anyway, lets just keep the "787 will never fly/boeing can't prove itself serious" comments up and above this one.

OTOH, i really like the blog Jon, thanks for putting the Bombardier CSeries videos from my channel!

I wonder if Airbus have updated their 787 critique?
Could be very interesting reading if so.

I think Jon does a very good job. Without him, the investor public would be even more in the dark than they still are. Wall Street is still believing in self-serving executives and clueless analysts. Jon has to be commended for providing insight into all this wrong-doing, obfuscation and willful misleading that is burning investor money and aerospace jobs at an alarming rate. Without Jon, Jim McNerney and the likes would still be hailed as the omnipotent and infallible Padawans of Master-Jedi Jack Welch. May the farce be with you.

To me, the most important sentence in Jon's article:
"Program sources indicate that the initial fix design for stringers 2-5 did not meet certification margins in computer modeling."

We know the initial computer modeling was inadequate for predicting composite structure performance. And the stringer fix must have been designed with a different computer model that included the results of the static rig test failure. In order to design the stringer fix using a computer model which didn't have certification margins built-in, either the margins weren't included (this seems very unlikely), or the computer model used to test against certification margins differs yet again. So we have up to 3 versions of computer models in the history of developing this part and fix which are either inadequate or in disagreement, and we also haven't performed static rig testing.

It just smells of a "learn as you go" exercise and I don't give a high chance of a happy ending for the next static test rig or ZA001. I don't have confidence that the latest computer model will turn out to be magically two orders of magnitude more accurate now that the structure is even more heterogeneous.

Vincent - What's wrong with some speculation in an article? And how do you have any idea that Boeing leadership is spending "the vast majority of time responding to articles/blogs like this". A somewhat hypocritical statement I'm sure others would agree. And please stop lecturing the universe on how to behave.

Where there's smoke there's often fire, where there's a lot of smoke there's often an inferno. There doesn't have to be an official PR release for a "fact" to exist - in fact you can get more confidence in quality of data with multiple corroborated sources. As has been pointed out many times by analysts, there has been a strong evidence of a disconnect between Boeing management and what's going on on the factory floor - all the more reason to welcome additional news sources.

Of course this article will unlikely prove to be 100% correct, but it's better that companies' progress is scrutinized than not. If the claims are fabricated and baseless, time will prove so and the company has nothing to worry about, it is the journalist who's taking a calculated risk with his reputation. If they turn out to be closer to the truth, then the company will be forced to respond and they damn well should.

Now imagine if journalists weren't able to report on rumors or use unquoted sources. Imagine how misled we could be from nothing but company PR. What do you think Boeing would have given as reasons for their performance on the program so far? And why should we believe them, and how much confidence would we be able to have in their updates?

Vincent,

Your comments would make perfect sense if Boeing had hit all their milestones and were leading up to the first, first-flight date. I would encourage you to read all the Boeing comments leading up to the previous four first-flight dates. If I am keeping score on who is telling the truth, so far Jon has a perfect record. Boeing has failed to deliver in the truth department.

Why is Jon not just being sensationalist? It's because he is one of a very few people that are keeping shareholders informed with the truth. Perhaps preventing your mother or mine from reading Boeing press releases and investing their life's savings in a company that has consistently failed to deliver on the truth.

If Matthew Calneks statement is accurate, I assume the 70% is actually 70% of 150% which is 105%.
This is seriously less than the originally reported 120-130% figure.
Under such circumstances, a "fix" sounds optimistic.
Sounds like its time to dust off some of their past successful wing/body join designs and get back to basics.
This of course may mean looking elsewhere for their weight reductions.

Okay, we have something that suggests that even MORE weight will have to be added to get acceptable strength numbers. My big-picture question is this, related to the 767:

We know the 767 is a nearly 30 year old design. Hypothetically, how much efficiency could have been gained by do a re-engine on the 767, and some weight-reduction work? This 787 is supposed to be such a "game changer", so I wonder...with the increasing weight of it, how close is it going to get to the efficiency of the old 767?

I know the old 767 would NEVER meet the same efficiency as the new 787, and would never be able to get the market share. But, I think there comes a point, after spending untold BILLIONS in development, where you wonder if pursuing this market slice with a whole new plane was even worth it? The old benefit/cost ratio. I'm guessing this is being though through with regard to the 777...with some buyers refusing to buy a refined 777, wanting another "game changer" in that market.

Hopefully, your are right Andrew. Because Limit Load, which Matthey gave as a reference is defined as 100%, 150% is named Ultimate Load. If the test eventually failed at 70% limit load, which means, real 70%, simply design a new wing, there is no chance to fix it properly.

Greetings from EDHI

So does this mean that those of us on the 787 program have layoff notices heading our way?

I thought the first signs of failure, the sound of cracking, delaminating and breaking composite was heard at 105% ultimate load.
This fix will undoubtedly improve the load capability of the wing, but I would bet it will simply shift the problem elsewhere and failure will occur a few percent later...

All these "What Ifs" will be answered the day/year the design meets with real flight shearing effects at high alphas or severe landing tests-not computer modeling created for blue sky aerodynamics typical to this entire project's creation,logistics, and assembly methodology.

The consequences of these delays to the suppliers and customers are really serious. The shops are ready to produce and the poeple are trained and production is at a slow pace. What amazes me is the (welcome) silence from the flying public and the media. Not reaching the safety margins of the wing loading is a serious safety issue and easily understood by the public. However, if this probably would happen to the other aircraft manufacturer, then sharp attacks could be read everywhere that the plane would be not safe to fly with.

I do not know where Treetops has been but the press has been following this saga all too well. Regarding safety, however, there is absolutely no compromise in safety standards and the FAA will not permit any manufacturer to cut corners.

This comment is only one of many that seems to excoriate Boeing on every level. The Compny has not escaped punishment for its delay and frequent postponements.

One thing is sure, however, and that is that every Boeing product is safe and reliable. I believe the safety record is far higher than other means of transportation.

Sometimes I think that many of the comments on this page are submitted by professional critics of this Company

And, I thought that some, perhaps, were submitted by Boeing stooges. Worse, I thought that, perhaps, the Company may have contracted for such. Will we ever know?

I do not think there is one posting on this comment page that is favorable to Boeing. It is quite hard to defend their postponements and last minute issues.

However, there is an overwhelming criticism of the entire organization reflected in these and other comments including questions of safety.

As a disgruntled shareholder I am just trying to balance the picture with the possibility that things can possibly improve and that this is not a hapless situation.

But I agree with you that one never knows the motives of the people who comment. Much of it is misguided and uninformed.

It seems inconsiveable to me that Boeing would miss a critical airframe strength issue as described. Many times an issue is presented so as to draw focus from others ...................Has any news of the prepardness of RR's engines been discussed? ............I know from personel experience that GE's GENX has been ready for some time . These engines have absolutely new starting systems which are complex , and newly designed by HS for GE, has RR done as well getting the bugs out ? Since RR is on contract to fly first , are they actually ready? Could be other issues than wing clips.

It seems inconsiveable to me that Boeing would miss a critical airframe strength issue as described. Many times an issue is presented so as to draw focus from others ...................Has any news of the prepardness of RR's engines been discussed? ............I know from personel experience that GE's GENX has been ready for some time . These engines have absolutely new starting systems which are complex , and newly designed by HS for GE, has RR done as well getting the bugs out ? Since RR is on contract to fly first , are they actually ready? Could be other issues than wing clips.

my comment was meant to support a factual discussion of the issues instead of a non-informed mud battle about non issues. Boeings spinning does not help to gain trust in the product and the achievement of the productoin schedule. The PR department was trying to give a negative image to the A380 in that it is too silent inside. That was just silly. I also believe that the FAA will ensure the absolute safety of the newly designed planes.

" One thing is sure, however, and that is that every Boeing product is safe and reliable. I believe the safety record is far higher than other means of transportation.

Sometimes I think that many of the comments on this page are submitted by professional critics of this Company"
---------------------------------
That is before the acquisition by McDonnell-Douglas and their philosophy- anything goes now as far as reliability of new aircraft from their ilk.

Questioning the comment originators is a tired tactic to discredit people who eat, sleep, and breathe Boeing aircraft via the assembly or engineering vocations as a result of a multi-generation aircraft design culture here in Puget Sound that McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing is so swift to discard and demean.

This new corporate hierarchy has earned it's new reputation with the 787 project management from inception to delay after delay..

" One thing is sure, however, and that is that every Boeing product is safe and reliable. I believe the safety record is far higher than other means of transportation.

Sometimes I think that many of the comments on this page are submitted by professional critics of this Company"
---------------------------------
That is before the acquisition by McDonnell-Douglas and their philosophy- anything goes now as far as reliability of new aircraft from their ilk.

Questioning the comment originators is a tired tactic to discredit people who eat, sleep, and breathe Boeing aircraft via the assembly or engineering vocations as a result of a multi-generation aircraft design culture here in Puget Sound that McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing is so swift to discard and demean.

This new corporate hierarchy has earned it's reputation with the 787 project management from inception to delay after delay..

The posters to this site seem to know their airplanes. Tell me why a 717 (6 passengers across) would suddenly "lurch" and pop loudly in ascent about 20,000 foot!? Had this experience and no airline personnel said one word about what was happening. Just curious.