Boeing has publicly said that static testing on ZY997 to validate the 787 wing fix would begin in late November. Well, it's late November and Matt Cawby's KPAE blog that closely tracks the goings-on at the company's Everett facility posted a small item that has attracted quite a bit of attention:A wing load test on the static test 787 in the 40-23 began at 4:30 PM today and was completed at 7:20 PM. Second test scheduled to begin at 8:00 PM.In this case, "today" referred to Friday, November 27th. Static testing will(is) take(taking) place inside Building 40-23 at the Everett factory, where the static airframe has been parked since April 2008. The static tests will validate Boeing's side-of-body reinforcement and clear ZA001, the first 787, for flight in Decemeber.
There are a few other indications that the static tests are underway, but direct (official) confirmation eludes me. Boeing says that they will be making a comment at the conclusion of the static tests, not the commencement, so official word one way or another isn't coming right now.
Anyone know what's up? Is your strain gauge "spidey sense" tingling too?
on November 28, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply
How did he know the test actually took place when his blog indicates he posted the entry at 2:26PM, more than two-hours before the test allegedly began?
on November 28, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply
Leelaw:
Matt's post was updated from his original post that was made at 226pm. Initially he said the test would begin at 430pm and then later in the evening the post was updated to how it reads now.
on November 28, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply
Is time to watch for pre flight activity or buzz around the first 2 test aircraft, ZA001 and ZA002?
on November 28, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply
can't wait 2 read that the wing fix test is a success! can't wait 2 c it fly!
on November 29, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply
Hope it fails, about time they got rid of the top mangement
on November 29, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply
I think you mean 'eludes'...
on November 29, 2009 5:10 AM | Reply
Thanx for the explanation. He should make multiple posts to properly document his reportage.
on November 29, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply
A poster on the SP-I blog claims:
"The fix failed overnight.
Delamination occurred on the first 4 joints affected."
on November 29, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply
Jon,
In the absense of confirmation, could you describe to us what is involved in this test and how long it takes.
The preliminary report indicated that the second test was going to occur at 8:00pm. Does that mean that this testing goes on around the clock?
If Boeing will not comment, patience will be required but attention can be paid to ZA001 and its flight preparations
on November 29, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply
OK....seen this before. If the static test were successful, you think Boeing would leak it. They need some good news leading up to the United decision. The silence is deafening. One hopes they are just checking and re-checking the findings before they announce. Let's just pray the tests were successful because if they were not, this program is in serious trouble.
My hope...test successful, Boeing announces 'earlier' first flight (before Dec 22) and United/Boeing announcement comes shortly there after. Too much to ask for Christmas?
on November 29, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply
Listening for that big bang.
on November 29, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply
If, as reported by a commenter on Aubrey Cohen's SeattlePI blog, the first re-test 'failed,' remember it's a test of the repair - which was a difficult task in the very confined wing root interior, and conceivably was not a perfect repair. The real test is with one of the airframes on which the modification was introduced before wing attachment, when workers had better access to the area where delaminations occured. Of course, regulators might accept results on the basis of computer modeling (a la A380); Boeing would prefer that to having to devote a second airframe to static test - but if the latter passed muster the only problem would remain with the early airframes that involved retrospective modification. Think it not impossible that this all could still end in tears...
on November 29, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply
Am very surprised that you would look to a comment on the SP-1 blog page as evidence of the results of any Boeing testing. There are very few comments that speak with any authority or knowledge.
. This site has a much higher degree of information , You can be assured that the results will be better understood and examined before specious disinformation is taken for the truth.
on November 29, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply
Folks - the test itself is fairly quick, matter of hours. How quickly they ramp up the load, don't know, but the test point itself is quick. If eveyrything goes well the readings come fast, after stabilizing, and then it is off to the nerds. Crunching the data takes more time, you analyze, re-analyze and possibly take the readings again if too much noise. Time consuming part is preping the results for FAA and them diagesting what they have seen. After the wing-body fix all instrumentation had to be re-installed, tested and calibrated - this took the time to prep the test again. I have no doubt the actual fix works - the real question is how did Boeing handle the delaminated holes they saw while installing the fix ?
on November 29, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply
Why not? Jon's "story/entry" is based on a twenty word blogger's-blurb which is sloppily documented and unconfirmed.
on November 29, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply
Jon, you really need to fix your blog software. The duplicate comment entries are an indication of how haphazardly it works.
Usually the first thing I do when I surf over here is to hit the refresh button. Almost always there is some older cached version of your page up initially. Comments don't show up right away, so people keep submitting them, and you wind up with two or three copies. The software is really sucktastic, enough to ruin an otherwise fine and informative blog.
on November 30, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply
So another blogger has stated that the freeze plugs that Boeing used on some of the joints have caused some delamination. Check this out:
http://www.designnews.com/blog/Engineering_Materials/26462-Boeing_New_Dreamliner_787_Problem_is_No_Big_Deal.php
on November 30, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply
For Anonymous - There are a couple different ways to deal with delamination, depending on how a structure is loaded and how severe it is. An additional challenge here may be justifying to the FAA that any delamination repairs didn't artificially strengthen the wing compared to a production wing. I won't speculate how they went about it, but given that Boeing has about as much expertise with composites as anybody in the world, I'm not overly concerned about that part of the ZY997 fix.
If a test really did occur this week, I can more or less guarantee that it was not the ultimate load test. Remember, the original damage was found at a level below ultimate load. As before, they'll certainly do a series of tests gradually increasing to 100%. They'll look at the strain, particularly in the areas around the fix, each time to verify the levels are within predicted ranges, then proceed. I'm guessing it will be another week or perhaps two before they do the 150% test.
Unless they find anything unexpected in the process, I'm sure they'll continue full-bore with preparations on ZA001 and ZA002 in order to reach first flight as soon as possible after they reach 150%.
on November 30, 2009 4:52 AM | Reply
Why not, Leelaw? The comment on the Seattle PI's blog was completely anonymous, whereas Matt Cawby put's his name to his work. He has a track record of being extremely accurate with his news. The only thing "sloppy" was that he updated an existing entry when the news changed from a prediction to confirmation.
on November 30, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply
Jon is not confirming anything but searching for information and indicating the source of his inquiry.
The SP-1 article offers no basis but for a comment posted anonymously and indicates some allegedly disturbing news without a source.
Matt Cawby of KPAE Paine Field Blog is a reasonably reliable source of observations in and around Paine Field and today adds that "Two airport sweeper trucks have been on continuous duty this week getting the runway spotless for the anticipated taxi test" .
Most of us are hoping for a successful conclusion and are grasping at information to substantiate any findings. Some of the comments on this site indicate the complexity of this test so early unofficial conclusions have to be greeted with skepticism. It is doubtful that any conclusions will come from a comment posted without identification or reasonable source
on November 30, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply
I get it, thanks for clarifying which rumors are fit for discussion. ;-)
on November 30, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply
Leelaw, You are an intelligent fellow and certainly understand that in the quest for information there are substantial leads and rumors and other forms of disinformation.
Jon and others are only trying to follow this story in the most best way possible and everyone should value postings that come from reasonable sources or even if posted anonymously, contain information in a form that shows knowledge or familiarity so that it weighs in with some authority.
Since you thought that posting would add to the dialogue, lets assume you intended to be constructive and should be thanked for your effort. I guess it is more difficult to guage rumors than I thought and everything goes from your point of view.
It is helpful to try to keep it as rationale as possible.
on November 30, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply
Dreamliner One, aka ZA001 is back at the fuel dock ... read here:
http://kpae.blogspot.com/2009/11/787-update-november-30.html#comments
on November 30, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply
No worries, tastes differ. Since the "offending post" was matter of fact in tone and free of gratuitous anti-Boeing invective, I thought it was fit for consumption by a mature audience. :-)
on November 30, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply
I am following the posts here and must confess that I am feeling a bit anxious to know the test results.
Hopefully everyhting is gonna be alright this time.
on November 30, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply
ZA001 is in the pits and getting ready. The first flight schedule looks like it is out of its holding pattern and now moving again until first flight. What about the other test aircraft are they being buttoned up or fixed in preparation for continuation for each
first flight.
on November 30, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply
ZA001 is in the pits and getting ready. The first flight schedule looks like it is out of its holding pattern and now moving again until first flight. What about the other test aircraft are they being buttoned up or fixed in preparation for the continuation of each its first flights?
on November 30, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply
I have been reading about the SOB test and read of reports about a "Delamination at the Freeze Plugs"
In my 30 plus years in aerospace, have ever used a "Freeze Plug" on a composite repair. I have used bushings and bonded plugs for repairs but never have I used a freeze plug to repair a composite structure. What Boeing document calls out a freeze plug for composites? Is there a 787 document that gives a process?
I would appear that the Boeing spokesperson is not familiar with the repair process.
on November 30, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply
This is from The Seattle Times-http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010391573_webboeing30.html. Might have first flight this year! I still have a job! :)
on December 1, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply
I hope this will become offical news but hear ya go
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010391573_webboeing30.html
As soon as they give an offical date for first flight I am booking my ticket to Seattle.
on December 1, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply
While saying not-so-wisely at the 2007 Paris air show that Boeing had ways of getting round any program slippage beyond the built-in one-month window from 'late August 2007' and still deliver the first 787 in May 2008, then program manager Mike Bair also wisely said: 'It'll fly when it's ready to fly...'
on December 14, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply
I suppose I'm going to have to do some more research but this is a pretty good spring board.