Boeing: August 2008 Archives

A email from IAM leaders:

The Union leadership unanimously recommends rejection of the Company's offer and ask members to reaffirm the strike sanction vote.

Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times has an expanded report.

I took a few comments in the 767-400ER Tanker Conundrum and I felt it was necessary to expand on what I was getting at.

One reader pointed out that the -400ER has a landing gear height advantage over the -200, so my calculations (which were admittedly rough) were definitively off.

I decided to use a slightly less rough way of assessing the tail strike situation. Using data from Boeing's 767 Airport Planning Document, I was able to find all the proper dimensions to compare the 767-200ER and 767-400ER. This allowed me to take into account both the difference in landing gear height and the slightly smaller tire radius on the -200. Using some makeshift 3D CAD modeling, I was able to link the bogey rotation to the rotation of the entire fuselage to figure out where the tail might strike.

The fuselage pieces were centered over the main landing gear and extended rearward based to the front of the bulk cargo door, which as far as I can tell, is a likely strike point on the bottom of the fuselage. The 767-200ER would strike at 9.5 degrees and the 767-400ER would strike at 6.5 degrees (estimated). Keep in mind, this is for the commercial models and doesn't take in to account the installation of the refueling boom and other external equipment that would limit the rotation angle on the fuselage.

This may be a purely frivolous exercise, but it was good for wrapping my head around the issue a 767-400ER tanker might face.

With the final re-bid tanker proposals from Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS expected later this fall, speculation abounds that Boeing is considering offering the larger 767-400ER in place of the 767-200ERX.

The FlightBlogger art department decided to peek into the looking glass and see what a 767-400ER tanker (KC-764) would actually look like. The point of the (extremely rough) diagram is to illustrate one of the key challenges a 767-400ER platform would face. The -400ER is 42.3 feet longer than the -200ERX. The takeoff run -400ER at MTOW would be significantly longer than the -200ERX and with the addition of the refueling boom, the rotation angle could be a significant factor as well. I've (roughly) estimated that the 767-200ER would have 7.5 degree rotation angle before tail strike, but the 767-400ER would only have 4 degrees nose-up before striking the tail on the runway.

Though, Boeing has already proven itself adept at compensating for this by adding tail strike protection into the 777-300ER, reducing the aircraft's take off roll by 600 feet.

According to our friends at Leeham, "The Amended [Draft Request For Proposals] now ranks runway performance as a "3" in importance (on a scale of 1 to 3, with one being most important)." So, it may be a moot point when it's all said and done.

The original KC-767 was set to have the -400ER (777-style) flight deck, so right out of the box Boeing is able to deliver an enhanced flight deck to the USAF.

So why not choose the 767-400ER all along?

Boeing made the claim that the footprint of the tanker was key to basing flexibility. More importantly, Boeing followed the original terms of the RFP, which said it wouldn't give extra credit for a larger tanker, whereas Northrop/EADS went beyond by giving "more" to the USAF.

Looking at this through a commercial lens for a moment, the 767-200ERX was to be the platform for which the KC-767 was born from. Boeing was able to immediately turn that product into a commercial application to avoid the necessity of an ITAR waiver. They wouldn't have been able to do it as easily if the KC-767 was first.

With that inspiration in mind, the -200ERX was to live its life as a freighter in the 767-200LRF, bolstering the 767 line beyond one tanker per month. If Boeing was to round out its freighter family, then making a 767-400ER freighter, which would've been the foundation for the KC-764, Boeing would've stepped on the toes of the 777F, hardly a good product strategy.

If Boeing offers the 767-400ER, what might EADS and Northrop do? Instead of using the A330-200, the NG/EADS team might offer the A330-200F. What's the benefit? Currently, NG/EADS has to convert every A330-200 to a freighter/tanker configuration from a passenger aircraft. Switching to the A330-200F, which wasn't around when the A330-200 was first offered to the USAF, saves sizable time and cost in production. In 2007, Northrop said that it would "inevitably" switch to the A330-200F anyway; a claim Northrop later backed away from, but never denied saying it.
 
Also, the A330-200 is fitted with twin General Electric CF6 engines, though if the A330-200F is offered, NG/EADS will likely switch to Pratt & Whitney PW4000 engines that are only available along with Rolls Royce Trent 700. NG/EADS won't be offering non-US built engines.

With PW4000 engines on both Boeing and Airbus tankers, does this increase the chances of a split buy?

Wait, I've gone cross-eyed. This tanker makes my head hurt.

Wing panels and wing spars were loaded into assembly tooling in Everett, WA late last week, marking the official commencement of assembly for Boeing's next generation 747-8 freighter.

According to Boeing, 90% of the design of the 747-8F has been released for fabrication. The remaining 10% stems partly from the design of key sections of the fuselage, which according to senior a program source, is a central pacing item for the program.

Boeing adds, that the remaining 10% is not solely associated with one section of the aircraft.

In addition, Vought Aircraft Industries, a long time 747 program supplier, announced yesterday in its second quarter earnings call that it had shipped the first floor beams to Boeing for the aircraft.

Rollout of the 1420th 747 is expected to take place in February, nearly coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the first 747-100 flight in 1969.

The 747-8 family, which includes a passenger and freighter variant, is 18.4 feet longer than its 747-400 predecessor and is powered by four General Electric GEnx-2b67 engines.

Final assembly of the first 747 will take place in Building 40-22 in the Everett facility, where the first 747 RA001 was assembled in 1968.

Launch customer Cargolux is expected to take delivery of the first 747-8F in the third quarter of 2009, following flight testing and certification of the new freighter.

A total of 105 next generation 747s have been ordered. The freighter variant has garnered 78 orders and the passenger variant 27.  Lufthansa is currently the only airline customer to date with a firm order for 20. Seven BBJ 747-8s have been ordered by VIP customers.



Image courtesy Boeing

UPDATE: Added additional comment from Boeing regarding the remaining design work.

Bend at the knees!

I'm told video will be available tomorrow. Testing began this past weekend.

From Boeing:

Gear swing tests replicate the extension and retraction of the landing gear, as they would function on a regular flight. Successfully swinging the landing gear into a stowed position and back down into a landing position verifies the installation and functionality are working as expected. The action is initiated from the flight deck and requires the integration of avionics, the common core system, the electrical power system, the hydraulic system and major airplane structure. Each of the three gear (nose gear, and main gear left and right) were tested independently and then jointly. Testing will continue in the days ahead.

Flight Test Aircraft

Sandwiched between the pressures of getting Dreamliner One to fly and maturing the supply chain outside of Everett for production, five flight test aircraft will accompany Dreamliner One on the 787's road to certification.

The part shortages and traveled work that have plagued suppliers arrived at Boeing's doorstep in Everett. Design changes to both structure and systems that impacted Dreamliner One reverberate down the line.

Dreamliners Two and Three, parked behind number one wearing the painted rudders of their final customers, All Nippon Airways and Northwest Airlines, feel the impact particularly strongly. Work on those two aircraft center primarily around completing the mid-body sections.

"I feel like there's an air bubble in two and three," said Pat Shanahan, Vice President and General Manager of the 787 program.

Before Dreamliner One is able to fly, Dreamliner Two must complete ground vibration testing. In addition, the static airframe (ZY997) is required to complete three limit load tests to validate the structural integrity of the 787 prior to first flight.

Shanahan added that the continuing work on two and three, "doesn't change flying in the fourth quarter, it doesn't change delivering in the third quarter of 09, but I'm eating [schedule] margin I don't want to eat. But the collateral impact would be on number two."

The more complete structural sections for Dreamliner Four have now been loaded into the first assembly position to begin the body join, as depicted in the exclusive image above, marking the first time four flying aircraft have been on the production line.

One program source remarked that the structural join for Dreamliner Four is expected to be a bit different because of all the systems installed.

"We don't have the room we always had," said the source who spoke to FlightBlogger on the condition of anonymity.

For the first time on an all-new aircraft design, Boeing designed ergonomic procedures directly into the assembly process. Boeing's 777 used computer aided design to demonstrate how parts would interact once installed, the 787's design took another leap forward by not only modeling static interaction of parts, but also modeled the process of assembly.

The aft fuselage section for Dreamliner Four shipped with 98% of structures and 87% of systems complete. The 38-foot aft section featured for the first time the aft horizontal stabilizer jack screw, potable and waste water tank. By comparison, Dreamliner Three arrived stuffed with only 37% of its systems.

The Supply Chain

At the close of his briefing at the Farnborough air show, 787 VP and General Manager Pat Shanahan was asked about a second final assembly line and if it could soften the impact of follow-on delivery delays to customers.

"Well, I don't think a second [final assembly line] would solve the issue with four [assembly] positions... it's just a matter of work," said Shanahan.

Following up, the reporter asked, "You're not going to open a second final assembly line?"

"Not yet, I'm not producing very many airplanes yet so it would sit idle," replied Shanahan.

The green light for a second assembly line can wait, but the existing supply chain first has to be prepared to meet the demands of today.

For the long-term success of the program, supply chain fortification is essential for ramping up production.

Spirit Aerosystems, which has demonstrated itself to be the most capable systems integrator of the program's six primary structural suppliers, is settling in for the production rate increase this October.

The Wichita based-company delivered the nose section for Dreamliner Four 100% complete.

Complete 787 block point re-engineering plans were delivered to Spirit last week according to a Wichita based 787 program staffer familiar with the changes.

"Along with the supply-chain design changes there have been many minor engineering improvements, mostly for weight reduction purposes," says the staffer. "Now that we have our final "this is the way we want it built, soup to nuts," things should go quite a bit smoother."

Neither Spirit nor Boeing could specifically discuss the engineering plan for weight reduction on early production aircraft, though each company emphasized the they are in continual discussion about how to take weight out of the airplane and improvements are constantly being built into the aircraft's design.

Structural components manufactured by Alenia have improved markedly in recent months, according to sources in Charleston and Everett. Section 44, the bonnet structure in the center fuselage barrel, was delivered to Charleston shop complete for Dreamliner Seven in June, making Alenia the first partner to deliver completed sections. In addition, the horizontal stabilizer for Dreamliner Five arrived in Everett six weeks ago and virtually complete.

Two 747s touched down yesterday evening at Paine Field in Everett carrying the nose section and center fuselage for Dreamliner Four, marking the commencement of the next phase of assembly of the flight test 787s. The center fuselage, which spent almost eleven months in Charleston, arrived with a greater completion of assembly than was previously forecasted, sources confirm.

Delivery was supposed to take place in late June, though damage sustained on the center fuselage forced a re-evaluation of Boeing's schedule to both repair the damage and continue to reduce the amount of traveled work flowing to final assembly in Everett.

When Boeing outlined its revised schedule in April, the beginning of final assembly of Dreamliner Four was identified as a significant program milestone.

Boeing has lost roughly five weeks of assembly time on Dreamliner Four, though the reduction in traveled work may end up putting Boeing ahead of where it otherwise would have been had the section shipped on time.

This three-part look inside the 787 program seeks to put in a broader context the current state of Boeing's 787 program. All quotes from 787 program chief Pat Shanahan come from an interview and media briefing conducted at the Farnborough air show in July.

Three interconnected and converging streams of work mark the midsummer point for the Boeing's troubled 787 program.

Part one focuses on the progress on Dreamliner One as it prepares for its first flight in November. Part two examines the current state of the supply chain. The third and final part takes a closer look at the five remaining flight test aircraft.

ZA001

In the life the 787 Dreamliner, number One is finally awake, its heart is pumping, fingers and toes wiggling and its eyes are ready to be opened.

With its nose just feet away from the flight line in Everett, work on the first 787 is going full steam ahead as preparations continue "on track" for a first flight in November.

Work on ZA001 is the tip of the spear as the 787 program makes progress.

Yet, design changes for weight reduction and functionality still are still significantly impacting the pace of work. For example, Boeing was forced to redesign the landing gear doors and the surrounding structure.

"We've got all these different projects coming in at a time," said Pat Shanahan, 787 Vice President and General Manager. "So the timing of getting that, it's a sequence issue, I put that door on in final assembly, so I want to get the weight out."

The complexity of the supply chain adds an additional challenge to change incorporation.

"If you're at Global Aeronautica, the issue is that there's some surround structure [for the center wing box and main landing gear well] that gets put in at Fuji if it travels to Global Aeronautica because it's in a tool and some of that structure is really important if you're going to move the fuselage."

Shanahan underscored the fact that design changes like these are inconvenient and disruptive, but also normal and planned as part of any new aircraft program. The new doors arrived for Dreamliner One in early June.

Even with these design changes, the more Boeing is able to learn from systems integration, the more it is able to apply lessons learned to the subsequent flight test and production aircraft.

The twin Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines returned to Everett for installation on July 11 and were quickly remounted to the pylons. The cowlings and thrust reversers have also been installed on the engines in preparation for the first runs that will take place in the coming months.

Dreamliner One has had its nose cone radar installed and auxiliary power unit loaded into the aft tail cone.

Toward the end of July, Dreamliner One achieved hydraulic power-on and successfully moved the aircraft's flight control surfaces for the first time. In the coming weeks, the aircraft will be jack up again to retract the landing gear for the first time.

In recent days, the FAA and ZA001 customer All Nippon Airways have been conducting closeout inspections on the wings.

Boeing expects to have all of the hardware on Dreamliner One qualified by the second or third week of August, "with the exception of the brakes."

Shanahan identified the brake control software as a crucial pacing item for the 787's first flight.

Boeing declined provide additional information on the completion of the brake control software being developed by Crane Co., a subcontractor for General Electric's Smiths aerospace unit.

Boeing intends to provide an update on this, and other program items, in the fall.

Dreamliner One will eventually move out of Building 40-26 for a spot on the 767 line to make way for the assembly of Dreamliner Five.

Finally, the looming contract negotiations between the IAM and Boeing could also present additional complications for the 787.

The revised schedule from April for first flight, according to sources, was initially set for late October. Though, with November now identified for first flight by Shanahan, parts of the schedule appear to have moved slightly to the right. Initially, Dreamliner One was scheduled to be factory complete 72 hours prior the expiration of the Machinists' contract on September 3rd.

In 2005, the Machinists went on strike for four weeks costing Boeing at least $1.5 billion in revenue and delayed delivery of 30 aircraft into the following year. Three years later, the uncertainty of a potential strike could have an impact on beginning the flight test program.

The negotiations begin on August 21.

Image credits to Gregg Segal, Royal King and Max Kingsley-Jones. Assembly depicted in March, May, June and July of 2008.