The two
aircraft are AA-1 and ZA001.
The former
is the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter prototype completed in December 2006.
The latter
is the first 787 prototype that was originally supposed to enter flight test about
eight months later, yet remains in the late stages of final assembly and 15
months behind schedule.
Both
aircraft must be spectacular disappointments so far for Lockheed Martin and
Boeing, respectively.
Consider
that the F-35 program's AA-1 required 65,000 more labor hours to build than
planned, a roughly 35% overrun, according to a March report by the Government Accountability
Office. Most of the delays were blamed on the wing and final assembly, both firmly
controlled by Lockheed in the Team JSF industrial partnership.
But final
assembly was the least of the worries for AA-1. Lockheed realized in 2004 that a
major redesign was required to shed about 2,100 pounds from the airframe. Further
changes in production methods, propulsion output and operational requirements were
needed to offset another roughly 2,700 pounds. In all, AA-1 is almost 5,000
pounds too heavy, which equates to about one-eighth of the aircraft's maximum
weight.
Nonetheless,
Lockheed and the joint program office decided in 2004 that assembling AA-1 would
still be worth the cost, even if the first prototype would become an instant anachronism.
Subsequently, its limited value as a non-production representative flight test
asset has been eroded by frequent groundings, including one that remains
ongoing.
The story
of ZA001 is only slightly less tragic. After all, Boeing at least expects this
perpetual resident of hangar 40-26 in
The full
story of ZA001's tormented upbringing has been superbly told from the
perspective of true insiders by my blogging colleague Jon Ostrower, master of
the ever-fascinating Flightblogger site on FlightGlobal.com.
But, to
summarize, what Boeing first portrayed as a slight delay caused by shortages of
key parts and software mushroomed into a system-wide industrial breakdown. On
top of that, Boeing discovered that the centre wing box would have to be
redesigned. Continued production snafus, such as poor drilling by a single mechanic,
have plagued Boeing's recovery timeline.
Both manufacturers have since moved on from their disaster-prone prototypes. The next roughly 20 F-35s and 787s are each in various stages of assembly, with Lockheed having completed its first four flight test aircraft and Boeing still working on completing ZA001.
See also:
Somehow I doubt LM Aero would agree with "Subsequently, its limited value as a non-production representative flight test asset has been eroded by frequent groundings, including one that remains ongoing."
The groundings appear to have resulted from both important findings (the 270V issue) and AA-1 only issues (the one-off nacelle vent fans).
Hmmm. I'm sure the AA-1 grounding issues are not a point of pride for LM Aero, but I don't think they can disagree with the facts.
Mr. Trimble, as a frequent reader of your articles, I believe I have just read your two most cynical pieces to date.
Sir, every prototype aircraft since the Wright Flyer has been overweight. Ask any engine man. That's the DNA of building airplanes.
And to characterize the hard work of thousands of folks building groundbreaking aircraft as 'spectacular disappointments'? Shame on you! This is simply the result of mismanagement by just a few: Lack of respect for the seemingly endless supply of taxpayer dollars on one hand and lack of faith in a new production system on the other.
Not that I want you to sugar-coat things, but I hope your next piece is a bit less dark. C'mon, 'tormented upbringing'?
Ok, tormented upbringing wasn't my best line.
I think maybe the reason these are bugging you is the way I'm telling this story. I'm not telling the story as a single package. The past two articles are limited to describing the darkest hours for both programs. So, by definition, it's going to sound kind of harsh.
It gets better with the next piece! Honest.
"The story of ZA001 is only slightly less tragic."
Yes but way, way, way less tragic than industrial fiasco that Airbus perpetrated with the A380. Perpetrated ? "Is perpetrating" is more like it.
At least Boeing has sold about 900 787's while the A380 sales have stalled out at 198 units. At least Boeing is very likely to make a profit on the 787 while Airbus has a current break even requirement of about 500 units - in other words it will never make a profit for Airbus. Quelle domage as they say in Paris. Le couchon de ciel.
What do you figure the odds are of the 787 sales count being over 1000 by the end of the year ??
Stephen,
It really can't be all that difficult to find problems in modern aircraft design & construction.
Don't get me going on The Bomber and their sucking on my taxpayer teat so they can build their new C Series plane or how much $$research funds PWC has hovered out of the Treasury that I fill from my wallet. Has anyone built anything in modern times that has been on time & budget ? Eurofighter ? Typhoon ?? Anything ??
Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Let's find a recent program that came in on time and budget with an underweight/over performing aircraft and figure out why.
2. The "problem" isn't the program - it is the morons who do the initial budget/schedule/estimates.
Wanna bet they come from Marketing and not Engineering ??