Boeing will not deliver the first Boeing 787 Dreamliners until 2011, following yet another delay in the troubled programme. The company says the knock-back is the result of "an assessment of the availability of an engine needed for the final phases of flight test this fall", although it insists it's working "closely with Rolls- …
Engines spraying parts are not kosher
The "availability" of the RR Trent 1000 is in doubt because it failed a test where parts spewing from a broken engine (eg - compressor blade failure or bird impact) got out of the containment case and to the outside of the engine, with the possibility of impacting the pylon, the wing or the landing gear.
Where is your much vaunted Western technological advantage now?
Oh how we all laughed and mocked when the Iranians said their new robot bomber could also gain altitude http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/23/iran_robot_bomber/
Not so smug now, are we?
This could be the reason.....
There will be a bit of cleaning up to do I guess!
Meh so what?
It's delays are nothing compared to the A380's. Though it is a shame that Boeing haven't been able to replicate the development and on time delivery success that the 777 had (which still remains one of the safest and advanced airliners in the sky).
No, you can't really say that.
The A380 was originally scheduled to go into service in about September 2005, and it ultimately did so in October 2007. With this latest delay the 787 is going to be about two and a half years late, assuming this delay is the last one. So at this point, Boeing's delays are worse.
Neither company has exactly excelled itself here though.
And now, in plain English.....
"an assessment of the availability of an engine needed for the final phases of flight test this fall"
Translation: "We had a quick look round the workshop and we haven't got any spare engines. We thought Steve had one under that tarp in the corner, but it turned out to be an old Chevy V8 he was working on in his spare time.".
'...working "closely with Rolls-Royce to expedite engine availability".'
Translation: "We've told our lawyers to sue the fuckers if they don't deliver."
I hope RR can get this sorted soon.
I thought Airliners could choose between General Electric GEnx, and the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.
They can indeed.
But they want decent engines
We all know RR make the best aero engines (even if a few were really Bristol Siddley)
Poppy cock mate, the GEnx will be a far superior engine to the Trent 1000.
They can, except the GEnx is nowhere near as ready as the Trent 1000, so you can have a RR engine that may kill some of your passengers or a not-yet functioning GE one
Although the passengers in the "backside-turbine blade interface zone" are back in cattle class so it shouldn't be too upsetting.
Would this "uncontainable" engine happen to be made from nanomorph mimetic poly-alloy?
Some 'Dream' with more ptches than Windows
Remember all the hyperbole, and smirks, by Boeing executives when they said the Airbus 380 was the wrong way to go? Well the 380 is in service whilst the Boeing Dream remains firmly on the ground.
They had to patch this and that, even strengthen the damn thing and the FCC is indulging them whenever possible. The FAA changed the flying range from land for Boeings two-engined 777 so they could fly further from airports and thereby cross the Pacific.
I wouldn't want to fly this quilt-work aircraft until they have made at least 50, and none have crashed.
title is required
Stop being a deluded fool.
There is no way any unsafe aircraft would be allowed to enter service, never mind the certifying authorities allowing it, do you really think the manufacturer (whoever it may be, Boeing, Airbus, Embrarer etc) would allow it?
The 787 is a radically different airliner, the A380 is pretty standard (despite its size). The 787 will enter service when ready and turn heads, mark my words..
You're an idiot mate, simple as. It's a basic fact that Individuals with such negative and critical attitudes as yourself never have and never will achieve anything of worth themselves.
The 787 is an amazing work of engineering, trying to put something like this together isn't easy, things don't always work out. Try and get involved in something like this yourself, it will be good for you, when you fail miserably you may learn a little humility.
Re: title is required
"...The 787 is a radically different airliner...."
Too right. The big issue here is its largely composite construction. We all know well that the curing process in producing large scale composite structures of this nature is critical to the strength of the result (see Philips' famous "wave-piercing" yacht and a recent Airbus composite tail failure for history here).
It's entirely possible that the airframe as tested will be sound, but the production process may well cut the odd corner as cost and time savings are chased resulting in some undesirable results.
I, for one, will not be going near any Dreamliners until they've either been in service a few years in quantity without mishap or they've had their high profile disintegration and the realisation that this is one production process that cannot be sweated for cost/time has been beaten into Boeing's corporate mindset with the cluestick by the NTSB.
"It's entirely possible that the airframe as tested will be sound, but the production process may well cut the odd corner as cost and time savings are chased resulting in some undesirable results.
I, for one, will not be going near any Dreamliners until they've either been in service a few years in quantity without mishap or they've had their high profile disintegration and the realisation that this is one production process that cannot be sweated for cost/time has been beaten into Boeing's corporate mindset with the cluestick by the NTSB."
While I take your point (which is entirely valid) I would be far more concerned about airline maintenance departments taking short cuts and/or rushing repairs to the airframe after various incidents (such as vehicles hitting it while at the gate). Clearly composite repairs are not as simple as repairs applied to traditional airliners. I did read that Boeing had, or were, developing a quick type fix 'patch' (similar to speed tape I guess) for such incidents but a proper repair would of course be required.
Boeing are in a way quite literally betting the house on this airliner, if they start dropping out of the skies Boeing will be in big trouble. I am sure they are all looking at the bigger picture here and realises this is what production shortcuts could realise.
I sincerely hope this airliner follows in the 777's footsteps with production and safety qualities - if it does indeed manage too it will be a fantastic achievement.
Let's also not lose sight of one thing, many components on 'traditional' airliners are made from composites, including key wing parts, parts of the tail etc.
Not sure All Nippon Air is the best choice
Not so sure All Nippon Air is the best choice for the first deliveries... Aren't they the ones who stuffed a 747 into a ground bunker thrust checking the engines?
Re: All Nippon Air.
Not just them.
ISTR seeing that Airbus drove a brand spanking new 340, hot off the production line, through a concrete wall in Toulouse doing just that.
Driving expensive aircraft at full chat into solid objects on the ground must be rather more common that I'd thought at the time.
GEnx is flying on 787 already...
The fifth 787 went up with GEnx engines months ago. I cannot find specifics on its progress in testing other than press reports that it has been flying. The sixth plane will also have GEnx engines and is expected to start flying in September.
Until this event (at an engine test site in Derby England), the Rolls Royce engine had been progressing more quickly than the GE. I cannot find any article that discusses this particular test timeframe for GEnx. Fortunately, there were no deaths. There were no 787 airframes involved in this test.
Didn't have that problem with the Trent 900
Which handled its blade shedding test pretty well.
The Trent 1000 passed it's scheduled blade off test in April '07.
The failure in question wasn't planned, it was a real uncontained failure of (I think) an intermediate pressure turbine blade. Not good.
Boeing accelerated their flight test programme by putting about six aircraft into a year-long test schedule rather than the two or three airframes they intended to operate for about 18 months or so. That means they need more flight-rated engines for testing than they expected at this point in development.