airdisaster.info

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... rk-on.html

Boeing is considering suspending work on the -3 shorthaul variant of its troubled 787 twinjet as it fights to get production of the long-range -8 lead version and development of the -9 stretch back on track.

A 787 programme source says the delay in development of the -3 "may be a precursor for cancellation. Regardless, we're stopping work on it."

The source adds that the short range -3, "being developed simultaneously with the -9 was really stretching the company's resources. This will free up people to work on the much more popular -9 variant."

The -3, so far ordered only by 787 launch customer All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines (JAL), had originally been due to enter service in 2010, a few months ahead of the -9.

So ,if this is true , is this a consequence of poor marketing or design flaws?

In addition:

Airbus upbeat over Japan order
Excerpt:
JAPAN Airlines may switch part of an order for new jets to Airbus after rival American manufacturer Boeing recently announced further delays to its new 787 Dreamliner.

JAL had planned to buy 35 of the US company’s fuel-efficient 787s and to take an option on another 20 in a move designed to offset higher fuel prices.
* * *
JAL spokesman Stephen Pearlman confirmed that the company had “taken a look” at the A350 and, in terms of introducing the jet to its fleet, “we think it’s one of the strong candidates”.

But he added the company had not at this stage altered its original plan to order the 787s.

* * *
Source: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/busines ... -20513370/

This is probably only a move to get a better deal with Boeing. So far Airbus still doesn't have any delays with the A350, or do they have already too?

I remember how I warned people in late 2006 that "bad news season" is breaking for Boeing, as they have flight test and entry into service due for two aircraft. Airbus can now count a finally recovered production o the A380 and the A350 is still far away from real life problems. The problems do not dispute the fact that the B787 is a well placed aircraft. The "upper management" though seemed a bit to stingy when planning the development budget.

I was disputing the schedule. Mission Impossible.

This is probably only a move to get a better deal with Boeing. So far Airbus still doesn't have any delays with the A350, or do they have already too?

Maybe in this case rather to signal them "We aren't going to wait forever". Like Schorsch said, it is a very good aircraft (on paper at least), but one part of the big success was certainly also the announced availability date. If the release dates of the B787 and A350 are now getting closer to each other, then for certain airlines it's worth to double check on their former decision if they had never bothered about the A350 as it was too far down the road.

All of this speculation presupposes that Airbus will dispense with their obligatory production and delivery delays on the A350. How likely is that?

All of this speculation presupposes that Airbus will dispense with their obligatory production and delivery delays on the A350. How likely is that?

"It will fly when its ready, when its safe to fly"

In Other News

GE shows off engine built for 787
Excerpt:

MUKILTEO -- General Electric showed off its GEnx engine, built for the Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner, today in Mukilteo.

The stop in Everett mainly was to let Boeing officials get a look at the Dreamliner engine, the spokesman said. GE plans to gain Federal Aviation Administration certification on the engine mid-March.

Boeing also offers a Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine on its 787 Dreamliner.

The first flight of the 787 is expected before the end of June

SOURCE: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/200802 ... 64256/1005

Is this JAL interest in the A350 a response to delays in delivery of the 788's they've ordered?
I didn't think there was a A350 family competitor to the 783.

All of this speculation presupposes that Airbus will dispense with their obligatory production and delivery delays on the A350. How likely is that?

Especially, how likely is that they figure out they have a delay when they have one?
It is safe to say that Boeing is unable to give an estimate when its aircraft will be ready. They misguessed about a year at least. Sometimes you wonder why people make planning in the first place. Just go ahead and see. It'll ready when it's ready!

.

Poor #1 has inlet envy.

Poor #1 has inlet envy.

#2 is hissing "get lost, blow dryer !!!"

thats the new location of the APU.

You should have seen it with the GE90 installed. Very little ground clearance.

I doubt that engine 1 has inlet envy. It makes a hell of a lot more noise and maybe even belches some black smoke. While number one shoots out a blazing hot stream of jet exhaust, number too generates a warm, gentle efficient breeze and maybe a log-chipper/meat-grinder sound out the front. Why trade a big fan and duct when you can be a classic GENUINE MANLY JET engine as opposed to something that might be called a overweight-pregnant-feminine ducted turbo-prop.

Number 1 conjures visions of John Belushi/ITS/Joe Patroni.....chomping on the cigar......moving the throttle levers forward with an organic-mechancial agreement like no other.

Number 2 has mister know-it-all FADEC contemplating what the pilot really wants from life and then sending subtle tweaks to a fuel pump....and who knows what it might decide is best at the end of a 10-hour flight on short final to Heathro.

So what if it burns 1/2 the fuel and elminates lots of noise abatement issues, I say the old one has class!

Quick question....seems number 2 is the preferred position to sling a new engine for testing - is there any particular reason for that spot?

DF

Quick question....seems number 2 is the preferred position to sling a new engine for testing - is there any particular reason for that spot?

DF

I suspect it has to do with the mass of the engine itself. The inboard spot on the wing deflects less, and has more room inside the wing box to beef up the structure to handle the increased loads from the bigger engine.

Back when that airplane had the GE90 on it, I read that after takeoff, the crew could throttle the three small engines back to idle and climb out fairly comfortably on just the big engine.

I suspect it has to do with the mass of the engine itself. The inboard spot on the wing deflects less, and has more room inside the wing box to beef up the structure to handle the increased loads from the bigger engine.

Back when that airplane had the GE90 on it, I read that after takeoff, the crew could throttle the three small engines back to idle and climb out fairly comfortably on just the big engine.

Danke Herr Verbal. Inboard spot deflects less - sorry, does that refer to 'droop' from the weight of the engine or something else?
I was dimly remembering moments of inertia and such from school days and thought having the heavier and/or more powerful engine further out might cause yawing issues - but meh - that's life in the parlour for ya.

DF

I was dimly remembering moments of inertia and such from school days and thought having the heavier and/or more powerful engine further out might cause yawing issues - but meh - that's life in the parlour for ya.

The airplane's rudder is sized for having two engines inoperative on one side. So having the more powerful engine mounted inboard would create less stress on the vertical tail than if it were mounted outboard. Even so, such a load probably exceeds what the tail was designed for, and I wouldn't be surprised if the tail structure was beefed up on that airplane for just that reason.

I was dimly remembering moments of inertia and such from school days and thought having the heavier and/or more powerful engine further out might cause yawing issues - but meh - that's life in the parlour for ya.

The airplane's rudder is sized for having two engines inoperative on one side. So having the more powerful engine mounted inboard would create less stress on the vertical tail than if it were mounted outboard. Even so, such a load probably exceeds what the tail was designed for, and I wouldn't be surprised if the tail structure was beefed up on that airplane for just that reason.

The tail structure was designed (at least I hope) with some assumptions regarding the speed/mass/altitude/CG at engine failure. For normal operational aircraft these should cover full envelope. This is a test aircraft and hence does not have to comply with standard FAR25 rules. I would actually install some kind of basic load measurement equipment in the fin and check the loads. An exceedance of the ultimate load is unlikely.

The double engine out scenario is by the way not really a design maneuver, it is only considered in some situations (a one-sided double engine out at rotation with MTOW would lead to a crash anyways).

inboard position on wing mounted engines is preferred for all the reasons stated above.
Summary:
1. Forces applied to the airframe structure more easily absorbed.
2. Aerodynamic forces more easily accommodated.
3. Shorter run for special wiring.

Any reason for preferring the #2 over #3 position?