September 15, 2007

A Busy Weekend Ahead

fbhasmoved.jpg
There's a busy weekend ahead for the LCFs. N747BA (LCF1) was spotted at PAE on Friday loading shipping fixtures for this weekend's trip to Japan and N780BA (LCF2) is in Charleston prepping for it's trip to Italy. Both LCFs are expected to leave their respective bases Saturday or Sunday and are scheduled to return around 1pm on Monday, September 17 in Charleston.

LCF2 will deliver Sections 44 and 46 from Grottaglie. Look for the outbound leg to operate as EIA5162 and return as EIA5127.

LCF1 will deliver Sections 45, 11 and 43 from Nagoya. The outbound leg to Japan should operate at EIA5109 and return as EIA5186.

When assembled together, these sections will make up the center fuselage of Dreamliner Three. Currently fuselage parts are scattered across the US. Section 41 is under construction in Wichita and Section 47 and 48 are being assembled in Charleston.

In addition, the center fuselage for Dreamliner Two is making great progress in Charleston. Work continues installing the key ceiling brackets that will hold the wiring, environmental control systems and ducting. Delivery to Everett is set for those first two weeks in October. Keep an eye out for Dreamliner Two to possibly be the first to fly, followed very closely by Dreamliner One. I am working to confirm this.

I too will be busy this weekend and don't anticipate being able to update in a significant way for several days. Feel free use the comments section here as an open thread for discussion. Not to worry, I haven't forgotten, the 747-8 update will be arriving shortly.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Evergreen flight that departed Charleston is identified as EIA 5102. It departed KCHS at 15:38 hours EDT. Here we go! One new airplane in the pipeline every 8-10 days....

Anonymous said...

Evergreen Flight EIA 5109 Departed KPAE at 19:30 PDT and should arrive in Japan around 06:30 AM PDT

Anthony said...

"Keep an eye out for Dreamliner Two to possibly be the first to fly, followed very closely by Dreamliner One. I am working to confirm this."

Hah, I said this might happen on A.net. I feel better about my predictions...

Anonymous said...

#2 before #1. Not gonna happen.

Ureshs said...

Why won't #2 fly before #1. If it doesn't have the fastener issues that LN 1 has and they can pre-stuff it with the systems. Then all that is needed is the flight control software and it'll be ready for power on.

Ureshs said...

Acutally both #2 and #3 may fly before #1.

Anonymous said...

I'm not expert, but it sounds as if 2 might go before 1. And probably 3 too. It sounds like Boeing is wasting time on 1 so in my opinion and may be better to focus on getting the next two or three going and then after getting it ready for flight. Seems to me like that would be a better idea.

Anonymous said...

I REPEAT:

#2 before #1. Not gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

Charleston, SC won't deliver LN002 until mid October. However she is looking pretty good! No wiring yet but the ducting is being installed. The fastener issue is not even close to being as bad as LN001 was.
LN0002 coould fly sooner than LN001 but that is a Boeing decision.

Anonymous said...

Vought only has part of LN2. The other parts are far behind, particularly 41.

Ureshs said...

Vought only has part of LN2. The other parts are far behind, particularly 41.

What is your source for this information? How do you know? Vought has the fuselage sections all in house with Global Aeronautica so how can you say that?

Anonymous said...

WHY DON'T REPORT ON THE CRASH AND SAFETY HAZARD JON?

Ureshs said...

There is no crash and safety hazard except for what's in the figment of certtain people's imaginations or those disgruntled that they would say anything to a washed up reporter and try to present a non-issue as news.

Jay in Kitsap said...

Do you mean the Dan Rather exclusive.

He is a sensational journalist that has previously pumped things like Di Hydrogen Oxide is deadly (H2O).

Get a life

Scott Hamilton said...

Whatever the criticisms of Dan Rather (and there are many), consider this:

1) Boeing debates whether to test a 787 wing to destruction. Why the debate? Because the shattering shards will go all over the factory and clean up will be expensive and time consuming (no kidding, that's what they said; I'm not sure this is comforting for the test program).

2) According to Boeing's IDS in 2005, one of the issues with composites is the presence of hexavalent chromium--you know, the stuff that made Erin Brockovich famous. When asked about this in the context of industrial waste and environmental clean up, Boeing pretty much dodged the question. But this certainly raises the question of toxic fumes from fires.

Both shards and toxic fumes are questions raised by the engineer in question.

Anonymous said...

There is no crash and safety hazard except for what's in the figment of certtain people's imaginations

Sir, could you please provide a link to any peer-reviewed article of yours where you analytically and experimentally demonstrate "no crash and safety hazards"......

Now, is a composite fuselage with a configuration such as the 787's, really fit to withstand survivable crash landings, when its essentially designed and built in largely the same way as a traditional aluminium semi-monocoque "tube and wing" airliner?

For a starter, one may take a hard look on page 11 of this linked paper regarding the Gondola design for Cargo load - Crash - Impact - Fire

The clue to withstand a survivable crash just might be such things as tension straps, "plastic" hinges and not the least; energy absorbers (EA).

Ureshs said...

Well then Airbus would have to answer the same questions about the A350. Why not ask the USAF when a composite laden F-16 or C-17 crashes or the USN when an F/A-18 goes down?

Scott Hamilton said...

Also--

Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times has a story today (9/18) and the PDF of the engineer's letter to the FAA.

I know Dominic Gates. Dominic Gates is a friend of mine. He's no Dan Rather.

Ureshs said...

Comparing a gondola design to that of an airplane fuselage is ridiculous. I think Boeing and other manufactuerer understnad the materials they're working with and how to build in appropriate safety measures to protect people in the event of something going on. Why don't you ask
Airbus (since you're obvioiusly close to them according to the presentation you linked too) about how they plan on handling the safety issues related to the A350 anmd A380?

Ureshs said...

Scott, why don't you ask the same questions of the A350? Or are that biased against Boeing and the 787 that you'll ignore the same issues on a competitors similar built product?

Scott Hamilton said...

Ureshs,

Question has been posed prior to my posting. Awaiting response.

Anonymous said...

Comparing a gondola design to that of an airplane fuselage is ridiculous.

Well, if you had read the article you should have realised that it's not just a gondola design.....

I think Boeing and other manufactuerer understnad the materials they're working with and how to build in appropriate safety measures to protect people in the event of something going on.

Currently, Boeing does carry a lot of weight as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), and based on its past performance credentials, Boeing obviously has a lot of clout with their customers. However, past performance is not necessarily indicative on how a future program will perform; and especially not when the OEM does not follow industrial best-practice recommendations that suggest new products should use existing processes and tools, the existing organisation and demonstrated technologies.

Why don't you ask
Airbus (since you're obvioiusly close to them according to the presentation you linked too) about how they plan on handling the safety issues related to the A350 anmd A380?


Hmm, I don't follow your logic:

(i) Do I have to be "close" to Airbus/DLR since I provided a link to a presentation from a colloquium?

(ii) "Safety issues" related to the A380? Now I'm curious.; could you please pin point where exactly on the A380 you can find the "safety issues" regarding the use of composite materials?

Anonymous said...

It's good to see the debate going. Who do you believe? What forum can be used to get to the facts?

Randy reported on the successful drop test yesterday. So, the 'plastic' will stand up to certain stresses.

So, it's an issue both with Airbus and Boeing (alphabetical listing - perhaps others). Is the FAA up to its task?

Anonymous said...

The drop test is a joke, and keep in mind Boeing considers everything it does to be successful no matter what the results indicate. The 787 is a mess and should be scrubbed before people die.

Anonymous said...

Be sure to vote the poll
and comment.

Anonymous said...

Regarding crash and safety hazards of composites. Please take a look at the remains of those V22's in Marana,AZ and Jacksonville,NC. There are plenty of pictures on the web. Not much left of the composites.

Scott Hamilton said...

Concerning the 787/composite issue from HD Net and the Seattle Times today:

Airbus says the engineer is off target.

More to come.....

Anonymous said...

To expedite the schedule, I believe Boeing is planning to use the FF for both the crash testing and fire safety testing at the end of the flight.

Anonymous said...

"Vought only has part of LN2. The other parts are far behind, particularly 41."

I can't comment on the readiness of all the Section 41's, but I do know that LN010 has been started.

Anonymous said...

Spirit announced they lack systems to stuff 41s.

Anonymous said...

From what I heard, Spirit says that the stuff to stuff will come from Boeing. So, has Boeing made available what is needed?

Section 41 would have the flight deck, etc.

Anonymous said...

So, given Jim M's background in tape and sticky paper, perhaps the 787 ought to be done in duct tape and post-it notes.