Boeing Reschedules Initial 787 Dreamliner Deliveries and First Flight

[Larry Dighera]

One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
the link to the document:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf


----------------- Boeing press Release ----------------------
The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing Reschedules Initial 787 Deliveries and First Flight

* Financial impact not material to earnings
* Earnings guidance unchanged for 2007 and 2008

CHICAGO, Oct. 10, 2007 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE:BA] today announced
a
six-month delay in its planned initial deliveries of the 787
Dreamliner due to continued challenges completing assembly of the
first airplanes.

Deliveries of the strong-selling Dreamliner are now slated to begin in
late November or December 2008, versus an original target of May 2008.
First flight is now anticipated around the end of first quarter 2008.

The company said the financial impact of the delay would not be
material to earnings and that its earnings guidance for 2007 and 2008
remained unchanged.

"We are disappointed over the schedule changes that we are announcing
today," said Boeing Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Jim McNerney. "Notwithstanding the challenges that we are experiencing
in bringing forward this game-changing product, we remain confident in
the design of the 787, and in the fundamental innovation and
technologies that underpin it."

Early last month, Boeing announced a delay in the planned first flight
of the 787 citing ongoing challenges with out-of-sequence production
work, including parts shortages, and remaining software and systems
integration activities. The company also acknowledged increasing risk
to the delivery schedule, indicating that the margin to accommodate
unexpected issues had been eliminated. The newly revised schedule for
first flight and first delivery addresses the production challenges
and restores margin for the program to deal with issues that may be
uncovered in final ground or flight testing. Boeing also said today
that flight control software and systems integration activities are
not pacing items in the revised schedule for first flight.

"While we have made some progress over the past several weeks
completing work on our early production airplanes and improving parts
availability across the production system, the pace of that progress
has not been sufficient to support our previous plans for first
delivery or first flight," said Scott Carson, president and CEO of
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "We deeply regret the impact these delays
will have on our customers, and we are committed to working with them
to minimize any disruption to their plans.

"The most important commitment we've made to our customers is to
deliver an airplane that performs to their expectations over the long
life of the program. These changes to our schedule will help ensure we
do just that," Carson said.

The company will hold a conference call to discuss the 787 schedule
changes today at 12:30 p.m. Central Time, which will be accessible at
the company's website
<http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=85482&e
ventID=1667937> .

Boeing will provide its next quarterly financial performance update as
planned on October 24.

[Kingfish]

On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
> of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
> citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
> the link to the document:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf
>

Regardless of the alleged whistle blowing, program delays don't
surprise me considering the complexity of 787. I hope we don't see a
repeat of the A380 debacle.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:01:04 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
> of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
> citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787.

There was skepticism in the Seattle press about Boeing meeting the 787
first-flight date far, far before the public comments by the former employee.
With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
completion over this?

The prototype *is* an experimental category aircraft, after all; it's not like
it requires much more than cursory FAA approval. If the guy is right, the
program's screwed, but the aerodynamics probably wouldn't change much. The
company could get a lot of useful data by flying the prototype during any
redesign effort.

And if the guy is wrong, Boeing would take a huge loss in delaying the program
needlessly.

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:

>With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
>completion over this?

If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
employee them, IMO. I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
the design will be held to.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:36:02 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
> >completion over this?
>
> If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
> standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
> employee them, IMO.

Prototypes rarely match the production models; that's one reason why companies
like Boeing retain them for company "hacks." The allegations have nothing to do
with how the airplane's going to fly; any changes will be internal. Yet the
test period does typically reveal the need for mechanical/aerodynamic changes.
*If* there are delays triggered by the allegations, flight testing the prototype
would allow *other* changes to be incorporated in parallel.

> I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
> much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
> the design will be held to.

I suspect you mean, "Final ruling," rather than "final rule." AFAIK, there's no
change in FAA policy pending over the allegations. The controversy is over a
difference in engineering opinion, rather than a revelation of hidden flaws.

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:19:04 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:36:02 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:00:18 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >With the first airplane so close to completion, why would Boeing delay its
>> >completion over this?
>>
>> If design changes need to be implemented to meet FAA certification
>> standards, it would be foolish to test an aircraft that doesn't
>> employee them, IMO.
>
>Prototypes rarely match the production models;

That's understandable given the reasons for testing in the first
place, and serves little disincentive for aiming for a prototype as
close as possible to the final design goal as it is envisioned at the
time of testing.

> that's one reason why companies
>like Boeing retain them for company "hacks." The allegations have nothing to do
>with how the airplane's going to fly; any changes will be internal.

The response to the FAA Rules Docket cites concerns with the
structural integrity of composite materials Boeing has specified for
the Dreamliner, as I recall. Because of that, Boeing may choose to
refine its engineering in that area.

>Yet the
>test period does typically reveal the need for mechanical/aerodynamic changes.
>*If* there are delays triggered by the allegations, flight testing the prototype
>would allow *other* changes to be incorporated in parallel.

It's my understanding that flight testing isn't the only thing being
delayed.

>
>> I suppose the final rule will reveal just how
>> much the former Boeing engineer's revelations changed the standards
>> the design will be held to.
>
>I suspect you mean, "Final ruling," rather than "final rule." AFAIK, there's no
>change in FAA policy pending over the allegations.

Until the final ruling is published, how would you know the effect on
the FAA of 46-year former Boeing employee Weldon's seventeen page
comment?

>The controversy is over a
>difference in engineering opinion, rather than a revelation of hidden flaws.
>

There are a number of points raised in Weldon's comment:

1. The large number of failure modes for the relatively brittle
composite structure used in the 787.

2. The difficulty in testing the composite structure used in the
787.

4. The FAA's apparent intent to not thoroughly test Boeing's
prototype that represents a re-definition of jetliner design.

5. Boeing's corporate policy of intimidation of employees who
raise ethical questions about design and testing issues.

6. The sensitivity to hot/wet and freeze/thaw conditions an
through-thickness crack growth that represent fatigue-like failure
modes thought to be nonexistent in composites.

7. Visually undetectable impact caused micro-cracking as might
occur with hail damage.

8. The combustibility of composite materials reduces the
evacuation time window.

9. The design decision not to continuously electrically bond the
Faraday cage along the length of the joints of adjacent major
structural segments which may result in composite damage due to
arcing.

10. Lack of adequate testing of the system for nitrogen inerting
the fuel vapor above the liquid level in fuel tanks.

11. The FAA's issuance of crash worthiness special conditions and
inadequate testing requirements.

12. The smoke from burning carbon-epoxy composite structure of
the type used in the 787 is so toxic that it has been banned from use
in the interior of aluminum jetliners.

13. ...



>Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Oct 10, 8:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
> of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
> citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
> the link to the document:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf
>

None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
all due to systems integration problems...

Dean

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
om>:

>None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
>all due to systems integration problems...

What is your source for that information?

[[email protected]]

On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
> >all due to systems integration problems...
>
> What is your source for that information?

Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
all surprised by the announcement.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:37 -0700, wrote in
om>:

>On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
>> om>:
>>
>> >None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
>> >all due to systems integration problems...
>>
>> What is your source for that information?
>
>Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
>have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
>all surprised by the announcement.

What do you know about Weldon? His comment to the FAA sounds like he
was unhappy with the lack of regard Boeing showed his engineering
analysis, and when he retired, he sold his name and knowledge to Alcoa
marketing. After all, if Boeing re-defines the jetliner as being of
composite construction, aluminum foundries stand to lose a substantial
portion of their market. Is his comment genuine or just underhanded
aluminum industry propaganda?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:28 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:37 -0700, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
> >> om>:
> >>
> >> >None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
> >> >all due to systems integration problems...
> >>
> >> What is your source for that information?

Here's one article:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/story/176438.html

Of course, it could just be a Boeing "cover story."

> What do you know about Weldon? His comment to the FAA sounds like he
> was unhappy with the lack of regard Boeing showed his engineering
> analysis, and when he retired...

"Retired"? Not hardly.

"Weldon was fired in July 2006. He alleged in a whistle-blower complaint with
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that the firing
was 'retaliation for raising concerns throughout the last two years of his
employment about the crashworthiness of the 787.'

"But according to a summary of OSHA's findings, Boeing told investigators Weldon
was fired for threatening a supervisor, specifically for stating he wanted to
hang the African-American executive 'on a meat hook' and that he 'wouldn't mind'
seeing a noose around the executive's neck."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=boeing180&date=20070918

Ron Wanttaja

[[email protected]]

On Oct 11, 4:41 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:37 -0700, wrote in
> om>:
>
> >On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
> >> om>:
>
> >> >None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
> >> >all due to systems integration problems...
>
> >> What is your source for that information?
>
> >Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
> >have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
> >all surprised by the announcement.
>
> What do you know about Weldon? His comment to the FAA sounds like he
> was unhappy with the lack of regard Boeing showed his engineering
> analysis, and when he retired, he sold his name and knowledge to Alcoa
> marketing. After all, if Boeing re-defines the jetliner as being of
> composite construction, aluminum foundries stand to lose a substantial
> portion of their market. Is his comment genuine or just underhanded
> aluminum industry propaganda?

I don't know anything about Weldon. He worked in a completely
different part of the company (military) than I did (commercial), and
in a different discipline.

Personally, I think that it sounds like he has an axe to grind, and
that he has a different opinion than other experienced engineers at
Boeing. There are too many good engineers there for a bunch of them
to go along with a party line if they felt there was a legitimate
saftey issue.

Dean

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
<snips>
> There are a number of points raised in Weldon's comment:
>
> 1. The large number of failure modes for the relatively brittle composite
> structure used in the 787.
>
> 2. The difficulty in testing the composite structure used in the 787.
>
> 6. The sensitivity to hot/wet and freeze/thaw conditions an
> through-thickness crack growth that represent fatigue-like failure modes
> thought to be nonexistent in composites.
>
> 7. Visually undetectable impact caused micro-cracking as might occur with
> hail damage.


Sounds like just what the Dr. ordered...

From yesterday's e-Hotline
(EAA eHotline Volume 7 Number 49)

NANOTUBES DETECT, REPAIR WING DAMAGE
"Adding even a small amount of carbon "nanotubes" can go a long way toward
enhancing the strength, integrity, and safety of composite structures,
according to a new study at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
Researchers there have developed a simple new technique for identifying and
repairing small, potentially dangerous cracks in high-performance aircraft
wings and many other composite structures. By infusing the polymer with
electrically conductive carbon nanotubes and monitoring the electrical
resistance at different points in the structure, Professor Nikhil Koratkar,
who developed the method, can pinpoint the location and length of even the
tiniest stress-induced crack."

A more detailed story from Science Daily: Oct 4, 2007

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927132550.htm>
The majority of failures in any engineered structure are generally due to
fatigue-induced microcracks that spread to dangerous proportions and
eventually jeopardize the structure's integrity, Koratkar said. His research
is looking to solve this problem with an elegant solution that allows for
real-time diagnostics and no additional or expensive equipment.

Koratkar's team made a structure from common epoxy, the kind used to make
everything from the lightweight frames of fighter jet wings to countless
devices and components used in manufacturing and industry, but added enough
multi-walled carbon nanotubes to comprise 1 percent of the structure's total
weight. The team mechanically mixed the liquid epoxy to ensure the carbon
nanotubes were properly dispersed throughout the structure as it dried in a
mold.

The researchers also introduced into the structure a series of wires in the
form of a grid, which can be used to measure electrical resistance and also
apply control voltages to the structure.

By sending a small amount of electricity through the carbon nanotubes, the
research team was able to measure the electrical resistance between any two
points on the wire grid. They then created a tiny crack in the structure,
and measured the electrical resistance between the two nearest grid points.
Because the electrical current now had to travel around the crack to get
from one point to another, the electrical resistance - the difficulty
electricity faces when moving from one place to the next - increased. The
longer the crack grew, the higher the electrical resistance between the two
points increased.

Plus, Koratkar's system features a built-in repair kit.

When a crack is detected, Koratkar can increase the voltage going through
the carbon nanotubes at a particular point in the grid. This extra voltage
creates heat, which in turn melts a commercially available healing agent
that was mixed into the epoxy. The melted healing agent flows into the crack
and cools down, effectively curing the crack. Koratkar shows that these
mended structures are about 70 percent as strong as the original, uncracked
structure - strong enough to prevent a complete, or catastrophic, structural
failure. This method is an effective way to combat both microcracks, as well
as a less-common form of structural damage called delamination.

"What's novel about this application is that we're using carbon nanotubes
not just to detect the crack, but also to heal the crack," he said. "We use
the nanotubes to create localized heat, which melts the healing agent, and
that's what cures the crack."


Montblack
https://secure.eaa.org/ehotline/subscribe.html

[Montblack]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> "But according to a summary of OSHA's findings, Boeing told investigators
> Weldon was fired for threatening a supervisor, specifically for stating he
> wanted to hang the African-American executive 'on a meat hook' and that he
> 'wouldn't mind' seeing a noose around the executive's neck."


Brings immediately to mind (4) movies:

1. On the Waterfront (1953)
2. The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

NAC (Necessary Aviation Content) movies:

1. Goodfellas (1990) ...post Lufthansa/JFK-heist freezer scene

2. Airplane! (1980)
Hanging Lady: "Nervous?"
Ted Striker: "Yes."
Hanging Lady: "First time?"
Ted Striker: "No, I've been nervous lots of times."


Montblack!
"So there."

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:27:37 -0700, wrote in
> om>:
>
>> On Oct 11, 2:23 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:43:43 -0700, wrote in
>>> om>:
>>>
>>>> None... the whistle blower has nothing to do with it. The delays are
>>>> all due to systems integration problems...
>>> What is your source for that information?
>> Friends (former co-workers) who work on the 787 program at Boeing. I
>> have known that this was coming for about a year now, so I wasn't at
>> all surprised by the announcement.
>
> What do you know about Weldon? His comment to the FAA sounds like he
> was unhappy with the lack of regard Boeing showed his engineering
> analysis, and when he retired, he sold his name and knowledge to Alcoa
> marketing. After all, if Boeing re-defines the jetliner as being of
> composite construction, aluminum foundries stand to lose a substantial
> portion of their market. Is his comment genuine or just underhanded
> aluminum industry propaganda?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Oct 10, 10:18 pm, Kingfish > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > One wonders how much the setbacks in Boeing's 787 program are a result
> > of the whistle-blowing former Boeing engineer's comments to the FAA
> > citing shortcuts and unsound engineering decisions for the 787. Here's
> > the link to the document:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/09/17/2003889769.pdf
>
> Regardless of the alleged whistle blowing, program delays don't
> surprise me considering the complexity of 787.

They need Revell or Monogram to fix the plastic airframe issues, until
then I'm sticking with Airbus..JG

[Larry Dighera]

The Boeing Company <http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/index.html>
Boeing Revises 787 First Flight and Delivery Plans; Adds Schedule
Margin to Reduce Risk of Further Delays

* First flight moved into fourth-quarter 2008; deliveries to
begin third-quarter 2009

* Production plan now targets approximately 25 787 deliveries in
2009

* Company expresses confidence in plans; will work closely with
customers to minimize disruption

* No change to 2008 earnings guidance; strong 2009 EPS growth
still expected

EVERETT, Wash., April 09, 2008 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced a
revised plan for first flight and initial deliveries of the 787
Dreamliner that includes additional schedule margin to reduce risk of
further delays on the program.

While significant progress has been made assembling Airplane #1, first
flight is being rescheduled due to slower than expected completion of
work that traveled from supplier facilities into Boeing's final
assembly line, unanticipated rework, and the addition of margin into
the testing schedule. The new delivery schedule is based on a more
conservative production plan developed with the 787 partner team. That
schedule now targets approximately 25 deliveries in 2009.

First flight of the all-new airplane will move into the fourth quarter
of this year rather than the end of the second quarter, and first
delivery is now planned for the third quarter of 2009 instead of first
quarter.

Company officials expressed confidence in the new plan and the steps
being taken to accelerate program performance.

"Over the past few months, we have taken strong actions to confront
and overcome start-up issues on the program, and we have made solid
progress," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Scott
Carson. "Nevertheless, the traveled work situation and some
unanticipated rework have prevented us from hitting the milestones we
laid out in January. Our revised schedule is built upon an achievable,
high-confidence plan for getting us to our power-on and first-flight
milestones. Also, while the fundamental technologies and design of the
787 remain sound, we have inserted some additional schedule margin for
dealing with other issues we may uncover in testing prior to first
flight and in the flight test program."

The company said in January it would be conducting a comprehensive
assessment of its supply chain and production system capabilities to
determine the details of the 787's flight test program and initial
delivery profile. As a result of that assessment, the first-year
delivery plan announced today will be followed by a more gradual ramp
up to full-rate production than previously planned.

"We deeply regret the disruption and disappointment these changes will
cause for our customers, and we will work closely with each of them to
minimize the impact," said Carson. "We have taken significant action
to improve supply chain and production system performance, such as our
investment in Global Aeronautica, but based on our assessment, the
prudent course is to proceed with a more gradual ramp up to full-rate
production."

Pat Shanahan, 787 vice president and program manager, echoed Carson's
comments about the progress being made in 787 factories.

"The work that remains to be done on Airplane #1 is well defined, and
we can see our way to -- and have confidence in -- the new mil estones
we have set for it," said Shanahan. "We have addressed the major
challenges that slowed our progress while trying to complete the
primary structure -- the parts shortages, engineering changes, and
manufacturing changes -- and we are well into the systems installation
that is the precursor to putting power on the airplane for the first
time. We have also worked closely with our partners to achieve higher
levels of completion of their parts of subsequent airplanes, and we
will continue to drive improvements in the supply chain and production
system performance," he said.

For tracking program progress, Shanahan outlined a series of
milestones that will occur before June 30: 787 static and fatigue
structural test airplanes will move to their testing locations;
Airplanes #3 and #4 will enter final assembly; hardware airworthiness
qualifications will be complete; and power on will be achieved.

Shanahan also said the program has changed the timing of the
introduction of two 787 derivatives. The 787-9, a larger variant of
the airplane, will be the first derivative of the baseline 787 with
delivery planned for early 2012. The 787-3, a shorter-range model
previously slated to deliver in 2010, will now become the second
derivative of the airplane family.

While research and development costs will likely increase as a result
of the 787 schedule change, Boeing expects no change to 2008 earnings
guidance. The company continues to expect strong earnings per share
growth in 2009 and will provide complete 2009 financial guidance when
it holds its first-quarter 2008 earnings conference call later this
month. The outlook for the company's defense business and
in-production commercial airplane programs remains strong.

Boeing will hold a conference call
<http://phx.corporate-ir.net/playerlink.zhtml?c=85482&s=wm&e=1814923>
with Scott Carson and Pat Shanahan to discuss the 787 program today at
11:00 a.m. EDT, 8:00 a.m., PDT.

[[email protected]]

<Boeing press release snipped>

Personally, I think that this is the right move to make if there is a
design problem with the wing box. That is the most critical
structural area on the airplane, and an in-flight failure of the wing
box would be a complete disaster. This is the first all-composite
commercial airliner ever designed and built. It absolutely needs to
be done right.

I'm sure that the structural engineers took their best shot at the
initial design, but then realized after testing the initial units that
were produced that something was inadequate and needed to be fixed.
If engineering was easy and could be done without a degree of trial
and error, anybody with a high school diploma could do it!

On a development program like this, every group is racing to get their
stuff done on time, and at the very least ahead of the slowest group.
You never want to be the part of the effort that causes the delay,
it's not fun! It's like the old joke about hikers running from a
grizzly bear. They can't outrun the bear, but they only need to
outrun the slowest hiker...

Fortunately on the 777, we managed to pull everything together on
time. The 787 is more challenging than the 777 for a number of
reasons, and unfortunately they are behind schedule. I guarantee that
there will be a "lessons learned" document that come out after this
project that is pretty hefty.

Dean

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>This is the first all-composite
>commercial airliner ever designed and built. It absolutely needs to
>be done right.


I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for sharing your insight on the issue.

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.newairplane.com/787/en-US/newsroom/press/BoeingAchieves787PowerOn
Everett, Washington, June 20, 2008
Boeing Achieves 787 Power On

The Boeing Company has completed the Power On sequence for the
first 787 Dreamliner, marking the completion of the next major
milestone on the path to first flight later this year.

Power On is a complex series of tasks and tests that bring
electrical power into the airplane and begin to exercise the use
of the electrical systems. The 787 is a more-electric airplane
with the pneumatic, or bleed air, system being totally replaced by
electronics.

"The team has made great progress in bringing the bold innovation
of the 787 to reality," said Pat Shanahan, vice president and
general manager of the 787 program. "There is plenty of work to
be done between now and the first flight, but with every step
forward we grow more and more confident."

The power On sequence began in early June with a series of pretest
continuity checks to verify that the wiring installed in the
airplane had been connected properly. Upon completion of those
checks, the Boeing team plugged in an external power cart and
slowly began to bring full power into each segment of the system,
beginning with the flight deck displays. From that point forward,
the pilot's controls were used to direct the addition of new
systems to the power grid.

At each step of the testing, power is allowed to flow into one
additional area and gauges are used to verify that the right level
of electrical power is reached the intended area. "We are very
methodical in ensuring the integrity of the airplane's systems,"
said Shanahan. "In completing the Power On sequence, we have
verified both that the electrical power distribution system is
installed as designed and that it functions as intended."

An inside look at the Power On testing sequence will be featured
on www.boeing.com and newairplane.com beginning Monday at 5 a.m.
PDT.