Boeing 787 (3)
| Auteur | Message | |
|
lequebecois
Inscrit le 11/02/2007 |
# 14 décembre 2010 12:22 | |
|
Bonjour Pascal, il ne faut pas sabrer le champagne trop vite : http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/co ... bd818aedd9 _________________ Le bonheur est une pause entre deux emmerdes ! Adepte de la discutaille du coin du comptoir du café de la gare |
||
 
|
||
|
pascal83
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 14 décembre 2010 17:55 | |
| J'avais pris le magnum , j'attendrai. | ||
|
|
||
|
nago
Inscrit le 07/01/2007 |
# 14 décembre 2010 18:51 | |
|
350 en 2012, c'est l'année de la semaine des 4 jeudis...? Ou il manque un "l" apostrophe à ton avatar. J aime bien les rigolades et apparemment toi aussi. M'enfin, qui sait... Bonne soirée. |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 15 décembre 2010 19:18 | |
|
Un an déjà ! Première bougie, sans champagne, pas vraiment en l'air, ni au Japon le 787 ! Bon, ça n'arrive pas qu'à Boeing non plus ! http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... e-sky.html _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
patrick91
Inscrit le 17/07/2007 |
# 16 décembre 2010 13:04 | |
|
bonjour voila une petite dépêche du site aerocontact CHICAGO, 15 décembre (Reuters) - L'impact de l'incendie survenu lors d'un vol d'essai du Boeing 787 sur le calendrier de livraisons de l'appareil sera connu dans "les quelques semaines à venir", a annoncé mercredi le directeur général du constructeur aéronautique américain. Les vols d'essai du 787 Dreamliner ont été suspendus en novembre après un début d'incendie survenu en vol suite à une défaillance électrique. "Dans les quelques semaines à venir nous connaîtrons mieux le calendrier de production à mesure que nous travaillons avec la FAA (Administration fédérale de l'aviation) pour résoudre l'incident que nous avons subi sur le Dreamliner", a déclaré Jim McNerney lors d'une interview sur CNBC. Le 787 est en retard de trois ans sur son calendrier originel. Boeing a déjà prévenu que l'incident de novembre allait retarder la première livraison, pour l'instant encore prévue ppur le premier trimestre 2011. _________________ l'aviation est une belle invention qui nous passionne et les avions Airbus me passionne d'avantage que ceux de Boeing |
||
|
|
||
|
didier
Inscrit le 07/03/2008 |
# 16 décembre 2010 18:26 | |
|
Quand on constate que tous (*)les grands programmes sont en retard de plusieurs années, c'est que la question ne relève pas d'accidents mais d'un problème structurel. Les concepteurs de programmes ne savent tout simplement pas calculer un délai. Ils ne prennent pas en compte les inévitables aléas. Quand on se trompe 50 fois on n'a plus le droit d'invoquer des circonstances particulières. Peut-être aussi que s'ils présentaient des délais réalistes les programmes ne seraient jamais acceptés. En ce cas, c'est au niveau de la direction des constructeurs que retombe la faute, il y a mensonge ou refus de regarder la réalité en face. (*)Il y a peut-être des exceptions et je présente d'avance mes excuses aux concepteurs de ces programmes là. |
||
|
|
||
|
gerfaut
Inscrit le 27/03/2008 |
# 18 décembre 2010 13:19 | |
|
Selon le FT, Boeing annoncera le septième retard avant la fin de l' année, sans citer l' origine de ses sources. Cela indiquerait que le problème est cerné. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... -says.html L' article du FT est accessible directement si vous tappez 787 et Finantial Times sur google usa En revanche dans cet article, Albaugh dit : Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing’s commercial aircraft division, told the Financial Times this month that the delay would shift that date to at least the second quarter. Donc pour l' instant prudence Boeing reconnaitrait seulement 2 ou 3 mois de retard (même jusqu' à 4 mois). Cela dépend de la longueur du trimestre comme dirait l' autre...  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74e6ea04-0a01 ... z18SvRfiJJ (Dernière édition le 18 décembre 2010 13:35) _________________ "Je prends tout doucement les hommes comme ils sont, j' accoutume mon âme à souffrir ce qu' ils font" (Le Misanthrope, Molière) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 19 décembre 2010 11:21 | |
|
Bonjour ! Un rapport totalement monstrueux sur le B787 de Dominic Gates du Seattle Times ! Bien, un avis gratuit pour Airbus et le A350 ! Et, si AF/KLM se donne la peine de lire ... Ouarf ! Sur fond d'entrevues d'hommes de terrain de Boeing, sous couvert d'anonymat ! C'est terrible ! Tout y passe ... Un Hymalaya de fixes , 100 000 opérations entre 1 jour et des semaines chacune à réaliser ! La cadence actuelle est de 1500 , par mois! Il y en à pour 6 ans + ! La pluie (Condensation)dans l'avion oblige à inventer des gouttières spéciales ! Les Fix du T1000 ne sont pas encore approuvés (Par la FAA ??)vont pouvoir l'arranger en même temps que le T900, à mon avis ! La FAA laisse entendre que ces premiers 787, ne seront pas "Intercontinental" pas d'ETOPS au début ! Des avis commencent à circuler que les 20 (Ou 30) premiers avions, posent trop de PB inextricables, et pourraient être laissés "Derrière", place nette pour de nouveaux ! (Perso je crois qu'ils en sauveront une poignée en 2011, pour l'honneur et pour ANA, s'ils en veulent !) La note approche les 20 billions au passage ! Je vous laisse lire, c'est too much à la fois ! ------ L'article complet du Seattle Times, c'est trés long ---------- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ner19.html Dreamliner's woes pile up As Boeing prepares to announce yet another delay for the 787 Dreamliner — at least three months, possibly six or more — the crucial jet program is in even worse shape than it appears. By Dominic Gates Seattle Times aerospace reporter Unfinished Dreamliners are seen last week parked on the flight line at Paine Field in Everett. Beyond the 787's production problems, engine and electrical issues have raised reliability questions that could complicate the plane's certification for intercontinental flights. Firefighters responded when an onboard fire forced an emergency landing at the Laredo, Texas, airport during 787 test flight Nov. 9. What's wrong with the 787 Dreamliner? A Rolls-Royce engine blew up on a test stand last summer. A proposed software and hardware fix has yet to be vetted by regulators. An electrical fire on a test flight last month caused a cascading series of system failures. A redesign of the power-distribution system will have to be approved by regulators. After those failures, the FAA has told Boeing that it won't get early certification needed to fly the 787 on transocean and transpolar routes without proof of engine and system reliability. Alenia of Italy built the horizontal tails badly, and each one is different. Mechanics are slowly working through the 20 Dreamliners already built. The morass of rework and unfinished installation of systems on the planes already rolled out — more than 100,000 tasks outstanding — will take many months to complete. The supply chain is halted for the fourth time this year. The test planes are grounded. Boeing will announce, likely before Christmas, another delay in the first delivery. As Boeing prepares to announce yet another delay for the 787 Dreamliner — at least three months, possibly six or more — the crucial jet program is in even worse shape than it appears. The problems go well beyond the latest setback, an in-flight electrical fire last month that has grounded the test planes. A year after the airplane's first flight, the cascade of systems failures caused by that fire, as well as two major problems since summer with the 787's Rolls-Royce engine, have raised red flags with aviation regulators. A top Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official 10 days ago warned Boeing that without further proof of the plane's reliability, it won't be certified to fly the long intercontinental routes that airlines expect it to serve. Meanwhile, on the production side, one veteran employee on the 787 said he's witnessing "the perfect storm of manufacturing hell." The global supply chain is at a standstill, and outside the Everett factory the rows of partly finished jets will take many months to complete. To deliver the 20 Dreamliners built since the six flight-test planes, mechanics will have to complete more than 100,000 tasks. Among the 787's lesser ongoing problems is "rain in the plane," the term used for heavy condensation dripping inside the jet's composite plastic fuselage. Yet that issue is piddling compared with the major flaws that have brought a wave of successive delays. "The purpose of flight tests is to find out what you did wrong," said a senior engineer who expects the 787 will ultimately prove successful. "But the amount of stuff we are finding is horrible. We shouldn't be dealing with this many issues this late in the program." With the Dreamliner nearly three years overdue — and a postponement of the mid-February target for first delivery expected to be announced by Christmas — analysts estimate Boeing's cost overruns at a staggering $12 billion or more. The head of the 787 program, Scott Fancher, conceded in an interview this past week that he and his team have "a tough job in front of us." "There's no doubt we've had a lot of challenges," Fancher said. "The development of a new airplane is hard, especially one with as much innovation as this." Costs soaring More than a dozen people who work on the Dreamliner or have some knowledge of the program's state were interviewed for this story. All were granted anonymity because Boeing doesn't permit employees to speak publicly about its internal problems. Boeing has bet its future on the 787, which made its maiden flight one year ago. The company aimed to reduce the cost and risk by outsourcing an unprecedented share of manufacturing and design work to partners around the globe. It's the first new Boeing jet in more than 15 years, and the first airliner built largely from light, tough carbon-fiber-reinforced composite plastic. And it's been a marketing blockbuster: Despite a total of 120 cancellations, Boeing still has 846 orders. Yet the 787 has run into more trouble than any previous Boeing jet. The company's original internal target for its own development costs was $5 billion. But with yet another delay, several Wall Street analysts estimate that fixing the litany of manufacturing problems, plus paying penalties to suppliers and airlines, has piled on an additional $12 billion to $18 billion. The 20 built but incomplete Dreamliners sitting in Everett are emblematic of all that has gone wrong. They are so far from done that the total number of unfinished jobs exceeds 105,000. Counting further rework planned after some of the jets are flown to San Antonio, Texas, for refurbishment before delivery, the tally of incomplete jobs is more than 140,000. "Some jobs take a day, some take weeks," said a worker dealing with the backlog. Boeing is reworking six partly finished jets at a time, two of them in an empty bay inside the factory, two in a hangar at the south end of Paine Field, and two more on the flight line. Mechanics can complete only about 500 jobs a month out on the field, and perhaps 1,000 jobs a month on those inside the factory, the person said. These jets have no seats or sidewalls, and many interior systems are missing or incomplete. Passenger doors are missing. Mechanics installed temporary air-conditioning units after those fitted initially kept failing. Horizontal tails poorly built by Alenia in Italy are still being reworked. With the workmanship on the tails varying from one plane to the next, mechanics have to painstakingly customize the fixes plane by plane. (That headache at least produced one piece of good 787 news for this region. Alenia will still build 787 tails, but as Boeing ramps up beyond seven planes a month, it plans to build the additional tails in the Puget Sound area, possibly at its parts-manufacturing plant in Auburn, according to employees.) Despite the attention focused on achieving the first delivery, the manufacturing quagmire suggests that Boeing will be slow to deliver the next few dozen planes. "Hopping around" With its parked Dreamliners many months from completion, Fancher said Boeing is likely to skip over earlier planes that need more work and move up the delivery of some later-built, more completed jets. "You may see us hopping around a bit," he said, adding that it's a matter of balancing the most efficient way to finish the work with the customers' need to get a specific jet by a specific date. The worker dealing with the backlog puts it differently: "They've dug a hole so deep, they have no choice but to go around it and leave the hole there." On Boeing's 747, 767 and 737NG programs, parts shortages and late redesigns on early planes also stacked up dozens of incomplete jets on the flight line. But the company worked through those stacks without skipping over a significant number of deliveries. Meanwhile, the flight tests have brought new design problems to light. After runway tests in Roswell, N.M., in September, four Rolls-Royce engines had to be swapped out from the flight-test airplanes. According to a person familiar with the problem, mechanics discovered cracking of small blades called airfoils in one of the engine's compressors. GE and Rolls both provide 787 engines, but the Rolls engine will power most of the early Dreamliners. A separate and more serious incident occurred a month earlier, when a Rolls engine blew up on a ground test stand in England, sending metal pieces shooting out of the engine casing. Another person with knowledge of that event said an investigation afterward revealed that one of the engine shafts can, under certain conditions, turn too fast. That may not have caused the blowup, but it is out of compliance with FAA regulations. Rolls is testing hardware and software changes to solve the problem, though it hasn't won approval from the regulatory agencies. Company spokesman Josh Rosenstock said Rolls is convinced the engine will pass muster with the FAA in time for Boeing's delivery schedule. However, the engine modifications, plus an electrical system redesign needed as a result of the in-flight fire last month, will add to the glut of out-of-sequence work in the jets already built. FAA issues Worse, the engine and electrical issues have also raised crucial questions late in the program about the plane's reliability, potentially affecting regulators' certification of the airplane. Earlier this month, John Hickey, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for aviation safety, visited Seattle and warned 787 executives that in the current state of the program, the jet cannot be certified for long-distance transocean and transpolar flights, according to a person familiar with the details. Boeing designed and marketed the 787 as an ultra-long-range jet, and its customers are counting on that capability from the moment the plane enters service. But the 787 wouldn't be allowed to fly more than 60 minutes from the nearest airport without the certification known as ETOPS, for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. That would drastically curtail the use of the jet for many airlines, including launch customer All Nippon Airways of Japan. Hickey, a former Boeing engineer, put Boeing on notice that to get an early ETOPS rating the company will have to do more to demonstrate the plane's reliability, including specifically the reliability of the engine and electrical systems. Dreamliner chief Fancher confirmed the recent meeting with the FAA over ETOPS and acknowledged that engine and electrical system reliability were discussed. But he said that such meetings about the FAA's certification requirements are "typical," and that Boeing will "fully address their concerns." Also drawing separate FAA scrutiny is repeated poor-quality workmanship in the 787 fuel tank, including issues with fasteners, said the person familiar with the FAA visit. That problem reaches back into the 787 supply pipeline, which continues to stutter. Suppliers go slow In November, for the fourth time this year, Boeing stopped moving planes forward on its final assembly line and halted deliveries of the major sections to Everett. Just one airplane had come off the line since the previous line stoppage in October. Fancher said the line halts are part of his "balancing act" to allow some suppliers to catch up with others and to slow the flow onto Paine Field of new planes needing to have the latest fixes applied. Despite the slowdown, he said, the supply chain is improving. Fancher cited "solid progress" at Boeing Charleston, which makes the 787's rear end. He conceded that Alenia of Italy "definitely remains a challenge." The other partners and the final-assembly team in Everett are "coming down the learning curve nicely," he said. For now, though, the pipeline is still blocked. Spirit AeroSystems of Wichita, Kan., which makes the Dreamliner's forward section, has reassigned most of its 787 work force until work picks up again. And though in recent years Boeing's 787 employees have worked through most of the Christmas holidays to catch up, a worker at Boeing Charleston said that plant this year will largely shut down its production lines. The latest delay will at least give engineers more time to test design fixes, including some for less consequential troubles, not uncommon on new jets, such as the maddening drip, drip, drip of "rain in the plane." On 787 flight tests, drip trays padded with squares of absorbent cloth are positioned to collect the condensation. Fancher said "a good design fix" to dehumidify the interior is being installed and will be tested when the Dreamliners resume flying. Employees working on the 787 complain about insufficient oversight of suppliers and a management system that the senior engineer called "totally broken." "This program is not like anything we've seen," said the veteran 787 employee. "It's a screwed-up mess." Yet Fancher said the feedback he receives is that employees are "proud to be part of an adventure like this." He insists his team will surmount all the problems. "This is a great airplane. It will deliver on the promises," Fancher said. "Our job is to get it over the goal line." Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or [email protected] JPRS _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
gerfaut
Inscrit le 27/03/2008 |
# 19 décembre 2010 11:25 | |
|
Selon cet article, cela ne va pas fort pour le 787, problèmes de condensation, des milliers de corrections à faire sur les exemplaires produits, problèmes sur les moteurs, problèmes électriques La FAA aurait même averti que sans correction importante et prouvée l' avion pourrait être privé de la certification ETOPS http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ner19.html A Rolls-Royce engine blew up on a test stand last summer. A proposed software and hardware fix has yet to be vetted by regulators. An electrical fire on a test flight last month caused a cascading series of system failures. A redesign of the power-distribution system will have to be approved by regulators. After those failures, the FAA has told Boeing that it won't get early certification needed to fly the 787 on transocean and transpolar routes without proof of engine and system reliability. Alenia of Italy built the horizontal tails badly, and each one is different. Mechanics are slowly working through the 20 Dreamliners already built. The morass of rework and unfinished installation of systems on the planes already rolled out — more than 100,000 tasks outstanding — will take many months to complete. The supply chain is halted for the fourth time this year. The test planes are grounded. Boeing will announce, likely before Christmas, another delay in the first delivery Un commentaire venu d' Australie http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking ... n-seattle/ ------------------ Salut Beochien, un doublon donc, plus rapide que moi sur le coup, (Dernière édition le 19 décembre 2010 11:39) _________________ "Je prends tout doucement les hommes comme ils sont, j' accoutume mon âme à souffrir ce qu' ils font" (Le Misanthrope, Molière) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 19 décembre 2010 11:57 | |
|
Salut Gerfaut Ben ça prouve que le sujet intéresse ! Bon, retenu ces lignes de Crickey / Ben Sandilands (Que j'aime bien, Vector aussi d'ailleurs) Hé oui, des pluies tropicales dans un avion a humidité contrôlée , et avec des équipements de dés humidification des isolants , des pluies tropicales dans l'avion, ça la fout mal ! Et gare aux gouttières dans les armoires électriques ! Et les ETOPS avec Qantas, c'est grave ! Et Sandilands est Australien pur jus , ça l'intéresse ! Je crois que avec le temps les ETOPS , ils y arriveront, il n'y a pas de raisons ! Mais avec une FAA, qui ne veut plus s'en laisser compter par Boeing, et encore moins par les motoristes, GE, RR, ça peut demander qq temps ... Et à part qq clients, comme ANA, qui peu se passer d' ETOPS de 180 mn au moins ?? Maintenant, que les fuites soient organisées par Boeing, à travers Francher et D Gates, je n'y crois pas trop ! L'article est bien trop saignant, pour être organisé par Boeing pour adoucir l'impact de l'annonce ! D'autre part si Jim Albraught annonce un flat 3 ou 6 mois de retard, dans les jours qui viennent, il va se faire lyncher par les analystes qui n'auront pas manqué cet article ... -------------- Gates’ story is a must read. Because those issues, which he explores, include the FAA indicating it cannot grant ETOPS approval out of the box, so to speak, for an airliner it regards as insufficiently reliable to be allowed to fly long and remote trans polar and trans oceanic routes. Without the usual ETOPS 180 approval which allows a twin engined airliner to fly as far as three hours at single engine speed from a diversionary airport in the event of an engine failure the 787 is useless for the purposes for which Qantas ordered it way back in December 2005 for deliveries starting in August 2008. Another irony in the report, which Gates doesn’t develop, is Boeing’s commitment to find a way to dehumidify the cabin and stop a problem called ‘rain in the plane’. A humid cabin was one of the selling points of the original carbon fibre reinforced plastic Dreamliner, which has now become a heavy metal reinforced carbon fibre reinforced plastic airliner which Boeing has to somehow ‘dry out’. Especially around the electrical bays, as this is also a jet that relies more than any before on engine generated power rather than bleed air power for a number of functions including cabin pressurisation. (Dernière édition le 19 décembre 2010 13:44) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
patrick91
Inscrit le 17/07/2007 |
# 19 décembre 2010 12:15 | |
|
Bonjour a tous Il serait interressant de traduire les articles en français, bien sur si c'est possible. En tous cas les retards qui s'enchaine sur le787 est vraiment pas bon pour l'ensemble du monde aeronautique C'est vraiment triste au dela des contructeurs C'est bien pour cela qui faut avoir une grande humilite car aujourdhui tous va bien mais demaain les catrastophes peuvent arriver aeronautiquement votre _________________ l'aviation est une belle invention qui nous passionne et les avions Airbus me passionne d'avantage que ceux de Boeing |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 19 décembre 2010 12:22 | |
|
Bonjour Patrick ! Ben 100 ou 200 lignes à traduire "Proprement", c'est assez long tu sais ! Reste Google ... beurk ! _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
gerfaut
Inscrit le 27/03/2008 |
# 19 décembre 2010 12:24 | |
|
Salut Beochien, Oui, j' apprécie aussi Sandilands, il ne mâche pas ses mots. Pour l' ETOPS, ils y arriveront, ce n' est qu' une question de temps, et le plus tôt sera le mieux ! Pour les fuites orchestrées, je m' étais moi aussi fait la remarque, il y a plus d' un an, je mets aussi Ostrower là dedans, dans le même rôle, une fois l' un une fois l' autre... Je pense, d' une façon générale, que toute information, tout scoop, a un prix, et surtout quand cela se répête. C' est vrai que l' article est particulièrement saignant. Mais si derrière c' était encore pire ? A suivre... J' espère me tromper, bien sûr. Je suis désolé pour Boeing, je souhaite aux ingés B de s' en sortir au mieux. Une catastrophe serait mauvaise pour toute l' industrie... (Dernière édition le 19 décembre 2010 12:53) _________________ "Je prends tout doucement les hommes comme ils sont, j' accoutume mon âme à souffrir ce qu' ils font" (Le Misanthrope, Molière) |
||
|
|
||
|
patrick91
Inscrit le 17/07/2007 |
# 19 décembre 2010 16:18 | |
|
Re Oui comprend aisement je partage votre avis sur la traduction de google mais quand on a que sa on fait avec peu etre a l'avenir un condanse de l'article mais je sais que c'est extrement difficile merci quand meme _________________ l'aviation est une belle invention qui nous passionne et les avions Airbus me passionne d'avantage que ceux de Boeing |
||
|
|
||
|
SINTEX
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 20 décembre 2010 17:39 | |
|
On peut y aller petit bout par petit bout : Par exemple, du côté des finances, c'est déjà pas mal : Cout de développement estimé 5mds de $ Surcouts de développement et pénalités diverses estimées par les analystes : 12 à 18Mds$ (soit un cout de développement et aléas total de 17 à 23mds de $ !!!) (l'écart est tellement gigantesque que j'ai du mal à croire ma traduction). Prenons un tarif catalogue de 175m$ Considérons une marge opérationnelle (tous frais pris en compte) de 5% sur chaque appareil, soit pour faire très simple 8 à 10M$ de bénéf final (all inclusive) par appareil. Dans cette hypothèse, les marges opérationnelles des 1000 premiers appareils servent à absorber les surcouts du programme. On peut aussi regarder la seule marge sur couts variables de l'appareil qui doit tourner autour de 15%, soit environ 30m$ de marge sur couts d'achats (matière première, achats des composants aux partenaires, main d'oeuvre, frais..) Dans ce cas (on considère que les aléas du programme n'engendrent que des couts variables, ne touchent pas à l'investissement, ce qui reste à prouver), il faut 400 appareils pour absorber l'hypothèse basse de surcout (12 mds$). Je me rappelle tout le pataquès sur le point mort du 380 à cause d'un seul problème de cablage. J'ai hâte de lire enfin des analyses sur les impacts financiers lourds de ce gros tas de noeuds. Le 787 est un best seller (ils disent même blockbuster), mais il n'est pas prêt d'être rentable... Une des conséquences annexes c'est que Boeing n'est pas prêt de perdre le contrat des ravitailleurs, en tout cas pas intégralement... _________________ Si on doit vivre dans le monde de Philip K DICK, au moins donnez nous les voitures volantes |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
