Warbird Information Exchange

Next week Boeing will deliver it's first customer 747-8 to CARGOLUX and the next day will deliver the first 787-8 to All Nippon-now all they have to do is finish and deliver all the 787 'gliders' (35+) sitting on every square inch of ramp space @ KPAE waiting on engines, change incorp, or both since the GEnxt engine isn't certed yet.
It's surreal, like deja vu for 35 years in the future @ Mojave.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

It will be good to finally see RC502 leave the roost... I have spent any hours working on her, getting her ready for next Monday...

_________________
Fly Low, Fly Fast!
http://kristopherlhull.zenfolio.com

This will be great for Boeing. They'll sure be delivering a lot of 787's the next couple years.

aeroeng

Or the next couple of years after that.., if their scheduling keeps it's pace up!

_________________
S.

Not now they won't, see press release from Cargolux: Cargolux rejects delivery of Boeing 747-8 Freighter aircraft, also being reported at Flight Global and Aviation Week

yah, I just read that.

too bad!

_________________
S.

It's a finger pointing 'your fault' 'no, it's your fault' kind of situation, CARGOLUX claims the airplane doesn't meet promised performance/range issues And Boieng is saying it will improve as time goes on and early deliveries of any new airframe tend to be heavier and as weight reduction programs get going excess weight will be pared off the Airframe. I certainly hope they are correct as I have a great deal of faith in the new airplanes (-8 and 787) and their promise for the future.

My fear is, that since the same bus full of clowns that drove the MD-11 to become an overweight fuel hog with very short legs, and drove MDC into a smoking hole have somehow risen to the top of the stack @ the Lazy 'B' and they are running it like Long Beach (in other words. like a crowd riot scene in a Mel Brooks movie), they will find someway to murder these airplanes in their sleep. Their 'crack' marketing dogs have already managed to hand the contract awardings and gross sales record over to EADS by being late to the game with the not quite correct information more often than not.

Every time LGB has a force reduction, all those drones wangle transfers to Everett and the place is full of drone bees who's jobs @ MDC were far removed from actually dealing with building airplanes but they wind up as Managers because there are NO real airplane guys still on the floor and the 'new' ex LGB managers don't have the abilities to herd ducks with a stick let alone build an all new type of airframe or motivate new folks and there are no old hands to rely on as Boeing has been most efficient at shooing the 25-30 year folks out the door to lower labor costs, and along with them the 'git 'er done' that made the old Boeing what it was.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

One more layer off the onion.

In a copywrited story in the Everett HERALD of 9/20/11 analyst Scott Hamilton of Leeham Co. said in his blog that the delays in delivering the 747-8 may revolve around QATAR Airways recently aquired 35% stake in CARGOLUX.

"Qatar's CEO Akbar Al-Baker views the CARGOLUX compensation as essentially setting a benchmark for his (compenstaion for late) 787's at QATAR, Hamilton wrote, citing unnamed sources.

Al-Baker has been critical of Boeings management of the 787 program. After an electrical fire broke out on a test plane last November, Al-Baker said the 787 program had failed. In 2009, he threatened to pull orders from Boeing, saying the company was run by "bean counters and lawyers".

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Now ATLAS AIR CARGO has decided not to accept three -8 freighters and will take later airframes, anyone looking for one heck of a deal on several less than promised box haulers?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Today, Sept. 26th is delivery day for the first 787 to All Nippon Airlines, it's also the 30th anniversary of the first 767 delivery to United Airlines, as originally delivered the 767 was a three man flight deck. Starting with the 8th (?) aircraft they became two person as the vestigal F.E. station was incorporated into the switchery up front.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

According to the Everett HERALD, Boeing and CARGOLUX have come to an agreement, including 'compensation' for the shortfall on fuel efficiency in the new 747-8 freighter (and we all know that poor Qatar needs every extra dime it can get) and will accept the first aircraft on Oct. 12th.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

ZA-004 as delivered to ANA was about 11 tons overweight, new airframes are notoriously chubby and it might be until ZA-90 before all the weight reduction projects become incorporated. Hopefully they don't give the problems the LGB shrug as as done with the MD-11.

ANA will use their early deliveries as medium range equipment and wait for further performance improvements.

Both engine manufacturers are being roundly criticized for not meeting specific performance/burn economies, one of the issues involved in the -8 dustup with CARGOLUX

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Wasn't the 777 something like 20% overweight on delivery of the first airframes too? I don't necessarily think this is a "Long Beach" issue as Boeing isn't new to overweight aircraft, the 367-80/707/717 series had some serious weight issues early on as did the 737 and to a limited extent the 767 and 747. The 747-100 was the most notorious "initial delivery failure" in that the -100 performance was significantly hindered by the engines. Only the introduction of the -200 really fixed the problems and many of the -100s went through significant modification so that they were almost -200s when they were done with them.

Pretty much every new airplane is from a bit to a bunch portly, I remember working on the very first 737-200's @ KBFI and getting weekly update one sheeters about how the airplane was overweight and everyone needs to put on their thinking caps and get weight off because the BAC 1-11 and DC-9 are already in service and yadda yadda yadda...
What I was referring to was how the MD-11 was way overweight and McD put next to no real effort into trimming the fat off which made the airplane a shortlegged fuel hog with nearly horizon to horizon range if you caught a tailwind and turned what might have been the next ZR-1 Corvette into the next VEGA that no one wanted. A great number of those same folks behind managing the MD-11 program are now driving the bus @ Boeing

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what "no real effort means" to you, but I find doing the aileron re-rig, putting in new control surface seals, changing the woefully under-performing engines at the manufacturer's cost, changes in the computer's CG schedule to provide for a more efficient cruise angle, and several incremental weight reduction programs to be quite a lot of effort. The problem with the MD-11 was fundamental - the relaxed stability that MacDac thought would give more range simply didn't work with the wing design and the engine manufacturers grossly overpromised their ability to reduce the SFC of their engines while increasing the power delivery. It wasn't until the introduction of FADEC several years later that the SFC's promised were actually attained, but by then it was too late to fix the MD-11.