Bad news keeps coming for Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner program. The first flight of the new composite airliner has been plagued by delays for nearly two years, and now The Seattle Times says a structural design flaw means the first flight may not happen until next year.
Excitement mounted last month as the company said the 787 would take to the air by the end of June. Asked about that at the Paris Air Show, company officials said the first flight was on track and would come within two weeks. But one week after the show, which ended June 21, came word that the area where the wings join the fuselage must be reinforced. The test flight was once again delayed.
The Times quotes unnamed engineers saying the problem is more complex than first believed and will require "a thorough redesign of the plane's wing-to-body join." Once Boeing figures out a solution, it will have to try it on a non-flying test plane, the Times reports, then installed on the plane slated for the test flight. That means the Dreamliner's inaugural flight is at least four to six months away.
The 787 problems have meant lost orders for Boeing. The new plane still has a record backlog of orders of well over 800 planes, but several airlines have canceled as the delivery date continues to slip and tough economic times take a toll on the industry.
Unlike the massive Airbus A380, the idea behind Boeing 787 is to carry fewer passengers to more airports rather than a large number of people to a limited number of hub airports. Boeing designed the plane to be fuel efficient, allowing airlines to fly more of them while keeping the operating costs down.
Thanks to the composite construction, the airplane will also feature several new passenger comforts such as larger windows that dim to control the light in the cabin. Passengers should also notice a difference in the cabin air thanks to an increased humidity during the flight and a lower cabin altitude which translates to a little bit more air to breathe.
No new first flight has been set by Boeing.
*Photo: Boeing. The Seattle Times has a nice graphic explaining the structural issue. See it here.
*
See Also:
