At the turn of the century, there was a need for a plane that had to kill two birds with one stone. One, it had to be fuel efficient and two, allow passengers to fly directly to their destinations without transferring at a hub. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is that exact plane, and it has been doing this since 2011. Boeing gambled on its future by developing this plane, and as of today, the gamble has paid off despite setbacks. And just like every other blog in this series, I will talk about its origin, variants and overall impact on commercial aviation. This will be part 1 of a three-part trilogy of posts regarding this plane, as well as the Airbus A380 and A350 so stay tuned!
Origins
In 1997, Boeing started a “quiet internal design study called Project 20XX” (Luisada, Kimmel, 2014, pg. 6). This consisted of Project Glacier and Project Yellowstone. The former was the focus, and that project would eventually be known as the “Sonic Cruiser.” Although they were also focusing on stretching the 747 at the time due to the threat of the Airbus A380 (then called A3XX), this project was eventually shelved. As a result, Boeing “announced on March 29, 2001, that they would turn their attention to the Sonic Cruiser” (Norris, Wagner, 2009, pg. 22). The design was a twin-engined aircraft with 777 powerplants that configured the plane to go between Mach .95 and Mach .99 with a cruising altitude between 40,000 and 50,000 ft. This plane was designed to shave off a few hours on long haul flights as well as fly higher than any other commercial airliner at the time.
However the program would eventually have some setbacks as 2001 progressed. The first setback was at the Paris Airshow when Margot Wallstrom, the European Commissioner for the Environment at the time asked Boeing Executive Harry Stonecipher, “is shaving off one hour on a flight worth increasing carbon emissions? You guys need to focus more on efficiency than speed” (Norris, Wagner, Thomas, Forbes-Smith, 2005, pg. 44). But there was a bigger setback for the world when on September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and another plane was flown into the ground at Shanksville, PA. The world watched in horror as things changed forever. The aviation industry was no exception. One of the consequences of 9/11 was the increase in oil prices which carried over into the industry. As a result, Boeing was forced to scrap the Sonic Cruiser and focus on a new project instead.
Enter the 7E7
Despite the Sonic Cruiser being cancelled, the Boeing Company still had a concept in mind of a 757/767 sized plane that was designed to be more efficient. In late 2002, then Boeing President Alan Mulally and VP of the Sonic Cruiser Program/General Manager Walt Gillette announced the development of the “Super Efficient” aircraft. Then in January 2003, the project would be renamed the “7E7.” “Four objectives had to be achieved for this plane to be a success” (Luisada, Kimmel, 2014, pg. 9):
· A general point-to-point philosophy so travelers can go anywhere they please without the need to stop at a hub.
· Needs expressed by customer airlines.
· Competition from Airbus spurring Boeing to consider a new design.
· Availability of new/developed technologies
During this time Airbus thought that the A380 would be “the way of the future”, but Boeing bet against this on the thought that the plane was too big and expensive for airlines to use. Then in May of that year, Boeing conducted a worldwide search on what to name the plane. They “teamed up with AOL Time Warner in May 2003” to conduct this experiment. So the public had to decide between four choices:
· Dreamliner
· Global Cruiser
· Stratoclimber
· eLiner
Eventually, the public voted for Dreamliner. Boeing, however, would much rather have called it the Global Cruiser but alas it wasn’t meant to be. The name would be announced at the Paris Airshow in 2003 making it come full circle the year before. However, it would take another 18 months before the “E” was replaced with an “8” and in January 2005, the 7E7 would eventually be renamed the 787.
Development of Composite Materials
So what makes the Boeing 787 different from other aircraft? To begin with, “50% of the fuselage structure is made of carbon fiber reinforced polymer” (Norris, Thomas, Wagner, Forbes Smith, 2005, pg. 50). It’s a polymer or resin acting as the bonding agent that’s combined with carbon fibers. The fibers are entwined together into bundles known as yarns. They would eventually be interlaced into ribbon where the fibers are either randomly oriented or aligned into a unidirectional tape. They would be wounded around a mold saturated with polymer creating a “prepeg.” This would be baked in an autoclave where hot gases make sure the polymer infiltrates the fibers. This results in creating material that is strong but lightweight. By making the plane mostly of composites, the plane is much lighter and therefore more efficient when compared to the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A330. Not only that, it is easier to maintain because it’s more resistant to corrosion and fatigue compared to aluminum.
New Jet Engines
With the development of the new airplane, obviously, new engines needed to be developed to power the new aircraft. In April of 2004, Boeing decided to choose Rolls Royce and General Electric to power the 787. To begin with, GE decided to develop the GEnx, which is “the fifth-generation version of the GE90, with their CF6 from the previous generation powering the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330” (Luisada, Kimmel, 2014, pg. 46). As previously stated in my post about the Boeing 777, the GEnx much like the GE90 has composite fan blades. But unlike the GE90 that has 22 blades, the Genx has 18. Another change between the GE90 and GEnx are the fan cases. While the GE90 has a titanium fan case, the GEnx went one step further making the fan cases composite. The engine was so successful that when Boeing designed the 747-8, that plane would use the same engines.
On the other hand, Rolls Royce created the Trent 1000, which came from the Trent 700 and 800 series that powered the Airbus A330 and Boeing 777 respectively. However unlike the GEnx, the fan blades and casing are all metal. But what they both have in common is the ability to operate more quietly and efficiently. Whenever I would go to Everett to watch Dreamliners being tested, I was amazed at how loud they were right when they were next to me and by the time they move away from you, it’s just quiet. But it isn’t just quiet on the outside. Inside the plane, the engine vibration is more tightly controlled thus making it more quiet in the cabin.
Digitalization
Another big advantage of the Dreamliner is the fact that it’s entirely an electric airplane. Like the 777, the 787 utilizes fly-by-wire digital control systems to control the aircraft. But unlike the 777, the 787 takes this concept and runs further with it. To begin with, the Dreamliner utilizes electric brakes as opposed to hydraulic thus reducing maintenance costs. The reason being so is because hydraulic systems are prone to failures and leaks making them a pain to maintain. On the other hand, electric brakes are less complex and therefore easier to maintain.
Another technological innovation is utilizing electric systems to power the plane as opposed to using a bleed-air system, from the engine thus reducing fuel burn and again reducing maintenance costs. In addition, the de-icing system on the wings are also powered by electricity. The system, developed by GKN Aerospace of Luton, UK designed a heating mat that’s embedded in the wing. Metallic elements are sprayed allowing localized heating and effective power management through zones. Overall, this plane reduces maintenance costs by 30%. But it isn’t just maintenance costs that improve. The technological advances also help with passenger comfort. Thanks to the composite structure combined with not utilizing bleed air systems, the altitude to which the cabin is pressurized is lowered from 8,000 to 6,000 feet. This results in a less dry cabin along with HEPA filters removing bacteria and viruses. Consequently, passengers feel less dizzy, dehydrated and eventually less jet lagged. In addition, the plane comes with a gust suppression system that’s installed in the nose and throughout the fuselage. They measure changes in angular velocity and pressure distribution. Combine that with gyroscopic sensors, they all send the information to the central computer system. The system would then tell the rudder, elevators, spoilers and ailerons to make the adjustments. Moreover, this was the plane that introduced the “Boeing Sky Interior,” which would go on to be a feature on other Boeing models. The Sky Interior utilizes LED lighting that changes with the time of day to make the cabin appear larger than it is. Even the galley featured improvements. Thanks to microprocessor technology, airlines have the option to offer espresso in First or Business class.
Lastly, the cockpit had major improvements. Looking more like the Starship Enterprise in Star Trek, the flight deck comes with a Heads-Up Display (HUD) and four LCD displays. Many of these technological systems are produced by Rockwell-Collins and Honeywell. The HUD display is used to project the flight path to the pilot as well as the terrain when the plane is about to land. This allows pilots to see the big picture and critical flight information at the same time. It helps minimize ground delays where there’s low visibility. It can also display RNP or “Required Navigation Performance” data, that allows pilots to land at airports with minimal or no ground based navigational infrastructure. In addition, it can display conformal runway lines highlighting the edges of the runway during darkness or low visibility. Moreover it has a “declutter feature” removing non-relevant data, allowing for improved pilot focus Boeing would eventually adapt this to later aircraft such as the 737 MAX and the upcoming 777X.
Changes in the Supply Chain
With an aircraft as complicated as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing had to rethink their supply chain due to the new technologies involved. Boeing through their GCE (Global Collaborative Environment) program, partnered with over 50 manufacturing companies to build this plane. The reason being so is that Boeing “had to keep their costs low so they outsourced the production overseas” (Lusada, Kimmel, 2014, pg. 84). During the earliest days of production, Boeing had to micromanage most of the process to keep the project on schedule. The largest major assemblies came from Japan (Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Fuji), Italy (Alenia), Washington State (Boeing), South Carolina (Boeing), and Kansas (Spirit). By April 2004, Boeing set an ambitious deadline to deliver the first 787 by May 2008. Easier said than done due in large part to the new technology this plane introduced. Consequently, in July 2006, Boeing had to add $333 million into research and development with $50-100$ million more by the end of the year. Then in 2007, Boeing had to add $100-200 million more into research. Some of this funding did go to other projects such as the 747-8 but the majority was still for the 787. Basically, Boeing mortgaged their future on this plane to pay off. But how is Boeing going to supply all of these parts to the final assembly location? Enter the 747-400D Dreamlifter, a modified 747-400 that has a new upper lobe on the fuselage as well as the entire empennage section swinging open to unload wings and fuselage sections from the airplane. The wings are flown from Japan to Everett, WA (now Charleston, SC), horizontal stabilizer and center fuselage from Italy to Charleston, entire center fuselage from Charleston to Everett (now Charleston), landing gear from Wichita, KS, leading wing edge from Tulsa, OK, and then rear fuselage from France. Unsurprisingly, this led to tons of delays due in part to new software being developed. Another snag was a work stoppage in September 2008 lasting till late October slowing the program to a halt on top of dealing with the Great Recession.
Flight Testing
Eventually after about a year behind schedule, the Boeing 787 made its first flight on December 15th, 2009 at 10:27 am and landed at Boeing Field three hours later due to bad weather. The crew flying the plane were Chief Test Pilot Mike Carriker and Captain Randy Neville. But after that hurdle was completed, Boeing knew there was still a lot of work to do. As a result, they built a new Test Operations Center to monitor all flight test activities. Boeing had to change their approach. So, the company would utilize four key milestones to mark their progress:
· Initial airworthiness
· Type inspection authorization (TIA)
· Certification testing
Function and reliability (F&R) testing. Reliability includes determination of extended twinjet operations or ETOPS.
As for the Dreamliner, in order to expedite certification, Boeing built six 787s for test flights. They are:
· ZA001 (First flew December 15, 2009) – Powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000. Used to test for flutter, landing Gear/brakes/hydraulics, aerodynamics, - low speed performance, and stability of flight controls. (Now at Chubu Centrair International Airport in Nagoya, Japan
· ZA002 (First flew December 22, 2009) - Powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000. Tested stability and control, electric systems, autopilot, avionics propulsion (Now at Pima Air Museum in Tuscon, AZ)
· ZA003 (First flew March 14, 2010) – Powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000. Tested systems, noise, flight deck, avionics electromagnetic effects, cabin, ETOPS (Now at The Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA)
· ZA004 (First flew February 24, 2010) - Powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000. Aerodynamics – high-speed performance, propulsion performance, light loads survey, community noise. (Still used today)
· ZA005 (First flew June 16, 2010) – The first 787 powered by the GEnx engines. Flutter, aerodynamic performance, propulsion, systems, stability and control, flight controls, avionics, community noise, ETOPS (scrapped)
· ZA006 (First flew October 4, 2010) – Powered by GEnx. Misc. other tests
After three years of delays, the 787 Dreamliner was finally delivered to inaugural customer All Nippon Airways on September 26th 2011. A month later the flight would enter service on its inaugural flight from Tokyo Narita to Hong Kong with flight number NH7871. But despite this success, the Dreamliner had to overcome another hurdle.
Battery Problems
For 16 months, the Dreamliner program was going well for customers. But that would all on January 8th, 2013, when a Japan Airlines 787-8 had to disembark everyone on the plane. The passengers and crew smelled smoke in the plane. Then another incident happened on January 16th when an All Nippon Airways 787 was diverted to Takamatsu, Japan. The cause were issues with the lithium-ion batteries that easily caught fire. This is due in part to lithium-ion batteries having a lower boiling point of 357 degrees Fahrenheit as opposed to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit with nickel batteries. As a result, all Dreamliners were grounded worldwide until a solution could be found. The NTSB stated:
“The probable cause of this incident was an internal short circuit within a cell [cell 5 or cell 6] of the auxiliary power unit (APU) lithium-ion battery, which led to a thermal runaway that cascaded to adjacent cells, resulting in the release of smoke and fire. The incident resulted from Boeing’s failure to incorporate design requirements to mitigate the most severe effects of an internal short circuit within an APU battery cell.”
This report held GS Yuasa (battery manufacturer) responsible for the design, Boeing for not considering battery failure, and the FAA for not requiring battery tests. So different solutions had to be developed. First off, the battery had to be redesigned by making insulating spacers made of phenolic-glass-laminate. They would withstand higher temperatures and were placed on either side of each cell resulting in better insulation. Then more insulation was added on all sides of the battery. In addition, the battery voltage required was reduced to prevent surges. Another component that needed to be installed were titanium vent tubes from each battery draining, heat, moisture and if needed smoke. Lastly, a 1/8” thick stainless-steel enclosure was built to prevent heat and smoke from escaping as well as preventing oxygen from entering the battery. Eventually, Boeing would test these changes on ZA005 in February 2013 with two 1-2 hour flights to make sure it works. Eventually, these flights were successful and Boeing would send their results to the FAA who recertified the type in April 2013. Thankfully this plane was able to fix its reputation quickly and Boeing would push forward in selling this plane.
Variants
Boeing 787-8
The first variant of the Dreamliner that was introduced was the 787-8. The shortest variant of the three, it still plays a significant role in an airline’s operations. With this plane, airlines would utilize the type for city pairs that don’t have the proper infrastructure to utilize a 747,777 or A380. These are called “long and skinny routes.” An example of this would be British Airways utilizing the 787-8 to fly from Heathrow to destinations such as Nashville, TN, Pittsburgh, PA or New Orleans, LA. In other words, this plane can introduce airlines to markets that they would never access. Prior to this, passengers would have to go to their ultimate destination through a hub. Let’s go back to the British Airways example. Prior to the 787-8, someone vacationing in London would have to fly into JFK or PHI (hubs for American) and then take a connecting flight into Pittsburgh compared to flying nonstop to Steel City with the 787-8. The plane is capable of carrying up to 242 passengers in a two-class layout with a range of 7,355 NM (13,620 km).
787-9
The 787-9 is the most common variant due to the combination of size and range. The type first flew on September 17, 2013 with Air New Zealand being the inaugural customer in July 2014. With this plane, not only is it used for “long and skinny” routes, but also for ultra long-haul flights. For example, Qantas uses this as their backbone to connect Australia with Europe and the US. Thanks to the success of this plane, it was the catalyst for Qantas to begin their ambitious plans for Project Sunrise. Because of its size, the 787-9 can carry 290 passengers in a two-class layout in addition to having a range of 7,635 NM (14,140 KM).
787-10
The last variant that we will discuss is the 787-10. First flown on March 31st, 2017 it entered service with Singapore Airlines one year later. This is the largest variant of the 787-10 and Singapore felt like this plane alongside its A350-900 fleet is a perfect plane for their regional operations within the Pacific Rim due to the large population centers. So, they utilize this plane to fly from Singapore to cities such as Hong Kong, Tokyo, Manila, and Shanghai. Unfortunately, because of its size, the plane has a smaller range ( 6,430 NM (11,910 km)). Despite this setback however the type has a higher cargo capacity with the capability of taking 13 pallets. This increase allowed this plane to be useful during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the demand for cargo. But the lack of range makes this plane also inferior to the Airbus A350 series. As a result, Boeing is reportedly working on a high gross weight variant of the 787-10 (787-10ER) to match the range of its competitor. The type would add up to 1,000 NM (1,852 km) to the range. However this is a report for now and no confirmation from Boeing yet. If you guys like, I can write a post in the future about why Boeing should make the 787-10ER. Be sure to let me know in the comments below if you want to see that.
Conclusion
In summary, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner changed the game of commercial aviation having more of a focus on efficiency as opposed to capacity. This plane continues Boeing’s tradition of making the world a smaller place and forever finding new frontiers. Despite many different issues this plane had throughout its development, airlines get a ton of bang for their buck on this wonderful bird. But what do you guys think? Is the 787 Dreamliner a great plane or is it overrated? Be sure to leave your comments below, stay tuned for my posts about the Airbus A380 and A350 and keep looking to the sky!
Komentarze