Novo

Vista frontal do Boeing F2B-1

Vista frontal do Boeing F2B-1


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Vista frontal do Boeing F2B-1

Esta vista frontal do Boeing F2B-1 mostra o tamanho relativo das asas, o ângulo das escoras 'N' e as cabeças dos cilindros do motor Pratt & Whitney Wasp.


Seattle & # 039s Ugly Past: segregação em nossos bairros

Os recém-chegados a Seattle adoram a variedade de bairros. Somos uma colcha de lugares habitáveis ​​com casas modestas e grandiosas, muitas vezes juntas em uma paisagem verde e agradável. É uma miscelânea residencial de culturas, estilos de casa e enclaves, de casas flutuantes a arranha-céus, de bangalôs a caixas clássicas. Mas essa emoção da escolha nem sempre estava lá para todos. Durante a maior parte do século 20, a cidade foi restrita e segregada, se não literalmente fechada.

Uma visão clara de nosso passado revela uma história de intolerância racial e étnica. No século 19, todos os nativos americanos foram proibidos de viver em Seattle, uma cidade com o nome de um líder tribal local. Na década de 1880, os trabalhadores chineses foram expulsos em meio a distúrbios. O internamento japonês durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial continua uma mancha.

Mas as práticas de exclusão de Seattle vão além desses eventos e foram aplicadas muito mais recentemente. A cidade foi costurada com exclusões raciais escritas em títulos de propriedade e acordos comunitários. Agentes imobiliários e credores usaram "linhas vermelhas" para traçar fronteiras raciais. Em 1960, Seattle era 92% branca. Mais de 90 por cento da população negra de Seattle foi empurrada para o Distrito Central. Em 1964, os eleitores de Seattle derrotaram completamente uma lei de “habitação aberta” que permitiria que qualquer pessoa morasse em qualquer lugar. Perdeu por mais de 2 para 1. A cidade estava segregada e uma grande maioria queria que fosse assim.

Os residentes do White Capitol Hill foram de porta em porta pedindo aos proprietários que inserissem uma linguagem restritiva em seus atos para manter os negros ao sul da Madison Street.


De acordo com o MOHAI: "O reverendo Samuel B. McKinney fala por meio de um megafone em uma reunião de protesto de segregação em frente ao prédio municipal de Seattle. Ouvindo estão o prefeito Gordon S. Clinton (à esquerda), o reverendo Mance Jackson (à direita) e um menino não identificado. em resposta a pedidos de ação sobre habitação aberta e outras questões, o prefeito anunciou planos para financiar uma unidade de direitos civis. " Foto cortesia de MOHAI.

Embora houvesse defensores vocais da integração, foi necessário o assassinato do Dr. Martin Luther King em 1968 e a agitação resultante no Distrito Central para finalmente conseguir a aprovação de um decreto-lei habitacional. A Câmara Municipal votou por unanimidade apenas três semanas depois.

A Universidade de Washington documentou a prática de preconceito no mercado imobiliário como parte do Projeto de Direitos Civis e História do Trabalho de Seattle (depts.washington.edu/civilr). Se você realmente deseja saber onde mora, verifique os mapas do censo e convênios listados por bairro em seu site.

Áreas que vão de partes de Alki e Ballard ao longo do alfabeto até View Ridge e Wedgwood foram restritas a "brancos e caucasianos apenas" ou "judeus" e "hebreus" proibidos, "negros" ou "etíopes", "asiáticos, ”Chineses, japoneses,“ hindus ”ou“ malaios ”(filipinos) de possuir propriedades ou residir lá. Em enclaves mais ricos, como Windermere e Broadmoor, os empregados domésticos estavam convenientemente isentos.

Os convênios foram principalmente um fenômeno do século XX. Embora grande parte da cidade tenha sido planejada antes de entrarem na moda, isso não impediu os organizadores do bairro. Em 1927, por exemplo, os residentes brancos do Capitol Hill foram de porta em porta pedindo aos proprietários que inserissem uma linguagem restritiva em seus atos para manter os negros ao sul da Madison Street. Eventualmente, as restrições cobriram 183 quarteirões na colina.

Nas décadas de 1930 e 40, o fundador da Boeing Co. William Boeing e sua esposa impuseram a "raça branca ou caucasiana" - apenas pactos em seus novos empreendimentos de North End, como Blue Ridge, Richmond Beach e Innis Arden. Mesmo os esforços pioneiros de habitação pública de Seattle tiveram que lutar muito para incluir as minorias. O principal motor de Yesler Terrace, Jesse Epstein, argumentou em 1940: “Temos a oportunidade de provar que negros e brancos podem viver lado a lado em harmonia”. A área de Yesler Terrace já estava misturada para os padrões de Seattle. Mesmo assim, foi estabelecida uma cota de 20% para pessoas de cor. Mais do que isso, as pessoas temiam que se tornasse um "gueto".

A população atual de Seattle propriamente dita é pouco menos de 70 por cento branca e possui diversos códigos postais, como o 98118 do Vale Rainier. Mas o legado da segregação ainda é aparente no mapa e nos padrões sociais: O Canal dos Navios continua a ser uma diversidade aproximada divida entre norte e sul. As escolas públicas de Seattle são frequentadas desproporcionalmente por alunos de cor - quase 60% são minorias - enquanto muitos brancos optaram por escolas particulares.

Hoje, ainda estamos construindo e renovando bairros de Yesler Terrace a South Lake Union. Falamos menos explicitamente sobre raça, com os argumentos agora se concentrando em acessibilidade e gentrificação. Diversidade e integração, racial e econômica, são os pontos fortes de Seattle, mas não podemos dar como certo que acontecerão por conta própria. Nosso modelo residencial evoluiu da intolerância e é um trabalho em andamento.


A aeronavedoBoeing

Digno de uma breve menção como o primeiro da longa linha de aeronaves Boeing, o Modelo 1 era conhecido.

Com a experiência adquirida na produção subcontratada de uma variedade de aeronaves projetadas por outros fabricantes e, em particular, a Thomas-Morse.

Tendo se tornado reconhecido como projetista de aeronaves militares, acompanhando o fornecimento do Modelo 15 para ambos os EUA.

Para atender aos requisitos do Departamento de Correio Aéreo dos Correios dos EUA, que precisava de um novo avião postal.

Em abril de 1925, a USAAC emitiu uma especificação para um caça monoposto a ser equipado com um novo Packard de 447 kW.

A última aeronave construída pela Boeing contra uma encomenda de 30 caças monoposto PW-9 foi retida pela empresa no.

O XP-8 (Modelo 66) na verdade precedeu o XP-7, sendo entregue em julho de 1927, tendo sido lançado como um empreendimento privado tardiamente.

O XF3B-1 (Modelo 74) foi construído pela Boeing como um empreendimento privado e externamente se parecia muito com o F2B-1, mas tinha provisões.

O XF3B-1 (Modelo 74) foi construído pela Boeing como um empreendimento privado e externamente se parecia muito com o F2B-1, mas sim.

O crescimento das operações na rota São Francisco-Chicago da Boeing Air Transport resultou na concepção e desenvolvimento de um projeto específico.

O PW-9D de produção final (o 16º) foi contratado pela Boeing para a instalação experimental de um Curtiss Conqueror V-1570 refrigerado a água de 600 hp.

Um dos mais famosos caças biplanos da Boeing nos anos entre guerras, o F4B se originou como um empreendimento privado para.

Com a exigência contínua de aeronaves da categoria de transporte de carga / correio, a Boeing iniciou o desenvolvimento de uma versão muito mais avançada em.

Em maio de 1928, a USAAC publicou uma especificação de caça monoposto ao qual a Boeing respondeu com um monoplano totalmente metálico de asa de ombro, o Modelo 96, que.

Geralmente semelhante ao Modelo 200 Monomail, esta única aeronave tinha uma fuselagem alongada em 0,2 me capacidade de carga / correio.

Durante o ano de 1929, o trabalho começou como um empreendimento privado em dois protótipos de monoplano de caça de guarda-sol monoposto, um deles.

Em 1930, a Boeing iniciou o desenvolvimento de um empreendimento privado de um avião bombardeiro que, com sorte, teria sucesso em ganhar forças armadas que valessem a pena.

O P-26 Peashooter foi o primeiro e último caça monoplano de produção da Boeing. Alguns 111 P-26A, 2 P-26B e 23 P-26C eram.

Em 8 de fevereiro de 1933, a Boeing voou o protótipo de um novo avião civil que foi identificado pela empresa como.

Último caça Boeing de configuração biplano, o caça a bordo modelo 236 monoposto foi projetado em torno do Pratt & Whitney de 14 cilindros e duas carreiras.

Projetado para atender aos requisitos de uma especificação da Marinha dos EUA emitida em 6 de dezembro de 1932, o XF7B-1 (Modelo 273) foi o primeiro.

O P-29 ou modelo 264 da empresa foi um esforço da Boeing para melhorar o desempenho já impressionante do P-26.

Por mais determinada que seja, a maioria dos americanos pode ter estado na década de 1930 em manter a política de isolamento há muito estabelecida na nação.

No início de 1934, a Boeing começou os estudos de projeto para um bombardeiro multimotor e um transporte civil basicamente semelhante. Quando, em junho.

Frustrados em seus esforços para adquirir uma frota de bombardeiros estratégicos para servir no Army Air Corps, Exército dos EUA.

Já em janeiro de 1935, a Pan American Airways havia manifestado ao Bureau of Air Commerce dos Estados Unidos seu desejo.

A eclosão da guerra na Europa em 1939 tornou essencial que os planejadores da USAAC deveriam pelo menos falar sobre longo alcance.

Em 1940, a solução para os submarinos alemães na costa leste dos Estados Unidos foi considerada bombardeiros gigantescos de longo alcance para lanchas voadoras. Boeing.

Os porta-aviões da Marinha dos Estados Unidos operando no Pacífico durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial eram, como navios semelhantes de qualquer nação, muito vulneráveis.

No início de 1942, a Boeing iniciou um estudo de projeto para examinar a viabilidade de produzir uma versão de transporte de seu B-29.

O desenvolvimento do B-50 foi aprovado em 1944, quando a aeronave era conhecida como B-29D. Ainda no meio de.

A produção do B-47 foi estimulada em 1944 pela demanda do Departamento de Guerra por bombardeiros a jato. Em contraste com o B-45,.

O Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser foi um desenvolvimento de transporte comercial do Modelo 367 (militar C-97), e baseado no.

A maioria dos bombardeiros pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial evoluiu de requisitos militares emitidos no início ou meados dos anos 40, mas nenhum foi produzido como.

Primeiro vôo Modelo 367-80, protótipo original do 707 e 717, versão desenvolvida em 15 de julho de 1954 encomendada em grande número pelos EUA.

O Boeing 720 é o membro de alcance intermediário da família de transporte a jato Boeing. Apesar de um design completamente diferente do peso.

Em agosto de 1954, a USAF anunciou que pretendia adquirir uma série de petroleiros / transportes desenvolvidos a partir do protótipo Boeing.

Primeiro 727-100 lançado em 27 de novembro de 1962, primeiro vôo, 9 de fevereiro de 1963, certificação FAA em 24 de dezembro de 1963, em serviço com a Eastern.

Primeiro vôo do 737-100, 9 de abril de 1967, certificação FAA, 15 de dezembro de 1967. Substituído pelo primeiro vôo 737-200, adicionado de 8 de agosto de 1967.

O Boeing 2707 resultou da chamada do presidente Kennedy em junho de 1963 para um transporte supersônico (SST) para competir com o Concorde anglo-francês. .

O programa foi anunciado em 13 de abril de 1966 (primeiro avião a jato de corpo largo), com pedido da Pan American para o lançamento oficial de 25 programas em 25 de julho.

O requisito para uma aeronave do Sistema de Alerta e Controle Aerotransportado (AWACS) foi delineado pela Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos em 1963,.

Em 1971 a USAF começou a montar a especificação de um novo transporte como possível substituto para o seu.

Anunciado simultaneamente com o Modelo 757, o Boeing Modelo 767 introduziu uma estrutura de fuselagem completamente nova que é 1,24 m mais larga.

Versões de maior capacidade do muito bem-sucedido Boeing Modelo 727 foram estudadas ao longo dos anos, mas, apesar de várias propostas, nenhuma.

Voou pela primeira vez em 12 de junho de 1994. Entrou em serviço em 1995..

O Boeing X-32 foi um caça a jato multiuso no concurso Joint Strike Fighter. Perdeu para o Lockheed.


Vista frontal do Boeing F2B-1 - História

XC-97 1944 = 2200hp Wright R-3350 Ciclone ff: 09/11/44. POP: 3 protótipos [43-27470 / 27472].

YC-97 1947 = Plano de teste de serviço ff: 5/11/47. POP: 6 [45-59587 / 59592]

C-97A 1949 = Primeira produção. POP: 50 [48-397 / 423, 49-2589 / 2611], alguns dos quais foram convertidos para KC- e VC-97.

KC-97 19 ?? = POP: 888.

KC-97A 1950 = Conversão do tanque de C-97A. POP: 4 [49-2590 / 2592, -2596] todos posteriormente revertidos para C-97A.

YC-97A 1949 = Testador de serviço. POP: 3 [45-59593 / 59595].

YC-97B 1949 = Transporte de pessoal. POP: 1 [45-59596].

C-97C 1951 = Fuselagem endireitada, antena embutida. POP: 14 [50-690 / 703].

VC-97D 1950 = Transporte de comando. POP: 3 conversões de C-97A [49-2593 / 2594, -2586].

KC-97E 1952 = Tanque de produção. POP: 60 [51-0183 / 0242]

KC-97F 1952 = cauda vertical mais alta. POP: 158 [51-0243 / 0389, -0391/0397, -7256/7259].

Boeing KC-97G [N52727] (Eddie Coates coll)

KC-97G 1953 = Modificação e realocação do tanque. POP: 592 [51-7260 / 7271, 52-0826 / 0938, -2602/2806, 53-0106 / 0365, -3815/3816].

KC-97H 195? = Petroleiro modificado.

YC-97J 1955 = banco de ensaio da empresa P&W para turboélices T34. POP: 2 modificado de YC-137 [52-2693, -2762].

C-97K 19 ?? = Configuração do passageiro para funções de apoio à missão do SAC. POP: 27 KC-97G convertidos.

Boeing KC-97L [62-2630] (Museu da USAF)

KC-97L 1964 = Dois motores a jato J47 adicionados. POP: 82 convertido KC-97G.

XC-108 1943 = transporte executivo 36p para Gen Douglas MacArthur. POP: 1 modificado B-17E [41-2593].

Todas as armaduras e armamentos, exceto as armas de nariz e cauda, ​​foram excluídos. Janelas extras foram instaladas e o interior foi equipado como um escritório voador, completo com sala de estar e cozinha. Uma porta de entrada suspensa com degraus embutidos foi cortada na fuselagem traseira. (& # 151 Joe Baugher)

YC-108 1942 = Transporte executivo. POP: 1 modificado B-17E [42-6036].

XC-108A 1942 = Com porta de carga. POP: 1 modificado B-17E [41-2595]. Com sede na Índia e usado para transportar materiais para a China através do Hump, não foi um sucesso como transporte, estando sujeito a problemas contínuos de motor, e não houve mais conversões de transporte de carga da Fortaleza.

O XC-108A retornou aos Estados Unidos em outubro de 1944 e, após a guerra, acabou em pedaços em um ferro-velho próximo ao Dow Field, no Maine. Em 1985, um aficionado por aviões mudou as peças para o aeroporto de Galt (Illinois) com planos de restaurar o avião para exibição em um museu como o único B-17E sobrevivente. (& # 151 Joe Baugher)

XC-108B 1942 = Navio-tanque aéreo para a rota "Hump" do teatro CBI. POP: 1 conversão de B-17F [42-30190].

C-135A Stratolifter 1960 = versão 126p carga / passageiro. POP: 15, mais 3 convertidos de KC-135A. Boeing KC-135 (Boeing)

KC-135A 1956 = Primeira produção quatro 13750 # P&W J57P extensão: 130'10 "comprimento: 136'3" carga: 198.500 # v: 600/552 / x alcance: 3.000 teto: 50.000 '. POP: 724.

Boeings EC-137D e NKC-135A (Johan Visschedijk coll)

NKC-135A 19 ?? = Mod tanque de 717-100A. POP: 1 [55-3135].

RC-135A (Modelo 739) 1965 = Versão Photo-recon. POP: 4 [63-8058 / 8061].

KC-135B 1962 = Versão tanque do C-135B. Atualizações de motor. POP: 17.

RC-135B, -135C (Modelo 739) 1963 = Reconhecimento eletrônico com turbofans. POP: 10 [63-9792, 64-14841 / 14849] todos convertidos para RC-135C.

KC-135E 19 ?? = Atualizações de Natl Guard e AF Reserves com P&W JT3D, asas recuperadas e superfícies de cauda.

O programa foi financiado pela USAF, mas as aeronaves foram usadas nas bases Guard e AFRES co-localizadas em aeroportos civis para fazer alguma tentativa de ruído e conformidade ambiental. Eles foram concebidos para serem travas até serem substituídos pela conversão do modelo R. Todos os Es e Rs repowered tiveram as superfícies da asa interna recauchutadas, as skins funcionaram a partir de um intervalo de produção apenas fora de bordo de cada motor externo. Isso mudou os revestimentos inferiores da liga de alumínio 6061, crítica para fadiga. Os modelos E tinham estabilizadores horizontais de excedente civil de 707s doados. Os estabilizadores do modelo R foram retrabalhados nos modelos A com uma tampa de extensão na extremidade externa. Nenhuma das punhaladas foi recolocada. (& # 151 Tom Solinski 21/07/06)

C-135F 1964 = Navios-tanque encomendados para AF francês. Mais tarde repotenciada como C-135FR. POP: 12 [63-8470 / 8475, -12735/12740].

Boeing KC-135R (USAF)

KC-135R 19 ?? = 22000 # GE-SNECMA CFM F108-CF turbofans. VEJA KC-135E.

Conversões de C-135 - resultaram em pelo menos 40 novas designações, variando de JKC-135A (testes temporários) a TC-135W (treinador), incluindo RC-135S especial de reconhecimento de foto, apelidado de "A maior câmera Polaroid do mundo". NC-135W 2000 = Quatro P&W TF33-P-5. Veículo de teste da USAF para desenvolvimento de equipamentos e sistemas de engenharia para aeronaves de reconhecimento.

Boeings KC-135X (captura: Google Earth)

RC-135X Cobra Eye 200? = Aeronave comercial modificada (KC-135A?), Com motores TF33 ou CFM56, como tanque de reabastecimento para maior alcance 20 e # 37 e paylod que o KC-135R.

Esse é o RC-135X [62-4128], convertido de um C-135B militar com motores TF-33, usado como um reconhecimento TELINT para rastrear veículos de reentrada de mísseis soviéticos. A asa preta era para evitar que o brilho interferisse nos sensores sensíveis do lado esquerdo da fuselagem. Mais tarde, foi convertido para RC-135S Cobra Ball e atualizado com motores CFM-56. A principal diferença entre RC-135S e -135X foi a configuração do pacote de sensores.
Os RCs carregavam dois navegadores para não depender de ajudas de navegação terrestres ou espaciais que poderiam ser bloqueadas ou falsificadas (algumas aeronaves militares foram perdidas pela URSS e outras devido a tais práticas). Eles voaram até missões de 24 horas (não frequentemente) e nós conseguimos uma até pouco mais de 50.000 '& #! 51Estava surpreendentemente quieto naquela altitude. Também obtivemos um de até 0,9 e # 43 mach em um mergulho com um MiG depois de ficarmos muito, muito baixo naquela missão, enquanto nos dirigíamos para o oceano. (& # 151 Roberto E Benitez, Maj (ret) USAF, 13/07/07) C-137 (Modelo 707) - Versão de transporte militar do 707, ligeiramente modificado em arranjo de cabine e equipamento eletrônico. Dois originalmente designados YC-137, tornaram-se YC-97J [52-2693, -2762].

XCO-7A 192? = XCO-7 modificado com asas e caudas especiais. POP: 1 [AS24453].

Boeing XCO-7B [AS31216] (USAS Wright Field)

XCO-7B 192? = Remontado com Liberty 12A refrigerado a ar invertido. POP: 1 [AS24454] e 1 conversão de DH-4M-1 [AS31216] como McCook Field P-358.

DH-4M 1923 = POP: 53.

DH-4M-1 192? = POP: 97, incluído rebocadores alvo DH4-M-1K e treinadores de controle duplo DH-4-1T, mais 30 como USMC O2B-1.

E-3C 19 ?? = Modificação do bloco 25. Adicionados mais cinco SDCs, mais cinco rádios UHF e provisão para Have Quick.

E-3D Sentry AEW Mk 1 19 ?? = POP: 7 para RAF com CFM56-2A-3.

E-3F 19 ?? = POP: 4 para a Força Aérea Francesa com CFM56-2A-3. E-4 (Modelo 747) 1974 = Posto de comando voador, conversão militar do 747-200. 86pClwM rg quatro turbofans 52500 # GE F103-GE / CF-6 (primeiro entregue com P&W JT9Ds) extensão: 195'8 "comprimento: 231'4" v: x / 602 / x teto: 45.000 '. A resistência foi de 72 horas com reabastecimento em vôo. POP: 1 como E-4, 3 como E-4A com equipamento eletrônico modificado, dos quais 1 modificado como E-4B em 1980. Boeing E-6A (USAF)

E-6A Hermes, Mercury 1987 = Relé de comunicações de longo alcance baseado em 707-300 com motores GE-SNECMA CFM F108. POP: 16 em 1988. E-8A, -8B, -8C 199? = Ex-companhia aérea 707 como Sistema de Radar de Ataque de Alvo de Vigilância Conjunta (J-STAR). Um E-8C construído com CFM F108s, mas foi posteriormente descartado porque o programa não podia se dar ao luxo de encomendar mais aeronaves construídas antes do fechamento da linha 707.

De acordo com Jane, os dois protótipos foram inicialmente designados como EC-18C, mas foi alterado para E-8A. A única aeronave recém-construída com CF-M56s era um E-8B. Jane afirma que o -8B nunca teve componentes eletrônicos instalados e foi trocado com a Omega Air por cinco 707-320s usados ​​em 1993. Todos os E-8s de "produção" (reconstruídos a partir dos 707-320Cs usados) são E-8Cs e os dois E-8As também foram atualizados para o padrão E-8C. (& # 151 David Lednicer) E-9 1987 = Vigilância por radar. POP: 2 Canadian de Havilland DHC-8-100 s construídos por contrato para a USAF. E-10A 2003 = Designação atribuída a uma versão USAF da aeronave de comando e controle multissensor 767-400ER (MC2A) E-767 19 ?? = Sucessor de E-3. 767-200ER com radome semelhante ao E-3. Apenas as exportações para a Força de Autodefesa Aérea Japonesa são conhecidas. EA (Modelo 4) 1918 = 3pOB 90hp Curtiss OX-5 span: 43'10 "comprimento: 27'0" v: 73/65 / x alcance: 200 teto: 6.500 '. Versão triciclo de C com cockpit lado a lado. POP: 2. EC-18C VER E-8A. F-9 1942 = Conversões de reconhecimento de foto de B-17F. Reclassificado como RB-17G em 1948. F-18 - Contratante da McDonnell Douglas-Northrop F-18. F2B - Caça baseado em Carrier desenvolvido a partir do P-8 do Exército. 1pOB 425hp P&W R-1340B span: (superior) 30'1 "(inferior) 24'6" comprimento: 22'11 "carga: 817 # v: 160/132/57 faixa: 317 (? & Gt358) teto: 21.200 ' .

Boeing XF2B-1 (Drina Welch Abel coll)
Boeing XF2B-1 [A7385] (Aerofiles coll)

XF2B-1 (Modelo 69) 1926 = protótipo civil financiado pela Boeing ff: 03/11/26. POP: 1 não registrado, recebeu a designação USN como experimental para teste [A7385].

Boeing F2B-1 [A-7440] (Drina Welch Abel coll)

F2B-1 (Modelo 69, 69-B) 1929 = Leme equilibrado. POP: 32 [A7424 / 7455] e 2 exportações civis como Modelo 69-B.

Boeing XF3B-1 (Drina Welch Abel coll)

XF3B-1 (Modelo 74) 1927 = 425hp P&W R-1340-80 extensão: 33'0 "comprimento: 25'1" v: 157/131/54 faixa: 335 teto: 21.300 'ff: 3/2/27. POP: 1 [A7674], modificado da asa superior reta original para uma asa mais larga com sweepback e, finalmente, equipado com um único flutuador de madeira e equipamento de flutuação.

Boeing F3B-1 [A-7763] (USN)
Boeing F3B-1 (USN via Gene Palmer coll)

F3B-1 (Modelo 77) 1928 = Modificação de aleta, 425 hp R-1340-80 extensão: 33'0 "comprimento: 24'10" carga: 767 # v: 156/131/55 faixa: 340 teto: 21.500 '. Modelos posteriores tinham rodas e uma carenagem Townend. POP: 73 [A7675 / 7691, A7708 / 7763].

Boeing XF4B-1 (NASA)

XF4B-1 (Modelos 83, 89) 1929 = POP: 2 [A8128 / 8129].

Boeing F4B-1 ex-Boeing 100 de Frank Tallman [N273H] (K O Eckland)

F4B-1, -1A (Modelo 99) 1929 = 500 hp P&W R-1340-8 v: 176/140/59 faixa: 370 ff: 5/6/29. $ 13.750 POP: 27 [A8130 / 8156]. F4B-1A foi uma conversão desarmada como transporte executivo para USN Secy David Ingalls [A8133].

Boeing F4B-2 art (K O Eckland)
Testador de cauda em T Boeing F4B-2 (NASA)

F4B-2 (Modelo 223) 1931 = R-1340S, eixo bipartido, ailerons frisos, comprimento da carenagem do anel: 20'1 "carga: 732 # v: 186 / x / 59 faixa: 400. $ 11.426 POP: 46 [A8613 / 8639 , A8791 / 8809].

Boeing F4B-3 [A-8892] (Liga da Marinha)

F4B-3 (Modelo 235) 1932 = Fuselagem totalmente metálica v: 187 / x / 61. $ 12.497 POP: 21 [A8891-8911].

Boeing F4B-4 polido (NASA)
Boeing F4B-4 Beautiful restoration [9241] (John Burnette via Drina Welch Abel coll)

F4B-4 (Modelo 235) 1932 = 550 hp R-1340, carga maior da aleta e do apoio de cabeça: 483 # v: 188 / x / 63 faixa: 370. POP: 92 [A8912 / 8920, A9009 / 9053, 9226/9263], mais 23 para exportação para o Brasil. F4B-4A 1940 = POP: 23 modificações de F4B-4 e Army P-12C / -D / -E / -F como drones alvo.

Boeing FB-1 (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)

FB-1 (Modelo 15) 1925 = 400 hp Curtiss D-12 span: 32'0 "comprimento: 23'6" load: 812 # v: 167 / x / 58 range: 510. POP: 10 [A6884 / 6893], mais 2 que foram modificados como FB-2 e 1 como FB-4.

FB-2 (Modelo 53) 1926 = Modificado do FB-1 com engrenagem de retenção do transportador. POP: 2 [A6894 / 6895].

Boeing FB-3 [A-7089] (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)

FB-3 (Modelo 55) = Versões terra / mar com 510cv Packard 1A-1500. POP: 3 [A6897, A7089 / 7090].

Boeing FB-4 [A-6896] (Aviação Popular)

FB-4 (Modelo 54) 1926 = FB-1 em flutuadores duplos e com 450cv Wright P-1. POP: 1 [A6896], tornou-se FB-6.

Boeing FB-5 (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)

FB-5 (Modelo 67) 1926 = Terra / mar. 520 hp Packard 2A-1500 comprimento: 23'10 "carga: 780 # v (rodas): 163/150/66 faixa: 323 teto: (rodas) 22.000 '(flutuadores) 17.800' ff: 10/7/26. POP: 27 [A7101 / 7127].

Boeing FB-6 [A-6896] (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)

FB-6 (Modelo 54) 1926 = Conversão do FB-4 sobre rodas com 400cv P&W R-1340B. POP: 1 [A-6896]. O desempenho melhorou, mas USN, por motivos que só eles conhecem, decidiu encerrar a série com FB-5.

Boeing XL-15 Primeiro protótipo [46-520] (Dan Shumaker coll)

XL-15 1947 = POP: 2 protótipos [46-520 / 521].

Linha de fábrica da Boeing YL-15 (Boeing)

YL-15 1948 = Modelo de produção. POP: 10 [47-423 / 432].

L-15B 1948 = 47 s / ns ordenados e atribuídos, mas cancelados [47-433 / 479].

Boeing NB-1 (USN via W T Larkins coll)
Boeing NB-1 em flutuadores (Boeing)

NB-1, -3 (Modelo 21) 1924 = 200 hp Wright J-4 span: 36'10 "comprimento: 25'5" v: 99 teto: 15.500 '. POP: 42 [A6749 / 6768, A6836 / 6857]. Modificado com l fuselagem e barbatana como NB-3.

Boeing NB-2 [A-6770] (Paul Matt coll via Drina Welch Abell)

NB-2, -4 1925 = 180 hp Wright E-4 comprimento: 28'9 "v: 96 teto: 9775 '. POP: 30 [A6769 / 6798]. Fuselagem alongada como NB-4.

Boeing P-12 modelo 100 repintado [N874H] (Frank Tallman coll)

P-12 (Modelo 102) 1929 = Primeira produção, idêntico ao F4B-1 menos o gancho de retenção ff: 4/11/29. POP: 9 [29-353 / 361].

Boeing XP-12A [29-362] (Boeing)

P-12A (Modelo 101) 1929 = Capota, ailerons, trem de pouso modificados. POP: 1 como XP-12A [29-362] ff: 5/10/29, destruído oito dias depois em uma colisão aérea com outro P-12.

Boeing P-12B [29-333] (Boeing via Clark Scott coll)

P-12B (Modelo 102B) 1930 = comprimento: 20'3 "carga: 693 # v: 175/137 / x intervalo: 540. $ 11.224 POP: 90 [29-329 / 341, -433/450, 30-029 / 087]. Navio misterioso Boeing ZP-12B (TKnL coll)

INFORMAÇÃO NECESSÁRIA
ZP-12B 193? = Sem dados. Foto identificada como tal, com 550cv SR-1340-11.

Boeing P-12D (Boeing)

P-12D (Modelo 227) 1931 = Modificações internas. POP: 35 [31-243 / 277].

Boeing P-12E (Boeing)
Boeing P-12E em esquis (Leslie Burgess coll)

P-12E (Modelo 234) 1931 = 500 CV R-1340 comprimento: 20'3 "carga: 690 # v: 189/160 / x ff (como Modelo 218 [X66W]): 29/09/30. POP: 110 [ 31-553 / 586, 32-001 / 076], dos quais 1 foi modificado para o teste temporário XP-12E e 1 modificado como P-12J e # 151, esses mais 5 outros tornaram-se YP-12K.

Boeing P-12F (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)

P-12F (Modelo 251) 1932 = 600hp SR-1340G. POP: 25 [32-077 / 101], das quais algumas unidades finais foram equipadas com uma cobertura deslizante.

P-12G 1932 = P-12B com SR-1340G com turbocompressor. POP: 1 como XP-12G, convertido de volta para P-12B.

Boeing P-12J (Clark Scott)

P-12J (Modelo 234) 1932 = 575hp R-1340, modificado de P-12E. POP: 1 [32-043], tornou-se YP-12K.

Boeing P-12K (Clark Scott)

P-12K (Modelo 234) 1933 = P-12E com SR-1340E com injeção de combustível v: 192 / x / x. POP: 7 convertido de modelos anteriores como YP-12K.

P-12L (designação temporária) 1934 = YP-12K modificado com turbocompressor. POP: 1 como XP-12L. Boeing XP-15 [X270V] (Boeing via WASM)

P-15 (Modelo 205) 1930 = versão de teste de asa única 1pOhwM de 202 525hp P&W SR-1340D extensão: 30'6 "comprimento: 21'0" carga: 740 # v: 185/150/71 teto: 26.550 '. Capuz em anel, asa de guarda-sol, fuselagem de metal. POP: 2 1 civil [X270V] para USAAC como XP-15 (Modelo 202) e 1 para USN como XF5B-1 [A8640]. P-26 - lutador 1pOlwM, popularmente apelidado de "Peashooter". Passou de um projeto de prancheta para um protótipo voador em apenas nove semanas! Este belo e pequeno navio, o primeiro caça monoplano do Exército e seu primeiro totalmente metálico, permaneceu em serviço ativo até 1938 (e até 1942 na Força Aérea Filipina).

P-26B (Modelo 266A) 1935 = 600hp SR-1340-33 com injeção de combustível v: 235/200/73 ramge: 326 teto: 28.000 'ff: 1/10/35. $ 14.000 menos motor e armamento POP: 7 [33-179 / 185], além de conversões posteriores do P-26C.

P-26C (Modelo 266) 1936 = R-1340-27 e pequenas alterações de controle. POP: 19 [33-181, -186/203], 13 dos quais foram posteriormente reconvertidos para P-26B com injeção de combustível. P-29 - Uma versão modificada, totalmente em metal e atualizada do P-26 com capota de cabine e engrenagem retrátil.

Boeing XP-29 (Boeing)

XP-29, XP-940 1934 (Modelo 264) = protótipo de propriedade da Boeing 550hp R-1340-31 ff: 1/20/34. POP: 1 [34-023], testado como designado de fábrica XP-940. Adquirido pela USAAC e convertido para YP-29.

Boeing YP-29 (Boeing via Drina Welch Abel coll)
Variantes do cockpit do Boeing YP-29 (Museu da USAF)

YP-29 1934 = 1pClwM rg 575hp R-1340-35 extensão: 29'5 "comprimento: 25'0" carga: 1010 # v: 250/212 / x faixa: 800 teto: 26.000 '. POP: 2 [34-023 / 024].

Boeing YP-29A [34-024] (NASA)
Boeing P-29A [34-024] (TKnL coll)

YP-29A, P-29A 1934 = YP-29 convertido com carga de cabine aberta: 768 # v: 242/206 / x teto: 24.200 '. POP: 1 [34-024]. Tornou-se P-29A após a conclusão dos testes.

YP-29B, P-29B 1934 = Concluído com cabine aberta e forma de asa redesenhada com aba de uma peça. POP: 1 [34-025].

PB2B-1 194? = POP: 240 para RAF como Catalina IVB e 17 para RCAF como Catalina.

PB2B-2 194? = Barbatana alta. POP: 50 para RAF como Catalina VI e 55 para RCAF como Canso.

Boeing XPW-9 (Museu do Voo)

XPW-9 1923 = POP: 3 [23-1216 / 1218].

Boeing PW-9 na NACA (NASA)

PW-9 (Modelo 15) 1925 = POP: 30 [25-295 / 324], o último dos quais se tornou XP-4.

PW-9A 1926 = POP: 25 [26-351 / 375], dos quais 1 foi modificado como AT-3.

Boeing PW-9C [26-443] (Boeing via WASM)

PW-9C 1926 = 435hp Curtiss. POP: 40 [26-443 / 457, 27-178 / 202].

Boeing PW-9D (Clark Scott)

PW-9D (Modelo 93) 1928 = Novo radiador e capota. POP: 16 [28-026 / 041], o último dos quais se tornou XP-7 e foi reconvertido para PW-9D.

Boeing T-45A (Boeing)

T-45A 1988 = 2pClwM rg 5845 # R-R Adour Mk 871 extensão: 30'10 "comprimento: 39'4" ff: abril (? & GtDec) 1988. POP: 83. Tornou-se operacional em 1991.

T-45B - Projeto não transportador cancelado, nenhum construído.

Boeing T-45C (Boeing via Navy League)

T-45C 1997 = Nova instrumentação digital de "cabine de vidro" 5527 # R-R F405-RR-401 turbofan v: 645 / x / x alcance: 805 teto: 52.500 '.

XTB-1 1927 = POP: 1 protótipo [A7024].

Boeing TB-1 na loja (W T Larkins coll)

TB-1 (Modelo 63) 1927 = POP: 2 [A7025 / 7026].

CH-46A 1962 = USMC. Originalmente HRB-1. POP: 214 [151906/151961, 152496/152553, 154000/154044, 154789/154844]

CH-46D 19 ?? = 27pCH com 1400hp T58-GE-10 v: x / 150/0 faixa: 115. POP: 165 [152554/152579, 153314/153403, 153951/153999]. UH-46D 1964 = Abastecimento e carga. POP: 10 [153404/153413].

CH-46F 19 ?? = Aviônica avançada. POP: 176 para USMC [154845/154862, 155301/155318, 156418/156477, 157649/157726, 158334/158345]. -Vertol CH-47 Chinook - Supressão de fogo terrestre H-47 do Exército dos EUA / USN. Evoluído e redesignado a partir do HC-1. Fabricação licenciada também pela Agusta na Itália.

Boeing Vertol CH-47A (Exército dos EUA)

CH-47A (Modelo 114) 1961 = Dois rotores Avco-Lycoming T55-L-5 de 2200 hp: 59'1 "comprimento: 51'0" v: 175/155/0 faixa: 960 ff: 9/21/61. POP: 354 para o Exército [62-2114 / 2137, 64-13106 / 13165], 84 para USN. Quase todos foram eventualmente convertidos para CH-47D. ACH-47A 1965 = versão Gunship de CH-47A. POP: 4 [64-13145, 64-13149, 64-13151, 64-13154].

JCH-47A 1961 = Designação temporária para testador de vôo. POP: 1 [60-3449].

CH-47C (Modelo 234) 1967 = Dois rotores T55-L-11A de 3750 hp: 60'0 "comprimento: 51'0" v: 195/170/0 faixa: 250 ff: 10/14/67. POP (Modelo 165): 12 para a Austrália, (Modelo 173): 9 para o Canadá como CH-147, (Modelo 176): 10 para a Espanha como HT-17, (Modelo 219 (Agusta)): 15 para o Egito, 10 para Grécia, 67 para o Irã, 28 para a Itália, 20 para a Líbia, 6 e # 43 para Marrocos, (Modelo 234): 270 para o Exército dos EUA, (Modelo 308): 3 para Argentina AF, (Modelo 309): 2 para o Exército da Argentina, (Modelo 352): 41 para o Reino Unido como HC.Mk.1 / 1b. Modelos C subsequentes: 3 para o Japão (mais 55 fabricados pela Kawasaki), 18 para a Coréia, Nigéria e 3 para a Tailândia.

CH-47D 1982 = Programa de atualização para 472 dos modelos anteriores CH-47A / -47B / -47C 7500hp Lycoming T55-L-712I, pás do rotor de fibra de vidro, novos sistemas de controle de voo e carga, aviônicos aprimorados, visão noturna. POP como novo modelo 414: 9 para a Espanha. Também construído pela Kawasaki como CH-47J.

MH-47E 1990 = Versão das Forças Especiais com combustível aumentado, radar de acompanhamento do terreno, aviônica integrada, EFIS, bloqueadores, metralhadoras montadas em janela, hardpoints externos, lança de reabastecimento ff [90-0414]: 6/1/90. -Vertol CH-113 (Modelo 107-II) 1958 (TC 1H16) = Dois rotores GE CT58-140 de 1400hp: 50'0 "comprimento: 44'7" v: 168/153/0 faixa: 750. POP: 25 comerciais transportes para a New York Airways. Produção licenciada também pela Kawasaki no Japão. Boeing-Vertol YUH-61A [73-21657] (Johan Visschedijk coll)

-Vertol H-61 (Modelo 179) 1974 = 22pCH dois 1500hp GE T700 rotor: 49'0 "comprimento: 51'9" v: 195/190/0 faixa: 300 & # 43 ff: 11/29/74. POP: 4 [73-21656 / 21660], [-21659] não foi concluído [-21660], mantido pela Boeing Co como comercial 179 e registrado [N179BV]. Competições militares como YUH-61A em que Sikorsky UH-60 venceu. Boeing Vertol XCH-62 (Jos Heyman)
Boeing Vertol XCH-62 (Boeing)

-Vertol H-62, "HLH" (Modelo 301) 198? = Experimentos de "Helicóptero Heavy-Lift". Projetado como XCH-62A com três turboeixos 8080hp XT701. Construction of a prototype airframe began in 1974 and was mostly completed, but transmission development problems prevented flight testing [73-22012]. Most recently displayed in the yard of US Army Aviation Museum. -Vertol HC-1 Chinook (Model 114) - Army CH.

YHC-1A (Vertol) 1959 = POP: 1.

YHC-1B, YHC-47A 1961 = POP: 10 [59-4982/4986, 60-3448/3452].


What Went Wrong At Boeing?

My article, The Boeing Debacle: Seven Lessons That Every CEO Must Learn, elicited spirited conversation. Several commentators noted that, in addition to the general lessons, Boeing made specific errors in the way it handled outsourcing and offshoring. Let’s take a closer look at those specifics.

Boeing enthusiastically embraced outsourcing, both locally and internationally, as a way of lowering costs and accelerating development. The approach was intended to“reduce the 787's development time from six to four years and development cost from $10 to $6 billion.”

The end result was the opposite. The project is billions of dollars over budget and three years behind schedule. "We spent a lot more money,” Jim Albaugh, Chief of Commercial Airplanes at Boeing, explained in January 2011, “in trying to recover than we ever would have spent if we'd tried to keep the key technologies closer to home."

The right goal: add value for customers

Let’s start with what Boeing did right. After losing market share to Airbus (owned by EADS) in the late 1990s, Boeing could have decided to focus on reducing the costs (and the selling prices) of its existing aircraft. That would have led inexorably to corporate death. Instead Boeing decided—commendably—to innovate with a new aircraft that would generate revenues by creating value for customers.

First, Boeing aimed to improve their travel experience for the ultimate customers, the passengers. As compared to the traditional material (aluminum) used in airplane manufacturing, the composite material to be used in the 787 (carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium) would allow for increased humidity and pressure to be maintained in the passenger cabin, offering substantial improvement to the flying experience. The lightweight composite materials would enable the 787 to fly nonstop between any pair of cities without layovers.

Second, Boeing aimed to improve value for its immediate customers (the airlines) by improved efficiency by using composite materials and an electrical system using lithium-ion batteries. This would result 20 percent less fuel for comparable flights and cost-per-seat mile 10 percent lower than for any other aircraft. Moreover, unlike the traditional aluminum fuselages that tend to fatigue, the 787's fuselages based on composite materials would reduce airlines' maintenance and replacement costs.

All good stuff, if Boeing could deliver. Boeing’s customers apparently thought they could. And the 787 became the fastest selling plane in aviation history. The stock price popped and the C-suite received their bonuses. But reality has since set in.

Overheating batteries

We have no way of knowing whether the cause of the current grounding of all 787s—lithium-ion batteries that overheat alarmingly—is a narrow, fixable manufacturing glitch or a serious design flaw that will put the whole enterprise in peril.

It’s true, as CEO James McNerny pointed out in a letter to Boeing staff on Friday, that “Since entering service 15 months ago, the 787 fleet has completed 18,000 flights and 50,000 flight hours with eight airlines, carrying more than 1,000,000 passengers safely to destinations around the world.” But all that will mean nothing unless and until Boeing can get to the root cause of those overheating Lithium-ion batteries.

What we do know is that the cost-cutting way that Boeing went about outsourcing both in the US and beyond did not include steps to mitigate or eliminate the predicted costs and risks that have already materialized.

The coordination risk

Even with proven technology, there are major risks in outsourcing that components won’t fit together when the plane is being assembled. “In order to minimize these potential problems,” wrote Dr. L. J. Hart-Smith, a Boeing aerospace engineer, in a brilliant paper presented at a 2001 conference, “it is necessary for the prime contractor to provide on-site quality, supplier-management, and sometimes technical support. If this is not done, the performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the ao menos proficient of the suppliers. These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.”

Boeing did not plan to provide for such on-site support for its suppliers. In fact, it explicitly delegated this responsibility to sub-contractors. When the subcontractors didn’t perform the necessary coordination, Boeing had to provide the support anyway. “Boeing sent hundreds of its engineers to the sites of various Tier-1, Tier-2, or Tier-3 suppliers worldwide to solve various technical problems that appeared to be the root cause of the delay in the 787's development. Ultimately, Boeing had to redesign the entire aircraft sub-assembly process.” O resultado? Huge additional expense, that should have been planned for and included in the project's costs from the outset.

The innovation risk

The 787 involved not merely the outsourcing of a known technology. It involved major technological innovations unproven in any airplane. Would the carbon fiber composite survive the rigors of international flying? Could lithium-ion batteries, which are notorious for overheating and causing fires that are difficult to put out, be safely used? No one knew for sure. The 787 also contains multiple new electrical systems, power and distribution panels. The interactions among these novel technologies, introduced simultaneously, also exponentially increased the risk of innovation.

The innovation risk implied a greater involvement by Boeing in the development and manufacture of the aircraft. Astonishingly, Boeing opted for lesser involvement, delegating much of the detailed engineering and procurement to sub-contractors. O resultado? Unexpected problems have kept occurring that have delayed the project and increased its cost.

The outsourcing risk

Complicated products like aircraft involve a necessary degree of outsourcing, simply because the firm lacks the necessary expertise in some areas, e.g. engines and avionics. However Boeing significantly increased the amount of outsourcing for the 787 over earlier planes. For the 737 and 747 it had been at around 35-50 percent. For the 787, Boeing planned to increase outsourcing to 70 percent.

Boeing didn’t approach outsourcing as a troublesome necessity. Instead, like many US firms, it enthusiastically embraced outsourcing in the 787 as a means of reducing costs and the time of development. "The 787's supply chain was envisioned to keep manufacturing and assembly costs low, while spreading the financial risks of development to Boeing's suppliers."

In his 2001 paper, Hart-Smith had warned of the additional costs and risks of large-scale outsourcing. Outsourcing didn’t cut costs and increase profits, he wrote instead, it drove profits and knowledge to suppliers while increasing costs for the mother company. “Not only is the work out-sourced all of the profits associated with the work are out-sourced, too.”

Hart-Smith argued that make-buy decisions should be based on complete assessments of all of the costs: “make-buy decisions should not be made until after the product has been defined and the relative costs established.” Outsourcing requires considerable additional up-front effort in planning to avoid the situation whereby major sub-assemblies do not fit together at final assembly, increasing the cost by orders of magnitude more than was saved by designing in isolation from the work-allocation activities.

Boeing didn’t follow Hart-Smith’s advice and outsourced the engineering and construction of the plane long before the product was defined and the relative costs established. The results have been disastrous. Boeing’s 787 project is many billions of dollars over budget. The delivery schedule has been pushed back at least 7 times. The first planes were delivered over three years late.

The risk of tiered outsourcing

Boeing further aggravated these risks by adopting a new outsourcing model, along with the new technology. Unlike Boeing’s earlier aircraft, in which Boeing played the traditional role of integrating and assembling different parts and subsystems produced by its suppliers, the 787's supply chain is based on a tiered structure that would allow Boeing to foster partnerships with around fifty Tier-1 strategic partners. These strategic partners were to serve as “integrators” who assemble different parts and subsystems produced by Tier-2 and Tier-3 suppliers.

In due course, Boeing discovered, as Hart-Smith had predicted, that some Tier-1 strategic partners did not have the know-how to develop different sections of the aircraft or the experience to manage their Tier-2 suppliers. To regain control of the development process, Boeing was forced to buy one of the key Tier-1 suppliers (Vought Aircraft Industries) and supply expertise to other suppliers. Boeing also had to pay strategic partners compensation for potential profit losses stemming from the delays in production.

The risk of partially implementing the Toyota model

Boeing’s outsourcing was modeled in part on Toyota's supply chain, which has enabled Toyota to develop new cars with shorter development cycle times. Toyota successfully outsources around 70 percent of its vehicles to a trusted group of partner firms.

However key elements of the Toyota outsourcing model were not implemented at Boeing. Toyota maintains tight control over the overall design and engineering of its vehicles and only outsources to suppliers who have proven their ability to deliver with the required timeliness, quality, cost reduction and continuous innovation. As Toyota works closely with its suppliers and responds to supplier concerns with integrity and mutual respect, it has established an impressive level of professional trust and an overriding preoccupation with product quality.

By contrast, Boeing adopted the superficial structure of Toyota’s tiered outsourcing model without the values and practices on which it rests. Instead, Boeing relied on poorly designed contractual arrangements, which created perverse incentives to work at the speed of the slowest supplier, by providing penalties for delay but no rewards for timely delivery.

The offshoring risk

Some degree of outsourcing in other countries—i.e. offshoring—is an inevitable aspect of manufacturing a complex product like an airplane, because some expertise exists only in foreign countries. For example, the capacity to manufacture Lithium-ion batteries lies outside the US. Boeing had no choice but to have the batteries made in another country. More than 30 percent of the 787’s components came from overseas. By contrast, just 5 percent of the parts of the 747, were foreign-made.

While there is nothing in principle wrong with necessary offshoring, the cultural and language differences and the physical distances involved in a lengthy supply chain create additional risks. Mitigating them requires substantial and continuing communications with the suppliers and on-site involvement, thereby generating additional cost. Boeing didn’t plan for such communications or involvement, and so incurred additional risk that materialized.

The risk of communications by computer

Rather than plan for face-to-face communications and on-site communcations, Boeing introduced a web-based communications tool called Exostar in which suppliers were supposed to input up-to-date information about the progress of their work. The tool was meant to provide supply chain visibility, improve control and integration of critical business processes, and reduce development time and cost. Instead of people communicating with people face-to-face, the computer itself was supposed to flag problems in real time.

Not surprisingly, the tool failed. Suppliers did not input accurate and timely information, in part due to cultural differences and lack of trust. As a result, neither Tier-1 suppliers nor Boeing became aware of problems in a timely fashion. Boeing’s reliance on computer communications contrasts sharply with Agile practices of continuous face-to-face communications to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

The labor relations risk

We do not know to what extent Boeing’s enthusiasm for outsourcing and offshoring stemmed from a desire to circumvent difficult labor relations in Seattle. We do know that instead of involving the employees in the decision-making about outsourcing and offshoring, Boeing’s management approached decision-making pre-emptively. The approach backfired, as labor relations worsened as a result of the outsourcing decisions and a costly strike ensued.

The project management skills risk

Given the extraordinary risks of the 787 project, one would have expected Boeing to assemble a leadership team with a proven record in supply chain management and diverse expertise to anticipate and mitigate wide array of risks. Amazingly, this was not the case.

“Boeing's original leadership team for the 787 program,” write Tang and Zimmerman in an important case study, “did not include members with expertise on supply chain risk management. Without the requisite skills to manage an unconventional supply chain, Boeing was undertaking a huge managerial risk in uncharted waters.”

The risk of a disengaged C-suite

The combination of the above risks constituted an existential threat to Boeing as a going concern. Where then was the C-suite while these risks were being incurred? An interview in 2011 with Philip Condit, who was the richly compensated CEO of Boeing when the initial 787 decisions were being made, is revealing.

In 2001, under Condit’s leadership, Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, a decision continued by Condit’s successor, James McNerney. The ostensible reason for the move was to be neutral among the various divisions of Boeing, which were scattered around the US. In the interview, Condit makes no secret of another factor: as CEO, he didn’t want to be bothered with tiresome “how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff,” or boring meetings with Boeing’s key customers (airlines) who came to Seattle.

After the move, Condit says that he spent much of his time in the Chicago business community, where he “encountered CEOs frequently gathering to nail down civic goals ranging from landing new companies to building world-class parks. ‘I was surprised by how much that happened,’ Condit said. ‘A meeting in which Starbucks, Microsoft, Costco, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser and a bunch of small businesses are all in the same place — rarely happens in Seattle,” he added. ‘It happened all the time in Chicago.’”

So while Boeing’s CEO was in Chicago, strategizing about the future of Boeing and discussing civic goals with CEOs from other companies, the managers back in Seattle were making business decisions about tiresome “how-do-you-design-an-airplane stuff” that would determine whether there would be a firm to strategize about.


Conteúdo

Boeing Defense, Space & Security was headquartered in Greater St. Louis north of St. Louis Lambert International Airport in the northern St. Louis suburb of Berkeley, Missouri until January 2017 when top executives and support staff were relocated to Arlington, Virginia. [6]  There are also significant operations in nearby Missouri communities, such as Hazelwood and St. Charles. It remains one of the largest employers in Greater St. Louis with 13,707 local employees as of 2018. [7]

Other major locations of BDS are in California and Washington state. Boeing chose to locate the defense systems offices in the St. Louis area because of the role of the space and aircraft programs of the former McDonnell Douglas location, and bipartisan support from area politicians. [8]


Boeing Brings 100 Years Of History To Its Fight To Restore Its Reputation

Boeing 737 Max jets are grounded at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix on March 14.

Boeing's bestselling jetliner, the 737 Max, has crashed twice in six months — the Lion Air disaster in October and the Ethiopian Airlines crash this month. Nearly 350 people have been killed, and the model of plane has been grounded indefinitely as investigations are underway.

Boeing has maintained the planes are safe. But trust — from the public, from airlines, from pilots and regulators — has been shaken.

So far, experts say, Boeing has mishandled this crisis but has the opportunity to win back confidence in the future.

Boeing bet heavily on the Max. The plane was designed to compete with a fuel-efficient jetliner from rival Airbus, and analysts have estimated it is responsible for nearly a third to 40 percent of Boeing's profits.

O negócio

Boeing 737 Max, Involved In 2 Crashes, Is Fastest-Selling Plane In Company's History

Reporting from The Seattle Times suggests Boeing's urgency to get the plane to market pressured the Federal Aviation Administration, which may have contributed to lax oversight on safety. Boeing disputes this.

But many people are raising questions about how cozy the manufacturer is with the FAA and how committed the company has been to protecting safety.

"I think that Boeing currently is flunking the 'can-we-trust-you test,' " says Sandra Sucher, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School.

Trust includes multiple dimensions, she says: trusting a company to be competent, to be motivated to do the right thing, to use fair methods to achieve its goals, and to hold itself accountable when things go wrong. On every level, by her reckoning, Boeing is falling short.

It's possible to win back that trust, she says — but only if the company holds itself accountable.

O negócio

FAA Grounds Boeing 737 Max Planes In U.S., Pending Investigation

"The worst thing that they could do would be to maintain their insistence that this plane is safe to fly," she says. "I think they have to start with a clear statement that they take accountability for what happened."

Boeing has supported the FAA's decision to ground its planes and is providing assistance to the ongoing investigations. But the company continues to stand behind the safety of its product. In a letter Monday, CEO Dennis Muilenburg described a commitment to making "safe airplanes even safer."

"Together, we'll keep working to earn and keep the trust people have placed in Boeing," he wrote.

O negócio

For Boeing, Costs Of Grounding Jets Have Only Just Begun

Sucher says Boeing needs to start by rebuilding confidence within the company itself — convincing employees they are protected if they highlight problems. Once that trust is rebuilt, the company can start looking outward, where it has multiple audiences to convince of its reliability.

"Boeing is working in a dual lane when it comes to restoring its brand," says Shashank Nigam, the CEO of aviation consultant firm SimpliFlying.

On one hand, he says, there are "airlines and regulators, who are the key stakeholders" — those who actually purchase and monitor the planes.

But members of the general public are "the ultimate customers," Nigam says, and Boeing ultimately needs to win their confidence, too.

In 1919, Bill Boeing (holding the mailbag on right) and Eddie Hubbard flew the first international mail flight from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Seattle in the Boeing Model C, the company's first production plane. Boeing ocultar legenda

In 1919, Bill Boeing (holding the mailbag on right) and Eddie Hubbard flew the first international mail flight from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Seattle in the Boeing Model C, the company's first production plane.

A history of turbulence — and soaring success

Analysts expect Boeing to weather this storm. The company has certainly survived other rough patches in its century-long history.

It was founded in 1916, just 13 years after the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk. Bill Boeing started out making wood-and-canvas seaplanes out of a boathouse. He got a big boost from military orders during World War I, explains Russ Banham, a financial journalist and the author of Higher, a history of the company.

"Then the war ended. The government orders came to a standstill and the company actually was forced to make furniture . and wooden boats," Banham says.

But Boeing hung on until World War II, and another infusion of U.S. military funds — and deeper ties to the U.S. government.

A U.S. Air Force Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, circa 1945. Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images ocultar legenda

A U.S. Air Force Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, circa 1945.

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

A period of postwar prosperity was followed by a low point in the early 1970s, during a recession that struck the entire aerospace industry. For a year and a half, Banham says, Boeing didn't get a single order. The company laid off so many people from its facilities in Seattle that locals put up a billboard: "Will the last person leaving Seattle — turn out the lights."

Still, Boeing was resilient, building wind turbines and even getting into the housing industry, before roaring back to become a profitable, influential industrial powerhouse. Today it's America's largest exporter.

More recently, Boeing survived the troubled launch of the 787 Dreamliner. Batteries onboard could catch fire, a problem that prompted the FAA to ground the planes. Christine Negroni, an aviation writer and the author of The Crash Detectives, called it a "fiasco."

Política

Airplane Grounding Tests Boeing's Influence In Washington

But nobody died in the Dreamliner battery incidents. Negroni says Boeing is in a tougher situation today.

"I don't think it could be worse for Boeing right now," she says. "Two new airplanes. Two big problems, two groundings. It doesn't live up to our expectations of Boeing and it's certainly shaken the confidence of travelers worldwide."

"People are going to forget"

Passengers might be alarmed today. But historical precedents suggest that after some time has passed, the public will be willing to get back on the 737 Max.

The world's very first jetliner — the de Havilland Comet — had a fatal flaw. Three planes disintegrated, killing all onboard, before engineers figured out the problem and fixed it. A redesigned Comet 4 flew for decades.

And in the 1970s, the DC-10 (produced by then-Boeing rival McDonnell Douglas) suffered a series of crashes tied to design flaws. Problems with the plane's cargo door brought down two planes, killing nearly 350 people in the second accident. Then, in 1979, a combination of maintenance and design flaws caused the then-deadliest aviation accident in U.S. history.

The DC-10 had a horrible reputation. It earned nicknames like "death cruiser," says aviation reporter Bernie Leighton.

But problems in the plane's design were fixed. "When they were rectified, the DC-10 went on to have a very illustrious career with multiple airlines," he says.

British entrepreneur Freddie Laker waves a flag in front of a Douglas DC-10 in 1977 at the launch of his no-frills "Skytrain" service. The DC-10 had already experienced multiple catastrophes as a result of design flaws, and another deadly crash came two years later. Dennis Oulds/Getty Images ocultar legenda

British entrepreneur Freddie Laker waves a flag in front of a Douglas DC-10 in 1977 at the launch of his no-frills "Skytrain" service. The DC-10 had already experienced multiple catastrophes as a result of design flaws, and another deadly crash came two years later.

Both the Comet and the DC-10 were eventually eclipsed by other planes with better technology, and their manufacturers were acquired by competitors (McDonnell Douglas, in fact, was purchased by Boeing). But the planes themselves spent decades in service, and a version of the DC-10 is still in use by the U.S. Air Force.

So once the investigations into the 737 Max are concluded, and problems are fixed, Leighton has a simple prediction.

"People are going to forget," he says. "People are just going to see it as another 737. They're going to take their kids to Disneyland they're going to focus on how amazing the vacation was and how much they don't like the TSA. They'll forget they ever flew on a 737 Max."

Correction March 20, 2019

Because of incorrect information provided by Boeing, a previous photo caption said the first international mail flight was from Seattle to Vancouver, British Columbia. The flight was actually from Vancouver to Seattle.


An aircraft for “thin” routes

Vanhoenacker flies the 787 Dreamliner, a more modern and fuel-efficient airliner, now. His new aircraft is advanced enough that the pilot can use a cursor on a screen to tell the plane where to go. “On the navigation display, you can see it’s painting where the storms are, and you can point and click to a position away from the storm” to direct the plane there, he says. “The 747 does not do that.”

When you switch the autopilot off, a quick and repetitive siren-like thrum plays to alert the pilots.

Airlines like British Airways and Lufthansa still operate 747s, but the giant four-engine planes are on the decline. From a financial perspective, carriers may prefer more fuel-efficient two-engine craft like the Airbus A350 and the 787, which are also smaller than huge planes like A380. (Boeing still makes the most modern version of the 747, the 747-8, but the orders they have on hand are for the freighter version.)

A rule of thumb for fuel consumption on a 747 is that it will burn about 11 tons of fuel per hour. The 787 burns about half that in the same period but still carries more than 50 percent of the passenger load of the 747. “Most airlines are laser focused on managing fuel consumption,” says Andrew Buchanan, a vice president at Oliver Wyman, a firm that consults for airlines. That, and Buchanan notes that aircraft like the Dreamliner are good for what he describes as “long thin routes”—an epically long journey that skips the traditional hubs and doesn’t carry as many people as an Airbus A380 would. Example: Air New Zealand operates a long flight between Chicago and Auckland on a Dreamliner.

Commercial 747 flights over time, according to data from OAG. Infographic by Sara Chodosh

In other words, the aviation landscape has changed since Barry Lopez, in his classic 1995 essay titled “Flight” for Harper & # 8217s magazine, wrote: “The Boeing 747 is the one airplane every national airline strives to include in its fleet, to confirm its place in modern commerce, and it’s tempting to see it as the ultimate embodiment of what our age stands for.”


Boeing 747

The Boeing 747 is a widebody commercial airliner, often referred to by the nickname "Jumbo Jet". It is among the world's most recognizable aircraft,and was the first widebody ever produced. Manufactured by Boeing's Commercial Airplane unit in the US, the original version of the 747 was two and a half times the size of the Boeing 707,one of the common large commercial aircraft of the 1960s. First flown commercially in 1970, the 747 held the passenger capacity record for 37 years.

Everything Boeing 747-8

747-8 Photos

The four-engine 747 uses a double deck configuration for part of its length. It is available in passenger, freighter and other versions. Boeing designed the 747's hump-like upper deck to serve as a first class lounge or (as is the general rule today) extra seating, and to allow the aircraft to be easily converted to a cargo carrier by removing seats and installing a front cargo door. Boeing did so because the company expected supersonic airliners, whose development was announced in the early 1960s, to render the 747 and other subsonic airliners obsolete, but that the demand for subsonic cargo aircraft would be robust into the future. The 747 in particular was expected to become obsolete after 400 were sold but it exceeded its critics' expectations with production passing the 1,000 mark in 1993. As of October 2008, 1,409 aircraft had been built, with 115 more in various configurations on order.

The 747-8 officially announced in 2005, the 747-8 is the fourth-generation Boeing 747 version, with lengthened fuselage, redesigned wings and improved efficiency. The 747-8 is the largest 747 version, the largest commercial aircraft built in the United States, and the longest passenger aircraft in the world.

The 747-8 is offered in two main variants: the 747-8 Intercontinental (747-8I) for passengers and the 747-8 Freighter (747-8F) for cargo. The first 747-8F performed the model's maiden flight on February 8, 2010 with the 747-8 Intercontinental following on March 20, 2011.

The 747 is to be replaced by the Boeing Y3 (part of the Boeing Yellowstone Project) in the future.


o AAI RQ-7 Shadow is an American unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used by the United States Army, Australian Army, Swedish Army, Turkish Air Force and Italian Army for reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition and battle damage assessment. Launched from a trailer-mounted pneumatic catapult, it is recovered with the aid of arresting gear similar to jets on an aircraft carrier. Its gimbal-mounted, digitally stabilized, liquid nitrogen-cooled electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) camera relays video in real time via a C-band line-of-sight data link to the ground control station (GCS).

Um unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ou uncrewed aerial vehicle, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without any human pilot, crew or passengers on board. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), which include additionally a ground-based controller and a system of communications with the UAV. The flight of UAVs may operate under remote control by a human operator, as remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA), or with various degrees of autonomy, such as autopilot assistance, up to fully autonomous aircraft that have no provision for human intervention.

Um unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), also known as a combat drone, colloquially shortened as drone ou battlefield UAV, is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is used for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance and carries aircraft ordnance such as missiles, ATGMs, and/or bombs in hardpoints for drone strikes. These drones are usually under real-time human control, with varying levels of autonomy. Unlike unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aerial vehicles, UCAVs are used for both drone strikes and battlefield intelligence.

o Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton is an American high-altitude long endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) under development for the United States Navy as a surveillance aircraft. Together with its associated ground control station, it is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS). Developed under the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, the system is intended to provide real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions (ISR) over vast ocean and coastal regions, continuous maritime surveillance, conduct search and rescue missions, and to complement the Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. Triton builds on elements of the RQ-4 Global Hawk changes include reinforcements to the air frame and wing, de-icing systems, and lightning protection systems. These capabilities allow the aircraft to descend through cloud layers to gain a closer view of ships and other targets at sea when needed. The sensor suites allow ships to be tracked by gathering information on their speed, location, and classification.

o Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout is an unmanned autonomous helicopter developed by Northrop Grumman for use by the United States Armed Forces. The Fire Scout is designed to provide reconnaissance, situational awareness, aerial fire support and precision targeting support for ground, air and sea forces. The initial RQ-8A version was based on the Schweizer 330, while the enhanced MQ-8B was derived from the Schweizer 333. The larger MQ-8C Fire Scout variant is based on the Bell 407.

o AeroVironment RQ-11 Raven is a small hand-launched remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicle developed for the United States military, but now adopted by the military forces of many other countries.

o General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capable of remotely controlled or autonomous flight operations developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) primarily for the United States Air Force (USAF). The MQ-9 and other UAVs are referred to as Remotely Piloted Vehicles/Aircraft (RPV/RPA) by the USAF to indicate their human ground controllers.

Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron 2 (VMU-2) is an unmanned aerial vehicle squadron in the United States Marine Corps that operates the RQ-21A Blackjack. The squadron is based at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock, North Carolina and provides aerial surveillance, offensive air support, and electronic warfare for the II Marine Expeditionary Force. VMU-2 falls under the command of Marine Aircraft Group 14 and the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing.

o General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle is a medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) unmanned aircraft system (UAS). It was developed by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) for the United States Army as an upgrade of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator.

Insitu Inc. is an American company that designs, develops and manufactures unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and has several offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Their unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) platforms—ScanEagle, and RQ-21A Blackjack have logged nearly 1 million operational flight hours as of February�.

o UAV Challenge - Outback Rescue, também conhecido como UAV Outback Challenge ou UAV Challenge, is an annual competition for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles. The competition was first held in 2007 and features an open challenge for adults, and a high-school challenge. The event is aimed at promoting the civilian use of unmanned aerial vehicles and the development of low-cost systems that could be used for search and rescue missions. The event is one of the largest robotics challenges in the world and one of the highest stakes UAV challenges, with the current Medical Express version of the event offering $75,000 to the winner.

o General Atomics Avenger is a developmental unmanned combat air vehicle built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems for the U.S. military.

o Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation (ARCAA) was a research centre of the Queensland University of Technology. ARCAA conducted research into all aspects of aviation automation, with a particular research focus on autonomous technologies which support the more efficient and safer utilisation of airspace, and the development of autonomous aircraft and on-board sensor systems for a wide range of commercial applications.

o AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma is a small, battery powered, American, hand-launched unmanned aircraft system produced by AeroVironment based in California. Primary mission is surveillance and intelligence gathering using an electro-optical and infrared camera.

o Boeing Insitu RQ-21 Blackjack, formerly called the Integrator, is an American unmanned air vehicle designed and built by Boeing Insitu to meet a United States Navy requirement for a small tactical unmanned air system (STUAS). It is a twin-boom, single-engine monoplane, designed as a supplement to the Boeing Scan Eagle. The Integrator weighs 61 kg (134 lb) and uses the same launcher and recovery system as the Scan Eagle.

o Qods Yasir, também conhecido como Sayed-2, is an Iranian light tactical surveillance and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) manufactured by Qods Aviation. It is ostensibly an unlicensed copy of an American Boeing Insitu ScanEagle drone captured and reverse-engineered by Iran, but has some design changes.

Unmanned aircraft system simulation focuses on training pilots to control an unmanned aircraft or its payload from a control station. Flight simulation involves a device that artificially re-creates aircraft flight and the environment in which it flies for pilot training, design, or other purposes. It includes replicating the equations that govern how aircraft fly, how they react to applications of flight controls, the effects of other aircraft systems, and how the aircraft reacts to external factors such as air density, turbulence, wind shear, cloud, precipitation, etc.

Aerovel Corporation was founded in 2006 by Dr. Tad McGeer, a designer of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) at various companies for more than 25 years. Dr. McGeer co-founded The Insitu Group in 1992, where he was the architect of Aerosonde, SeaScan and ScanEagle. Aerovel Flexrotor is the next evolution in Dr. McGeer's line of unmanned aerial systems.

822X Squadron is a Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm squadron established in October 2018. Its role is to trial unmanned aerial vehicles.


Assista o vídeo: Boeing F2B-1 Lukgraph 1:32 scale kit (Setembro 2022).


Comentários:

  1. Acwel

    Absolutamente concorda com você. Nisso algo é que eu gosto dessa ideia, concordo completamente com você.

  2. Gadi

    Você está falando sério?

  3. Voodoorn

    Muito obrigado por sua ajuda neste assunto. Eu não sabia disso.

  4. Hardin

    Notavelmente, esta é uma informação muito valiosa

  5. Fenrijas

    Lamento que eles interfiram, eu também gostaria de expressar minha opinião.



Escreve uma mensagem

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos