To paint or not to paint, that is the question

To paint or not: We’re in Chicago for an industry event called Chi-Stat (essentially a big party) and one of the topics of discussion is whether Bombardier should take a few days out of its test schedule to paint CSeries Flight Test Vehicle 1 in advance of the first flight.

Yes, one side says, even if it means delaying the flight a few days into July. The world wide photos of first flight is worth painting the airplane. No, the other side says: Bombardier is focused on maintaining schedule. We were a bit surprised at the time of the “reveal” in March that the airplane had not been painted then. There was no roll-out because BBD didn’t want to break the schedule. Officials are very focused on breaking the recent history of Airbus and Boeing delays and to not add to the six month delay already built into the CSeries program.

What do you think?

.

Here are a couple of BBD items:

Montreal Gazette

Belfast Telegraph

 

31 Comments on “To paint or not to paint, that is the question

  1. I have the impression that not painting the FTV1 has more to do with showcasing technology and nothing with the schedule.

    And to me it is a nice differentiator: otherwise it would look just like a production superjet.

  2. Looks like they’re not painting the aircraft for first flight – they’ve got this video up on their Youtube channel:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnH-yV9FyaI
    In it, the Paint Shop manager says that they’re focusing on protecting the composite surfaces against UV exposure; all subtitles and headings in the video indicate that this is in preparation for first flight, so I would assume that there is not going to be any further painting before 1st flight.

  3. They have fueled the plane in stages and we should hear about the engines being powered up any day now. I suspect there will be video of the first taxi tests by the time of PAS. First flight in June anll depends on what comes up in the ground tests. The flight crew have the final say.

  4. Initially I was disappointed when the CSeries was revealed not painted and with the wing/fuselage fairings missing along with other important parts like the flaps. Then it was pictured almost ready for first flight with a protective coating instead of the beautiful light blue corporate livery that we have seen so far in numerous artist depictions.

    Bombardier has two “agenda appointments” to meet. One is that the entire industry is watching to see if the CSeries will be delayed like the A380 and the 787 have been. The other is the Paris Air Show. It is as important for Bombardier to have the CSeries flying at that time as it is for Airbus to have A350 in the air. And for the same reason.

    Both manufactures have to make a statement. Airbus has to let the world know that the A350 is not going to be another A380 fiasco. And Bombardier has to prove to the world that it is still possible for an aircraft manufacturer to produce on time and on budget.

    Today I think the BBD approach is extremely professional. At least from the production point of view. From the marketing perspective it is an entirely different story. I can imagine the internal battles going on between the marketing people and the engineering department.

    Hamlet:

    For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
    The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s Contumely,
    The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay,
    The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
    That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
    When he himself might his Quietus make
    With a bare Bodkin?

  5. NdB :
    I have the impression that not painting the FTV1 has more to do with showcasing technology and nothing with the schedule.

    You have a point. All the parts that are painted white are actually “black”. For everything made of carbon fibre has to receive a protective coating to protect it form the sun rays (UV). That means the entire wings with flaps and slats, the aft fuselage, the nose cone, all the fairings, the vertical tail and horizontal stabilizer, all have to be painted, no matter what. That leaves only one portion of the aircraft not painted: the Al-Li fuselage. What a showcase for technology!

    • When I wrote “all the fairings” I should have added “including the entire engine nacelle”.

  6. “Both manufactures have to make a statement. Airbus has to let the world know that the A350 is not going to be another A380 fiasco”

    The A380 had an unprecedented delay (20 months to EIS). Airlines were angry.

    After that came the Dreamliner. If it had been the other way around (A380 after 787) everybody probably would have been more moderately angry. First flight only a few months late, total delay quickly announced at once, mature aircraft at EIS, meeting efficiency & passenger satisfaction targets from aircraft #1.

  7. ” It is as important for Bombardier to have the CSeries flying at that time as it is for Airbus to have A350 in the air. And for the same reason.”

    No, Normand, it is not really important for either the A-350 or CS-100 to fly prior to the PAS. For both Airbus and BBD, it is only important from a PR point of view. The airlines who want these airplanes have already made their statements.

    BBD, I believe, really doesn’t care about that kind of PR, and I point to the fact they have not painted most of the airplane as proof.

    Boeing has said nothing about roll out of the B-787-9 prior to the PAS, even though the first one is nearing completion of the major assemblies into one whole airplane.

    Only Airbus has expressed a desire to fly the A-350-900 prior to the PAS.

    Both Airbus and Boeing should know what a disaster it is to rush any program just because their respective PR Departments wants it done.

    • “The airlines who want these airplanes have already made their statements”
      It has nothing to do with a sales effort. Their production is filled to 2020 and beyond. It is all to with meeting specific milestones (FF is obviously a major one) towards Certification and delivery. The schedule is tight and they need to get going.

      “Both Airbus and Boeing should know what a disaster it is to rush any program ”
      Fully agree… that’s why Airbus didn’t roll out an empty shell on a specific date that rhymes with the name of its programme.

      “Only Airbus has expressed a desire to fly the A-350-900 prior to the PAS”
      Airbus said that they will fly when they are ready.

  8. “Only Airbus has expressed a desire to fly the A-350-900 prior to the PAS.”

    I think they have explicitly not, to avoid any “dissapointments”.

  9. The purpose of paint is not only aesthetic, particularly for composites.
    I just hope for BBD that they used resins with appropriate anti-uv/Anti-oxidant agents and that they have appliead at least a good anti-uv clear coat.
    Tiny water ingress is not very good either for the structural integrity.

  10. kc135topboom :
    BBD, I believe, really doesn’t care about that kind of PR, and I point to the fact they have not painted most of the airplane as proof.

    It could also be proof of the contrary. Maybe BBD is trying to save time to make sure the aircraft will fly before the end of the month, as they said many times it would. Or perhaps they hope to have the bird ready to fly before the end of the Paris Air Show. For once the CSeries is in the air it is the whole programme that will get airborne.

  11. Sorry I’m a bit confused by wording in the OP. Are you saying that BBD have built a contingency 6months delay into the program or there’s been a 6month delay already?

      • So how exactly are they “breaking” the recent trend of Airbus and Boeing delays, when they’re having delays of their own?

  12. I would go for a fourth option: – Liveries are for airlines

    I think it looks workmanlike and appropriate for a test airplane

  13. On Tuesday I interviewed Bombardier SVP Chet Fuller for a story I am writing for the International Herald Tribune and the subject of the flight test livery came up. Here is what he had to say:

    “We could have taken 4 days out of the schedule and made it exactly like the picture here (pointing to publicity poster of C-Series) And ultimately our flight test vehicles will be in that paint scheme but right now it’s about getting the ‘say/do’ ratio to be non industry standard.

    “Industry standard is ‘Say/Do, who knows?’ We’ve got to improve the ‘say/do’ ratio of the entire industry to restore confidence that it can actually meet schedules, meet deliveries meet numbers, deliver quality products on time.”

    • I think both Bombardier and Airbus took some lessons form recent product presentations.

  14. christinenegroni :
    And ultimately our flight test vehicles will be in that paint scheme but right now it’s about getting the ‘say/do’ ratio to be non industry standard.

    Bombardier has in the past released various aircraft models not painted and had them painted later on. It is something Airbus, and especially Boeing, would avoid doing. Both approaches have their respective merits.

  15. It is great that the opinion on this forum seems to go from Airbusses livery was too plain (and should have more fancy striping, or something)… To minimum painting and putting function over form is not such a bad thing 🙂

  16. CBL :I just hope for BBD that they used resins with appropriate anti-uv/Anti-oxidant agents and that they have appliead at least a good anti-uv clear coat.Tiny water ingress is not very good either for the structural integrity.

    Of course they did – the whole point is that the protection is in the white undercoat as Normand pointed out. You don’t want to rely on the airline livery for protection, especially when you consider re-painting in the future.

  17. christinenegroni :
    “We could have taken 4 days out of the schedule and made it exactly like the picture here (pointing to publicity poster of C-Series) And ultimately our flight test vehicles will be in that paint scheme but right now it’s about getting the ‘say/do’ ratio to be non industry standard.

    There’s a bit of truth in the “say/do” thing.

    In the above video linked by anfromme, the guy says that the paint hangar was “built mainly for CRJs, but is in the process of being modernized and adapted for the CSERIES” and they’re testing it.

    It seems to me that their painting infrastructure is not quite ready for the CSeries. So, they’re entitled to the excuse that they’re doing the right thing by proceeding to First Flight without paint as they’re already running on a tight schedule. However, taking 4 days out to actually paint the aircraft would not have impacted the schedule by that much when you consider the fact that the entry to service is still several months away. Also, getting that First Flight done around the time of the PAS is better in PR terms than just rolling out a painted aircraft.

  18. I would label this poll more “irrelevant” than stupid.

    Since you have asked though, I do believe that getting it up in the air is more important than painting it pretty.

  19. If I was Bombardier I’d want to time the 1st flight for maximum impact. So, assuming any A350 fly pasts will be trade days only, I’d aim for a 1st flight on 20 June, shown live at Paris last thing in the day (I’m assuming there are no restrictions on early morning test flights for Bombardier). Would make it very high on the memorables for trade visitors to take away, and the big news in the headlines for public visitors arriving on 21 June, some of whome may not have heard of Bombardier.

  20. Bryan :
    So how exactly are they “breaking” the recent trend of Airbus and Boeing delays, when they’re having delays of their own?

    The six month delay was caused by problems with suppliers and a partial redesign of the CS300 which impacted the CS100 production. But six months before first flight is not a major delay. And what is important in the Entry Into Service date (EIS). Bombardier’s management is putting the emphasis on this milestone. And for good reason. Then, and only then, will we be able to say if the CSeries was late or not.

    I don’t know what kind of contracts BBD has signed with its customers, but I would imagine that a six month delay at EIS would be acceptable for all parties. And it would not be enough to say that the aircraft was late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *