Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Bjorn’s Corner: Faster aircraft development. Part 3.
By Bjorn Fehrm
August 15, 2025, ©. Leeham News: We do a series about recent ideas on how the long development times for large airliners can be shortened. New project talks about cutting development time and reaching certification and production faster than previous projects.
The series will discuss the typical development cycles for an FAA Part 25 aircraft, called a transport category aircraft, and what different ideas there are to reduce the development times.
We will use the Gantt plan in Figure 1 as a base for our discussions. Before we start the discussions, we outline the process to certify a transport category aircraft under the US FAA 14 CFR Part 25 regulations and how it relates to the Figure 1 plan.
Figure 1. A generic new Part 25 airliner development plan. Source: Leeham Co. Click to see better.
The certification process
The FAA certification process is described in 14 CFR Part 21. The responsibilities and procedures the FAA must follow to certify new civil aircraft as required by 14 CFR part 21 are described in the FAA Order 8110.4C.
We will use a chart from this document to couple the certification process to our generic program time plan in Figure 1. We then detail the discussion of the different program phases in subsequent Corners, examining what the long pole is in the work, what can be sped up, what is tricky, and how certification influences the work.
To help me with knowledge around all this, my mentor colleague at Sustainable Aero Lab and experienced Part 23 and 25 program manager, Henry Tam, will join us from part 4 (we last worked together on the certification series around Part 23 aircraft that you find here).
The FAA certification of an aircraft
The FAA Order 8110.4C has the following graph of a generic FAA certification process (Figure 2). This graph is a flow chart with a lot of events and actions, along with many abbreviations.
We will focus on a few today and then revisit this chart and its contents as we progress through the aircraft program’s phases in Figure 1, step by step, and describe what actions are required from the certification side for the phase.
Figure 2. A generic FAA aircraft certification process as described in Order 8110.4C. Source: FAA. Click to see better.
As a new aircraft project is getting more and more likely in the Feasibility phase, the Project makes the first contacts with the FAA to do Process Orientation. From 8110.4C:
During this initial contact, a certification branch project manager should discuss the type of requested approval with the applicant and assess the applicant’s knowledge of certification procedures. The project manager needs to conduct a process orientation for applicants who are unfamiliar with certification. The process orientation establishes a partnership with the applicant and provides an opportunity to develop an understanding of the type certification process as it applies to the applicant’s design. The orientation should explain the need for certification, the certification process, the FAA’s role, and the applicant’s responsibilities.
The FAA, unlike some other regulators, helps the Type Certification Applicant with advice, dependent on the competence and previous experience of the applicant. After the Process Orientation, this is continued in Pre-Project Guidance. The FAA certification branch will now direct the potential applicant to appropriate regulatory, policy, and guidance material, among other information.
When the aircraft in the Feasibility phase or Conceptual design has settled down to a defined aircraft variant or variants, Familiarization Briefings are done to give the FAA a good understanding of what product is to be certified and later brought to market. This is an iterative process, and the FAA encourages early briefings, even if things are still a bit fluid.
Once it’s time for a formal Type Certificate (TC) application, we are probably into Conceptual Design. An aircraft TC application must be accompanied by a three-view drawing of the aircraft and available basic data.
A Certification team shall be set up by the OEM, and the FAA shall set up a Type Certification Board (TCB), which is the FAA management team. The first TCBM, Type Certification Board Meetings, are done.
Now the certification work starts in earnest. The OEM must submit a Certification Plan (CP). This is submitted in its first version and then continuously updated as the project progresses. It can be incomplete initially, but must finally contain:
(1) General information, including applicant identification, application date, model designation, and so forth.
(2) A description of the proposed design or design change, including sketches and schematics.
(3) The intended regulatory operating environment (for example, 14 CFR parts 25, 33,.., 121, …).
(4) The proposed certification basis, including applicable regulation paragraphs and subparagraphs with amendment levels, exemptions, ELOS (Equivalent Levels of Safety) findings, and special conditions.
(5) A description of how compliance will be shown (ground test, flight test, analysis, similarity, or other acceptable means of compliance).
(6) A list of documentation that will be submitted to show compliance with the applicable certification basis, and how the applicant will ensure that all showings have been made.
(7) A list of test articles to be used to generate compliance data.
(8) A description of how the continued operational safety requirements will be met after the TC is issued.
(9) A project schedule including major milestones, such as preliminary hazard analysis submittal dates, substantiating data submittal dates, conformity and testing completion dates, and expected date of final certification.
(10) Identification of all DERs intended for use in the certification project, their areas of authority, and whether they will be approving data or recommending approval of data.
(11) Identification of all FAA delegation activity intended for use, their authorized function codes, and their proposed inspection activities.
As can be seen, the certification work now requires an organization within the OEM to generate all necessary information and documents, and to track and manage the project from a certification perspective.
We then enter the Compliance Planning phase, where the Certification Basis is established by the FAA and the OEM, based on the requirements of 14 CFR regulations that apply to the project. Plans for how to show Compliance with these regulations are developed. The project is now in the Preliminary Design Phase and going into Detailed Design.
The FAA is now judging when a particular decision or event is critical to the safety of the product or to the determination of compliance. The FAA will then be directly involved in checking that the rules are followed and that compliance is correctly shown. For less critical areas, the FAA will delegate its oversight to specially assigned OEM personnel, contracted or not, so-called DER (Designated Engineering Representative) or DAR (Designated Airworthiness Representative). We come to how these work later in the series.
Then we come to the Implementation phase, which is where the Detailed Design has resulted in design, production, and test of System and Flight Test articles. The certification activities are now focusing on Compliance Data Generation, Compliance Substantiation, and Compliance Finding, i.e., it’s about simulations and tests where the results shall show that the product will comply with the applicable requirements.
If all requirements compliance is documented and agreed upon, the FAA will issue a Type certificate, and we pass into the Post Cert Phase, where the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) must be followed for the aircraft to continue to be airworthy.
We have more certification activities around the Design and Production Organization, but we will take these discussions later in the series.
In my opinion the establishment of the certification basis on the 777X is where all this programs certification trouble started.
Under enormous pressure from Boeing and congress, FAA allowed Boeing to avoid a new type certificate for a new aircraft, the 777x.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviation_innovation/attach/2d84b30595db3/FG%2096%20Flowchart%20TC.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&authuser=0
As a side note, the FAA functioning as adviser/consultant for the applicant is highly vulnerable when things go wrong later on.
Just to clarify, there is no trouble in the 777X certification. Nor is there any evidence that the scrutiny applied by the FAA has been less than required, or would be suitable for a new aircraft type, amended or otherwise.
Just to clarify:
Of course there’s trouble in the 777X certification: years of delays and multiple highly-publicized screw-ups make that abundantly clear.
And of course FAA scrutiny has been less than required — otherwise, the EASA wouln’t have had to get so hands-on with the uncommanded pitch change debacle.
Re: Certification and the 777X: Let’s not forget that certification of the X was going along according to plan until the MAX crashes. When certification of the MAX became an issue, with the revelations of the FAA falling down on this, it was beyond obvious that certification progress on the X was going to be reviewed and certification left to be done was going to be under a microscope. The X certification delays began with the MAX crisis.
“Let’s not forget that certification of the X was going along according to plan until the MAX crashes.”
The MAX crashes put an end to BCA’s self-cert party.
And, with self-cert off the table, BCA continues to struggle to get things certified — even with various exemptions.
18 months and counting to fix the MAX nacelle overheating issue — and, in the meantime, MAX pilots have to use Post-Its in the cockpit to avert accidents.
If this were COMAC or Yakovlev, we’d be mocking them — but it’s Boeing.
The FAA is mandated to promote the U.S. aviation industry.
Let us discuss the China self cert and totally hidden as well as the AHJ that puts out, crash of the 737-800 is a state secret and nothing will be released.
There is no question that Boeing was undermining and working to full capture of the FAA.
The two MAX crashes stopped that and to a degree reversed it. The MAX door blank blowout proved Boeing had major issues (easily seen)
Funny to hear that a pitch issue changed the whole 777X program.
The MCAS 1.0 failure as Scott notes was the trigger factor. Boeing no long could submit something like, we drove a nail through it and it proves it won’t burn or cascade”.
Av Week wrote it up, simply put Boeing was not used to providing the documentation the FAA and EASA now required (good to see EASA finally doing their job – no AHJ should automatically approve anthers clearance). Kudo to Brazil for catching MCAS 1.0 and putting it in the pilots manual.
The FAA said that it was not that Boeing was not trying to comply, they did not know how to comply. Required details and proofs missing. They referred to it was culture shift.
Nothing wrong with the 777X, unlike COMAC and China, Boeing has to prove it;.
It should also be noted that the MAX crashes revealed the fidelity of the manual trim wheel was totally wrong (and never has been explained how that got approved).
“Just to clarify, there is no trouble in the 777X certification.”
Amusing stance that only makes the FAA capture situation visible.
Nothing noteworthy as the Boeing flappers controlled information I/O for the FAA.
Just to note, there is a difference in problems found and trouble of a program.
Problems were found. Nothing show stopping. Its why you test, to find problems before entry into service.
Show is massively delayed.
That is trouble for Boeing.
The plan has been repeatedly and nigh deadly shot
in skirmishes. conquered territory has been lost.
When do you expect a 777X EIS?
You can take facts and twist them in a narrative to suit your agenda. Its a slippery slope, others can do the same to you.
The stated facts are the progression and causes of the 777X delay.
Boeing had MAX and MCAS 1.0 under its control. It did not have Covid under its control.
Factually Boeing has had Penn Central/Enron class disaster in its Board, C Suite.
Ortberg is at least a more normal CEO that is not gutting the company. While you need to remember your history (Corporate Liquidation – see note) you also need to recognize its not the same now.
A US (meme?) has been the Mattress company/furniture company going out of business for 10 years. Except in Boeing case, they were killing the company over some 20 years.
Currently the 777X looks to be doing fine. I am no Crystal Ball looker, have to see what EIS is. They still can find issues with flight tests or the test articles.
I never thought the A380 Wing Skin issue was incompetent by Airbus. It was a surprise they did not see it on the test article.
Reminds me a lot of the Pickle Fork. Long way into service and something odd shows up (though in the case of the Fork it was not all 737s).
The A350 had its coating issues. No question Airbus thought it was a good system. Well tested and all that.
When all was said and done, while they patched the originals, they went to a different system going forward.
It does not make Airbus a menace. Boeing was becoming a menace due to their failures in quality. Arguably did with the two MAX crashes and thank all the powers that be (or not be) that the door blank did not take down a MAX.
Both MCAS 1.0 and the Door Plug Blank were directly a Boeing issue, not an unforeseen aspect. While I am no aircraft design expert, I do know you do not use a system with one input like Boeing did on MCAS 1.0. Its basic setup 101 in equipment, cross zone.
The following is a stark example of logic for one purpose having a hole for takeoff and consequences.
https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b744-johannesburg-south-africa-2009
“It was noted that although there was no separate indication on the flight deck for the position of the leading edge flaps, their retraction is accompanied by a change of colour on the flap indicator EICAS display, although this was considered to be not readily apparent.”
Clearly ICAS was not programed to list the severity and programmed correctly, never allowed to proceed to a takeoff.
“Wing Skin issue”?? Can you elaborate? Or is it another “wing joint” moment being repeated by you ad nauseam?
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/boeings-manufacturing-ethical-lapses-go-back-decades
Thanks for this detail, Bjorn. It’s particularly useful to acquire a factual understanding of the certification process. Looking forward to future installments.
Bjorn having better understanding than your “back office”
in this domain explains a lot.
@keesje
You’re right about the 777X should have been a whole new TC! This is how Boeing has skirted the regulations for years on derivative aircraft, case in point also the mad Max.
They are allowed to do this by what I discussed last week thru the exemption process.
And the point about the FAA providing consultation is wrong and should be banned.
Scott is wrong, the 777X certification wasn’t on plan before the mad Max accidents, I know I was there, it was in deep trouble as early as 2018.
With all the problems discovered on the 777X it’s a good thing its been delayed.
Whatever happened with the promised 6K cabin altitude for this jet?
Crickets
+1
++ 1
Great to have to-the-point info from an insider 👍
Any idea what really happened with those 777X thrust links, and why?
And what the (so-called) “fix” was?
@Abalone
Boeing addressed the issue of cracks found in the engine thrust links of the 777X aircraft, specifically the 777-9 variant, by implementing a comprehensive redesign to fix fatigue-related problems. The thrust links, critical components that transfer loads from the General Electric GE9X engines to the aircraft’s wing structure, were found to have developed cracks during routine inspections in August 2024, grounding the test fleet for four months.
Redesign of Thrust Links: Boeing engineers, in collaboration with GE Aerospace, redesigned the thrust links to address the fatigue issues caused by vibrations under specific flight conditions. The new design strengthens the forward engine attach bolt and modifies the surrounding pylon structure to better distribute load forces, ensuring the components can withstand stresses without cracking.
thrust links have been around since the birth of large high bypass fan engines.
The fix on the links was a complete redesign and manufacture and why a long delay in flight testing.
I mentioned earlier about the 6K altitude. Boeing has consistently stated that the 777X aircraft will feature a cabin altitude of 6,000 feet, aligning with the pressurization levels of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350.
But this jet is all aluminum fuselage, this cab alt will require strengthening that fuselage hence weight hence more fuel burn. Be interesting if they meet this goal.
{Thrust link related text}
Is this your text or taken from some Boeing publication?
some comment:
there is no 777-8 frame around. the issue is thus not limited to a subtype.
Nothing about the attributed reason for “stresses much higher than anticipated”
( IMHO: my impression was that to produce the damage you only had to do a couple of full temperature cycles? )
fuselage blow out:
again IMHO: Boeing tried to “optimize” the load test by blowing up the fuselage to max differential pressure. ( creating a stiffer “sausage” )
As there is only one sub type, yes it is only that sub type.
When the 8F gets built, they will use the new design of course.
The fuselage blow out was some kind of test failure in setup.
Thank you, @Airdoc — aligns with what I suspected.
There were some initial assertions that the design was good but that sub-spec materials had been used. I found that to be total BS, and you’ve now confirmed that for me.
The flight condition causing vibrations was during reverse thrust I red. Hence hard to predict the aero flow during revese thrust but important. So it is not just differential thermal expoansion between engine and thrust links but you need to control the flow onto the blocker doors and out thru the cascades, All this can induce vibrations from air flow and acoustics at revese thrust at different speeds and side winds/temperatures. Not much airflow should hit the thrust links as most flow should flow away from the thrust reverser and join the core engine flow aft the engine nozzle at all speeds.
Thrustreverser use in flight?
Is that a real use case or just for testing the unexpected?
or do I misunderstand something else here?
As was noted, the Thrust link developed a harmonic under some conditions.
Nothing new in aircraft, you tune it out one way or the other.
In this case they made the tube a bit thicker and protected the link with insulation to ensure no airflow hit it setting off the vibration.
So, we have one test setup failure, on pitch aspect to tune out and thrust link fatigue, and the other 3 million parts?
@Uwe, no during landing. Deployed at certain speed and engine spool up to reverse thrust down to a minium speed. Not that easy to predict the airflow and vibrations behind the blocker doors and into the nacelle inside core cowls/pylon that covers the thrust links up to the aft mount. Still all big fans have had them since the JT9D-7 on the original 747. (they has one Y-shaped with its own problems that started Finite Element analysis at Boeing to help sove it)
What kind of “use time” are we talking about per flight?
1 minute … 10 minutes?
Apparently rather few cycles already caused damage.
It does not matter. It was tested for an not forseen.
All Aircraft designs minimize weight where they can.
DO NOT read that as below margins, they assessed, gave it a rating and the design exceeded that rating. Usually at least 30%.
Some years ago I was working on building a house and we ran into a design issue of the pocket for a Glue Lam being too short. Like an aircraft, a re-design of the house is huge.
The Architect and the engineer looked it over, the engineer sighed it off. Glue Lam was under rated (or 150% rated) and a less tall Glue Lam would work. Note the Engineer put his money where his mouthy was and signed it off.
I have seen a Glue Lam get reinforced, I never would have thought the way they did it would work or even be allowed, engineer had a system that was designed for the application, signed it off.
Another commenter here (@A Jones, I think) explained a number of months ago how short-cuts were taken in the 777X numerical modeling processes. He posited that the thrust link failure was due to high-order stresses that weren’t properly modeled during development.
Any insights on that?
I think you have your answer above. Was vibrations at certain flight parameters. This happens and it can be hard to predict across the full spectrum of possible flight conditions. That’s why we have testing. Even then it may not manifest until after EIS. I would rather find it and fix it now than have EIS and an AD.
The 777X is suffering because of many things. It will be 12 years from launch in November. That is awful by any standard. Ironically it’s not so much Max crossover requirements directly. It is a diversion of attention to the Max if anything. As far as technical challenges i would say the hull rupture in 2019 was a bigger problem. Good luck getting that 6000 altitude cabin.
I will take this one step further. There is a reason why you have never seen a B787F announced. Boeing doesn’t think they can make it work. Just my opinion
I’m just fascinated that Boeing could fix the 777-X’s, recent, well-reported thrust link issue in such short order, and still plan to have that aircraft certificated in 2025.
Interesting indeed.
@Vincent
If it is what i think it is…frequency modulation (once identified) is not the worst thing in the world to fix.
You are re-designing the system so that it does not respond in the same manner at the flight parameters involved.
Hardest part is just identifying the various systems and frequencies that are leading to the failure.
@ Casey
The earlier comment that I referenced from @A Jones indicated a very cavalier attitude to numerical modeling at BA. It seems that the head of the department in question was a bit like Captain Smith of the Titanic — “Full steam ahead, and f#ck the icebergs!”.
While I agree that modeling won’t catch every potential issue in advance, taking a deliberate shortcut on modeling is asking for trouble.
Whereas the thrust link failure revealed itself relatively quickly, one wonders about more insideous failures in the plane that will only reveal themselves after many more flight hours/cycles…
Like A380 Wing Skin failures?
Found not in testing but after QF32 opened its wing up for inspection.
For those reading, fatigue teasting is ongoing for twice the life of the aircraft.
No, it will not capture aerodynamic induced issues. But inspections of in service air frames is what that aspect is all about.
Boeing did capture the issue with Aloha fatigue. Aloaha was cheating on the inspections.
Why the A380 testing did not show up the skin issue? All built aircraft had to be taken out of service to correct it.
“Like A380 Wing Skin failures?”
Do you have some technical information on that issues?
I never saw that in technical publications.
I believe TW is referring to the A380 wing spar, wing rib, and wing rib foot cracking which were first found during repairs of QF32. The exact number of aircraft that required repairs after inspection has not been published AFAIK, however there are public source reports of cracks being found as late as 2022. That said given current operational economics many A380s will be withdrawn from service before they reach the cracking AD repair time limits.
Spot on with one ????
Airlines were scheduling the repairs and it was a major aspect of yes they could keep flying but had to do the repairs in X amount of time.
Airbus did a pheno9meanl job of getting it done.
I do believe all aircraft built to that point had to be and were fixed. I could be wrong. I know it was a big deal that they did not want to be flying it that way even if it was determined to be ok.
Simply put the process of install was not doing what it was supposed to. It happens.
Last year we discussed:
https://leehamnews.com/2024/02/26/ultimately-congress-is-responsible-for-mess-at-faa-boeing-spirit-et-al/
I think the 6-7 years delay of the 777-9 has to do with COVID, engines, testing, flight control, but most of all with Boeing having to re-do their certification work.
They (helped by industry / congress) had FAA in the pocket 2012-2018, but then FAA authority was restored.
Regarding possible CoViD delays:
The A321XLR was launched in June 2019 — before the CoViD outbreak — and, yet, that plane is now certified and flying.
@abalone
That’s because it’s Airbus and they have a keen focus for delivering results plus they have to meet EASA, they are no FAA! And I don’t mean for this they make it easy.
EASA is driving the 777X certification program now … without EASA TC, this program is in trouble. All the 7X customers are foreign operators.
Just integrate another tank. nothing big.
Well, AB re-designed the fireproofing, per comments from the FAA/EASA.
Done, dusted, certified, flying.
Compare that to the ongoing MAX nacelle overheating debacle.
And, though the 777X thrust links have apparently been re-designed, one wonders if they’ll actually perform as planned…
Once you instrument and test the present design you understand the problem, then you revise the design, build new hardware, instrument and test compare with stress analysis and might find it is not sufficient, then redo it and even have to force GE to change the engine thrust link attachments, do all the testing and certifications reports again.
@keesje:
Good summation though I suspect the pitch aspect was a PID error.
The ODA was rolled back some but it was not back to the original where they reported directly to the FAA.
Deliveries intermezzo:
Official BA deliveries for July are out, and include 37 MAXs.
However, of those 37, at least 5 were old junk from the parking lot:
6.3 years – China Eastern
6.1 years – Air India Express
5.6 years – Shandong
3.6 years – Xiamen
2.0 years – China Southern
That brings the number of line deliveries to (at most) 32 — which is 16% short of the much-vaunted 38 p/m figure.
Fits in with the 31 p/m figure achieved in the run-up to June.
https://www.scramble.nl/civil-news/boeing-july-2025-orders-deliveries
Moreover, a 787 delivered to China Southern in July was also old junk — 4.5 years old.
As was a delivery to Scoot — 5.2 years old.
That leaves (at most) 6 787 line deliveries in July.
That is funny.
So China’s Airlines are flying junk. Where is the AHJ when you need them?
Thanks TW for standing up to his nonsense.
Sure it’ll cost me another 30 day, but well worth it..
TW
Are you suggesting BA sent out “junk” to customers? How funny is it considering what your usual posts are! 😅
How is it different from American, United, Southwest and Lufthansa??
How many airlines’ deliveries are delayed cause of BA?
Pedro:
you really need to get someone to translate things for you.
For the record:
So, read your buddy Abalones remark. His not mine. Address it to him (which of course you will not do as you are of the same “The Sky is Falling” syndrome.
Just to clarify, who called them “junk”? Can you remember? 🙄
One is a statement of fact, yours is an opinion.
Can you translate this:
“It was tested for an not forseen.” Thanks.
A side effect of MAX groundings and certification delays:
“Airbus set to break Boeing’s long-held aviation record”
“It’s taken the better part of four decades, but Airbus has finally caught up: The A320 series is poised to overtake its US competitor as the most-delivered commercial jet airliner in history, according to aviation consultancy Cirium. As of early August, Airbus had winnowed the gap to just 20 units, with 12,155 lifetime A320-family shipments, according to the data. That difference is likely to disappear as soon as next month.”
https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/airbus-is-about-to-eclipse-a-record-that-boeing-held-for-decades-11755335850511.html
Wow- and that’s with Boeing having a nearly twenty year head start with the 737.
nice
To be clear, Boeing management shot the company in the feet.
Also to be kept in mind, the early productions numbers were low and things ramped up as Airbus came alone.
Airbus will own that record forever more. But then they did not start back in the wire and fabric days.
Now lets through in all the military aircraft delivered.
Nonsequitur / whataboutism
“But then they did not start back in the wire and fabric days.”
BA’s continued use of archaic design aspects was a major contributing factor to its loss of this record.
Putting new lipstick on old dinosaurs may seem appealing from a financial perspective, but it doesn’t impress the market.
Southwest and Alaska may prefer wires and pulleys, EICAS-less cockpits, and low-sitting frames that complicate engine development — but it seems that many other airlines don’t.
Can you say DC-3?
We’re now in the jet age — the 1950s are gone.
Any major airlines still flying the DC-3?
Besides: the DC-3 was a Douglas product — production ceased in 1945, decades before the MD-BA merger. Are you trying to claim that it was a Boeing plane?
Actually Boeing does claim the records of the companies its acquired (or acquired them!)
Who knew the 50s were gone. Well the DC-3 goes back to the 30s but I understand a bit of confusion there. So many spins. Kind of like a table full of spinning plates, sooner or latter one is going to fall.
The DC-3 does hold the record for commercial aircraft. now you want to get into sub categories, Airbus is claiming the twin engine single aisle LCA
Boeing is going to overtake the A330 in the LCA Widbody category.
Boeing holds the record for 4 engine aircraft (two categories). 707 class and the 747 class.
Now we could say an A380 is two 747s?
We can say Airbus has done an excellent job with the A320/21 and I doubt they will ever loose that segment.
“Airbus will own that record forever more. But then they did not start back in the wire and fabric days.”
Airbus had the collected wisdom from 60plus years of construction lighter and heavier than air transport in Europe ready at hand.
( And Boeing borrowed heavily from that after WWII )
@All
Fun facts for all. The 737 started with a 1484 aircraft lead over the A320 when it entered service. The 737 first delivered in 1968 with a whopping 4 deliveries. Deliveries did not regularly surpass 10/mo until the mid-80s. The A320 entered service in 1988 with 16 deliveries. Deliveries finally took off in the late 1990s.
So, that’s more than 12 years from EIS to rate 10 p/m — from a company with decades of prior experience in aircraft manufacture.
Amusing, against that background, that US commenters like to mock the gradual production start-up at COMAC.
Demand to be satisfied!
Market demand was a fraction of what it is today.
After Boeing losing the lead in NB market, dominos effect…
DC-3 anyone?
Not a jet, is it?
Oh, and on the subject of military aircraft: the most-produced fighter jet and supersonic fighter jet in history were both MiGs (MIG-15/21).
With ca. 900 deliveries, the Il-76 takes the prize for most-produced heavy military transport aircraft.
And the most-produced military aircraft in history — in any category — was the Ilyushin-2.
No records there for BA — although the KC-46A might get an honorable mention for most gremlin-ridden military plane in modern aviation history 😅
DC-3:
Total production including all military variants was 16,079.
A320
As of July 2025, a total of 19,285 A320 family aircraft had been ordered and 12,151 delivered.
They will get there !!!
Antonov AN2
18,000+ frames produced.
A wide range of GA types exceed that.
OT: surprised so many choppers where built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft
Robinson R44 6,866+
Eurocopter AS350 7,000+
The original 737 was not a commercial success. The 737Classic is where sales took off. I wouldn’t hold Boeing accountable for sales back in the 70s. Commercial aviation was a smaller industry. The world had changed and aviation is a global industry.
Easy money from leasing companies have juiced sales across the board. The A320 first entry was not a sales success either
In that case, even more credit to COMAC — which has clocked up over 1000 orders for the first iteration of the C919.
I don’t necessarily disagree. And if there is any takeaway from the B737 and the A320 is that it might take 10 years to fully hit full throttle. COMAC has some ambitious goals. It might take a few years longer than the current schedule of record to hit full rate but that is more a matter of unrealistic expectations than anything that has fundamentally gone wrong
I suspect that the only thing currently impeding COMAC’s ramp-up is its legacy use of western engines.
Once it switches to Chinese and/or Russian engines, I suspect that many western observers will be astounded by the attendant production ramp-up.
The Russian PD-14 is ready, and is commencing bulk production.
The Chinese CJ-1000A won’t be long after it.
The familiar “voice of the 50s” will, of course, instinctively dismiss such scenarios.
Abalones 1000 orders are all Chinese entities own and controlled by the Sate.
If you own the system then you can cook the books any way you want.
The other hoot is they can’t deliver their supposed back log, coming out with new models and trying to sell the C919 to others.
Talk about Vapor Ware.
Logic says ramp up has nothing to do with Western engines, after all, 60% or better of the C919 is Western.
Back in the day I had a miniature poodle attack my bike. That too was funny.
“Abalones 1000 orders are all Chinese entities own and controlled by the Sate.”
Let’s see, on the subject of “owned and controlled by the state”:
The USAF wanted the A330MRRT — but had the KC-46A forced upon it instead.
Outside the US, there’s been virtually no interest in the KC-46A: Italy walked away, Israel effectively had no other choice — leaving only Japan.
So, if it weren’t for the “state owned and controlled” USAF, the KC-46A would have been a complete non-starter 🙈
***
Chinese airlines still order Airbuses and Embraers, and they used to order Boeings, so why not order COMACs also?
The C919 is a nice aircraft, locally designed and produced, and soon completely immune to US trade war whims — so why not order it?
This post is amusing, I wonder what the reactions are here when the emerging competitor succeeds to outcompete the one that’s not competitive anymore. Laugh or cry??
The 737-300/-400 were extremely reliable for its time. The MD-80’s were way behind and worse than the DC-9. A bit like the VW Beetle, ugly but good. The A320 first iteration was not as good with V2500-A1 engines and CFM’s first -5A. But like the A330 they kept improving with upgraded systems and engines, including winglets. The 737-800 was also quite reliable and economical as many airlines grew with it. Still the A320 series with the A321 and neo engines finally outdid the 737MAX as average size grew and Boeing did not develop a new wider, new engines, carbon wing 757 to compete.
Curious as both NG and A320 used the CFM56? Something from 5 to 7 series but thought they were the same engine?
The 757 is an interesting discussion but has a lot of questions in regards to it and its build and drop of production.
As stated before, I am not a aircraft engineer nor mechanic, but the info from Av Week and the like was the 757 had an usually complex structure and build costs were high.
While performance was very good, it also cost a lot engine wise as well as worse SFC. In an era of low cost fuel, ok, but higher fuel prices and …..
Class wise the -200 was in the A321 area, but as it was built for the -300 version it jumped up above the A321 into a category Boeing seems to have given the MOM designation.
If you gave it a new wing, you have a heavy costly higher fuel using bird as well as a costly build. No one was build CRFP wings at the time.
I will be the first to agree I don’t know what the answer is. Obviously the A321 is moving up to majority of the builds. A320 and MAX -8/9 are selling well though A320 dropping.
You have to make a decision as to where the optimal carry is, then adjust down and up from there. Or have variants that are build differently.
The -7 is just a short -8, nothing lighter so its got a heavy for class fuselage.
South West thinks it works, but others are moving up to A321 let alone -8 size. My take is South West needs to optimize ops not specific aircraft for a given route. Delta is the only one that is making that work.
757 range is not that impressive with full passenger load. A321LX has to drop pax and add fuel to go its longer routes. Great if you can get enough revenue out of a route.
What the hell?
You said the MAX 9 is selling well?
By that definition, what is not* selling well?
The NG CFM56 and the A320 ceo CFM56 are not the same engine. They are similar.
As it relates to A320 sales, the A319 neo was a mistake and would not be repeated today. The A320 is not necessarily doing poorly as much as the A321 is doing that well. It is the B757 replacement aircraft.
757 has been over-hyped though it was a good aircraft. Frankly I think the -200 is the best looking commercial jet ever (maybe between it and the DC-8 though the A340 has a panache as well)
A320 and the MAX 8/9 are pretty close.
But yes the A321 does replace the 757-200 though not the -300 (which was not the majority of builds by quite a way which is different, usally the longer hull is.
The MAX -10 is behind the A321LX and always will be. Its good enough for most of those missions.
The MAX -8 does good on long thin routes as well.
“Dropping”??
Airbus receives a total of more than 4,000 A320neo orders, similar to the MAX 8. 😅
“The A320 first entry was not a sales success either”
For a newfangled type from the Euro Socialist Jobs Programme introducing FBW it did not badly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing#/media/File:737_vs_a320_family_deliveries_per_model_1967-2018.png
Another approaching certification in Russia — this time, a re-vamped turboprop à la Bombardier/ATR, sterilized of western components:
“Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade Announces Launch of Il-114-300 Deliveries”
“Alikhanov stated, “We are completing the certification process this year. According to our schedule, deliveries of production aircraft to operators will commence in August of next year.”
“The Il-114-300 is a regional turboprop airliner with a seating capacity of 68 passengers. Designed for local and regional routes, the aircraft is optimized for operations in remote areas, including those with short and unpaved runways, as well as for service in Arctic conditions.”
https://ruavia.su/russian-ministry-of-industry-and-trade-announces-launch-of-il-114-300-deliveries/
***
Russia now has three fully-domestic aircraft on the cusp of certification and serial production — MC-21, SJ-100 and Il-114.
I’m guessing that Iran is watching with great interest.
Iran is still waiting for its Fighter Jets.
In the meantime, hi jinks to get good Western Aircraft (5 x 777), had to tick the Russians off as they wanted them!
Almost as long as the 777X! The should hire China to do this for them.
“Construction of Admiral Amelko began in 2015, and the vessel will now undergo outfitting, harbor trials, and sea trials before joining the Russian Navy. The commissioning date has not been officially announced.”
Remember the Bonhomme Richard burnt to a crisp?
CVN-79:
First cut of steel in Feb 2011(!!), the keel was laid in August 2015. Delivery pushed back for years to 2027, if it goes according to the plan. Number of aircraft carriers in the fleet of USN will drop to ten.
===============
> “The nuclear-powered battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov of Project 11442M went out to sea for first stage of sea trials after repairs and deep modernization.”
This is not a Russia vs Ukraine aspect, its a commentary on Russia’s industrial base and capability into the civilian sector.
https://defence-blog.com/russia-revives-more-t-62-tanks-amid-battlefield-losses/
How do they in turn turn out any aircraft let alone Civilian?
Obviously they can’t and their so called replacement program is propaganda.
Disjoint argument.
Why bother producing new tanks when tanks are no longer a key aspect of this war? Patching up an old tank is a cheap way of producing a nuisance factor.
This war is about attack drones — and Russia is producing 60 of those per day…a lot more than the US or EU.
The only “propaganda” here is being spouted by the familiar “class of 1950” — which continues to have difficulty adjusting to new realities in the world.
Russia is more than capable of producing commercial aircraft in volume — some of the most produced aircraft in history have been Russian.
On a related note:
In 2024, Russia built 12 warships, 38 smaller naval vessels, and 110 civilian ships.
In the same period, the US produced 2 naval ships and 5 commercial vessels.
Simply some statements of facts of the Russian ability to mfg civilian aircraft via the relevance of defense mfg.
“Statements of facts”??
Lol. Srsly? Such a “bold” claim! It’s worth a bit of scrutiny. Again, what’s your proof, or more empty talk pulled out from thin air?
The US is busy keeping B52 alive.
They use a 1980ties design to update their tanker fleet.
Boeing regularly sits on NB and WB lawn darts because their design and production environment is defunct.
Simply some statements of facts of the US ability to mfg civilian aircraft via the relevance of defense mfg.
Spending has doubled? Where is the result??
U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Is Consistently Over Budget and Delayed Despite Billions Invested in Industry
> Despite nearly doubling its shipbuilding budget over the last 2 decades, the U.S. Navy hasn’t increased its number of ships. The Navy and Department of Defense work with private companies to build ships and have invested billions of dollars to support the shipbuilding industrial base. But even with this investment, the industry has not been able to meet the Navy’s goals—jeopardizing the Navy’s ability to protect the U.S. from growing maritime threats and competition.
> The Navy is aware of these challenges, but it consistently plans to build more ships for the fleet than the private shipbuilders have been able to achieve. The Navy isn’t considering shipbuilders’ capacity in its plans for growing and maintaining its fleet.
The Navy and the Department of Defense are taking steps to help private companies with shipbuilding. […]
But when we looked closer at these efforts, we found that the Navy hasn’t fully assessed whether its investments are working as intended, yet it continues to expect that the shipbuilders will achieve different results. Without this assessment, the Navy is poorly positioned to address shipbuilding challenges that are affecting its mission.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/styles/default/public/2025-04/CNSA%20shipbuilding%20Industrial%20base%20delays%20in%20ships%20under%20construction%20as%20of%20Sept%202024%2C%202025%20report.PNG.webp?itok=5V2bXCBL
https://www.gao.gov/blog/u.s.-navy-shipbuilding-consistently-over-budget-and-delayed-despite-billions-invested-industry
@Uwe:
That is the A330? It stretches back to the A300 (pun intended)
But that is not the point either. Russia is claiming one thing and the evidence says it can’t produce.
Boeing is making 4- 50 LCA a month.
Statements of facts?
I’m old enough to know the first casualty of war is truth!
I’m telling you:
Let there be light, and there’s light.
In fifteen days.
NATO chief: Russia produces in three months what the whole of NATO produces in a year
> The West is failing to catch up to Russia’s production
US MSM:
> Russia’s ability to churn out tanks, missiles, and shells has surprised the West and heaped further pressure on Ukraine
> Sergei Shoigu said in December that Russia was producing 17.5 times as much ammunition, 17 times as many drones and 5.6 times as many tanks…
Time to re-watch:
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
Nice looking plane, that IL-114. Wasn’t aware of that one.
It certainly is nice-looking — and totally revamped.
Apart from in Russia itself, there may be quite a lot of interest in such an aircraft from the Global South — Russia has lots of friends in central and southern Asia, Africa and South America.
Just because Irkut messed up customer service in the past doesn’t mean that Yakovlev / Ilyushin are going to do the same in the future.
So Boeing is just fine!
Someone is loosing and wearing out military aircraft faster than they can replace them. Full on war economy.
So where do the resources come from other than a demo here and a demo there?
The illogic would have had Einstein beating his head on a wall.
Just fine?
After losing $4 billion in the first half?? ($643m + $3,362m)
You are generous. If AB suffers the same fate, would you apply the same metric?
@ Pedro
I think that some commenters here don’t realize — or want to accept — that Russia’s military-industrial complex is humming.
As regards aircraft: it produces all “regular” engineering metals domestically, gets its rare earths and semiconductors from China, and no longer needs to import any western components. So it can just go ahead and produce at will.
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2025/04/07/how-russia-outpaced-the-west-in-the-wartime-industrial-might/
“Russia now has three fully-domestic aircraft on the cusp of certification and serial production — MC-21, SJ-100 and Il-114.”
Exactly that is the problem: they can’t offer a premium product with the best options available on the global market.
Just compare the specifications for MC-21-300 with PW1000G engines and the Moscovian MC-21-310. First flight for the Il-114 was in 1990 just two years behind ATR-72. Now compare these aircraft. Finally there is costumer services were the SJ-100 already made history. There is a reason why Iran prefers used western aircraft over new ones from Moscovia. (Hint: the Kingdom of Rus was located around Lviv. The Duke of Moscow just labeled himself as such. Therefore I won’t use a stolen designation.)
Sometimes, a product doesn’t have to be “premium” in order to attract customers — it only has to come from an alternative supplier and/or be more attractively priced.
And customer service *was* an issue with the SSJ-100, but that doesn’t mean that it still *is* a problem at Yaklovlev. Things change.
Iran didn’t really have a choice up to now — but new options are becoming available to it. Better a new MC-21 or SJ-100 than a 40-year-old western frame. For the first time in a long time, it will soon be able to purchase sanction-proof commercial aircraft — from Russia and/or from China.
As regards first flight of the Il-114 being in 1990…so what? The first flight of the 737 was in 1967. The Il-has now received a major upgrade, including new engines. The 737 has undergone multiple such upgrades.
“The new regional Il-114-300 has improved performance, uses more composite materials, and is provided with a new digital flight and navigation system. Almost all main systems of the aircraft were improved with special focus on enhancing cockpit ergonomics.”
https://rostec.ru/en/media/news/new-il-114-300-joined-a-flight-test-program/#middle
“Work on the battlecruiser only really began in earnest in 2014. At one point, it was predicted that the project would be completed around 2018. But the date was repeatedly pushed to the right, first to 2019, and then to 2020. By 2017, TASS was reporting that work on the Admiral Nakhimov should be completed by 2021. In 2021, reports stated that the warship wouldn’t be back in service before 2023, while in 2022, the Sevmash shipyard stated that service re-entry had been pushed back to 2024.”
I see nothing that says Russia can produce even small numbers of LCA.
We call that view as swallowing hook, line and sinker.
Interesting:
> these same advisors criticized the response from GE Aerospace for being less than cooperative and for not providing enough mitigation responses to shorter on-wing times for the CFM LEAP engine.
GE has press protection.
Amusing:
AF A380 engine (GE,PW) loosing its fan section
turned into an RR shit storm 🙂
And as is the MoO of US companies
foreign worker ineptness was pushed up front
while in the end it was a materials “non understanding”
on the design side:
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/a380-fan-hub-disintegration-traced-to-misunderstood-cold-dwell-fatigue/140320.article
I don’t see any logical point in the post.
GP was a one off. As stated it was not a known phenomena. If you don’t know about it you can’t design to avoid it.
GE is not perfect but they have done what I think of as good work for the most part. LEAP as being discussed behind the paywall has been poor in performance but worse in response. Seems a cycle business go through.
RR on the other hand on the Trent 1000 was a puzzlement. It was not one problem but two.
1. Fan Blade corrosion: That is a tech area that no one else suffered from (or to that serious degree).
2. In the end the cracking blade problem was a harmonic. Again an area that while high tech is well known and it took RR a long time to even figure it out, lost of other efforts that did not achieve anything other than lead to distrust and then outright cancellations of the RR choice. BA shifted, so no matter what we read was bad, it had to be really bad.
But you also have people who will not talk. RR was pretty obvious and maybe more intersecting press wise with long flights over water and engines being shut down. The possible impact of two engines shutting down, ungh.
Boeing takes a hit due to their issues, Airbus has its own but its a lot behind the scenes and not to the degree Boeing has been.
So , TW you finally accept that LEAP engines have had major problems and the fixes were to resolve these . Not to add or improve the previous capability.
As this comment from Bjorn in the next post refers to the real situation.
“A revealing side note: these same advisors criticized the response from GE Aerospace for being less than cooperative and for not providing enough mitigation responses to shorter on-wing times for the CFM LEAP engine.”
Of course GE newest large fan hasnt yet entered service. So we will see how it works out and compare to the Trent XWB family
“I don’t see any logical point in the post.”
How surprising.
the Flightglobal article seems to say that it was a know effect
that had been “lost”.
Latest update on Russian MC-21 certification program:
“Aircraft 73055 operates with PD-14 engines and features Russian-manufactured avionics systems, including flight computers, data concentrators, navigation systems, and radio equipment. The aircraft also incorporates domestic auxiliary power unit (APU), air conditioning systems, cabin pressurization systems, lighting systems, aircraft system control panels, and other components. In total, more than 70 foreign-made components have been replaced with Russian alternatives. Foreign equipment remains only in flight control actuators, brakes, and generators [but…see below].
“In July 2025, prototype aircraft 73055 and 73054 conducted formation flights to evaluate the Russian-manufactured Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). The flight objective was to compare the performance of Russian systems installed on 73055 against aircraft 73054, which carries similar but foreign-manufactured equipment.
“Aircraft 73055 is currently undergoing evaluation of its electrical power system, inertial navigation systems (INS), air traffic control (ATC) transponders, radio communication range, and antenna feed systems. Additionally, the aircraft performs flights along established airways to verify navigation system functionality, transponder integration with ATC infrastructure, and to assess weather radar and communication system performance.
“Flight testing of another MC-21-310 prototype, aircraft 73057, is expected to begin shortly. This aircraft features exclusively Russian-manufactured systems, including those foreign components that remain on aircraft 73055. Certification completion is anticipated in the final third of 2026, after which the MC-21 will enter commercial service.”
https://ruavia.su/mc-21-310-prototype-accumulates-over-70-flight-hours-in-certification-program/
I won’t be surprised if the MC-21 enters service before the MAX-7 and -10 do.
Thanks for the post and link.
Notice how the Russians give us regular, detailed updates on manufacture and certification of new models?
Same at Airbus — most recently with regard to the A321XLR, and currently with regard to the A350F.
Now, compare that to the sound of crickets over at Boeing.
And you can take that to the Bank, truly a hoot.
Updates are around.
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/unresolved-engine-anti-ice-fix-pushes-737-max-7-10-certifications-2026/
and
https://leehamnews.com/2025/06/02/boeing-ceo-lessons-learned-are-key-to-certification-of-737-7-10-and-777x/
Where did you get the idea that its all under wraps. But of course thats the feeds you get from the China state media. Try looking at US aviation media instead
“Wherever the readers are, wherever the viewers are, that is where propaganda reports must extend their tentacles.” — Xi Jinping, February 2016
Did you actually read that AirCurrent article?
Did you notice the complete lack of meaningful detail?
When was the previous “update”?
And why aren’t these “updates” being published directly by Boeing?
Meaningless PR fluff doesn’t count.
And the 777-8F ?
https://www.boeing.com/features/2025/07/a-spar-is-born–team-builds-first-777-8-freighter-wing-parts
Maybe its time to state following Boeings own updates rather than just the party-state influencers/tentacles .
@ Dukeofurl
From your 777-8F link:
“Engineers have completed more than 80% of the drawings that define the configuration of the 777-8 Freighter and are continuing detailed design of systems and parts.”
The design isn’t even finished yet — do you think we’ll be getting regular updates as the process moves along?
I’m afraid @duke may have missed the details inside. 😂
This was your claim ..”Now, compare that to the sound of crickets over at Boeing.”
Ive refuted it. With 3 links.. showing the progress is being reported for various programs.
I understand crickets are delicacy in China …. stick to what you know
@ Dukeofurl
“…Ive refuted it…”
No, you haven’t.
My original post stipulated “regular” and “detailed” — whereas you only pointed to sporadic tidbits of vague fluff.
🙈
Great update for us that the design is only 80% complete.
After the recent trade spat in which Washington temporarily cut off supply of engines and other components to COMAC, one can assume that the Chinese are now “de-westernizing” the C919 with similar fervor — and probably in cooperation with Russia.
Interesting how western sanctions continue to backfire — they’ve only served to strengthen industrial determination and independence in the targeted nations.
“Zhou Ming, top engineer involved in Boeing 787 and A380 design, leaves US for China”
“Zhou Ming, renowned as the mastermind behind key industrial software used in planes such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380, has left his leadership role at US-based global engineering giant Altair to return to China.
“An announcement on the website of the College of Engineering at the Eastern Institute of Technology in Ningbo said Zhou had joined as a chair professor and the first dean of the college in June and was already setting up a research team.”
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3322380/zhou-ming-top-engineer-involved-boeing-787-and-a380-design-leaves-us-china
> China Is Run by Engineers, and the US by Too Many Lawyers
The funny thing is, China has the largest engineering education system globally.
> When they teach about the rise of China in textbooks someday, I hope there’s at least a section about how USA institutions psy-opped themselves into utter helplessness by meticulously sourcing all their primary insights from copium vendors. This could be a thesis.
> the 21st century’s defining rivalry isn’t ideological—it’s operational. China’s elite leadership is dominated by engineers; by 2020, all nine members of the Politburo’s standing committee had engineering backgrounds.
… bolsters his case with personal experience, noting how even remote Chinese provinces often boast better infrastructure than major American cities like New York or Los Angeles. He sees a U.S. that regulates and debates—but rarely builds.
Chinese propaganda but of course hook line and sinker
Altair did work for Airbus, who knows what Ming’s role was.
Nothing indicates they did any work for Boeing.
“Nothing indicates they did any work for Boeing”
It seems that Chinese news is more reliable than “class of 1950” propaganda out of the US:
“Altair Wins 2016 Boeing Performance Excellence Award”
““Altair ProductDesign is honored to receive this award for a fifth time”, said Mak Gilbert, Program Manager at Altair ProductDesign. “We truly value Boeing’s appreciation and recognition of the consistently smart, hard work our engineers conduct daily to support their design of lightweight, high performing aircraft,” he said. ”
https://investor.altair.com/news-releases/news-release-details/altair-wins-2016-boeing-performance-excellence-award
In a corporate presentation:
> Topology Optimization for leading edge wing ribs on the Boeing 787 resulted in a 50% labor and flow- time reduction when compared to the 777 process…
There’s an overabundance of those who fail to realize where’s the reality.
> Boeing engineers used Altair Engineering’s OptiStruct topology optimization technology to develop a new, open truss structure…
Ouch!
A piece run by the Atlantic, yup just another “Chinese propaganda” outlet. They are everywhere! Whomp whomp.
> “Simply one of the best China writers out there. . . an incredibly thoughtful, holistic and engaging work on one of the biggest stories of our time.”
I sense a flightless bird has moved north.
That one just craves attention.
CSAF “abruptly” quits.
FG: Safran aims to recover Leap delivery backlog to Airbus by end-October
> Safran chief executive Olivier Andries, speaking during a half-year briefing on 31 July, said the company had “not completely caught up” from the impact of the strike.
“By the end of the [third quarter], we should mostly have recovered,” he says. “The plan is to recover completely by the end of October in order not to impact the Airbus delivery plan.”
> “It’s very frustrating for an airline to have an asset and not be able to fly it and use it because of an engine issue,” he says, adding that avoiding aircraft on the ground is crucial. “This is what is driving us, mainly.”
Is this the “next phase” of certification?
AW: Boeing 777-9 Returns To Edwards AFB For Runway Tests
> Based out of nearby Victorville, California, the tests are a repeat of Boeing development work initially conducted at Edwards in 2022 and form a significant part of the overall certification campaign which has been underway since the granting of FAA type inspection authorization in June 2024.
> Meanwhile, the second 777-9, WH002, returned to the air on Aug. 17 with an aerodynamic certification test flight. The aircraft, which has been on the ground at Moses Lake, Washington, since mid-July, has been undergoing unspecified reconfiguration work prior to rejoining the test campaign, Boeing says.
WH003, the third 777-9, is continuing engine inflight restart tests across a range of altitudes and airspeed conditions…
How many times were we told the flight tests were completed, only the documentation is outstanding??
“…undergoing unspecified reconfiguration work prior to rejoining the test campaign”
Oh dear…👀
Looks like that TIA was premature 🙈