Boeing has completed painting the first 787-9 and it’s the first to sport Boeing’s new corporate livery.

The first 787-9 will eventually be delivered to launch customer Air New Zealand after the certification process.

With a 6.1m (20ft) stretch the 787-9 can carry 40 more passengers over the 787-8 and has a nominal seat count of 290 in three classes. It also has another 555km in range for 15,700km (8,500nm).

Boeing 787 program’s vice-president of aeroplane development, Mark Jenks, who has been with the 787 since its inception and has seen the good, the bad and the ugly of the program, is very upbeat.

“There is no question that 787-9 production has benefited from the hard lessons of the 787-8,” Jenks told AirlineRatings.com. “The performance of the 787-9 has just been extremely steady.”

Amazingly, instead of gaining weight it has lost several hundred kilograms compared to its final configuration in 2010.

“So, again, given some of the struggles in the past on this program it’s been really very encouraging.”

In fact the 787-9 schedule reset two years ago has been maintained.

“This is much more in keeping with our tradition of doing airplanes,” adds Jenks. “There is very little – [almost none] – travelled work.”

Air New Zealand will get the first three examples, which are line numbers 126, 133 and 139. All Nippon Airways will take its first 787-9 after Air New Zealand with line number 146.

In May Boeing rolled out of the factory the first 787 to be built at the increased production rate of seven a month. The aircraft is the 114th 787 to be built overall and the 100th 787 to be built at the Everett, factory.

Boeing says the 787 program is on track to achieve a planned 10 per month rate by year-end. And the company is looking at ways to increase production.

The 787 is the most popular twin-aisle commercial aircraft ever launched with sales of over 930. 

A scant three days after a Southwest Airlines jet from Nashville to New York was involved in a landing accident at New York LaGuardia the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board says evidence indicates the nose-gear of the Boeing 737-700 may well have touched down first.

It’s not supposed to be that way. Tricycle-gear aircraft are supposed to land on their main gear, with the nose coming down after that.

In a prepared statement the NTSB says, “Evidence from video and other sources is consistent with the nose-gear making contact with the runway before the main landing gear.” 

That nose-gear collapsed backwards, causing the 737 to skid to a halt some 19 seconds later, and prompting an evacuation of Flight 345.  Revised figures indicate a handful of passengers and crew sustained minor injuries.

Key to the Safety Board’s factual findings is this bit of information: “at touchdown, the airspeed was approximately 133 knots and the aircraft was pitched down (AR’s added emphasis) approximately 3 degrees.” Four seconds prior to landing, at 32 feet above LaGuardia’s Runway 4, the NTSB says, “the airspeed was about 134 knots, and pitch attitude was about 2 degrees nose-up.”

Contacted by AirlineRatings.com, Beth Harbin, Southwest’s Senior Director of Communications, says the airline is cooperating fully with the Safety Board investigation of the accident.

More relevant evidence could come soon from Flight 345’s CVR. Friday July 26^th a cockpit voice recorder group convenes at NNTSB laboratories in Washington, D.C. There they’ll “transcribe the relevant portion of the accident flight,” from that recording. The Safety Board says the recording itself is of “excellent quality.”

Many would have seen the viral email showing Boeing’s 1000-passenger “new” 797 (see photo) and of course it is figment of some creative artist’s imagination – or is it?

In fact it’s not so funny and the idea has been around since 1910 when famous German aircraft design Hugo Junker patented a wing-only air transport concept.

This evolved in 1931 into the Junkers G38 34-seater airliner which featured a large thick wing providing accommodation for passengers (see photo).

The plane actually accommodated passengers in the nose, the short fuselage and the wing.

Through the 1930s and 1940s US, German and Russian designers studied the flying wing for a variety of roles with the promise of huge fuel savings and thus greater range.

In 1946 Northrop flew the YB-35 flying wing bomber (see photo) and in 1947 the jet powered YB-49 (see photo).

Movie buffs may recall that it was the YB-49 that delivered an attack on the alien machines in the original War of the Worlds.

At the time Northrop touted the passenger appeal of the YB-49 and produced a fim touting its virtues (see video below).

Later Northrop would build the B2 Spirit stealth bomber.  

Studies into the passenger potential of the flying wing continue and Boeing has indeed conducted both passenger trials in mockups and also built and flown scale models.

However one of the problems is passenger acceptance of what would be a picture theater styled cabin with up to 15 to 20 across the width with four or more aisles.

Thus some passengers would be seated well away from the centre of the aircraft’s axis and thus subject to significant movement up and down in turns with motion sickness implications.

Offsetting this are the significant benefits from the fuel economy of the flying wing which some estimate would burn up to 40 per cent less fuel than conventional aircraft.

Investigators from the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch have ruled out the 787’s battery as the source of the fire that damaged an Ethiopian 787 at Heathrow Airport on Friday.

Attention is now focused on the plane’s galley and questions are being raised as to whether a galley oven or coffee machine was left on or if cleaners and maintenance staff may have left a smoldering cigarette on board.

The 787, while powered down, was plugged into a ground power unit but it is unclear if the power was switched on.

Paul Hayes, director of air safety at Ascend, a British aviation consulting firm told the Wall Street Journal that one plane is lost on the ground to an electrical fire every five years.

Mr. Hayes said that several incidents were suspected to have started after a cleaner or ground worker furtively smoked on a parked plane and then failed to fully extinguish the cigarette.

In a statement Boeing said: “We’re aware of the 787 event at Heathrow Airport and have Boeing personnel there. We’re working to fully understand and address this.”

Boeing has delivered 66 787s and has orders for 930 planes.

The 787 is crammed with innovations including more electric systems rather than the traditional pneumatic systems that do not rely on bleed air from the engines.

The 787 has in all six electrical power generators and these provide power to the plane’s electrical systems in flight, including the flight deck displays, flight controls and in-flight entertainment. The system is more efficient because it reduces the drag on the engines.

However, New York based Bernstein Research, one of the industry’s foremost analysts, says that the fire damage appears to be near the vertical stabilizer, on the left side of the top of the 787 and as such should have very little connection to electrical systems.

While it is unclear what the cause of the fire is Bernstein says that it believes that there is no connection between the fire and the battery issues of the past.

“Because it appears that the 787 fire is not related to the battery, we believe it is likely that this is a one-off problem that certainly must be addressed, but does not pose a risk to the overall program,” said Bernstein.

Investigators from the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch have ruled out the 787’s battery as the source of the fire that damaged an Ethiopian 787 at Heathrow Airport on Friday.

Attention is now focused on the plane’s galley and questions are being raised as to whether a galley oven or coffee machine was left on or if cleaners and maintenance staff may have left a smoldering cigarette on board.

The 787, while powered down, was plugged into a ground power unit but it is unclear if the power was switched on.

The AAIB said that “at approximately 1550 hrs UTC on 12 July 2013 a Boeing 787-8 of Ethiopian Airlines, registration ET-AOP, suffered an event at London Heathrow whilst the aircraft was parked on stand, with no persons on board.”

The investigation team which includes representatives from all interested parties has initiated the technical investigation into the event.

The 787 is currently located in a hangar at London Heathrow.

The AAIB reports that “there has been extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft, and the initial investigation is likely to take several days. However, it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located.”

Paul Hayes, director of air safety at Ascend, a British aviation consulting firm told the Wall Street Journal that one plane is lost on the ground to an electrical fire every five years.

Mr. Hayes said that several incidents were suspected to have started after a cleaner or ground worker furtively smoked on a parked plane and then failed to fully extinguish the cigarette.

In a statement Boeing said: “We’re aware of the 787 event at Heathrow Airport and have Boeing personnel there. We’re working to fully understand and address this.”

Boeing has delivered 66 787s and has orders for 930 planes.

The 787 is crammed with innovations including more electric systems rather than the traditional pneumatic systems that do not rely on bleed air from the engines.

The 787 has in all six electrical power generators and these provide power to the plane’s electrical systems in flight, including the flight deck displays, flight controls and in-flight entertainment. The system is more efficient because it reduces the drag on the engines.

However, New York based Bernstein Research, one of the industry’s foremost analysts, says that the fire damage appears to be near the vertical stabilizer, on the left side of the top of the 787 and as such should have very little connection to electrical systems.

While it is unclear what the cause of the fire is Bernstein says that it believes that there is no connection between the fire and the battery issues of the past.

“Because it appears that the 787 fire is not related to the battery, we believe it is likely that this is a one-off problem that certainly must be addressed, but does not pose a risk to the overall program,” said Bernstein

The US crash investigator the National Transportation Safety Board has given the Asiana Boeing 777-200ER that crashed on Saturday July 6^th at San Francisco International Airport, killing three and injuring over 100, a clean bill of health noting all systems including auto pilot, auto throttle and flight director were working perfectly.

According to NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman investigators found “no anomalous behavior.”

The NTSB also noted that the pilots were having trouble lining up for the landing on runway 28L. The airport’s Instrument Landing System, which gives an electronic guide to pilots, was not available but the visual Precision Approach Path Indicator was.

The pilots were instructor check captain, Lee Jung Min (49) who was assisting captain Lee Kang Kook, (46) who was being endorsed on the 777. Both captains were experienced. A third pilot – a co-pilot – was sitting in the observer seat.

According to the NTSB the 777’s speed decayed from a target speed of 137knots (253km/hour) to 103 knots (191km/hr) which went unnoticed till nine seconds before impact.

“There is no mention of speed until about nine seconds before impact,” said Mrs Hersman.

Captain Lee Jung Min earlier told the NTSB that he assumed that the auto throttle –similar to cruise control in a car – was maintaining the required speed of 137knots.

However Mrs Hersman told media that “they [the pilots] are required to monitor their instruments during landing – particularly the speed.”

Pilots work as team with one flying the plane the other supporting with read backs on critical data, setting flaps, lowering undercarriage and reading checklists.

The instructor captain Lee Jung Min also told investigators that he saw three red and one light on the PAPI lights indicating too low and called for more power. Then he told investigators he could see four red lights and notice the airspeed was in the hatched area on the display– indicating too slow.

Mrs Hersman said that two different members of the cockpit crew – the instructor captain and the observer co-pilot – made separate calls to abort the landing, three seconds and 1.5 seconds before the crash. Power was applied but it was too late.

The pilot flying also reported being blinded by a flash of light on approach however the source of the light and its role in the crash are not known the NTSB said.

Mrs Hersman also clarified the evacuation and noted that the cabin crew had sought guidance from the pilots but they initially, unaware of the fire, told flight attendants not to initiate evacuation procedures.

Only when the flight attendants told them of the fire was the order given to evacuate.

“We don’t know what the pilots were thinking, though I can tell you in previous accidents there have been crews that don’t evacuate, they wait for other vehicles to come to be able to get the passengers out safely,” said Mrs Hersman.

However once the call was made the passengers were out within 90 seconds.