Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight 278
Bordgious and a number of other readers sent word of the 787 Dreamliner's first flight after two years of delays. The four-hour test kicks off nine months of airborne testing. Aviation Week has video of the test flight and a timeline of the 787's development. Here is the flight path. 840 of the planes are on order now, down from a high of 910, as some customers canceled orders due to the delays.
Video without the Blah-Blah (Score:2, Informative)
ill-informed nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Compared to an aluminum airframe? Are you kidding?
Aluminum has zero stress endurance limit. That means that it WILL crack eventually.
And why don't you ask Hawaii Airlines about corrosion problems with aluminum?
Composites are much more reliable and have much lower maintenance costs.
There are a lot of composite parts in the triple 7 and they are well documented to be more reliable than the aluminum ones in the 767.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:3, Informative)
Why?
Be specific, list computer modeling you have done, as well as any weakness in the chemical compounds. Please link to appropriate chemical analysis
What's that? you can't do that? STFU.
He doesn't have to. Boeing themselves had admitted to some fairly serious issues with cracking in the airframe and wings, cracking that their computer models didn't predict [wsj.com]. We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven. People have every right to be concerned about this aircraft until Boeing has proved that it's safe. From finance, to climate, to aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models, and in every case, it's bitten us in the ass. Computer models are a necessary tool, but aren't the panacea you seem to think they are.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.
Re:One of friends saw the flight... (Score:5, Informative)
The A350 is still 2+ years from first flight. By that time, Boeing will have delivered a few dozen of the 787, presuming that nothing happens during flight testing and initial service to throw off the delivery schedule, and will have delivered even more by the time the first A350 has been delivered, as that plane will still have to go through its own ~9-month test plan. The A350 was largely a panic response to the 787, as evident from the dismissive attitude taken towards the 787 by Airbus early on, and then the rushed design paralleling the 787 (including the use of large fractions of composite materials) later on as orders stacked up in Boeing's corner while A380 orders languished. To this day, the A380 has barely more than 200 firm orders, whereas the 787 has well over 800. The A350 has 500 on firm order, but that may change as the 787 gets out the door.
Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (Score:1, Informative)
Everett factory footprint: 98.3 acres (not including parking, which is a lot more, or the tunnel system which extends way beyond the buildings footprint). Also the largest building in the world by volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Everett_plant
Disneyland footprint: 85 acres of publicly accessible space. No word on how big Walt Disney's secret underground bunker is though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Land#Park_layout
So yup, you could fit the non-secret parts of Disneyland inside it. and still have around 13-14 acres of parking.
Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh yeah? Prove it.
I'll come visit once you're done.
"Boeing's factory in Everett, Washington, United States is presently the largest building in the world by volume while Terminal 3 of Dubai International Airport is the largest building in terms of total floor area. The surface area of the proposed Crystal Island complex in Moscow is more than double that of the largest current building, though this project has been delayed indefinitely by the global economic crisis." [wikipedia.org].
Two seconds on Google.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, at least you agree it is a novel aircraft. Though perhaps not quite as much as you think; warplanes have been using composites for some time now, so there is good reason to believe it will work. There was a bit of scandal [wired.com] a few years ago when Dan Rather made some very shaky accusations about the Boeing design. Admittedly there is inherently some risk whenever you take a step forward, but that's how we progress. Personally I'll be excited the first time I get to travel on one.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Yet more cynical Slashdot nerd demands that even more cynical Slashdot nerd turn in his nerd card for not recognising a Simpsons quote that references Star Trek...
(It's Grade School Confidential, the one where Principal Skinner and Mrs Krabapple carry on a sordid affair in school. Bart finds out about it and exposes them in front of his classmates. "Set your faces to stun" is what he says just before flinging open the door that the lovers are hiding behind.)
Re:Indeed, Aluminum sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:5, Informative)
We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven.
I'm pretty sure that Burt Rutan would use that same sentence as a compliment, not the "wooh, scary" crap you're trying to pull. Composites aren't something we came up with yesterday to test tomorrow; we've been baking parts together since the 50s. That part of the technology is mature. Engineering problems can come up any time novel structures are made, whether they're made from composites or metal alloys; that's why we have a test-and-review system. Aluminum has been great for us so far, but composites will continue to replace it, because our composites are already excellent design candidates (and in practice, not just on paper) and are getting better, while Aluminum technology hasn't really improved since the Eisenhower administration.
...aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models
HOLY CRAP ARE YOU KIDDING? You say it like you think computer models are some oracle we pray to without understanding. Like we built HAL-9000 and asked him, "So...whad'ya think about this new plane of ours? Oh, and we're gonna make it out of some material nobody ever saw before. Cool? OK, it's going into production tomorrow, kthxbai." Do you even fucking realize what a "computer model" is, or what engineers would do without "computer models?"
ANSWER: THEY WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME DESIGN MODELING AND ANALYSIS BY HAND, PROBABLY WITH LESS PRECISION/RESOLUTION, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THOUSANDS OF TIMES LONGER!
That's it! "Computer Models" are just a way to speed up calculations we fucking learn to do with pencils and paper when we're in engineering school!! How do you think people wrote those programs in the first place?!? And then when the calculations are done, you build and test! This is how engineers have been doing things since *math* was invented!!! So yes, they DO rely on computer models, because the alternative is to hire thousands of people to do tedious calculations, with a much higher error rate, and much longer time requirement.
I mean, really! In what way, exactly, would you have them rely *less* on "computer models?" Would you like them to do *fewer* analyses before testing? Would you like them to mock it up in a big block of clay, and then put it in the wind tunnel, and then call it good? Should they kill chickens and read the entrails? What kind of design models do you think they'd use if they weren't using software models? And what makes you think that they don't do both?
It's clear that you don't know crap about crap.
Re:LOL. (Score:5, Informative)
Bankrupt just like Boeing without massive US government subsidies and handouts. You often see them referred to as "cost plus contracts".
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:1, Informative)
Now, there is the instance of the composite vertical stabilizer separating from the aircraft on an American Airbus A300, but that was attributed to the forces applied to it by the co-pilot and the lack of correct software control.
The A300 used hydraulic controls so there was no software involved. The pilot did, however, use the rudder "aggressively" according to the NTSB and whilst it thus was pilot error, American Airlines got a lot of the blame because he only did what he had been trained to do. AA's crew training didn't follow Airbus guides properly and Airbus had repeatedly expressed their concerns about it prior to the accident. The NTSB found out that crews had been trained in the simulator for situations which the simulator was not designed for and could not accurately simulate.
Re:LOL. (Score:4, Informative)
The 787 program was started 2-3 years after the A380, and a significantly more difficult engineering task than the 380. Airbus had the same kinds of problems Boeing did in their supply chain. Airbus had to cancel their freighter version. Both companies have massive government subsidies that the other side's government proclaim are illegal.
Boeing was obsessed with the Sonic Cruiser before the 787, which is why they ended up behind the game compared to Airbus.
Personally, my favorite plane to fly will always be the upper deck of a 747, as it creates an intimate space where you forget about all the other people on the plane. The 380 is more like to 777's stacked on top of each other. It might make sense in some markets but it is hard to believe that it will be the long-term solution.
Time will tell...
subsidies (Score:2, Informative)
And where would Airbus be without all the massive euro-subsidies?
Same place as Boeing:
Boeing could jeopardize the launch funding of the new 7E7 aircraft should it press for an investigation of government subsidies received by rival Airbus because Boeing itself has received government subsides that violate world-trade agreements, according to David Pritchard, a research associate at the Canada-United States Trade Center in the UB Department of Geography.
http://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archives/vol35/vol35n40/articles/Boeing.html
No one's hands are completely clean:
http://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+subsidies
http://www.google.com/search?q=airbus+subsidies
http://www.google.com/search?q=embraer+subsidies
http://www.google.com/search?q=bombardier+subsidies
Re:Not enough processing power on Earth?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:5, Informative)
The software was incorrect because it allowed the co-pilots inputs to physically break the aircraft. Normal certification guidelines call for the ability of a pilot to be able to have full control deflections without damaging the aircraft. The maximum speed at which that can occur is called VA or Maneuvering Speed. The AA A300 was flying well below VA at the time of the accident.
Bill
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
The really amazing thing about jet engines [...]
I was reading some Wiki articles on Boeing's jets and saw that the Boeing 777 uses the General Electric GE90 [wikipedia.org] turbofan engine. These machines are sheer marvels of technology and engineering. In addition to being the largest, the most powerful, and the longest ranged jet engine in the world, here are two facts I found particularly amazing:
And there are two of these engines on every 777. Just... wow.
Re:One of friends saw the flight... (Score:3, Informative)
Many of the posts seem to be missing a key feature of this airplane: cabin comfort. To quote from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org],
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:1, Informative)
I'm sure they could explain it perfectly well to a 6 year old.
It's the adults that wilfully refuse to understand that are the problem.
Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Informative)
You should look up some video clips of the tests that these engines go through before they're approved for use. For example, in this clip [youtube.com] you can watch the engine being put through various non-destructive tests, such as ingesting 4.5 TONS of water in one minute.
They are truly humbling machines. The most interesting videos, though, are of the destructive tests, and of actual failures.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2, Informative)
If the Russian Navy operated a 787 instead of the Kursk, their sailors wouldn't be fish food.
If your mom used a 787 instead of a dildo, she'd have no more need for black men.
Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Informative)
One little nitpick with your comment (assuming that the gist of it was that composite a/c aren't more dangerous than Al a/c): A pinhole, ok 'small hole', will not kill people. I've worked on aircraft of all sizes and shapes and none of them were air-tight. The cabin air system is perfectly capable of maintaining pressure despite pinholes or small leaks in the airframe. The vinyl decals applied to aircraft are even designed with this in mind- decals placed over pressurized areas are perforated to allow leaking air to escape.
Basically, unless someone in the cabin can feel the 300+ KTAS wind coming through a hole, you'll be fine.
Additionally, the pilots (especially) and the passengers (to a more limited extent) are provided with oxygen in the event of cabin depressurization. You won't die at 30k feet, you'll just wake up at 15k feet before the emergency landing that your woefully underpaid pilots managed to coordinate in the face of anoxia, fear, and task saturation.
-b
Re:LOL. (Score:5, Informative)
Airbus can bet whatever they want, because they won't have to deal with bankruptcy or even losses. The governments of Europe finance them.
Oh, please, let's not pretend the US government does not subsidize Boeing through contracts that only Boeing is allowed to bid for.
There is also General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. All can and do bid on military contracts, both in and out of military aircraft. They, and Boeing, make the Tier 1 contractors that pretty much everyone else has to go through when doing a bid, even if it's getting one of them to simply be a backer. There are very few contracts that are not allowed to be bid by more than one company - and those are usually illegal, and will almost always be contested by at least on of the other contractors. Usually a single bidder means something is wrong with the RFP, or the other players just don't care (which is rare).
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, IIRC that pilot was not trained by American Airlines to wag the rudder like a jackass. That was his own dumb idea and he'd been warned about it in the past.
Air crash investigations did an episode on this crash, and they were quite clear in saying that the pilot was doing exactly what AA had trained him to do, and airbus were horrified when they found out about it.
Wikipedia says pretty much the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587#NTSB_findings [wikipedia.org]
Re:This should be the new USAF tanker (Score:3, Informative)
However, the Boeing 767 is a well-proven design, and as such the conversion costs of a 767-200(ER) or 767-300(ER) into a tanker are vastly cheaper, especially since the production jigs are still in place.