Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight 278
Posted
by
kdawson
from the million-lines-of-code-on-the-wing dept.
from the million-lines-of-code-on-the-wing dept.
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.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
I still marvel at the fact that we can pack a bunch of evolved monkeys into a big steel box, fill it up with stuff that burns, cause thousands of controlled explosions every second to rotate big spin-y things and cause the contraption to soar through the air (and actually land in a controlled fashion).
Call me old-fashioned.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing can demonstrate that the plane is safe, but they can't prove it.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Boring, not at all. This is a revolutionary plane, Boeing are looking at 25% less running costs and 30% less fuel than the 767 it replaces - I would say rather an achievement, if a litttle later than advertised!
Less fuel == less pollution and greenhouse gases.
Are the airlines doing this to be nice and "Green"? Nope.Were they doing it because they were legislated to? Nope. And they're (engines makers, plane makers and airlines) always pushing for more fuel efficiency and noise reduction.
Burn less fuel saves money and it just so happens to reduce green house gases.
I think there's some sort of lessen here.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:3, Insightful)
Composites are not perfect but look at the alternative.
Aluminum is also pretty scary stuff. There are major issues with corrosion. Aluminum has some very funky physical properties compared to other metals. It has zero stress endurance which means that parts WILL crack eventually if they are not replaced regularly.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think they are a pabacea.
But when some spouts of an accusation they should back it up with SOMETHING. The poster did no such thing.
Nice making a claim and then linking to a site most people don't have access to. Bad Form.
I do happen to know about that incident.
Yes there was a design flaw, and they fixed it. Good luck and finding any vehicle that didn't have a design flaw found while building it.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and I won't trust that you didn't rape a 12 year old until you prove to me you didn't do it.
THAT's the logic he is using.'
Fact of the matter is I don't believe you raped a 12 year old no matter what people are saying about you~
Re:Yawn. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you typed your response with half your fingers on the wrong keys.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:3, Insightful)
He's voicing an opinion.
To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, he is only entitled to his opinion if it is an informed opinion.
Re:LOL. (Score:5, Insightful)
the A380 was delivered 2 years ahead of the 787
Yeah. Airbus runs a flawless operation.
"The first A380 was delivered to Singapore Airlines in October — 18 months behind schedule after billions of dollars in cost overruns for planemaker Airbus."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23689448/ [msn.com]
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because a consensus group of scientists cannot simplify a conclusion into terms that you already understand is not a valid reason for you to reject their conclusion. Attacking their methodology as being politically motivated without some concrete statement or evidence, cherry picked e-mails are not evidence. Of course, attacking their methods with ignorant, irrelevant complaints is not valid. If you want to make informed criticism of the evidence they are using, then why aren't you in graduate school right now studying to become a materials engineer or a climatologist?
Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. Because pilots are superhuman and never have to take a piss or eat something.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.
Yep, that's right. The really amazing thing about jet engines is just the materials science we had to master before we could make turbines which don't disintegrate every time you turn them on. Try to picture 6 metal wheels splined and bolted to each other with hundreds of small metal vanes on the end of them ... spinning at about 12,000 revolutions per minute while being blasted by a continues blast-furnace of 1,000+ degrees Celsius. It makes me shiver every time I think about it.
Re:ill-informed nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
The issues with composite materials are not with their strength or reliability during normal operation. The issues are predominantly with their failure modes. Much effort goes into detecting cracks and flaws before they become catastrophic. In aluminium spars and panels there are several good ways to detect cracks before their size becomes structurally significant: MK 1 eyeball, xrays, ultrasonics etc. The same tools for large composite structures are less developed in commercial circles, but they will get there. Boeing, and Aérospatiale, are acutely aware of these weakness in inspection ability and have done a lot of work to fill the gaps.
Not getting on an aircraft containing composite structures because of a perceived danger of composites is irrational if you then get in a car and drive home.
Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ill-informed nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
When aircraft aluminum fails, it shreds and tears. The end result is about the same.
Re:LOL. (Score:3, Insightful)
The A380 is a spectacular aircraft, but boeing could have done it themselves years ago with the proposes 747-500 which would stretch the upper deck to the end and widen the aircraft. They didn't because of lack of market. This is similar to the Concord. The Concord was not economically viable, but it was built anyway on the shoulders of European tax payers. Also, a spectacular technical achievement and a market failure.
The A380 probably won't be a failure, but it's doubtful it could ever get off the ground without such massive subsidies.
Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be too much additional weight.
This should be the new USAF tanker (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ill-informed nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
You would have the same outcome if racing 787's was the original objective.
Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they put a separate door for the pilots? If they would start making it physically impossible for the passengers to enter the cockpit giving each a seperate exterior door, we could get rid of a bunch of the useless security theater.
1. Only the US, Israel, and a few other countries might care. Probably half of Boeing's customers wouldn't want this arrangement, and would be fine with strengthened, locking cockpit doors.
2. Unless all in-service planes were replaced with the new aircraft, they would still have to screen everyone at the gate.
3. The whole reason we call it "security theater" is that it's not really for security. This wouldn't change anything.
Re:Yawn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:subsidies (Score:3, Insightful)
Each company has legal and financial teams of hundreds/thousands which are dedicated to "legalize" those "subsidies"