Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight 278

Posted by kdawson
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight

Comments Filter:
  • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @06:35PM (#30451118)

    If you've never had the chance to go, check out the Future of Flight museum [futureofflight.org] in Everett. It's an awe-inspiring tour of the Boeing factory where you get top-down view of the factory floor. It's the largest building in the world, with enough room to fit all of Disneyland inside. (and then you'd have 12 acres for parking)

    Cars are made on assembly lines, but planes are too large to use the same techniques. They do it anyway.

    (Sorry about any munged text here; /. previews as one character wide, 200+ down.)

  • If you just want to watch the flight with all the blah-blah in the post, this blogs video has it without much lead-time garbage. http://www.airlinereporter.com/?p=2491 [airlinereporter.com]
  • by Belial6 (794905) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @07:17PM (#30451620)
    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.
    • by dunkelfalke (91624) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @07:55PM (#30452054)

      Yeah. Because pilots are superhuman and never have to take a piss or eat something.

    • by c6gunner (950153)

      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.

      I think the pilots might complain if you take away their ability to go wee-wee and harass the flight-attendants.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TBoon (1381891)
      So you consider it totally impossible to make the pilots fly somewhere else by killing passengers and communicating by voice, possibly in front of any CCTV might be onboard? (Sure, they wouldn't fly into buildings, but that's only a tiny fraction of hi-jacking scenarios historically...) There seems to be no difference between a securely locked door and no door at all as far as security is concerned.
    • by joggle (594025)

      These are long-haul jets. A single flight crew cannot fly this thing, at least not to anywhere close its designed range. There must be a door to swap pilots and copilots.

      But even if there were no door that wouldn't have any impact on security. The reason we take our shoes off isn't because of 9/11 but because of the 'shoe bomber'--the guy that tried to blow a hole in the fuselage using a small bomb in his shoe. If you want to guard against people trying to bring the plane down (rather than taking control of

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)

      Why would you need an exterior door? Make it a double set of locking doors with CCTV to effectively make it a gate where no one can rush or sneak in and you should be all set. It won't help if you can threaten the door open but these days I think people would rather have a lethal fight in the cabin than surrender the cockpit.

    • Re: (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.

  • Looking at that flight plan [flightaware.com] makes me a bit nauseous. If all flights on the dreamliner go like that, I think I'll drive instead. That distance appears to be less than 40 miles, yet it took over 3 hours; I can do better on my bicycle. On the plus side the flight arrived over 2 hours early so I guess that wasn't too bad.
  • by schwit1 (797399) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @09:54PM (#30453078)
    Not something that was designed 30+ years ago.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MtViewGuy (197597)

      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.

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Working...