Boeing To Deliver First 787 Today 366
mosb1000 writes "The era of the plastic jumbo jet has finally arrived. Boeing is delivering their first Dreamliner to All Nippon Airways today. From the article: '"Comfort and cost are concerns of the business traveller and the 787 will deliver extreme advancements in fuel efficiency and many traveller features that will improve the journey," said Michael Qualantone, senior vice president & general manager, American Express Global Business Travel. Indeed, this twin-engine, bendy winged, widebody craft has raised the bar for fuel efficiency. Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could, Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent.' I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one."
Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (Score:4, Informative)
You might be waiting a while. The B777 was in service for 14 years before one was crashed.
"bendy winged"? (Score:4, Informative)
What does that mean? Do the wings bend (in the vertical axis I suppose) more than normal? Or are they curved along the front or trailing edge?
I once read somewhere that commercial jetliner wings are unbelievably strong, they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking. I recall that they are tested this way, and that on occasion they are tested until failure (in a heavily shielded test facility I hope!).
Oh well, I'm hoping that the next generation of aircraft have transparent hulls like some forecasts I think some european group made. Then airlines could market their flights as entertainment like theme park rides.
Re:What was your point again? (Score:4, Informative)
A380 has 5000-ft cabin pressure, 787 has 6000-ft cabin pressure - so the A380 is better in this regard.
Windows on the 787 are 196.88 inches square vs "bigger" for the Airbus (I can't find the number). I doubt it makes much difference.
But why compare these two planes? They are for very different markets...
Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (Score:5, Informative)
The main delay has been quite a few things - union issues (several strikes throughout the 787s development life), manufacturing issues (subs not being able to do work right, subs not being able to do work on time, subs getting work wrong), design issues (strength issues with side-of-body wing attachment points, cracking in several spars) and performance issues (engines not yet up to contractual specific fuel consumption rates - also affecting the 747-8 as that uses the same GeNX engines).
Boeings issue was that they wanted to not only produce a revolutionary aircraft, but they wanted to do it on a tight budget and completely change the way they both designed and built the aircraft. Not a good idea to switch all three critical parts of the journey on a brand new product...
So now, they paid the price - they had to write off the first three aircraft built (OEMs never want to do that, its a several hundred million dollar decision), the next 25 or so are overweight and have engines that don't meet fuel burn (but the aircraft itself has better-than-expected aerodynamics, offsetting some of the performnace issues), and while the engine manufacturers are putting together PIPs (performance improvement packages) for the engines, those early build aircraft won't get to see them for 5 or more years.
Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:spot on (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what airlines, 32.5 does not fit into 31 especially on 12hr sectors. Now where's my lawyer?
Telling you to buy a seat you fit in, I hope. I'm taller than you and I don't go about suing car companies who make many nice cheap cars that I can't fit in - I buy a car that fits me.
Tall men have plenty of advantages in life - we have to let the little guys win once in a while.
I want to fly because of how the pressure is made (Score:5, Informative)
Both the 787 and A380 pressurize to 6,000 feet instead of the usual 8,000 feet. But the cool part is that the 787 doesn't bleed hot air from the engines as is normal. It uses a variable speed electrically driven compressor with a humidifier, heater and filters.
The 787 also has bigger windows.
The A380 really didn't introduce much new in technology, mainly built what we had bigger. The 787 is pretty radical.
Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (Score:4, Informative)
Even then, there wasn't a single fatality. The only fatality was at Denver International Airport, where someone fueling the aircraft burned to death when the fuel caught fire. He wasn't even in the plane.
Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (Score:5, Informative)
Boeings issue was that they wanted to not only produce a revolutionary aircraft, but they wanted to do it on a tight budget and completely change the way they both designed and built the aircraft. Not a good idea to switch all three critical parts of the journey on a brand new product...
There's actually historical precedence for why completely changing the build process at the same time you're coming up with a new design is a Bad Idea: during WWII the Germans designed a revolutionary new Type XXI U-boat, which was the first submarine to be faster underwater than on the surface, featured hydraulic reloading of torpedoes instead of having the crew manhandle them, etc.
Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for /us/) they had the bright idea to manufacture the new U-boats in sections and then assemble them at the dockyards, as opposed to the previous practice of building the whole thing at the factory then shipping it to the naval base. They couldn't get the tolerances tight enough so none of the Type XXI U-boats were able to sortie before the war ended, because they couldn't assemble the sections together properly.
If they'd stuck with the original build process for the XXI and perfected the new process on a new separate line of older-model U-boats, things would have been a bit more difficult for us during the late Battle of the Atlantic.