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.
Visit the plant in Everett. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
If they assemble planes using assembly line techniques, then by definition they aren't too large to assemble by assembly line techniques.
Sprooce (Score:3, Interesting)
As a Long Beach, CA resident I can tell you to go there just to see the Spruce Goose. Bastards took it from the Queen Mary down here, but it deserves to be there.
The Spruce Goose was no assembly line product, I remember standing in awe of the thing when they had it back in Long Beach and it was so beautifully lit up. Wish I could have been there to see its maiden flight though, as short as Hughes made it.
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: (Score:2)
*woosh*
The sound of a joke, over your head, joining the Mile High Club.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll come visit once you're done.
Oh yeah? Prove it.
Ahh that's fun.
Video without the Blah-Blah (Score:2, Informative)
Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be too much additional weight.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
I think I'll pass... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fowl weather terminated the flight plan early.
Ah, that explains why they landed in Lake Washington.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's nothing like a good pun. And that, sir, is nothing like one.
This should be the new USAF tanker (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Yes, but probably not the one you think it is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 leaki
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you typed your response with half your fingers on the wrong keys.
Re: (Score:2)
French planes don't fall out of the sky. They just RTB every time you turn on the auto-pilot.
Re:LOL. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Each company has legal and financial teams of hundreds/thousands which are dedicated to "legalize" those "subsidies"
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:LOL. (Score:5, Interesting)
The A380 is not a competitor or substitute for the 787. The A380 is Airbus's bold bet on hub-and-spoke flight operations, and most closely competes with the Boeing 747 series. The 787 is designed for a smaller number of passengers than the A380 while having long range options, making longer point-to-point routes possible. Airbus's answer to the 787 is the A350, which has been redesigned several times. The A350 has 505 "firm" orders, while the 787 has 840 "firm" orders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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: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...
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:Yawn. (Score:4, Funny)
Now excuse me, for I must send this package via gyrocopter to the Prussian Embassy in Siam.
Re: (Score:2)
Now excuse me, for I must send this package via gyrocopter to the Prussian Embassy in Siam.
If you can reach the Prussian embassy by gyrocopter, then you're probably in Siam already. Oh, wait...
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.
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: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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Louis CK. [youtube.com]
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Funny)
That's nothing. I'm amazed that we can make these monkeys wait in long lines, take their shoes off and subject themselves to numerous other forms of abuse for the chance to do so.
I'd have expected the feces-flinging to have started long before we reached this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Funny)
A big, really nice plane. Will wonders never cease? Oh yeah, FP.
Cynical Slashdot nerd is not impressed, set faces on stun.
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Any barrel rolls?
Wow. (Score:2)
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:2)
I wonder if it is light enough to make a ballistic parachute practical?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they said the same thing when they started using metal instead of wood ribbing and fabric.
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.
Indeed, Aluminum sucks (Score:5, Funny)
Even just crossing the atlantic, it lost an "I"
Re:Indeed, Aluminum sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But in the end, that airplane landed. IIRC, the only fatality was a flight attendant that was stsnding in the aisle when the sunroof opened.
Whether carbon fiber or aluminum failure modes are better or worse, the fact remains that aluminum (and even most current carbon fiber) airframes have been constructed out of panels up until now. Even if oe panel disintegrates, or cracks completely, the structure can be designed to accomodate the loss of that panel. What happens when a fuselage section has no seam at w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You would have the same outcome if racing 787's was the original objective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When aircraft aluminum fails, it shreds and tears. The end result is about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It has to exceed design load before the FAA will even let it fly, it's passed the design load, and they're expecting to test to ultimate load in the spring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Bil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a crew chief on a KC-135a, back in the 80's. Ours was a pretty new plane, being put in to service in 64. Sitting on the ground, the left wing was visibly lower than the right and they still allowed it to fly. Had the most on time take offs for any of the tanker fleet at Fairchild AFB in '88. Kinda' miss the old beast. Is cool that they're still seeing service.
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: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Boeing can demonstrate that the plane is safe, but they can't prove it.
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: (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:5, Interesting)
Which they've fixed [nwsource.com].
Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner on Monday successfully completed the wing test the jet failed last May, and now looks set to fly before Christmas, according to two sources familiar with the test outcome.
Engineers are still analyzing data from the repeat test and haven't yet given the official thumbs-up, but the composite fibers in the wing did not delaminate when it was bent to the same point as in the previous test, the sources said..
Again, it has to pass the design limit test before the FAA will let it fly, so since it just flown, they've proven it's safe.
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one experiment to prove something? Mathematically, sure, but we're talking about practical safety here, which can't be proven mathematically or even using extremely sophisticated computer models.
Otherwise, I've proven that...
Windows is perfectly stable.
Linux crashes all the time.
Itanium CPUs always die within the first year.
Hopping up two flights of stairs is safe.
...
Re: (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:5, Interesting)
Engineering standards of practice require, at the very least, some rough hand calculations in order to determine if the computer is sane. If your computer is trying to tell you that the capital of France is Jupiter, you want to know that it's wrong. (First-order approximations are often sufficient. Consult a local P.Eng for details.)
Ideally, you run the simulation on two different programs on two physically separate computers using different architectures. (i.e. Intel and AMD) Normally you don't do that because it's insanely time-consuming and costly. It's also the safest way to do computer modelling. (Whenever I wonder about costs, I think about answering the question of "why didn't you spend $X thousand on the simulation?" starting with, "Well, Your Honour, ...")
Nevertheless, there isn't enough processing power on the face of the earth to fully simulate the airflow over the wings of a 747. Assumptions and simplifications are made in order to get a "good enough" answer. (One of my friends crashed what was at the time the #80 supercomputer because he tried to get too fine an analysis.)
Before the plane gets FAA approval, they have to run a bunch of test flights, including several planes that get flown to destruction (and one of them goes through a "wing flex" test to see what it takes to make the wings fall off). Now, we know that Boeing wants to make these planes as cheaply as they can. It's a fact of business. cheaper plane = higher margin. They have 840 planes on order, of which the last 740 will cancel if they shave the margins closely enough to cause lift's magnitude to drop below gravity's magnitude.
Finally, if it's not a safe plane, pilots will refuse to fly it and then you'll be sitting there with a really fucking expensive tiki hut that looks like a plane.
But it'll be a TIKI HUT!!! (Score:2)
Not enough processing power on Earth?!? (Score:2)
Not enough processing power on Earth?!?
Goodyear Aerospace Corp. in the early 1980's built a 16,384 node parallel computer system that was used in modeling laminar airflow and thermal expansion over the space shuttle air frame by NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. The division was later acquired by Loral Space & Communications Ltd. in the 1980's, which was then acquired (piecemeal) by Lockheed Martin.
Here is a reference on the computer: http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/go/goodyear_mpp.htm [allexperts.com]
If you can model th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Planes are not "flown to destruction" as part of the certification process. Pilots get killed that way. (And no, you couldn't fly these things via radio control, not until very recently, and that would probably invalidate the test.) Destructive tests are performed under very specific, controlled conditions so that the engineers know the exact point of failure.. The wing flex tests that you mentioned have already been performed in 2008, though a new round of tests either was recently done or will be done
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: (Score:2)
Because it's been shown in the past that the airframe was a design failure and they had to patch it up and change the design.
I too have very little confidence in it. Until it's done with testing and proves changes are adequate.
No need to be hostile. He's voicing an opinion.
You mean the design load test the FAA requires before the plane leaves the air? Yea, it passed that. They're debating on if an ultimate load test will happen in the spring.
Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean "leaves the ground". The FAA don't require any tests before planes leave the air, that happens naturally.
Re: (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: (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:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (Score:5, Funny)
Might as well close Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I have no where else to go.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire Internet awaits you, son.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill
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:One of friends saw the flight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the dreamliner is supposed to replace the 767 and compete against the A330
and the nook upwards.
It was sold to customers as being 20% more fuel efficient than a 767 and thus slightly
besting the basic A330 specs from around 2002.
But the current implementation is about 10% overweight ( seemingly for the forseeable future )
moving it into A330 ballpark figures ( Similar empty weight ). Improved engines with better SFC are
available for the A330 as well. One reason the A330 has sold quite well in the last 2-3 years
while dreamliner sales have tanked shortly after the initial rollout 2.5 years ago
( i.e. after it was obvious that the dreamliner was a potemkin liner )
Quite a lot of customers currently seem to stay the ride more for cashing in on penalties
than actually receiving any planes later on ( The current backlog will not be satisfied before
2020/2022)
The A350XWB on the other hand is not a direct competitor to the dreamliner.
It fits above the 787 and below/into the 777 space. Which is rather typical.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus stage new types spec by spec against a competitors
distinct type but try to hit the weak spots in between with the initialy
produced version.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Well, according to TFA, All-Nippon Airways (famous for their Pokemon planes) are the first customer that will receive delivery of one...
Since this is a plane designed for small-volume, long distance flights, it's possible they might use it on one of their Japan - US routes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Being able to track your progress across the Pacific whenever you please definitely has its advantages.