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."
Hopefully (Score:2)
it goes smoother than the delivery of the 747-8 a week or two ago. Sort of embarrassing to have your first delivery customer refuse delivery.
I'm sure that won't be the case, though, as Cargolux seems to have been acting at the behest of the new parent company in an effort to get further reduced rates on the 787; Japan has too much invested in the 787 project for ANA to play games like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Make that the launch customer, and another customer canceling three 747-8s because of weight and performance issues...
Not a great week or two in the 747-8s year :(
For those who need a car analogy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but let's hope it's not analogous to the AMC Pacer [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (Score:3)
The countless delays just lead me to think that there were too many problems with this new design or application of technology.
Delays Equal Good Testing (Score:2)
A great way to get innovative technology into use without delay is to test it too little.
Would you want to fly in the airplane equivalent of KDE 4.0 or the first Unity Ubuntu desktop?
Seeing as how Airbus has been selling a lot during the 787 development I get the feeling that Boeing actually gets lots of integrity points out of all this.
Ah but what about DNF (Score:2)
Yes, there is rushed development and then there is long delayed development where somehow they can't figure it out and someone decides to launch it just to get it out of the door. Like say, a shuttle launch. No matter what the engineers say.
Boeing has killed a lot of people with stupid design flaws and cost cuttings, most aircraft companies have. Lets wait a bit to see if this will be a turkey or an eagle.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, this says nothing about boeing, but here's an example:
On an ERJ-140, prior to more recent planes (or those fixed) you could blow the APU compressor right out of the tail of the craft by accidentally pushing two buttons (inches apart from each other) in at the same time (bleed air from the engines - enable both and BOOM!).
Sure it wouldn't crash the plane, but still... prime example of a stupid design flaw.
(buttons to either side of item 4 in this mockup/sim-panel [textcube.com])
Re: (Score:2)
Aeronautical engineers involved with civillian passenger aircraft seem to have an appropriately conservative attitude about risk. That doesn't mean that there won't be problems when they try to innovate, but I have a hard time imagining that the 787 will actually go into commercial service without thorough vetting. Its still a new design, of course, and problems will be discovered and fixed once the aircraft are in regular use.
It may be less safe than, say, an older model with more real world use, or a ne
Re: (Score:3)
Doing anything strategic in aviation with terrorists in mind is IMHO retarded. I don't think that having reinforced cockpit doors falls anywhere near big-scale strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right. After looking into how much they shook up the old design process, I'm not getting in one until they've flown a few thousand times.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't be long then before they've flown a few thousand times, Boeing passed the 1,000 flights mark earlier this year just in its test phase...
Re: (Score:2)
Shrug. Better too late than too soon.
Plastic? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there was graphene odds are that it would still be embedded in epoxy. So the term plastic would work. The truth is that this is a "composite" but the world seems to believe that there is only four solds. plastic, metal, glass, and wood. Funny thing is that this is composites are a lot like wood and some of them will even use balsa as a core.
Re:Plastic? I think you are mistaken... (Score:2)
No graphene anywhere in this (or any other) plane. You are confusing something.
The composite material are carbon fibers (essentially burned nylon), not graphene, nanotubes, buckyballs or anything similarly exotic. This is then drenched in polymer resin and backed. The polymer resin is the heaviest component in the overall composition.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck guinea pigs! (Score:3, Insightful)
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Every flight for guinea pigs (Score:3)
No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while. More aircraft have probably gone down to pilot error, mechanic error, or management (ex lack of proper maintenance) than have gone down to designer error. That said, being a guinea pig for the airlines is safer than being a potential target for an idiot on the highway. Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet
Yeah, we call him the "test pilot".
Re: (Score:2)
Mom's basement isn't necessarily safe either, don't forget about carbon monoxide poisoning and exposure to radon. Not to mention what happens if you're trapped down there when there's a sudden flood. http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Woman-dies-in-flooded-basement-1222646.php [seattlepi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, using his logic, the only planes/airlines he'll never fly on are the perfectly safe ones. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while.
He said nothing of the kind. A sensible reading of his comment is that until there has been at least one failure there is a significant risk that there are undetected problems with the aircraft. Given the novelty of the design this is not unreasonable at all.
I know /. no longer has many actual technical people on it, but any technical person should know that the first million hours of 787 flights have a very high probability of revealing more and more significant issues than the second million hours, and
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.
Re: (Score:2)
12, not 14.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38 [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3)
Pick your aircraft well then, since there is a new version coming off the production lines practically every week (changes to materials, changes to structural members, enhancements to the FBW systems, enhancements to the aerodynamics packages etc etc etc. An aircraft launched in the 1980s is not built to the same designs today - there are a lot of differences...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he took out a huge traveler's insurance policy (or his wife did)?
It will high tech and modern (Score:2)
Yet it will probably still have the outdated "No Smoking Signs".
Re: (Score:3)
Most smokers seem to have to be reminded that they're not allowed to smoke by frequent, visible, almost obnoxious signs. Even then sometimes they forget....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard the new signs have a xenon flash illuminating them...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Borderline psychotic is blowing out stinky carcinogenic gasses and particulates for innocents to breath. Borderline psychotic is endangering other families in a townhouse or apartment building by going to sleep smoking. Borderline psychotic is throwing butts out a window by fields in a drought. And just look at how they act when they can't get their nicotine fix, many go over the borderline at that point. Why accommodate people like that in any way? They should be banned from having health insurance or
So, what are your vices? (Score:3)
I'd like to do a "borderline psychotic" rant based on your vices, or those you approve of.
No, I do not smoke.
Re: (Score:3)
What brush fires are going to be started by a smoker putting his butts out in an ashtray in a bar?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because its not illegal to smoke onboard an aircraft in many countries, although the airline may still ban smoking themselves.
Cap'n Tex (Score:3)
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.
"Why, this thing is so dang light, I could prolly fly it with the engines off. I think I'll try..."
"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: (Score:2)
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!).
In fact, if you have seen a video online of an airplane having it's wings touch, you've seen the 787 test of this. It would surprise me if other planes have achieved the same level of flexibility.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the 787 wings never touched in the bend test.
Re:"bendy winged"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, the 787s wings bend a heck of a lot more than contemporary aircraft, because they are largely composite structures with a lot of bending strength (non-composite wings have to have a lot of rigidity in them because bending too much weakens the structures).
Aircraft wings are bend tested to a minimum of 150% maximum expected bend (so they take it to the maximum amount of bend you will ever see in an aircraft, and go past that point by another 50% - trust me, if you ever get near the 100% mark, you are already going to be unconscious in the cabin...).
The 787 made it to the 150% mark, and well beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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!).
There's quite a bit of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical inside an airplane wing, plus fuel. I doubt it's all that flexible.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the video of the 787 destructive wing break test: video [youtube.com]. Nowhere close to touching. Looks like they broke at about 20 degrees above the horizontal.
Re: (Score:3)
Do the wings bend (in the vertical axis I suppose) more than normal?
Yes, 787 wings appear to flex more than conventional airliner wings. It reminds me of a composite sailplane. Here [youtube.com] is a nice video of the plane and its wings flexing.
they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking
Wings are just metal or composites, not magic. They are rather strong, however. Here [youtube.com] is somewhat dramatic video of the 787 wing tested to failure.
transparent hulls ... entertainment like theme park rides
Most passengers are work-a-day schlubs that want to sleep or work and pay as little as possible for the trip. The extra cost and drama probably won't be welcome beyond certain niches.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to see through all the baggage will be a neat trick. The stewardesses are going to be miffed about having to Windex the floors between each flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Made In China - outsourcing issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonder if the Chinese subcontractors cut some corners ro quality to make a little more money? or the other foreign subcontractors who make up 30% of the craft?
Re:Made In China - outsourcing issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonder if the Chinese subcontractors cut some corners ro quality to make a little more money? or the other foreign subcontractors who make up 30% of the craft?
30% foreign subcontracting? Japan alone accounts for 35%,although I'm not sure if that is measured by value, weight, or what. When you fly in a 787, you will be flying on Japanese wings (made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, no less - no need for self-sealing fuel tanks on a civilian airliner, thank goodness).
Boeing seems to be working hard at becoming an aircraft assembler more than an aircraft builder. Probably necessary in order to compete in the future with other manufacturers, really , but a hard pill to swallow for Boeing aficionados (and unions). A large part of the delays to the 787 project have had as much to do with completely rearranging their business model as with difficulties in design.
Wait for the -9 (Score:2)
The 787-8 is over-weight. That's understandable on a brand new design, but the 787-9 is in the wings (sorry) and will offer a longer airplane at the same weight. Many airlines are switching their orders from the -8 to the -9 since the 787 is supposed to be about efficiency, and the -9 is more so.
Speaking of which, as a bonus the 787 has a bleedless engine (more efficient), which means by side-effect that the cabin won't be filled with air that's been warmed by flowing through the engines. You can get all
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see the -9 stretch being offered at the same OEW (operational empty weight) as the -8, no way at all, so if you didn't mean that can you clarify which weight you meant (MTOW - nope, MFEW - again nope...)?
Re: (Score:3)
It was in one of the articles about the 787-8 delivery. The -8 had unexpected weight problems. The -9 is currently spec'ed on WP as being 6 tons heavier. The article said that Boeing now expected that the -8's weight problems had been solved, and the technology would be first delivered in the -9, making the first -9 an equivalent weight to the -8. Then the newer -8's would receive the weight reductions after that (which would make the -9's heavier again).
About time... (Score:2)
Its about time we hear about great advancement in fuel efficiency for planes...now maybe we can start seeing cheaper fares
Re: (Score:2)
The fuel efficiency doesn't offset the increase in costs of fuel and taxes tho...
Re: (Score:3)
Its about time we hear about great advancement in fuel efficiency for planes...now maybe we can start seeing cheaper fares
I would expect that the best we can hope for is that fares won't rise as rapidly as they would have otherwise.
Now if we can get the EPA to butt out of CO2 regulation, which was never any of their business in the first place, we might still be able to fly in 5 years.
Slow (Score:2)
New modern airliners, only they are so slow compared to what was available in the 1970s...
If I'm flying a long distance, i'd rather get there in half the time than sit for hours, even if the environment is more comfortable. Time spent travelling is time wasted.
Bring back Concorde!
Or better yet, surely technology has improved since the 1970s that we could build something *faster* than Concorde.
Sadly, the market isn't there (Score:3)
Boeing was working on the Mach 0.98 Sonic Cruiser, but the airlines shot it down, desiring lower operating costs instead of more speed. I doubt an SST is anywhere in the near future.
But at least a lot of tech for that went into the 787. So instead of getting more speed, we got the same speed but much more efficiency.
Direct flights. (Score:3)
Part of the concept of the 787 is that it will reduce travel time by offering more direct flights. Hence the plane holds just 250 people but has a range of 8000 miles.
HOPEFULLY (Score:3)
Huh? (Score:3)
From TFA:
Economy class will see some luxury additions, with a bar, female-only lavatories and Panasonic entertainment on demand for every passenger.
Female-only lavatories? - How can that be a good thing - in general that is. There are at least 50% men on a flight, and unless they also add some men-only toilets, they actually reduce the number of toilets available to more than half the passengers. The women can use them all but the men can't. That's neither fair nor a good thing. Besides, unless it is done for purely androphobic reasons, they won't benefit much. Women can just as easily make a mess, throw up or whatever as men. The pee on the floor issue can easily be prevented by installing sensors that pick up if you pee on the floor and if triggered locks the door and summons a flight attendant. She'll let you out and you'll then be given the choice of cleaning up yourself or be billed for it.
Something completely different... I just watched the first episode of the new show "Pan Am" and really enjoyed the amazing recreation of the time period and its technology. What really struck me was the beautiful experience it seems to have been to fly back then. People dressed nice (both the passengers and the crew) and were treated with respect all the way, both at the airport and on the plane.
We so badly need that these days. It's a disaster that a few stupid terrorists have made us accept to be treated like 2nd grade cattle. After all, none of the security measures currently in place (the security theater) at the airports really work (they miss like 60-80% of test items) and the highly invasive porn scanners or the equally invasive grope-search doesn't change much. Security shouldn't be a last minute thing at the airport; potential terrorists should be stopped long before they even get near an airport. I mean, currently nothing prevents a suicide bomber from lining up in the security queue and then detonate his bomb at the checkpoint. He'll still kill a lot of people who are packed there exactly because morons like him should be deterred from trying to get the bomb on the plane. If we didn't search people there, but stopped the moron while he was assembling his bomb instead, only the bomber would be a casualty if he detonated early.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
wait, I thought calling them Nips was non-PC these days?!!
Also, remember that "All Nippon Airways" isn't some English translation; that is the official name of the airline given by the Japanese. Nippon is one of the older western-translations of the country's name "Nihon".
Re: (Score:3)
The A380 has greater cabin air pressure and larger windows (...) [wikipedia.org].
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:I want to fly because of how the pressure is ma (Score:4, Interesting)
Both the 787 and A380 pressurize to 6,000 feet instead of the usual 8,000 feet.
I heard this on the news today and paused to consider how, since my house is at 7,500 feet, the new pressurization is likely to leave me feeling *more* invigorated when I'm in the air than I'll feel when I land.
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: (Score:3)
Because some people get snotty about a European aircraft vs an American aircraft. Stupid isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for a little nationalist rivalry (otherwise what fun would soccer or the Olympics be?), but comparing two completely different airplanes seems a little screwy. The closest thing Boeing makes to the A380 is the refreshed 747, though they don't make anything quite that large - nor do they plan to. The closest thing Airbus makes to the 787 is the A340, though they don't make anything as small as the 787 with that kind of range - nor do they plan to.
Where they compete directly is the 737/A319/A320, 767/
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A380 has 5000-ft cabin pressure, 787 has 6000-ft cabin pressure
Well, duh, that's because the A380 uses PAL and the 787 uses NTSC.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends how you look at it - the A380 has some of the largest composite structures ever used in the aviation industry, and tonne-to-tonne each A380 contains more composites than a 787.
I see it as "how much do you depend on them?" (Score:4, Interesting)
About the only important place the A380 uses composites is in the wing box, and it's about 20% by weight overall. The rest is just bits here and there to save weight, a chunk of fuselage here, a chunk of wing there.
The 787 uses composites almost everywhere, and depends on them for complete structural integrity. , Composites in a 787 are 50% by weight, 80% by volume, so you look at a 787, only about 1/5 of what you see is metal.
The situation is understandable, since when Boeing started talking about making a mostly composite plane, Airbus was pretty much dismissing the idea. At the time they'd only gone as far with serious use as the vertical stabiliser and rudder and the A330.
This was a huge risk by Boeing that delayed the project several times. I'm glad to see it finally coming through.
Re:I see it as "how much do you depend on them?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, as if the A380s structural integrity isn't dependent on the floor beams, or the pressure bulkheads or anything like that. And the entire tail of the aircraft is just "a chunk of fuselage" and not important at all.
And having followed the 787 very closely during the past 5 years, none of the delays have been down to the use of composites itself - they've all had other causes.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference (compared to older planes) lies more into the passenger's comfort (see above), fuel consumption, noise etc... than into the size of the planes.
Re: (Score:3)
... a 380 which uses some carbon-fiber in certain areas.
Certain areas like the central wing box, the tail, the leading edges, the central fuselage, etc?
There's not much there that would need a "different architecture", right...? You talk like they just changed a couple of doors or something.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Airbus_A380#Advanced_materials [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Looking at the two wiki pages, I'd say there's nothing 'nearly' about it -
787-8: 210-250(242 typical airline)
787-9: 250-290(280)
A380: 525-853(525)
Going by minimum seatings, the 787 carries less than half. Going by max cattle car arrangements, the A380 carries nearly 3 times the passangers.
Comparing new features is a good thing, but there are different structural issues between a single floor 787 and a two floor A380. That doesn't change that they're both targeting what are, in the end, very different mark
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes sending one peon to a place like India or China is vastly more cost effective for a business than just ranting at them over the internet.
Re:in an era of (Score:4, Insightful)
telecommunications and the internet, are these things really all that relevant to international business? I cant imagine they serve any other purpose than airborne cattle-cars for the unwashed in economy class, and exotic chariots of booze and decadence for wealthy elite.
Funny that humans seem to really want to interact with other humans rather than some simulacrum. If you think this desire for person to person contact just results in an 'unwashed economy class' or 'booze and decadence' I think you need to get out more often.
Basements aren't a very healthy place to spend your entire life.
Re:in an era of (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some things that can't be done via telepresence. Like it or not, business almost always boils down to personal connections. This is especially true outside of North America. In Europe and Asia, it can take years to build a relationship between a vendor and customer to the point where the customer will be willing to spend significant amounts of money. However, once you've built that relationship, you'll need to do a lot to lose that business.
By the same token, telepresence doesn't let you turn a wrench or otherwise get your hands onto equipment. Not everything has a command line or a web interface, and even those that do occasionally fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that pretty much covers it. As to the impact to business, how do you think modern IT personnel travel to Headquarters from their home country for meetings?
Re: (Score:3)
Seating may not be better, but the air will be at least. Higher air pressure, higher humidity, dedicated intake compressors, and sophisticated filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
Comfort is not a function of the plane but of the number of seats the airlines cram in. So, hands up anyone who thinks that, in a Dreamliner, as opposed to any other plane, you will actually be able to reach your economy class seat without advanced contortionism.
This all depends on the airline. Air Canada, for example, runs a 32" seat pitch on most of their aircraft, with a minimum pitch of 31". TBH, I'm 6'2" and fly some 120,000 miles a year. About the only aircraft I really have trouble with is CRJ-100s and the other tiny puddle jumpers. (That said, I love turboprops).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to see where Boeing are getting a lot of the 787 from, if you think its American...
Wings from Japan, fuselage pieces from Europe, major assemblies from China and Korea, design packages in Russia... hell, the large composite rear pressure bulkhead is made by EADS, the owner of Boeings largest competitor Airbus!
The cry to "fly American" (and it is actually one you hear a lot) really ignores the direction in which Boeing is going for a lot of its production...
Re: (Score:2)
As silly as it sounds, I do. I fly Southwest as often as I can when traveling on business. All 737's of slightly varying generations. It also helps that southwest's business practices (No bag fees for up to two bags, no assigned seats) don't completely suck ass like other airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Army UH-72 Lakota, Coast Guard HH-65 Dolphin and HC-144 Ocean Sentry at least partially disprove your military statement. We can expand the list further if we include license-built airframes, such as the Harrier and Goshawk trainer.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he knows more about their maintenance department than he's willing to semi-publicly state.
A brand new composite is about as trustworthy as a brand new metal component.
After 20 years of good maintenance, I'd trust them both about equally.
After 20 years of neglect, I'd trust a metal component rather than composite. People have been beating the heck out of metal for longer than plastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently you've never been familiar with the usual humidity levels in a plane. 12%. Ever spend regular time in a climate with 12% humidity?
The 787 will allow them to up that level a bit allowing them to move out of the Atacama. Reason humidity is normally kept so low is (a) there's just no water at 35,000 ft and (b) damp conditions ruin metal, of which every other plane is mostly made of.