Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever  
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14812 times:

For those that may experience discomfort on long haul flights, the 787 will make some evolutionary changes to make the flying experience better. Effort is being put in to make passengers more comfortable, which hopefully will result in more passengers flying long haul and better sales. Passenger comfort is being put as a priority. Boeing has worked with one of its key suppliers, Hamilton Sundstrand, to produce an environment like no other on its latest airplane.


  • The 787 will have the cleanest air of any airplane in existance. The air will have the same microbial content of ouside air with air filters with an efficiency of 99.97%.

  • Cabin pressure will be at approximately 6,000ft compared to 8,000ft which is the current standard.

  • Humidity will be 14%, which is about twice that of current airliners. This can happen because of the composite structure having less proplems with condensation and a complex circulation system that takes dryer air out of the cabin and moves it through the lining between the cabin and exterior of the plane.

Source: Flight International
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...82/787+special+Breathe+easier.html

[Edited 2006-10-08 20:38:06]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14793 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It will be interesting to see how these benefits translate into actual use. I for one am looking forward to the extra humidity, as I drink water by the quart on a plane. Don't notice the atmosphere so much...

User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14719 times:

Interesting that Boeing is making a move with fresh air ventilation (not really mentioned here). Remember, it was Boeing who introduced the recirculated air system starting with the 757, because it saved fuel. If the 787 is all about efficiency and fuel savings, I wonder why Boeing would revert to the old way of doing things?

User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14671 times:

It's also worth noting, although I haven't noticed anybody else pointing it out, that the absolute humidity will be increased somewhat due to the lower effective pressurized altitude of the aircraft, i.e. saturated (100% RH) air at 6000' has more water vapor than saturated air at 8000'.


Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14644 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
If the 787 is all about efficiency and fuel savings, I wonder why Boeing would revert to the old way of doing things?

The HVAC systems on the 787 are electric instead of pneumatic, so fuel consumption may not apply (or the fuel needed to drive the generators is less then the fuel needed to recirculate pneumatic air).


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14580 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Thread starter):
Cabin pressure will be at approximately 6,000ft compared to 8,000ft which is the current standard.

At what cruise altitude will it achieve a cabin of 6000', i.e. what is the pressure diff ?

Was the cabin altitude lower at launch ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14564 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The HVAC systems on the 787 are electric instead of pneumatic, so fuel consumption may not apply (or the fuel needed to drive the generators is less then the fuel needed to recirculate pneumatic air).

But then the 787 is going to have two comparably large scoop-type ram air intakes feeding electric compressors for cabin air pressurization. That means added drag, maybe in the order of 1...2 cts? Will be interesting to see how all this is going to pan out.


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14564 times:

I am also dying to see to what extent these design features make REAL TIME improvment in a long range enviroment .

User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14515 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
At what cruise altitude will it achieve a cabin of 6000', i.e. what is the pressure diff ?

Was the cabin altitude lower at launch ?

The 6000' cabin altitude will be available for all cruise altitudes in the flight envelope. The differential pressure will vary depending on actual airplane altitude.

The 6000' cabin altitude was the level selected at Program launch.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineMkirch72 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14516 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Thread starter):
The 787 will have the cleanest air of any airplane in existance. The air will have the same microbial content of ouside air with air filters with an efficiency of 99.97%.


Cabin pressure will be at approximately 6,000ft compared to 8,000ft which is the current standard.


Humidity will be 14%, which is about twice that of current airliners. This can happen because of the composite structure having less proplems with condensation and a complex circulation system that takes dryer air out of the cabin and moves it through the lining between the cabin and exterior of the plane.

Boeing can tout this as much as they want, but the only real comfort improvement that most people care about is in the hands of the airlines themselves - improving the comfort and legroom of their seats. As we all know, this will never happen as they need to cram as many bodies on the plane as possible. So all this will really make zero difference for the average passenger when trying to decide which airline to fly.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 6):
But then the 787 is going to have two comparably large scoop-type ram air intakes feeding electric compressors for cabin air pressurization.

I don't know where the system will draw it's air from, but it evidently isn't impacting 787 performance since nobody has brought it up as a negative...  Smile


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14459 times:

Quoting Mkirch72 (Reply 9):
Boeing can tout this as much as they want, but the only real comfort improvement that most people care about is in the hands of the airlines themselves - improving the comfort and legroom of their seats. As we all know, this will never happen as they need to cram as many bodies on the plane as possible. So all this will really make zero difference for the average passenger when trying to decide which airline to fly.

Altough space does have an impact it isnt the only factor which results in comfort , I want higher humidity and I beleive that given an option between (higher and lower)most would too , Same thing with clean air , larger bins , mood lighting etc etc ultimately the goal is to make the JOURNEY far more pleasant for the passenger which these features aboard the 787 and a350 do !


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 14425 times:

Quoting Mkirch72 (Reply 9):
Boeing can tout this as much as they want, but the only real comfort improvement that most people care about is in the hands of the airlines themselves - improving the comfort and legroom of their seats. As we all know, this will never happen as they need to cram as many bodies on the plane as possible. So all this will really make zero difference for the average passenger when trying to decide which airline to fly.

Well the airlines do have some incredibly comfortable seats on board their planes. First and Business class are quite comfortable and airlines really care about those passengers. If an airline can advertise that they have higher humidity and higher pressure on their flights on the brand new 787, then they might have a competitive advantage.

Sure economy passengers will still suffer on long haul flights, but long haul flights will still be less of a strain on the body. This is true for everyone on board including first class, business class, flight attendants and pilots. It will be a better plane to work on. Everyone will feel better after a long 12 hour flight, which will overall be a good thing. Improved comfort will be nice even though it still will be difficult for those in economy.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAnneTooh From United Arab Emirates, joined Oct 2005, 32 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14278 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
Interesting that Boeing is making a move with fresh air ventilation (not really mentioned here). Remember, it was Boeing who introduced the recirculated air system starting with the 757, because it saved fuel. If the 787 is all about efficiency and fuel savings, I wonder why Boeing would revert to the old way of doing things?



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The HVAC systems on the 787 are electric instead of pneumatic, so fuel consumption may not apply (or the fuel needed to drive the generators is less then the fuel needed to recirculate pneumatic air).

In general you can put it pretty simple:

The pressurization of the 787 will be achieved by electrically driven compressors (?). In case they are shaft driven from the engine gear box it will be the same principle, some degree of power is taken off the rotating engine.

The recirculation fans are electrically driven. So there is no difference in how the power for them is produced.

Nowadays they use compressed air taken out of the engine before it gets into the combustion chamber. That however increases the required flow of air quite a bit and reduces the engines effectivity far more because the stoichiometric (ideal) air / fuel ratio in the combustion chamber is negatively affected. With no bleed air taken it will be possible to have this ratio and thus the engine performance always at the optimum level for the required power / thrust output.

So if you then have to decide whether to recirculate air or whether you supply only fresh air and both would happen with the same amount of energy, why not dump the old air and get fresh air only? Performance is not affected since it's the same amount of (electrical or electrical in combination with mechanical) power requirement.

The really critical question will be how much the engine manufacturer will be able to optimize the engine with no bleed air and how reliable the compressors will be. I can only assume that they use a principle that guarantees pressurized air as long as any engine is running with a kind of fail safe idea. Perhaps radial compression?

In general I assume that it will be hard to tell the difference right away as a passenger on board but in combination with the lower cabin altitude I think that you will feel a lot fresher at the end of your journey, not necessarily knowing what you owe it to.

And then, just not to let you think I know all this for sure: That's all just an educated guess. Details are to be asked directly from Boeing...


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2502 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14203 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I for one am looking forward to the extra humidity, as I drink water by the quart on a plane.

I couldn't agree more with you on this point. The lower pressurization level should also help young children who often have trouble clearing their ears (which leads to crying!).

777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14095 times:

But why are the long haul flights I take today announced as having 7000 feet cabin pressure instead of 8000. You don't hear these announcements all that much these days, but in the early jet age they were routine. 707s, DC8s and Comet IVs and VC-10s all had 7000 feet. Concorde was announced at 6000 feet on the few occasions I can remember.

That aside, I like the sound of the cleaner air. As for humidity retention on board, that is all about other people's arm pits and perspiration. Thank goodness for the hepa filters they are using.

If the diagram of an interior in Flight International recently is any guide, this isn't going to be much of a spacious experience, although I'm sure the airlines will not install the miserably tight looking premium cabin seating you can glimpse.

I'd really like to see Qantas use the 787-3 for its Cityflyer 767 replacements, since that seems to give shareholders a lighter more fuel efficient jet than the -8, and I'm sure it will offer far better amenity than anything else we are likely to see in the next 10 years, perhaps supported by the larger Embraers which are the subject of so many elusive rumors concerning Qantaslink and Virgin Blue.

Antares


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13911 times:

Quoting AnneTooh (Reply 13):
The pressurization of the 787 will be achieved by electrically driven compressors (?). In case they are shaft driven from the engine gear box it will be the same principle, some degree of power is taken off the rotating engine.

It will be electric pumps and not shaftpower from the gearbox from the engine.

Don't forget that inefficiencies always exist. Pneumatic power does not have the same efficiency as electric power in these cases, so less energy is wasted by using electricity. Power generation is usually only about 30% efficient, but the electrical generators on the 787 are the most advanced ever made.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13818 times:

I fly long-haul from time to time, always in coach. The 787's air filtration sounds nice, but the rest is almost meaningless compared to better seat pitch and more comfortable seats. Having to pay 3-6x the cost of my coach ticket is what prevents me from buying an F or J ticket.


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13511 times:

Quoting AnneTooh (Reply 13):

Thanks, I like the technical explanation there.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13320 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The HVAC systems on the 787 are electric instead of pneumatic, so fuel consumption may not apply (or the fuel needed to drive the generators is less then the fuel needed to recirculate pneumatic air).

That has yet to be proven. Airbus says there isnt enough weight/ fuel efficiency gain in a bleedless system over a normal pneumatic. However i assume it will be easier maintaining a bleedless system.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Thread starter):
* Cabin pressure will be at approximately 6,000ft compared to 8,000ft which is the current standard.

* Humidity will be 14%, which is about twice that of current airliners. This can happen because of the composite structure having less proplems with condensation and a complex circulation system that takes dryer air out of the cabin and moves it through the lining between the cabin and exterior of the plane.


Old news, not really interesting facts about the 787.  bored 



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineMMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13089 times:

why is everyone so "excited" about the new comforts of the 787? Airlines are still going to cram 17" wide seats @ 31" pitch in the back where most of us sit. Until they can figure out a way for more space and still make money (or I can afford the big dollars to sit in the front section) I doubt I'll be any more comfortable in a new 787 than I am in a 777, 330, 340 etc.

User currently offlineKoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12997 times:

I'm joking, but maybe you should re-baptise yourself Rose-tinted! (I mean no offence,)

The 787 promises to be the least comfortable aircraft I can imagine for the poor folk stuck in Economy Class. Just as the A380 is going to have extra seats, not bowling alleys, the B787 is generally going to have 10 economy passengers per row, which is going to be uncomfortable at 3-4-3 instead of 3-3-3.

When even Qantas opted for 3-4-3, I realised that the 787 is going to be an absolute nightmare.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9643 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12799 times:

Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 20):
I'm joking, but maybe you should re-baptise yourself Rose-tinted! (I mean no offence,)

The 787 promises to be the least comfortable aircraft I can imagine for the poor folk stuck in Economy Class. Just as the A380 is going to have extra seats, not bowling alleys, the B787 is generally going to have 10 economy passengers per row, which is going to be uncomfortable at 3-4-3 instead of 3-3-3.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I don't think I'll fly the 787 much in economy since at least now, my long haul travel has all been in first and business class. I know most don't get that luxury, but the 787 will cater very well to people that do sit up front.

Also like I said, these benefits will also help the crews. And afterall, at least it is a small improvement for economy passengers. Sure it will be the same miserable seat, but at least the environment might be just a tad bit nicer.

I haven't heard of 10 abreast in the 787. I have only heard talk about 8 or 9 abreast seating. Is it wide enough for 10 abreast? Very few airlines put 10 abreast in the 777, and it is wider than the 787 will be.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMkirch72 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12673 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 12):
Sure economy passengers will still suffer on long haul flights, but long haul flights will still be less of a strain on the body. This is true for everyone on board including first class, business class, flight attendants and pilots. It will be a better plane to work on. Everyone will feel better after a long 12 hour flight, which will overall be a good thing. Improved comfort will be nice even though it still will be difficult for those in economy.

I couldn't disagree more!

Unless you are 4'11, the only thing you will be thinking about during a long haul flight is how uncomfortable you are in your seat.

If the airlines want to advertise to the filthy rich about their improved humidity - fine. I hope it works for them. For the average Joe stuck in economy, he's not going to give a darn about the increased humidity.

And unless you're filthy rich, or have elite status, you won't be flying in those comfy seats up front. Lest we forget - the majority of people on a plane are in coach, not first/business.

My point is -- for the average person, this is not going to matter at all. For the person who can afford first/business on long-haul, maybe.


User currently offlineMkirch72 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12647 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 17):
I fly long-haul from time to time, always in coach. The 787's air filtration sounds nice, but the rest is almost meaningless compared to better seat pitch and more comfortable seats. Having to pay 3-6x the cost of my coach ticket is what prevents me from buying an F or J ticket.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 22):
Also like I said, these benefits will also help the crews. And afterall, at least it is a small improvement for economy passengers. Sure it will be the same miserable seat, but at least the environment might be just a tad bit nicer.

Oh - thank you so much for our increased humidity!! That has made me completely forget about the metal tray table supports jammed into the soft of my knees -- or the fact that my legs have gone numb because I can't move them for lack of seat pitch. Or my stiff neck and back ache. Let's not forget my sore backside from that lush half inch of cushioning.

Thank you so much for turning my nightmare into a humid heaven!!!


25 Post contains images Rpaillard : Hi, Don't want to break the Party there but that basically false. The 787 will not have best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever. I call it a big PR joke. Just tak
26 Brendows : Let's put it this way: the cabin environment on the 787 may become be the best ever, what the level of comfort will be is up to the airlines when the
27 Koruman : There seems to be some disagreement too as to whether the 787 will offer great luxury for First and Business class passengers like Rose. If you look a
28 Rpaillard : No, really no. 787 will never become the Best Ever. Well, maybe in VIP configuration/Business Jet but never on PAX configuration. I give my full supp
29 Bringiton : Seating is one aspect of making flight better and is upto the airlines , however reducing jet lag goes a long way in giving a better experience to the
30 BandA : so does all of this mean that I wont get a dry-nose in a 787? if so, then to me this makes a lot of difference, even if everything else remains the sa
31 Post contains links JayinKitsap : The airlines decide on what is the seat configuration and what seats are being used. Referring to Seat Guru http://seatguru.com/charts/intl_economy.ph
32 Kiwiandrew : I was unaware that QF , or any other airline for that matter , had yet released internal layouts for their 787s - do you have a source for this ?
33 Antares : Again, a query about cabin pressure. Has Boeing moved the marker to look better. When cabin pressure is announced these days it is usually 7000 feet,
34 Brendows : Mark, with: I was thinking of the cabin pressure, humidity, air quality etc, and NOT how the seats are arranged (since Boeing doesn't decide how the
35 RJ111 : Which is an increase in pressure of 11% and not 25% as might be interpreted. If you take 7000 feet as the standard then the increase is 5%. Still, 5%
36 Joni : Any info about the noise level?
37 Tod : The current FAA type design maximum is 8000. Ref: 14CFR25.841 Few airline operate right at the maximum. Most domestic flights that I've traveled vary
38 Post contains images Stitch : Because even if we end up "crammed" in the back in 3+3+3 at least we won't be so dried out and breathing as hard. I find that statement to be bollock
39 Baroque : Can you explain that? I can see they need a back up but not sure what your are suggesting that it is. Yes it will, but it will be a great selling poi
40 Mkirch72 : Look at the title of the thread. "Best cabin air/comfort ever". Now I may be a simpleton, but I have never heard anyone in my life say, "Boy - this c
41 Post contains images Tod : Even Y pax can experience dehyration. In fact cabin humidity is even more valuable to the Y pax than F or J during a long flight. When you are up fro
42 Post contains links Areopagus : I think he meant the required electrical power would come from generators that take engine shaft power. A little more of Boeing's take on that can be
43 Post contains images Lemurs : Boeing has quoted a study they've done that shows the biggest bang for the buck in terms of avoiding altitude induced discomfort/sickness is 6,000ft.
44 Areopagus : I suspect that carbon fiber's increased tensile strength relative to buckling strength (please correct me if that's wrong) means that the structure wi
45 Mkirch72 : But when discussing overall comfort of a cabin, it wouldn't even come up. It may be a secondary concern, but my point with my original posting was th
46 RoseFlyer : While I understand your point, I still think these advancements are good. To compare some of the 787 improvements to another real life example, take
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 To Have Maintenance 'guarantees' posted Wed Feb 23 2005 22:49:44 by Keesje
Is Boeing Going To Have A 2 Floor Plane? posted Fri Apr 6 2001 04:44:02 by Lukino99
HK Air Firm 30 737/787; To Launch London Flight posted Thu Nov 2 2006 06:45:24 by Jimyvr
Boeing Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 04:26:05 by Coelacanth
If Boeing Decide To Do 787-10 Does That Mean? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 21:38:19 by AirCanada014
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
Air New Zealand Launches Boeing 787-9 posted Fri May 12 2006 00:52:43 by Singapore_Air
Boeing Market 787 To MEA posted Mon May 8 2006 18:35:36 by Raffik
Did FedEx Ever Operate Boeing 727 To Europe? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 12:47:41 by Vfw614
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua