Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B787 - What It Was And What It Became  
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10132 times:

I just stumbled across the following picture.
I am sure loads of you did knew that, nevertheless, I haven't seen the "original" 787 projection ever before.

http://727.assintel.com.br/proj/787_02.jpg

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCitrusCritter From Pitcairn Islands, joined May 2007, 1104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10128 times:

I like that one better. Though it sure looks like it should have just been the 717-300.


TLH
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10011 times:

That's just some artists projection, not from Boeing.

Boeing was not looking to replace the 727 in 2001, especially post 9/11 2001. The 757 was the plane they were considering replacing, and not with a twin tail mounted low BPR engine design.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMeta From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9964 times:



Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 1):
I like that one better. Though it sure looks like it should have just been the 717-300.

Thats exactly what I thought at first. However, I think the new version is much better. That plane did not look like a widebody aircraft at all.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9930 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe it can be the "big sister" to this?



User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9913 times:

G´day

The twin 727, or shall we call it the 727-800 to use present day terminology.

It might fly today as a cheap twin engine development of the 727, were it not for the A 320. It may have beaten the Douglas Commercial Nine Eighty (DC9-80, later called the MD 80) at the time in economics, but then again that is history now.

In a way this became the 757 when Boeing decided (or was asked to) to wing mount the engines.

As to why the thing was supposedly called 787 looks a bit fishy to me, at the time the next in sequence was the 757 followed by the 767, with the 777 still being far off. Also winglets were not exactly fashionable at the time. May be a potential Chinese customer with their association of luck to the number 8 was looking seriously into this.  Wink



Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9895 times:



Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 5):
As to why the thing was supposedly called 787 looks a bit fishy to me

It wasn't. Check the date, of November 2001, and you'll see the next in line was the 787. But the concept is just not from Boeing, as Boeing was not looking to replace the 727 in 2001! They hadn't delivered that model for 17 years...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9708 times:

That image is nothing more than a photoshop done by some guy on a model site. It is not a representative of anything Boeing ever was considering or was planning on building. Here's the link:
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...what-if-giving-new-life-727-a.html

The 787 has always been a widebody, wing-mounted engine design.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineKAA330 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9212 times:

ok, that pic is sooo silly!

User currently offlineTonymctigue From Ireland, joined Feb 2006, 1944 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That looks like an MD 80 with winglets. Still though, it is a nice looking AC but the whole rear mounted T-tail design like the trijet has become a thing of the past so I doubt the 787 was ever intended to look like this. If this picture was in fact produced by Boeing, it was probably one of several different options that were circulated within the company, never intended to be be seen by anyone other than Boeing engineers.


Next Flights: 27/06/14 CX 178 MEL-HKG; 28/06/14 CX 830 HKG-JFK; 04/07/14 EI 134 BOS-SNN
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9136 times:



Quoting Tonymctigue (Reply 9):
If this picture was in fact produced by Boeing

IT WASN'T. It is a concept idea by some fanboy of the 727 in 2001 for a model aircraft website forum. That's all. It's NOT up for debate. The 787 was never this. Ever. Period.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9113 times:



Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 5):
May be a potential Chinese customer with their association of luck to the number 8 was looking seriously into this.

I don't believe this has ever significantly factored into aircraft numbering. If it did, Boeing would NEVER have considered 747-400 as a name, since "744" has rather disasterous connotations. I asked a friend of mine about it a couple of weeks ago (noting that I've never seen "44" in a car licence plate here - only to be proven wrong 5 minutes later). He told me that essentially 744 sounds something like "go die die."

If superstition was governing Chinese airlines' orders, we wouldn't see the number of 744's flying around Asia as we do.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 9006 times:

Stitch, reminds me a bith of the engine configuration of the A10 "Warthog".

User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8965 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Thread starter):
I just stumbled across the following picture.
I am sure loads of you did knew that, nevertheless, I haven't seen the "original" 787 projection ever before.

Isn't this the design that Keesje came up with??

iwok


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8670 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Iwok (Reply 13):
Isn't this the design that Keesje came up with?

The picture in my reply is that one.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8592 times:



Quoting Brenintw (Reply 11):
I don't believe this has ever significantly factored into aircraft numbering. If it did, Boeing would NEVER have considered 747-400 as a name, since "744" has rather disasterous connotations. I asked a friend of mine about it a couple of weeks ago (noting that I've never seen "44" in a car licence plate here - only to be proven wrong 5 minutes later). He told me that essentially 744 sounds something like "go die die."

If superstition was governing Chinese airlines' orders, we wouldn't see the number of 744's flying around Asia as we do.

787 coincidentally includes an 8, it's the next in sequence after 777, but the lucky number link is a bonus. Note, the launch version is the 787-8. Why not the 787-1, eh? Airbus certainly factored the Chinese lucky number into their choice of A380 designation. Also the new 747 version designation, the 747-8 was allegedly influenced in this way. Almost all new aircraft seem to start with the -8 model now (787-8, 747-8, A350-800, etc). It used to be they all started with the 200 series, but 8 has taken over.

Superstition does not govern orders, but every little helps.  Wink



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8208 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Maybe it can be the "big sister" to this?

Please if that is the posible 737 replacement give it a classic tail so that it look like an aircraft.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Reply 5):
It might fly today as a cheap twin engine development of the 727, were it not for the A 320. It may have beaten the Douglas Commercial Nine Eighty (DC9-80, later called the MD 80) at the time in economics, but then again that is history now.

With the right engines and new wings it should have worked against the A320 as well - the 737-800 is basically the same just with wing mounted engines.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7694 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 12):
Stitch, reminds me a bith of the engine configuration of the A10 "Warthog".

Didn't you know that is the Warthog's replacement  wink 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5766 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Reply 17):
Didn't you know that is the Warthog's replacement

'
Ah lads! The 727 is the most beautiful Boeing of them all! This 'evolution' doesn't take away from those beautiful lines with the nice integration of the 717 tail cone, the classic Boeing nose and the 727's beautiful tail fin. Although some folks are adamant that Boeing never floated this trial balloon, I think it's possible. One only has to look at the various and sometimes bizarre looking derivatives of the 767 that Boeing pitched to the airlines prior to the decision to start with a clean sheet and design the T7. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so as far as this beholder is concerned, this '787' is far more aesthetically pleasing than the real 787 which to me (dare I say it!) is just another boring twinjet, speaking aesthetically of course. they ruined it when the dropped the shark fin. I would love to see in one place all the design proposals for new and derivative aircraft that Boeing has produced over the years.



I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3139 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4598 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 15):
787 coincidentally includes an 8, it's the next in sequence after 777, but the lucky number link is a bonus. Note, the launch version is the 787-8. Why not the 787-1, eh? Airbus certainly factored the Chinese lucky number into their choice of A380 designation. Also the new 747 version designation, the 747-8 was allegedly influenced in this way. Almost all new aircraft seem to start with the -8 model now (787-8, 747-8, A350-800, etc). It used to be they all started with the 200 series, but 8 has taken over.

Not this again.
What about the 787-3, and 787-9? The -9 has been selling well. The only ones to order the -3 are an Asian airlines. What about the previous numbers for 747 proposals that went to -500, -600, and -700, wouldn't an improved -800 (or -8) be a next reasonable step? Aren't all the other airlines in the world outside of China also important, and can't Boeing cater to their superstitions? (like, I doubt you'll see a 747-1300  Wow!  scared  )

-Rampart


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4248 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 19):
What about the 787-3, and 787-9?

3 and 9 are the other lucky numbers in Chinese culture.

3 for life and energy
8 for riches and money
9 for longevity



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4097 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 19):
Aren't all the other airlines in the world outside of China also important, and can't Boeing cater to their superstitions?

China is a huge, growing market and quite superstitious compared to the "West". For whatever reason 8 seems to be the fashionable number to use in recent aircraft designations, coincidence or not. How else would you explain the rather odd 787 series designations, especially in the light of:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 20):
3 and 9 are the other lucky numbers in Chinese culture.

3 for life and energy
8 for riches and money
9 for longevity




The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3139 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3937 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 21):
How else would you explain the rather odd 787 series designations,

I don't know, giving themselves room to add or delete model numbers? They had previous numbers that didn't make it past the drawing board?

I've argued, and been argued against, in many other threads on this topic. The ONLY place I've seen reference to superstitious aircraft numbering is here on A.net (or in articles referencing A.net), and I've heard all the growing market and happy numbers arguments. I've seen no other credible evidence from any manufacturer that they are purposely numbering their models to suit the Chinese (at the expense of the other ~90-95% of orders coming from airlines not from China). China is also globalizing and trying to separate themselves from needless superstitions. I can't think that this really means much, and in some respects seems insulting to their economy and their business. I could be wrong, and you all can read into the "coincidence" all you want, but I have yet to be convinced.

If it is true, I am embarrassed for Boeing and Airbus for being so obsequious. Why stop there? Why not just call the new aircraft the "Long March-liner" and "A-3-Great Leap Forward". To hell with the rest of the world.

-Rampart


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3810 times:



Quoting Rampart (Reply 22):
The ONLY place I've seen reference to superstitious aircraft numbering is here on A.net (or in articles referencing A.net), and I've heard all the growing market and happy numbers arguments.

You said the same thing in this thread:
A380,A350,748,787 Whats Next? & New Plane #'s? (by BlueSkys Sep 23 2007 in Civil Aviation)
And I gave you three non a.net links in Reply 20.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 22):
I've seen no other credible evidence from any manufacturer that they are purposely numbering their models to suit the Chinese (at the expense of the other ~90-95% of orders coming from airlines not from China).

Why would it be at the expense of other orders? Provided "8" doesn't have some negative connotation for someone else, which nobody has so far suggested, there's no expense to it.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 22):
Why stop there? Why not just call the new aircraft the "Long March-liner" and "A-3-Great Leap Forward".

Because that *would* cause problems in other countries. The OEM's aren't stupid.

Tom.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3139 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3666 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 23):
You said the same thing in this thread:
A380,A350,748,787 Whats Next? & New Plane #'s? (by BlueSkys Sep 23 2007 in Civil Aviation)
And I gave you three non a.net links in Reply 20.

Yup. And it was a non-answer back then, too. The links you gave me report on the general numerology superstition, not the naming of aircraft. The Wiki reference in particular is mostly a celebration of coincidental numbers, not much substance. The other two go into gambling and license plate numbers, among other things. Asians have an interesting relationship with number symbology. There are plenty of references. No question. I get it. Show me a link from Airbus.com or Boeing.com, or a reliable aviation reporter (NOT A.net). That is the relevance I'm looking for.

There is no expense of other orders. In fact, it appears that airlines are ordering despite the number name. Do you think the Chinese airlines would REALLY prefer a 787 over an A350, all else being equal, if numbers were that important. They aren't! They're fun, no more serious than guessing lottery numbers or astology. I guess you could be right in no harm done, if it is intentional, which I still don't, but I still think it's a stupid pandering scheme.

Really, why would China care? They'll only reverse engineer the planes and manufacturer them in a name they like better. Like ARJ 21 or CS2000, which interestingly enough don't have an 8 in them. Don't flame me, I'm just joking.  Smile

-Rampart


25 Jetlagged : Up till now Boeing have always allocated series numbers in sequence. The 787-3,8,9 is a break with that tradition. Is there really room for four sepa
26 Tdscanuck : My bad. I thought you were claiming that the number 8 had no significance in China, not that it had no significance in aircraft naming. I tend to thi
27 D328 : Put the 787 nose on it and BAM 737 replacement.
28 JakTrax : The thing in plan and front view looks remarkably like the CRJ-900 don't you think? In the early eighties (when I was a wee nipper!) I had a British-p
29 Rampart : No prob. I think I was getting a little over excited. Hey, I'll be really amused if this does prove true. Embarrassed, as I said before, but amused a
30 Post contains images Acey559 : It looks like a mix of a bunch of pre-existing airplanes. 727 Fuselage and vertical stabilizer, MD-90/A320 V2500 engines, 777 tailcone, blended wingle
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...
B787 What Is The Timetable Between Now And EIS? posted Mon Jul 16 2007 01:30:40 by WAH64D
What If... OceanAir Became Avianca Brasil posted Fri Jul 23 2004 04:52:19 by RCS763av
"The Lost Flight" 707 - Who's Was It/where Is It? posted Sun May 9 2004 06:01:28 by RHSNYC
Pan Am - Was It Iconceivable That It Would Fail? posted Sat Jan 6 2001 13:21:38 by 9A-CRO
What If LHR And Other Airports Become 24 Hours? posted Sun Jan 27 2008 16:33:19 by QatarA340
If Boeing And EADS,BAE Became One Company posted Tue Dec 5 2000 08:53:45 by Boeing in pdx
Optica Aircraft, What Became Of It? posted Wed Jan 17 2007 19:17:19 by Cumulus
Aircraft Companies: What Was It Like? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 06:34:07 by Vnvlain
ZRH A.net Meet: What A Great Day It Was! posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:42:01 by SwissA330
A318 - What Routes Was It Designed For? posted Tue May 2 2006 21:00:53 by PanAm747