IAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 501 posts, RR: 45 Posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 21526 times:
Hey All,
Wanted to get this up ASAP, but Dreamliner One and the Static Airframe came out of the factory today. The static moved over to 40-23 and Dreamliner One went back in the factory.
N787ZZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 21174 times:
Jon,
Thanks alot for the update and all the hard work you do keeping up that blog. Many of us visit your blog several times a day anxiously waiting the next tidbit of news.
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 21096 times:
Thanks Jon! I still think the 787 looks deceptively small. The large front cockpit windows and larger side windows really play with your sense of size. Only when you see people next to it do you get an idea of the size.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4009 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 21001 times:
LN1 seems to be missing part of the wingbox...I guess they're still installing the redesigned one?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21030 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20707 times:
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6): LN1 seems to be missing part of the wingbox...I guess they're still installing the redesigned one?
All frames are missing this. Even the frame they moved out. It is quite obvious now how critical this wingbox redesign is. It will be interesting to see what was the problem once Boeing is comfortable talking about it.
Also notice the patchwork on the vertical stab, and how there is missing material on the horizontal stabs in the same general area, where the moving parts meet the fixed parts. Same for where the horizontal stabs meet the body.
I wonder if there is some kind of friction/rubbing issue they found where moving parts come in contact…
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20517 times:
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6): LN1 seems to be missing part of the wingbox...I guess they're still installing the redesigned one?
Which photo are you getting that from? The wing box looks intact as far as I can tell. The wing-body fairing is missing in several spots, but that's non-structural.
They're not installing a redesigned wing box, they're reinforcing the one that's already installed.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9): how there is missing material on the horizontal stabs in the same general area, where the moving parts meet the fixed parts.
Again, I don't see this. The inboard trailing edge is off, but I wouldn't really call that missing material, it's just an uninstalled part. The access panels for the horizontal stab front spar are off, but that's not between the moving and fixed parts.
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9): Same for where the horizontal stabs meet the body.
That looks like the normal wear plate to me. There's a surface there for the horizontal stab aerodynamic seals to ride against.
Pianos101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20483 times:
well the tail strike deflector on L/N 1 means that officially L/N 1 will be the first to fly... That thing is super heavy and they wouldn't put it on unless that plane was flying. Now if then only fixed the landing gear doors so she can get off the ground!! nice pics, i wish i was there though....
Jogales From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 437 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20380 times:
Quoting Pianos101 (Reply 11): well the tail strike deflector on L/N 1 means that officially L/N 1 will be the first to fly...
Could you possibly be confusing the tail strike deflector with the open APU doors? I think the yellow parts you see are protective foam or something similar that's been taped on. The green structure is most likely the inside of the APU door.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11715 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20341 times:
Thanks for the pictures and update on the B-787 program.
PlaneInsomniac From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 612 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 20342 times:
Quoting Pianos101 (Reply 11): well the tail strike deflector on L/N 1 means that officially L/N 1 will be the first to fly...
Tail strike deflector? That thing at the end of the tail looks like some sort of open APU access door to me. Definitely looks very different from the deflectors used on the 777 and A380:
Overall, now that the high resolution images are out, I would have to say I am a little disappointed by the state of L/N 1. Many parts missing, holes around the wingbox area, patches, signs of rework.
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
I had similar feelings when I first saw it today - my initial reaction was it looked like a chicken that had its feathers plucked. With the engines missing and most the fairing around the wing root gone it looked like it had seen better days. Certainly not the beauty we saw last July.
I totally understand Charles and PlaneInsomniac's sentiment. I cannot wait to see her completely finished. Seeing her today was just beautiful though. She does look a little plucked, but damn, that plane has personality. Last July we saw a shell. Now we see an airplane that is really coming together. The extent of the work left is clear, but what we saw today was an airplane that is finally coming together. She's got soul and she's got spunk.
...and she's got a RAT if you look closely.
IAD787
Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
Crjfixer From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 17381 times:
It seems like most of the things that are missing are just aerodynamic fairings like the wing to fuselage fairings, the stab fairings where the vertical meets the horizontal,radome ETC. It doesnt appear that much is missing structurally,
Also i agree that what you see on the aft part of the fuselage are the apu access doors open.
And i believe this aircraft will top the wingleted 757 as the most beautiful airliner of all time
JayDub From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 17091 times:
Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 14): I am a little disappointed by the state of L/N 1. Many parts missing, holes around the wingbox area, patches, signs of rework.
I swear, some of you people on A.net really get your panties in a wad over nothing. Why does this "disappoint" you? What do you expect? I mean, it's essentially a testbed aircraft. Things will be re-worked as they learn...no design is perfect from the get-go.
I would be more disappointed if Boeing took the approach of not learning as they go, patching as they test, and allow the design to go into commercial service without fixing any issues...with possible catastrophic results.
Works4boeing From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 69 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 16372 times:
Quoting SEAchaz (Reply 15): I had similar feelings when I first saw it today - my initial reaction was it looked like a chicken that had its feathers plucked. With the engines missing and most the fairing around the wing root gone it looked like it had seen better days. Certainly not the beauty we saw last July.
The irony is that this is a far mor complete aircraft than the one rolled out last july.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5163 posts, RR: 49 Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 15816 times:
Obviously it doesn't have parts on because they're still in the middle of systesm installation. At least structurally it is complete. They're just installing the ducting, wiring, computers, flight displays, lights, etc. In order to to do that they need internal access which is why it doesn't have some of it's outer shell on (so to speak).
Starglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 644 posts, RR: 44 Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 15779 times:
Quoting SEAchaz (Reply 15): Certainly not the beauty we saw last July.
Just a matter of maturity showing it's scars.
Starglider
25 NYC777: Here's a lot more pictures of teh roll out and transfer! http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/sets/72157604729508490/ Also here's Boeing press release.
26 YWG747: Thanks for the update! I can't wait to finally see this beast in AC colors. Gonna be awesome!
27 Rivet42: Eh?! How can an airliner in such a state of part-build be described as 'beautiful'...? Frankly, it looks a mess, exactly as one would expect given th
28 FriendlySkies: Err, I guess that's what I meant. Silly me, how could the wings be attached without a wingbox?
29 Kanban: Those are definately the APU doors open in the rear, the ground strike block (which is oak) will be attached further forward where there is plenty of
30 Tdscanuck: Sometimes they don't retract the landing gear on first flight...it depends on the detailed test plan. I didn't know they had a landing gear door prob
31 PDXCessna206: The plane looks so much bigger than I previously pictured it. Airplanes are illusions.
32 Astuteman: When you think that the 787-8 is the SMALLEST widebody now being sensibly offered for sale..... Regards
33 LuvJetFuel: Finally! .. been waiting for some news of some sort about the 787s being built
34 PDXCessna206: Yeah no kidding. Ahh they are amazing.
35 Ikramerica: Very true, but it still looks like something from Victorville, not a brand new plane… Snot and chewing gum?
36 EA772LR: Precisely Thanks IAD787 for your continued work you do and the sharing of information you give.
37 ConcordeBoy: I bet whosever brilliant idea it was to roll it out at that time is now sincerely wishing they'd kept their mouth shut. In aggregate? No In proportio
38 BrianDromey: Do we think that that would have made a massive difference though? I know there were problems with bolts/fasteners, etc but the 787 had/has a few mor
39 RobK: " target=_blank>http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/s...8490/ ... R
40 AApilot2b: If you take the Boeing Factory tour at Everett, you will get a great opportunity to see the 787 line. It not only brings hope, but gives you a good gl
41 Tdscanuck: Way more than a few weeks. A big part of the problem is that Everett isn't capable of doing a lot of the travelled work very efficiently. They appear
42 Glacote: Indeed the A388 first flight kept landing gears down all along. That was first interpreted/speculated as an issue having occured (which may or may no
43 Rheinbote: More so as inspection/quality assurance testing was amongst the work traveled from partners and suppliers all the way up to the final asembly line. J
44 WAH64D: Speechless! Even in that sorry state you can see that the 787 is going to be one hell of a beautiful aircraft.
45 Moo: Actually the gears were retracted on the first flight, they were just kept down for longer than normal (the Airbus first flight video shows this). Du
47 787onfinal: Thanks for the update. keep them comeing!!!
48 Ikramerica: The 789 wings are wider span than the non-longer range 777 family. The 788 is about the same width as the 777s, and the 783 is narrower.
49 N186bd: Geez, with those cockpit window so big, you won't be able to hide anything a la the autopilots from "Airplane!" N186BD
50 IAD787: Hey all, Just wanted to let you know, I put up six more great shots of the 'rollout': http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...dreamliners-come-out-to-p
51 SEPilot: What about your beloved A330? Isn't it (slightly) smaller? I was under the impression it was still for sale...
52 Astuteman: The 332 has exactly the same 60m wingsan as the 787-8, is c. 1m longer in the fuselage than the 787-8, and is a few tons heavier than the 787-8......
53 SEPilot: OK, I'll concede the point. I had thought that the A332 was somewhat smaller than the 788, but I stand corrected.
54 Astuteman: In truth, the size difference is utterly minimal. Which allows some good comparisons to be made of what improvements have been made in 15 years of de
55 Brendows: Are you referring to this page: boeing.com/commercial/787family/background.html? Boeing changed that figure in the beginning of February last year Th
56 Astuteman: As recently as that? D'you know, I've had a lower range figure of 7 900 Nm stuck in my head for ages now, and never re-checked. Naughty boy's corner
57 Pnwtraveler: Yeah the plane looks closer to something smaller than a 767 and larger than a A321 then the true size. Both the side windows but also the cockpit wind
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 501 posts, 
From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 612 posts, 
From France, joined Apr 2008, 44 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 644 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
