Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Just Saw The Dreamliner 787"  
User currently offlineVulindlela744 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 526 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18187 times:

I was just at the Boeing Factory in Everett the other day and was able to see the Dreamliner. What a beauty. Not terribly big though. About the same size as a 767-200. The wings are absolutely beautiful though. Sorry no pictures as Boeing does not allow photography on it's tours. They said it should fly around October of this year and enter into service with ANA by late summer 2009. Looking forward to that day. A new era in travel.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 18168 times:

OK, it's a cool plane with cool features and it's very efficient.

It is *not* a new era in travel. It is still a tube with wings in which you sit cramped in a Y-class seat for hours on end, unless your company is picking up the tab, and then you get a better seat.

If it were supersonic, then it would be a new era in travel.

I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was.


User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18003 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was.

Hardly, that has been done before.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was.

The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17981 times:



Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
About the same size as a 767-200.

Closer in length to the -300. Just a few feet bigger.
And wing span and height is more than any 767.

It is not a 762 sized plane. Perhaps the bigger windows give the illusion of being smaller than it really is?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17825 times:



Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
I was just at the Boeing Factory in Everett the other day and was able to see the Dreamliner

When you compare the pictures of LN1 (which you can see on the links below) with what you saw at Everett, where there any notable difference?
Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly, Part Three
Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly, Part Two
Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17668 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
It is *not* a new era in travel. It is still a tube with wings in which you sit cramped in a Y-class seat for hours on end, unless your company is picking up the tab, and then you get a better seat.

If it were supersonic, then it would be a new era in travel.

I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was.

Hey, don't knock it until you try it. All airplanes will be tubes with wings, unless you want to fly in a blended wing airplane with NO windows.

Boeing had the opportunity to revolutionize air travel once again with its Sonic Cruiser, but couldn't make it a supersonic airplane. I believe if the Sonic Cruiser was able to supercruise at around Mach 1.5 with good fuel efficiency, it would have sold fairly well. But of course, that was back then...what about the fuel cost environment now???


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 17656 times:



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
About the same size as a 767-200.

Closer in length to the -300. Just a few feet bigger.
And wing span and height is more than any 767.

It is not a 762 sized plane. Perhaps the bigger windows give the illusion of being smaller than it really is?

787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.)


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21580 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17247 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.)

And because of the increase in proportions all around including the windows, and the wingspan growing more than the fuse, it would look like a 762, proportionally. It makes sense. it's all relative to the viewer. When put next to a 762, it will obviously look larger in every way. But then again, when a 762 is parked wingtip over wingtip with an M80, like they are at LAX at night in the hangar area, the 762 looks pretty damn big.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17229 times:



Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
Not terribly big though. About the same size as a 767-200.

Fooled by the windows again...  Wink


User currently offlineLegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 16996 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was

Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic.

Regards,

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 16756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 9):
Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic.

There are several technological advances on the Dreamliner that is NOT on a 767-200. First of all, the fuselage is primarily carbon-fiber composites that is mostly filament-wound. In other words, the fuselage sections are wound up like a large pressure bottle. There is some metal in the fuselage, mainly Titanium...because Aluminum is considered a dissimilar material to graphite (I'm not saying that there's no aluminum).

You will notice on the Dreamliner that there are very few seams, except where the individual fuselage joints are located. That provides fewer parts and better aerodynamics.

The passenger windows will be capable of darkening and lightening at the passengers request...doing away with window shades...although I'll believe it when I see it.

The fuselage will be pressurized to lower pressure altitude (higher pressure) than traditional airplanes for better comfort.

The avionics package is said to be state-of-the-art, not just simply a glass cockpit.

I'm sure there's more that I missed. Also, for those Airbus folks, I would expect the technology to be as good or better than the 787 considering when it's planned to fly and lessons learned from Boeing.


User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 16630 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I took the factory tour on May 6. It was really cool to see the 787 for real in person. I noticed that the rudder on the 3rd frame in the line seemed to have ANA colors painted on it. It had the 2 shades of blue seen on all other ANA aircraft.

Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
Sorry no pictures as Boeing does not allow photography on it's tours.

That really sucked. There was a 773ER for my company, the 41st 777 for JAL, at the end of the line and would have loved to get a picture of it.


User currently offlineEbs757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 758 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15890 times:

I took the Boeing tour back in Feb. They are extremely strict about bringing cameras in. They ask for all phones and cameras at least 3 times before you go into the assembly line and man they were pissed wen no one coughed anything up


Viva la Vida
User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15736 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2):

The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners

neither is the 787, I have seen the materials it uses before on other planes, it just uses them more.

Fred


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14902 times:



Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 9):
Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic.

I said it was no more revolutionary than the 76. I didn't say it wasn't better than 76.

The 76 was a revolutionary aircraft. It brought an entire new size of plane into an old market and set a new standard for efficiency. The 744 was based off 767 technology. However, it did not completely transform the industry.

Similarly, the 787 is a new size of plane in a new market. However, it is not a complete game-changer. It's simply a new-and-improved bird.

When they make it fly faster than a speeding bullet and make it available to all of us, that will be a game changer.


User currently offlineLegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14633 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
When they make it fly faster than a speeding bullet and make it available to all of us, that will be a game changer.

LOL on that one. I could just see myself flying a 787 to work and trying to land in our company parking lot. Wether or not we ever see a sonic cruiser in the next 25 years or so I doubt it.

Regards,

Mark



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14490 times:



Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 15):

LOL on that one. I could just see myself flying a 787 to work and trying to land in our company parking lot. Wether or not we ever see a sonic cruiser in the next 25 years or so I doubt it.

Sonic cruiser my left buttcheek. 10 hours instead of 12 on a given route? Bah. Make it six and then we'll talk.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 14091 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 10):
First of all, the fuselage is primarily carbon-fiber composites that is mostly filament-wound.

I'm pretty sure the fuselage is tape layup, not filament wind. I.e. prepreg vs. resin infusion during placement. The end result is pretty similar, but you can get a higher fiber fraction with prepreg.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The 76 was a revolutionary aircraft. It brought an entire new size of plane into an old market

I'm not sure they can claim revolutionary when the A300 did pretty much the same thing.

Tom.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 13361 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
It is not a 762 sized plane



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.)

In fact, it's an A330-200 sized plane - almost exactly....
It could almost be a copy, in fact....  duck   biggrin 

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2):
The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners

Caution is needed when making somewhat sweeping comments like this......  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineGkyip From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 13018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 5):
Boeing had the opportunity to revolutionize air travel once again with its Sonic Cruiser, but couldn't make it a supersonic airplane. I believe if the Sonic Cruiser was able to supercruise at around Mach 1.5 with good fuel efficiency, it would have sold fairly well. But of course, that was back then...what about the fuel cost environment now???

Wasn't the sonic cruiser designed to cruise at around 0.95 Mach? IIRC the whole point that was it doesn't break the sounds barrier and I distinctly remember thinking that there isn't much point to it.

Gary



The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee
User currently offlineLegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12741 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
10 hours instead of 12 on a given route? Bah. Make it six and then we'll talk.

Once us humans can master magnetic propulsion then maybe but until then aint gonna happen.

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12295 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 18):


Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
It is not a 762 sized plane



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.)

In fact, it's an A330-200 sized plane - almost exactly....
It could almost be a copy, in fact....

Not possible, planes are getting smaller and smaller and the 787 is testament to this. People want more point to point flights and unlimited frequencies blah blah blah blah....  Silly


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10594 times:



Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter):
A new era in travel.

Hold your horses! It's just a 767/777 replacement. Nothing new. Nothing extraordinary. When it flies over you won't be able to tell the difference from any other twin jet.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 18):
In fact, it's an A330-200 sized plane - almost exactly....

Exactly.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10556 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The 76 was a revolutionary aircraft. It brought an entire new size of plane into an old market and set a new standard for efficiency. The 744 was based off 767 technology. However, it did not completely transform the industry.

I think you are not right on this, the Airbus A300 was the revolutionary one since brought to the market a new size and it was the very first twin aisle twin engined aircraft. Airbus created this segment with the A300, Boeing just answered to this, obviously with a more technologically advance aircraft killing the A300, and then Airbus brought, what could be seen as the natural evolution of the A300, the A330 and with this aircraft Airbus buried the 767. I can't say that the 787 has buried the A330 since we are still waiting to see it moving by it's own power.......and the A330 is still selling like hot cakes.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10088 times:



Quoting Carls (Reply 23):
I can't say that the 787 has buried the A330 since we are still waiting to see it moving by it's own power.......and the A330 is still selling like hot cakes.

It seems to be much more difficult to bury the 330 than was anticipated. Perhaps the 787 is deficient in garlic.

Maybe the 330 is called Lucy and the 787 should be called Van (goes with Bus you see).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula


25 Astuteman : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula Hey, Mate, can you pass that bottle over here? Cheers
26 AirNZ : Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment[/quote] Mayb
27 DocLightning : Exactly. There will be no "revolution" until we make it supersonic. And until that day, please don't tell me that any new airliner is "revolutionary,
28 Pylon101 : I agree: there should be clear understanding what is EVOLUTION (787 is definitely a step in evolution) and REVOLUTION. What's going in aviation actual
29 YULWinterSkies : I'm neither a technical junkie, neither a drug junkie, nor an expert and even less a fanatic, yet, the 767 was the FIRST long-range twin-engined jet.
30 Acheron : Like someone said, a new era of air-travel will start when we go super sonic again. Other than that, the 787/A350/composite plane doesn't make much of
31 Isitsafenow : Were the doors and other parts off like they were the second week end of October? Did you notice the second 787, or part of it, behind the first? saf
32 Wedgetail737 : I agree, tape was being used. However, the fuselage barrels were wrapped around a large rotating mandrel. It's the same concept used for pressure ves
33 AirNZ : Oh come on! seems the goal posts are being conveniently moved on every post to give the result you want......grow up and accept the fact that the A30
34 RoseFlyer : Carbon fiber is not a completely new material for airliners. It's a new material on this scale, but carbon fiber has been flying for years. The whole
35 BAW716 : Ah, excuse me, but yes it is. This is the first passenger aircraft made principally of composite material. This is going to have a major impact on th
36 Post contains links and images Acheron : Uhm, no. Such as?. Sure, particularly when it comes to humidity and people who have issues dealing with pressure changes. Other than that, you'll sti
37 Tdscanuck : It's not so much tape vs. filament, it's prepreg vs. wet layup. The finished product is similar, but the detailed technique is quite different. Unfor
38 Astuteman : If I had a quid for every time I've heard this........ Is it possible to explain just what this "major impact on the future of air travel" is, for us
39 Baroque : I rather doubt he meant to say that!!! Try "subsonic will always use LESS fuel" Tom. However, I am not jumping in to pick that nit, but to point out
40 Post contains links Burkhard : Maybe some facts, if nobody minds. Very good reading: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/nasacds/20...esearch/20030097981_2003086486.pdf Some fair use citation
41 BAW716 : " target=_blank>http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de/mod...p.jpg Let me clarify...commercial air transport aircraft. Composites make the aircraft lighter
42 AirNZ : Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Other than to the likes of enthusiasts like ourselves, it being made of a large percentage of composite
43 BAW716 : That's OK...as I said, it's a matter of perspective. baw716
44 Astuteman : I don't doubt that composites make an airliner a bit lighter, but you might want to consider this:- The 787-8 is just about EXACTLY the same size as
45 Scouseflyer : Isn't that was Airbus tried to do with the original A350 and not enough people bought it. I do remember a quote attributed to Geoff Dixon of QF that
46 Astuteman : Whether "not enough people bought it" or not, is moot. Airbus sold around 180 in pretty short order (100 firm, and 80 MOU's). Since then, they've sol
47 Scouseflyer : I'd agree a A335 /A336 updated version of the A332 / A333 with the GENx and other bits would do very well.
48 Astuteman : In due course. I reckon the current one's good to go for a few years yet..... Rgds
49 Baroque : Trying to remember back, the 9-abreast issue seemed the main reason for the QF love in for the 787. To an extent it could have been made of green che
50 Scouseflyer : I remeber travelling 9 abreast in a A332 from YVR to MCR and I certainly wasn't a happy mouse!
51 Tdscanuck : Err...no. "Less" whas what I meant to say! I don't mean to imply that supercruise isn't possible...it obviously is. What's impossible is to supercrui
52 Astuteman : Thanks for the comments, Tom. Appreciated, and in the main, agreed with. I suspect you're educating the wrong "protagonist", though I was responding
53 Tdscanuck : Whoops...sorry about that. Got my quoting mixed up. Systems maintenance (basically, all the stuff you listed above) is certainly a big part of mainte
54 Astuteman : Once again, my thanks for a most informed, and informative response. The cost advantages of re-systeming a nuclear submarine are pretty marginal comp
55 DocLightning : No, the "major revolution" will be the day that someone comes out with an SST that costs less per seat-mile than a sub-sonic aircraft. Until that day,
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...
"How Boeing Blew The Dreamliner" posted Thu Oct 18 2007 07:17:58 by Mirrodie
Which Airlines Already Ordered The Dreamliner 787? posted Tue Jul 3 2007 21:22:17 by Wolverine
I Saw The 1st 787 On The Assembly Line Yesterday posted Mon May 21 2007 16:07:37 by Navion
Just Saw The 'new' Taag Scheme posted Tue Oct 10 2006 19:59:37 by Clickhappy
I Just Saw The Virgin America A320 At GLH posted Sun Mar 26 2006 00:02:29 by Mudboy
Just Saw The Aviator posted Mon Dec 20 2004 15:46:46 by Planemannyc
Just Saw The Terminal (the Movie) posted Sat Jun 12 2004 16:41:05 by Planemannyc
Just Saw The New Spirit posted Thu May 30 2002 02:46:15 by 727LOVER
Just Saw "The Terminal" posted Fri Jul 9 2004 14:19:50 by Tony Lu
Just Saw A&E Show "Airline" posted Wed Jul 7 2004 19:42:39 by Tony Lu
I Just Saw The Virgin America A320 At GLH posted Sun Mar 26 2006 00:02:29 by Mudboy
Just Saw The Aviator posted Mon Dec 20 2004 15:46:46 by Planemannyc
Just Saw The Terminal (the Movie) posted Sat Jun 12 2004 16:41:05 by Planemannyc
Just Saw The New Spirit posted Thu May 30 2002 02:46:15 by 727LOVER
Just Saw "The Terminal" posted Fri Jul 9 2004 14:19:50 by Tony Lu
Just Saw A&E Show "Airline" posted Wed Jul 7 2004 19:42:39 by Tony Lu