Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does 787 Usher A New Age Like The 707 Did Jets?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Most" consider the 707 to be the airplane that ushered in the "Jet Age" (I am fully aware that the Dash may have- I'm getting my quote from wikipedia) but does the 787 (and/or the A350- I don't wish to turn this into an Airbus bs Boeing thread) usher in 'as significant' advance in pax aircraft given it's composite materials and avionics? From the ousted my mom couldn't tell the difference between a 707 or a 787 (maybe a Constilation - but even then I'm not sure to her an airplane is an airplane- who cares? She's 88) but to ME a 777 is closer to a 707 than a 787 or A350 are. Am I wrong? To me the difference is like me: very muscular, athletic and tight with 20/20 vision and the $6 Million dollar man doesn't look as good as I do but is 100 times more advanced and stronger?


(just kidding about


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
142 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemanfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14429 times:

The consensus will be no. People will argue that the 787 is just another aircraft. My opinion is yes. There is enough "new technology" here to warrant a new era in travel. Other things (that mean less to me) is the environmental impact.

I'm not terribly impressed by what makes the 787 so new age, however. A plastic airplane doesn't appeal to me. I'm uncomfortable with the technology, its durability and the implications in repairs.

I think we also have a rather "plastic" interior to look foreward to as well. More and more fittings are becoming recycled parts or fire proof. The end result is a decidely anemic feel...lacking warmth and character. I guess we will have to accept the fact that this is the "future of air travel."

So on one hand, we have a new era in travel....but one that takes a step backwards in class. Ironic don't you think? We have decided to sacrific the building methods of our father's in order to allow more people the affordability of travel with less environmental impact.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't you think current ac is very plastic with just bits of real metal showing...and mostly in the galleys? If UA kept the double UU Saul Bass logo it would have been beautiful in brushed and chrome on a bulkhead. The Globe wouldnt lend itself to such a treatment well- or a Singapore Swan in cut chrome etc. An airline can do a lot (Btw a lot is 2 words: not alot, a mistake I see often on a.net. 'RR:0 you didn't make that mistake' to add trimmings and such to craft an interior)

Airlines like SQ who care that their cabins are unique will think of something. Heck, SQ invented it's own fragrance for the air on board!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14354 times:

It's a toothpaste tube with wide wings and fat engines that transports people from one place to another in about the same time and average comfort as planes before did.

I don't think it ushers in any new era of any sort. If the 787 was some hypersonic thing, then that's a new era, but otherwise the B787 is just refinements and improvements on what we already know.

That's what the average person will think - the ones that don't care if the plane is carbon-fibre, or has bleedless engines, or that the engine is 0.0000000000000001% better at some thing than another engine in comparison with another engine.

So the B787 is an anoraks dream plane, but it's not the change that we had when the jet-age dawned upon us (eg, Caravelle, B707, Comet), relegating those old piston-airliners to the proverbial graveyards.

Now I know that'll make me public enemy number one with the B787 and Boeing fans here, but let's face it, every new plane now is just small improvements from before, not anything new. That was my assessment when I was interviewed for my thoughts on the A380 entry into service, and I maintain that.

The next big change won't be for a long time - if at all. Maybe it'll be some invention that renders airlines and air-travel obsolete.

[Edited 2011-02-26 14:12:57]

User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think every cleansheet type represents a revolutionary advance in commercial aviation in some way or another. If it's successful, what the 787 will do IMO is usher in a wave of all composite commercial aircraft. I think what the 787 will also do is start to change the nature of how people travel. Like the 747SP and A345 before it, if the 787 lives up to it's range promises, airlines will be able to open up extremely long, thin nonstop routes that will compliment existing routes. Much the way Pan Am was able to operate both Lax-Syd with the 747SP and Lax-Hnl-Syd with the 747-100, i can see today's carriers offering say Sfo-Sin nonstop on the 787 as well as Sfo-Nrt-Sin on the 747-400 or 777. I also think that the 787 will allow airlines to cater to higher yield passengers who are more willing to pay for the time and hassle they'll save by being able to avoid transits. Those same airlines will also be able to cater to the rest of us lowly worms by allowing us to still get there relatively cheaply by making a connection or a stopover somewhere in Asia like Hkg or Nrt.

That could end up being a way that the 787 and A350 can coexist in the same market and even at the same airline, the 787 goes nonstop while the A350 goes one stop.

Finally, another thing i can see possibly happening is more of a segmentation/differentiation between premium and budget passengers. On a theoretical Sfo-Sin routing, the nonstop 787 could offer a premium two class experience with F and J but no coach while the one stop A350/747-400/777 offers no first class, only J, W (premium economy), and Y.

What'll be interesting to see is whether ten or twenty years down the road, B or A decides to create an all complosite large or very large aircraft that could render both the 747-400 and A380 obsolete.



Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14264 times:

No, the B787 has a lot of new technology, but hardly more comfort than the B707. (Besides the higher humidity and bigger windows)
The passengers in the y-class still have 3 people sitting side by side. In doesn´t really matter if it is 3-3 or 3-3-3.


For the airlines, the B787 is a cost saving airplane, but does it start a new age? No.
In my opinion, the B707 really started a new age and most of todays airplanes have the same layout as the old 707.


When the generall layout of an airliner is changed into a blended wing, then i would talk about a new age, but not before.

So neither the A380, A350 nor the B787 started a new age of flying, it was just evolution.


User currently offlinedeltamartin From Sweden, joined Dec 2010, 1061 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14235 times:

I'd say that it have to be a major change in the look and function of an aircraft before its an entierly new era. From prop engines to jet engines was a major change that everyone noticed. It changed the speed, distance, size and looks of the planes.
With that said, the 787 may take a bigger leap forward in technology than, per say the 777 or A380, but i still would'nt define it as a new era.
After all, this is just a matter of defenition.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14170 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 5):
No, the B787 has a lot of new technology, but hardly more comfort than the B707. (Besides the higher humidity and bigger windows)

And the lower density altitude inside the cabin - that is a a major improvement to comfort and even health for some.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14135 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 7):
And the lower density altitude inside the cabin

Yes, but it was first introduced with the A380, which is no game changer as well.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14099 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 8):
Yes, but it was first introduced with the A380, which is no game changer as well.

Concorde had that long before both of them.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14024 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 9):
Concorde had that long before both of them.

Every day is school day.

I did not know that. Thanks !  


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13989 times:

It depends entirely on how you define a new age. I'd say that in terms of structures and construction, the 787 probably does signify the start of a new era of mostly composite airliners. Depending on how geared turbofans perform and whether they become more popular, we certainly might one day see the A320 NEO as starting a new era. Then there might be open rotors after that, but I'm not holding my breath. From a passenger perspective, it isn't that much of a change.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13954 times:

I suspect the 747 represented a new age to airline travelers to a greater extent than the 787 does now. It was much much larger than anything in service, offered greater comfort than the 707 or DC-8 could and would not be outclassed in terms of comfort until the advent of the A380, which I understand is a dream to fly in. No, this is not an attempt to bash the 747 or Boeing products.

While the 787 is a technological advance over current airliners, it does not represent advances that passengers are apt to be that concerned with or interested in. From the operational efficiency side, however, it represents something new and definitely improved that airline managers will embrace wholeheartedly.

I suspect, though I may be wrong, that Boeing's Y3 will represent a new age in large airliners ... but only if they embrace the blended wing design philosophy.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSpeedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13878 times:

I think you should segregate the term "new era" between its meaning for passengers and its meaning for airlines and manufacturers. In terms of its meaning for passengers, perhaps yes it does represent a new era as it will enable airlines to offer new long range routes that were not viable in economical terms (or so it should) such as IAH-AKL. However, for most passengers who will be flying in the 787, it really is just another unpleasant affair that will get them from point A to point B in the same time with a lesser need for hand cream.
In terms of its meaning for airlines and manufacturers, she is still to prove herself. However, if the 787 comes to perform as was promised, then yes, it likely marks the start of a new era for airlines and manufacturers.

Speedbird741



Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13840 times:

The B-707 was a new way of flying, but it was not the first, the Comet Mk.1 was. The B-707 did not sell as well as Boeing would have liked in its first few years, but it always outsold its main competitor, the DC-8.

Boeing delivered the first B-707 in 1958, and went on to deliver 7 more that year. Then the deliveries started;
1959 = 77
1960 = 91
1961 = 80
1962 = 68
Deliveries declined rapidly from 1963 to about 1965 and the B-707's peak year for deliveries came in 1967 when Boeing delivered 118 B-707s, and 111 in 1968.

The B-747 was the next significant advancement in commerical aviation came with the B-747 and the new world of "wide bodied" aircraft.

The next major advancement came with Concorde, but that was not profitable and did not last.

But the B-787 is the next significant advancement in commerical aircraft. It has already sponed the A-350 which also promises the possibility of profitable flying for the airlines. The flying passengers may not even notice the change the B-787 will bring to the commerical airline industry.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13809 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
The B-707 was a new way of flying, but it was not the first, the Comet Mk.1 was.

And the Tu-104 was the second, in service in 1956, two years before the 707.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dave Jones



User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13738 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
he next major advancement came with Concorde,

But a lot of its advances have transferred to all the planes we fly on today. If I'm not mistaken, it still has lower cabin altitude than the revolutionary B787.

B787 still has to enter service and prove itself. It's still possible for it to be a failure too - an ever present risk with any totally revolutionary plane.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13687 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion the 787 will be looked back on like the Boeing 247 more than the Boeing 707 - an airframe that took a number of technologies and materials that were in scattered use in aviation and fully/heavily incorporated them into a single commercial airframe.

[Edited 2011-02-26 16:06:41]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13655 times:

I don't know if it's just me, but going from an ATR to a 732 is a ***MAJOR*** leap in comfort. Absolutely serene compared to the ATR. I cannot fathom how awful those old prop (piston too?) planes used to be in terms of pax ride. Not to mention speed! And the ATR isn't even that old of a design.

So no, I very much doubt the 787 will bring that kind of leap. But if the 20% lower cost thing pans through than it will certainly be very big in terms of economics.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13631 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 7):

And the lower density altitude inside the cabin - that is a a major improvement to comfort and even health for some.

With higher cabin humidity and air pressure - it is still to be seen if those would hold in real life, or eventually would be deactivated, like bars in early 747
Air in 787 cabin weights 1000 lb (give or take off my back of envelope calculation, probably more). Difference between 6000 and 8000 feet altitude is around 50 lb.
How much fuel those 50 lb would burn off from airline's bottom line over a year fleet wide?
add fuel to run compressors to the equation, and someone may come up with idea of saving some $$$..
Humidity would require even bigger sacrifice from the airline, I'm afraid


User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 743 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13566 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 2):

What are you talking about?


User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13419 times:

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes.


To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6834 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13416 times:

The 707 made all other airliners obsolete overnight-the 787 will not do that. I do think, however, that it is the most significant aircraft since then, because I believe that all new aircraft from now on will be CFRP construction. I believe that CFRP will prove to be a much better material for building aircraft, because of its weight, strength, and fatigue resistance. I believe better resins are coming, and the results will only improve.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13026 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 3):
It's a toothpaste tube with wide wings and fat engines that transports people from one place to another in about the same time and average comfort as planes before did.

I don't think it ushers in any new era of any sort. If the 787 was some hypersonic thing, then that's a new era, but otherwise the B787 is just refinements and improvements on what we already know.

I agree 100%.

The next "revolutionary" step will be when we (finally) have SSTs on most medium/long haul.


User currently onlineSOBHI51 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3422 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 12030 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
am of the opinion the 787 will be looked back on like the Boeing 247 more than the Boeing 707

Is there a Boeing 247?



I am against any terrorist acts committed under the name of Islam
25 Braybuddy : Why would "most" consider that the 707 to have ushered in the jet age? Unless they never heard of the de Havilland Comet . . .
26 frmrCapCadet : I fear >$100 a barrel oil will be the most significant aspect to 21st century aviation. Dual hit, to the economy and to the direct cost of flying.
27 Post contains links Stitch : Yes there was - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_247
28 KGRB : What aircraft ushered in the jet age at most of the world's airlines at the time? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't the (beleaguered) Comet...
29 maxpower1954 : The Comet 1 gave the Jet Age a false start - 1952 until grounded forever in 1954 after two catastrophic fueslage failures killing all aboard. The re-d
30 SLCUT2777 : While I think the 787 and later the A350 can lower the costs of many routes, particularly when oil goes through its boom & bust cycles in prices,
31 DocLightning : I think it will be supersonic travel. It's inevitable as long as we don't kill ourselves. A new trend to instant communication is going to make peopl
32 Braybuddy : The Comet ushered in the jet age in May 1952. The 707 entered revenue service in October 1958. The OP states ""Most" consider the 707 to be the airpl
33 Post contains images KELPkid : Before the 707, air travel was not very common amongst most of us. The 707 came along at a time when the airlines were revolutionizing air travel with
34 XT6Wagon : The comet was quite small and had problems outside of its structural failures. The jet engine wasn't quite ready for commercial use and this was comp
35 UpperDeck : No. Just no. That is all.
36 cpd : I suspect that with all the world-unrest at the moment, it could come to a situation where oil is no longer viable, and maybe that makes air-travel e
37 tdscanuck : Deactivation would cost way more in recertification and modification than it would save. That's way too low...closer to 3000 lbs (I figured about 310
38 Post contains images TripleDelta : I too agree that the 787 and A350 are purely evolutionary aircraft, both from a general passenger and technological perspective (without wishing to di
39 Braybuddy : I don't doubt that the 707 was a ground-breaking and historic aircraft, but it didn't usher in the jet-age.
40 XT6Wagon : Being simply first doesn't mean you start something. Breechloading rifles existed in the 15th century. English troops had them for the US revolutiona
41 brushpilot : We just have to remember airlines and manufacturer's advertising in the late fifties to make the difference with the 787. Jet Age was like Gold Rush:
42 Braybuddy : True. If deHavilland had built the Comet and had it never carried a fare-paying passenger it wouldn't have ushered in the jet age as we know it. But
43 Post contains images shamrock604 : Until such time as passengers in Economy can lie flat on long haul, or make the journey in half the time, then no.... its evolution rather than revolu
44 thediplomat : i have changed this statement. Until such time as an airline can make money flying Economy passengers in flat beds or make the journey in half the ti
45 Post contains links NAV20 : Out of loyalty to my family (which included several people who worked at De Havilland in the 'great days') I feel bound to point out that the DH (now
46 ebj1248650 : True, and while it didn't sell as well as the 707 or DC-8, it did nonetheless sell and from what I can gather it was popular with its passengers. Mex
47 shankly : Indeed Douglas and Lockheed were still developing their piston powered aircraft when the Comet was carrying fare paying passengers. In terms of revol
48 thediplomat : Would one not include the turboprop as a new age in travel?
49 Post contains images Mortyman : Hey, we Europeans are pretty good ... I agree. Next will be a commercial passenger airliner taking off from mother earth towards outer space...
50 JoeCanuck : The 787 brings new materials, more electric architecture, closer to sea level cabin pressure, more efficient no bleed engines and a few other nifty th
51 SEPilot : Let's go back the the 247. It was the first really modern transport, with a low cantilevered wing, all-metal construction, controllable props and ret
52 maddog888 : Put simply if you line up a 707, a 777 and a 787, most people will look and say look at those planes. If you line up a Q400 and a 707, most people wil
53 Post contains images oldeuropean : Well, perhaps in the wet dreams of some Boeing fanboys.
54 Aerofan : I pray for the day! Can't get here soon enough
55 Braybuddy : That's quite a statement.
56 JerseyFlyer : "New Ages" can be as much about how airlines use aircraft already available to them, as about radical design change. For example, how Southwest develo
57 SEPilot : Well, can you dispute it? And if you do, when did the jet age start? If you say 1952, when the Comet first entered service, what jet could a civilian
58 Navigator : No. The 787 is just another airplane. Perhaps the A350 will even be better, who knows. I do not really see why you point out the 787, because of dela
59 Braybuddy : That's the point . . .but the history books will show that it started in 1952. They've been This is turning into the Soviet version of the jet age: re
60 parapente : I would like to suggest that the 787 (and 350) rather than being the first of "the new" are in fact "the last of the old".This statement depends on wh
61 Acheron : Lol, you are talking with XT6Wagon here. Anything not american, is poo according to him. Regarding the subject at hand: No, the 787 won't usher a new
62 Aesma : I fear long range ultra efficient turboprops/open rotors are more likely, with the current cost of energy. Now, if nuclear fusion proves successful b
63 Tancrede : Sorry, but I thought that Airbus was offering within A350 family a member (-800?) with much longer range than what will provide Boeing with its 787 f
64 mestrugo : To me, the 787 represents approximately as much change as the introduction of the A320. It was also considered 'revolutionary' when it was released: s
65 Revelation : I think we must respect the affordability aspect just as much as we around here tend to respect the technology aspect. The 747 was a game changer eco
66 AirNZ : Can you possibly enlarge further how you reach those conclusions, as I certainly don't see it? A) what revolutionary advance is automatically made by
67 XT6Wagon : No, I see people with a blind lust for something.... Being first NEVER automaticly means you change anything in the industry. Boeing had legions of f
68 PPVRA : When planes started being built out of metal instead of wood, that was quite revolutionary. We could not have the kinds of planes we have today with
69 woodsboy : Let see...it isnt faster, bigger, it doesnt use a new type of fuel or different kind of propulsion. It wont be any more comfortable than current gener
70 astuteman : I'm interested to know what shapes these might be. I can definitely agree with that. Whilst we tend to focus on the "magic" CFRP fuselage barrels, fo
71 abba : Since the 707 there has only been one major change in aviation, namely the change from flying being a privilege for the few ("the jet set" so called)
72 UAL747DEN : There are many reasons but the simple answer to your question is because "most" have never even herd of a Comet and you would have trouble finding a
73 JoeCanuck : In the past, major materials changes have let to major advances in aircraft. When the practical limits of materials were reached, new materials allow
74 SEPilot : If all new airliners from now on are composite construction (which I believe will happen), I think that the 787, being the first, will in the future
75 Post contains links Braybuddy : I would certainly expect most people on this site to know their aviation history, but it would seem this isn't the case: http://www.brighthub.com/sci
76 SEPilot : Different people will have different ideas about what constitutes the beginning of the jet age. If you consider it to be the first jet to carry passe
77 Braybuddy : I doubt the history books will be worried about a gap of four years, or whether the Comet was a commercial success or not. The fact remains that it w
78 Viscount724 : It should also be noted that the re-designed Comet 4 beat the 707 into service, operating the first transatlantic jet service LHR-IDL on October 4, 1
79 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe so by the general public that might be a bit more interested then the average traveller, but still that perception is incorrect imho. The B787
80 prebennorholm : Well, then I am not among "most". I consider the 707 to be Boeing's contender among the six first generation jet airliners, the Comet, Tu-104, Carave
81 Viscount724 : Don't you mean third? Comet, Tu-104, 707, Caravelle, DC-8, CV-880. Caravelle made its first flight slightly before the Tu-104 (both in 1955) but the
82 BMI727 : I don't think that airliners will ever really do that, simply because they are airliners. They have to be certifiable and designed with significant s
83 JoeCanuck : Most materials have been introduced gradually in components but for instance going from steel tube and fabric to aluminum fuselage meant that for the
84 NAV20 : Too right! I believe, though, that Boeing had the sense to patent their monocoque (one-piece) composite fuselage construction, which means that Airbu
85 flyingAY : My take is that "A New Age" would and should be something that the average travelling man will notice. I've listed a few things that an average travel
86 maxpower1954 : The Comet WAS the first jet transport in the world. It was, by any measure, a massive technological failure. In a 13 month period from March 1953 to
87 Braybuddy : The Titanic never even made it across the Atlantic, so it would have no claim to anything, apart from being the largest passenger liner at the time.
88 navion1217 : I guess they were equally successful. But that's not what this thread is about. I tend to agree with the posters that the 787 is evolutionary rather
89 Burkhard : My clear verdict is no. Typical passenger will not get any differnece between the 788 and the 330 - same size, smae noise, smae smell, same look, same
90 Post contains images TripleDelta : Indeed, this is true; however, I meant that more metaphorically than literally, in the same way that early commercial jets "pushed the limit" of what
91 Post contains links ba1978 : I hate to break this to you, but all of the sub-hunting Nimrod MR1/MR2 have now been retired and the replacement MRA4 cancelled and scrapped. http://
92 Post contains links NAV20 : God, ba1978 - that decision seems to have been taken while this thread was in progress! 4B. quid tossed down the drain and brand-new aeroplanes scrap
93 AirNZ : Sorry, I have to somewahat disagree with that entirely and, indeed, would ask on what factual basis do you declare that 'most' of the public (over so
94 astuteman : The decision was taken quite a long time ago, in truth. I certainly agree with the £4Bn "tossed down the drain" though. From my seat, all the hard m
95 Post contains links NAV20 : Have to 'tidy things up' a bit here. The concept of 'metal fatigue' was virtually unknown when the Comet was designed. The design rule for ALL aeropl
96 AirNZ : How do you conclude that it was a "massive technological failure" when, quite simply, the methods of detecting it's reason for failure were unknown a
97 SEPilot : A failure is a failure regardless of whether or not the designers understood the reason. The passengers on the planes that crashed are still dead. Th
98 NAV20 : So are the 2,739 people who have so far died in 707 crashes? Never had the pleasure of flying in a Comet, but I've flown on 707s often enough. A grea
99 SEPilot : The 707 was never identified as having a fatal flaw like the Comet 1 had. It did, in fairness, have some issues that were discovered by crashes and w
100 seabosdca : The 787 doesn't change the nature of air travel, it just improves the economics of it. All of the technical improvements are very impressive, but in t
101 Braybuddy : Just listening and talking to people. Nothing scientific at all. I travel regularly with friends, and they usually have no interest -- or idea -- wha
102 Post contains images EPA001 : To state this, knowing that Airbus is historically seen the great pioneer of introducing composites in civilian aviation, is an enormous overstretchi
103 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Have to ask, SEPilot, how problems with the Comet1 were 'fatal flaws', whereas people dying in 707 'issues that were discovered by crashes' somehow W
104 SEPilot : Because they were not repairable in the existing aircraft. The Comet 1's never flew again in passenger service. To me that is a fatal flaw; all of th
105 Post contains links and images Baroque : Well if you want a revolutionary aircraft that never went into passenger service, why not try the Bristol Brabazon? The Brabazon was the first aircraf
106 Post contains links NAV20 : It was basically because the British had been preparing for war with Germany since about 1936, SEPilot, and naturally enough the USA hadn't been. US
107 tdscanuck : Have you ever actually been a passenger on a 787? The windows alone make it not look at all like a 737/A320/707/A330/767/etc...the difference is quit
108 Post contains images mestrugo : Actually, as much as I enjoy big windows, it's nothing, uh, really new. Check this lovely image from the inside of a Vickers Viscount:
109 SchorschNG : The A330-300 uses more than 20% less fuel than a DC10-30. Still nobody considers it a new era. The B787 does not start a new era. By the way, the idea
110 AirNZ : So please tell me who has actually been a 'passenger' on a 787.......be a bit difficult wouldn't it seeing as it is not yet in service??? There is no
111 Post contains links JoeCanuck : No it's not...it is the truth. Look back on all of the statements made by Airbus execs when they were still pushing the tin 350 against the 787. A CF
112 NAV20 : EPA001, the key passage of the link JoeCanuck posted, to me, is "........as we want to use existing tooling and production techniques from the A330/A3
113 Post contains images EPA001 : That is the key passage to me as well NAV20. It shows that Airbus reluctance to go for a composite fuselage on the A350 program was solely cost-drive
114 SEPilot : This is a bit misleading-the British wanted North American Aviation to build P-40's under license from Curtis; NAA said that they could build a bette
115 tdscanuck : The claim I was responding to wasn't that it was new, but that "from the passenger's point of view it still looks, smells, and tastes like a 737 or A
116 EPA001 : Could you please elaborate a little more what you mean by this. Because to me it looks like any other aircraft, though it is easily recognisable as a
117 Post contains images bikerthai : It may be revolutionary . . . if and when the rest of the airline industry convert over to the dim-able windows Until the blended wing takes over, th
118 prebennorholm : Dear Viscount, I didn't put them in any particular sequence. I just mentioned all first generation jets in random order from memory. My point was tha
119 Viscount724 : No problem. My point was that you said the 707 was the 4th of those 6 types to enter service but it was actually the 3rd.
120 Post contains images NAV20 : Strictly speaking the order (of entering service) was Comet1 (1952), Tupolev (1956), Comet 4 (1958), Boeing 707 (also 1958, but a month later ), Carav
121 JoeCanuck : It wasn't solely cost driven. Airbus, Leahy in particular, made many derisive comments about the repairability, safety and customer acceptance of com
122 astuteman : Isn't that a bit simplistic too? The "tin" A350 was only on sale for 18 months, and for the last 6 of those Airbus was known to be reviewing its posi
123 tdscanuck : I meant on the inside...from the outside, unless you're an airplane aficionado, the 787 isn't particularly remarkable. I don't expect many of the ave
124 Coronado : The 787 is definitely not a game changer. It is simply an evolution which may slow down the degradation of overall commercial air traffic. 787= Simply
125 Post contains images DocLightning : I hate you. (Just keepin' ya posted!) So, what's it like? I suppose that's an on-topic question. How does it compare to other aircraft as far as the
126 JoeCanuck : Indeed it is...as any such analysis will be. I only used that as an example of how statistics can be manipulated to support a particular point of vie
127 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for your reply. And I think I know what you mean since the A380 has a similar system on-board. When I flew LHR-SIN and only 40 minutes later s
128 AirNZ : With all due respect SEPilot, you seem to have a very tunnelised vision of what's misleading......i.e misleading if it seemingly does not suit your v
129 JoeCanuck : I don't imagine that every second was spent 'on the clock'. I suspect that he may have had time to mosey around, checking out the general scheme of t
130 mogandoCI : the 787 is the plane that really ushers a new age for Transpacific and for the MiddleEastern carriers (if they order them eventually) the 747 opened u
131 tdscanuck : It's actually considerably better cargo capacity for the pax capacity, most of the creature comforts can't be retrofit, and it's got dual-HUDs standa
132 AirNZ : Sorry, but I have to disagree here entirely and, indeed, I feel that you are deliberately taking 'passenger' out of proper context. Firstly, the airc
133 Post contains images bikerthai : Don't knock Tom because you are jealous From the FAA standpoint, anyone not part of the crew are passengers (I do not know if they consider test pers
134 PITingres : As long as we're talking about a plane with a real interior (ZA003), the experience should be the same from an environmental perspective. The cabin e
135 SEPilot : As I said, it depends on how you define an "age." I define an age as starting at the time when a new product directly led to widespread use and accep
136 VC10er : I assume you believe the same of the A380. Just a giant version that ushers in somethng bigger than a 747?
137 VC10er : I always felt that the 747, even when i was 12 years old when launched, was some thing of great AWE, but since I got that it was just giant and not t
138 Post contains images bikerthai : Some times back (way back) I was on a C-141 flight from the Philippines to Wake Island. As a refugee, I did not have much of carry on luggage. I did
139 Post contains images tarheelwings : FWIW, I for one understand where tdscanuck is coming from and appreciate his input. Being an enthusiasts forum, I'm pretty sure everyone here knows t
140 SEPilot : I do not really see any separate "jumbo age"; but if you do, it certainly started with the 747. In that case it would be as you say. And per this thr
141 JoeCanuck : Without the airlines and manufacturers, the general public wouldn't have very much to fly on. Air travel is a business and all the traveling public n
142 Post contains links NAV20 : A big part of the reason for that, SEPilot, was that the USA had produced no jets of its own, and none of the early European ones had the range/relia
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...
Looking Like The 787 Won't Fly In June posted Sat Jun 13 2009 11:05:52 by Clickhappy
Did Any Nordic Airlines Operate The B 707? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 04:51:53 by Mortyman
What Does MD-80 Etc Sound Like At The Back? posted Sun Jul 10 2005 16:22:09 by Aerlingus330
New Technology On The 787 posted Tue May 3 2005 08:09:42 by ACB777
The New Design For The Boeing 787. posted Mon May 2 2005 21:21:12 by 747400sp
Boeing's Next New Airliner After The 787? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 23:24:41 by Reggaebird
How Do You Like The New Jetstar Livery? posted Mon Dec 29 2003 02:05:14 by Q330
Did NW Put New Hushkits On The DC9s? posted Thu Dec 25 2003 03:16:53 by BR715-A1-30
Could The 7E7 Do Neat, New Routes Like These? posted Tue Nov 18 2003 00:19:29 by Atcboy73
Does Anyone Like The Sound Of Thrust Reversers? posted Sat Oct 25 2003 21:41:27 by Congun1