VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3121 posts, RR: 14 Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14772 times:
"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!
manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14740 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.
VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3121 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14663 times:
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!
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4889 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14665 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.
NorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1924 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14579 times:
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
328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14575 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.
deltamartin From Sweden, joined Dec 2010, 1061 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14546 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.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16090 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14300 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?
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14265 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.
Speedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14189 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.
Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12235 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 14151 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32109 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13998 times:
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.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 9041 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13966 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
kalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13942 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
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 13727 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