tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Quoting Max Q (Thread starter): I would think that tail clearance on rotation would be a real problem on the -10 in particular.
The extra fuselage length isn't going to help, but the 787 tailstrike law is *very* good. It can reliably plant the tail a foot from the runway so you can safely and repeatedly get the full rotation angle.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
That's fine, but software and flight control laws can only get you so far. If you start to have take off performance penalties because you have to run up the v speeds to provide adequate tail clearance on rotation (like the B764) you are sacrificing performance and marketability.
I suspect the 787-10 will need a longer gear (like the 764 has)
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5383 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5): I found the MMEL on MBF and found that the aircraft has a "Tail Strike Detection System". I thought that was the role the pilot filled with a Mark-10 Mechanic Eyeball as a back-up.
Did you click past the dialog box on MBF that says, "Information contained herein is Boeing proprietary, and by clicking 'continue', you agree to NOT SHARE IT WITH ANYBODY?" Cuz I think "anybody" would include a.net...
A poor choice of words, wider would be better. The outside of bogey to outside of bogey on the 789 is 10" more on the 788 The wheel spacing is wider around the centre line of the strut probably because of the bigger tire size.
Go to the Boeing ACAP sheets , find the 787 Brochure and look at P18.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 8): How about storage? Boeing has already had to play around with the upper surface of the bay to accomodate the 10" thicker gear of the 789.
They might be able to mount the strut farther out on the wing.
Honestly, though, I have the feeling Boeing always considered a longer 787 than the -9 and took that into account when designing the undercarriage. Also, the 787-10X's latest dimensions are a 5m stretch as opposed to the original 6m stretch so that might be a concession to rotation issues (stretch it 3m front and 2m aft).