Final 787 External Look: Sharktail Etc Gone (Pics)

airfrnt · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:30 pm

Quoting Voodoo (Reply 37):
Looks like the biiiig windows are gone too.

Nope, AC said yesterday that the large windows wherre part of the reason it choose the plane.

NAV20 · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:30 pm

Boeing's VP (marketing) has a blog. His name is Randy Baseler (wouldn't last long HERE with a nickname like that, but still, he's entertainig at times Smile

)

I thought I'd put this on because, if you scroll down, you'll see that the part of the aeroplane that we'll all see most of (the cabin) is likely to look VERY different.

http://www.boeing.com/randy/

7e72004 · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:30 pm

I have to think about this one...i think it was expected that boeing would not go with the "shark tail," but the nose is still somewhat intact from the original renderings. I have to think Big grin

RayChuang · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:40 pm

Actually, I like the final look of the 787. bigthumbsup

Unlike the earlier concept design, I believe the final design was dictated for pilot visibility (blunter nose) and aerodynamic stability (more conventional tail) reasons. The switch to the taller, more conventional tail was probably done to avoid the problem of Dutch roll that was a problem with the early 707's. Also, note that the rear fuselage design makes it more adaptable to install Boeing's own Flying Boom air refuelling system, which means maybe Boeing has in mind the possibility of building an air-refuelling tanker based on the 787 design! cool

stirling · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:40 pm

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 48):
The latest design probably reflects how the plane needs to be built in order to achieve the aerodynamic efficiencies that Boeing is promising with this aircraft.

I've also wondered if the design shift from a parabola/elliptical (sharkfin) shape to one more with more traditional and rectilinear lines might have more to do with the BALANCING of the rudder; a hyper-sensitive component with microscopic tolerances.
With a curved rudder, the weight distribution would be inconsistent through the length of the device.....just my uneducated theory.

Thoughts? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Airdolomiti · Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:42 pm

The 787-3 looks like an EMB-170 on steroids!

It doesn't look particularly exciting, to be honest -- personally, I much preferred the original shark-fin tail and the cockpit window design to the final ones, but if it works better for them, so be it! It's still gonna be nice to see a new plane in the skies.

EDIT: On second thought, the nose and the tail (particularly the way the tailcone extends quite far behind the trailing edge of the rudder) are highly reminiscent of the ill-fated Dornier 728, a plane which I happened to like a lot.

I still am not sure about the looks of the 787 though.

Federico

[Edited 2005-04-26 17:20:13]

keta · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:00 am

Did you notice that the engine nacelles have now the same undulations* that the 744QLR had? That's for noise reduction for sure, but won't this affect efficiency? Earlier 787 drawings didn't show this.

* I don't know how they're called in english, you can see what I mean on this picture. It's from a 747-400QLR.

columba · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:03 am

Looks like Boeing pulled an Airbus Wink

Everyone was complaining about the A350 being nothing much more then a modernised A330, nothing new to see - instead of going the way Boeing did and coming with a brand new design. Even I was cursing Airbus for that.
But now it seems that Boeing new design is not so new after all.
Now it looks again like it did on the first pictures that have ever been published of the 7E7, where you could see nothing more then a 767 with different wings.

Falcon84 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:08 am

Quoting VirginFSM (Reply 23):
So what was the point of basically misleading folk as to what the plane was going to look like?

Until just yesterday with the AC release they were showing the sharkfin etc.

How have they been "misleading" anyone with preliminary designs? And who gives a rats' ass anyway?

Secondly, it's been common knowledge for months now, that the shark tale design had been basically dropped.

Why the big deal over this?

Quoting Keta (Reply 33):
Airlines may buy planes regarding at their performance, but I do care about its look! My favorite airplane is the most beautiful in my eyes, not the more economical.

Thank God you're not in charge of an airline actually buying planes then. Wink

Most people really don't give a darn what it looks like, as long as it gets them to where they're going.

It looks a helluva lot better than that fat cow A380. Just my opinion.

RayChuang · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:09 am

Keta,

What that is are the scalloped engine nacelles originally developed by a joint Boeing/Rolls-Royce research project that acoustically tuned the noise from the jet exhaust so the noise level drops dramatically. Tests done on a modified 777-200ER powered by two Trent 892 engines showed the modified 772ER easily meets the very strict British Aviation Authority Quota Count 2 noise emission standards used at UK airports.

airbazar · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:11 am

It looks like an EMB190 on steroids Smile

RayChuang · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 am

Quoting Columba (Reply 57):
Everyone was complaining about the A350 being nothing much more then a modernised A330, nothing new to see - instead of going the way Boeing did and coming with a brand new design. Even I was cursing Airbus for that.

Pictures published by Airbus of the A350 looks like an A330 with new wings, engines, and possibly a taller tail design. If they don't do something about a new-material fuselage structure the A350 will pretty be a warmed over A330.

Ready4Pushback · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:18 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 58):
Most people really don't give a darn what it looks like, as long as it gets them to where they're going.

..but this is not a forum of "most people" - it's a forum for people who are enthusiasts. What a/c look like obviously counts.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 58):
How have they been "misleading" anyone with preliminary designs?

Didn't B once say that the design would be "distinctive". I know that is subjective, but until today I wouldn't have questioned it.

European · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:22 am

Hi,

I hated the look of the 787, But seeing these new photo's, I'm starting to like the 787.

Though I'm still used to calling it the 7E7......

Jimmi

Braybuddy · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:23 am

Am I hearing things???? The people who complained about the look of the A380 now say that they don't give a damn what an aircraft looks as long as it flies, and that the shape is based on aerodynamics. Tables are turning.

c680 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:25 am

Quoting Babybus (Reply 25):
What's with the scary wing bending? Gives me the shivers just looking at it.

Quoting TPASXM787 (Reply 38):
But Holy Wing Bend!!

Folks, its not about the nose or the tail.

Its about THE WING. Want more efficiency? Work on the design of the Wing and the Engines. That is exactly what Boeing has done! When you have that done, reduce weight as much as you can. Again, Boeing got it right.

I know of very few people in the real world who chose their flights based on how cool the plane looks. Now, they do tend to care about how much the ticket cost.

Now the real question is: Will that much wing flex scare off some folks who are afraid of flying. I can imagine that as the 787 rolls down the runway and gathers lift at near gross those wings are cong to look like they are going to peal right off the plane. eek

That could really freak out a nervous Nelly.

I think it looks cool as can be. duck

backfire · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:26 am

If you think the finalised version of the 787 doesn't look the way you expected, wait until you see Boeing's final design for the 747 Advanced:

[Edited 2005-04-26 17:55:31]

SNATH · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:30 am

Quoting Keta (Reply 56):
Did you notice that the engine nacelles have now the same undulations* that the 744QLR had?

Yes, well spotted. And I believe I had seen a conceptual drawing of the A350 on a magazine (I don't remember which one), which also had them.

Tony

European · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:30 am

Hello,

Backfire, I cannot see your picture.

Jimmi

Boeing7E7 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:32 am

Quoting Ready4Pushback (Reply 62):
..but this is not a forum of "most people" - it's a forum for people who are enthusiasts. What a/c look like obviously counts

Regardless, you should have read the following:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030505h.html

“The basic shape of large commercial jet airplanes has remained essentially unchanged since the introduction of the Boeing 707 nearly 50 years ago,” said Mike Bair, senior vice president of the 7E7 program. “There’s a good reason for that. The shape is optimal for achieving lift, fighting drag and producing efficient, comfortable flight.”

Subtle touches, however, can be added to produce a more unique shape without affecting the performance of the airplane. Engineers are studying these touches for consideration on the new 7E7.

“We are using this concept similar to how automobile designers use concept cars, to stretch our imaginations, to consider new possibilities and to help us design the best possible product for our customer,” Bair said. “The conventional image that we have shown the world for the past four months is very much our baseline design. But we want to go beyond baseline to something that people will know by sight -- like the way we all know a 747 when we see one.”

You won't be so upset over stupid asthetics. However, the look is clearly different. The nose is significantly sharper rather than blunt, and the top of the tail retains some of the shark look.

TheRedBaron · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:38 am

check this:

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/photok61302.html

and then see the 787 artist paintings...DREAMLINER? 3 WORDS come to my mind:

LAMELINER
SAMELINER
CHEAPLINER.

Now only what airbus has to do is put bigger windows on the 350, use a shark fin tail and say, that they built the airplane that Boeing did not dare to...TWICE !!!

Mark_D. · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:38 am

Falcon84-- How have they been "misleading" anyone with preliminary designs? And who gives a rats' ass anyway?
Secondly, it's been common knowledge for months now, that the shark tale design had been basically dropped.Why the big deal over this?

It's just sad that they had to pull a mini "Sonic Cruiser" and string people along with wild and fanciful design yarns, fo' awhile.

Luckily the A380 first-flight (hopefully) debut tomorrow seems to have smoked them out with that however Smile

Now let's just hope that's their final, final, (final?) visual presentation of the thing!

It looks okay. Quite minimalist but then that's to be expected for a brand-new high-efficiency midsize airliner nowadays. It's probably a good thing that the windows if they are sized as promised will be jumbo-dimensioned in the vertical direction -- at least initially anyway a lot of more-seasoned fliers might take a while to psychologically get used to that pronounced wingflex, and might not want to be reminded of it too much when looking out.

gigneil · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:39 am

I'm thrilled its more aerodynamically efficient.

But its now lost all its charm.

N

DIA · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:40 am

Quoting Keta (Reply 56):
Did you notice that the engine nacelles have now the same undulations* that the 744QLR had?

Yes, they are clearly visible in the 2nd and 3rd photo.

Also, I can't be certain, but it looks like the tail still has a bit of "curvature" to it unlike a 777 tail. . . . .but of course it isn't as noticable as the previous "sharkfin."

HEGAN · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:42 am

It does't look very different indeed

Agur,
Hegan

speedbird128 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:42 am

Braybuddy, I have to agree with you there - isn't it funny though...

Boeing7E7 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:42 am

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 70):
and then see the 787 artist paintings...DREAMLINER? 3 WORDS come to my mind:

I'm going to keep posting this until some of you get it through your thick heads:

“We are using this concept similar to how automobile designers use concept cars, to stretch our imaginations, to consider new possibilities and to help us design the best possible product for our customer,” Bair said. “The conventional image that we have shown the world for the past four months is very much our baseline design. But we want to go beyond baseline to something that people will know by sight -- like the way we all know a 747 when we see one.”

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q2/nr_030505h.html

Ready4Pushback · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:43 am

Quoting Backfire (Reply 66):
If you think the finalised version of the 787 doesn't look the way you expected, wait until you see Boeing's final design for the 747 Advanced:

I don't see the pic?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 69):
You won't be so upset over stupid asthetics. However, the look is clearly different. The nose is significantly sharper rather than blunt, and the top of the tail retains some of the shark look.

But what I was saying was didn't Boeing say that it would look "distinctive"? I don't have a quote, I just think I remember seeing it somewhere. I don't think that anyone but an enthusiast will be able to tell the difference between a 767 and a 787 on sight, unlike the 747 or the 787 "concept design".
I agree in so far as Boeing have done the right thing by going for the efficient design, rather than the "pretty" design, it's just a bit disappointing.

Regardless, it looks like it's going to be a big hit for Boeing - I can't wait to try them out. I suspect that we will go through the same with the interior tho, and it will turn out to be not that different in the end also.

Amy · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:45 am

Almost Elven in it's flowing lines and curious good looks. I like it Smile

DAYflyer · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:48 am

Crap. Did the big windows get the axe too?

I think it looks like hell compared to the first one.

Boeing7E7 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:48 am

Quoting Ready4Pushback (Reply 77):
But what I was saying was didn't Boeing say that it would look "distinctive"? I don't have a quote, I just think I remember seeing it somewhere. I don't think that anyone but an enthusiast will be able to tell the difference between a 767 and a 787 on sight, unlike the 747 or the 787 "concept design".
I agree in so far as Boeing have done the right thing by going for the efficient design, rather than the "pretty" design, it's just a bit disappointing.

1. Then the enthusiast will see the difference.
2. The every day pax that doesn't care won't notice the difference.

If you don't see the clear differences then I don't know what to tell you, get a pair of glasses maybe. Read a press release which clearly stated the drawings were concept and that only sutle changes would be made. I don't know... Maybe you shouldn't put much value in a concept drawing.

clickhappy · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:49 am

The A330 is still the best looking plane around, these new 787 drawings are a bummer, I don't like it at all, it no longer looks graceful.

Mark_D. · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:51 am

The only thing distinctly-different looking about the thing I guess is it's maybe going to look more like a bird in mid-flap with that wingflex, maybe even on landings as well as during other times airborne too.

Boeing7E7 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:53 am

Quoting HEGAN (Reply 74):
It does't look very different indeed

Urban myth.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 81):
The A330 is still the best looking plane around, these new 787 drawings are a bummer, I don't like it at all, it no longer looks graceful.

Well, then thank God Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

NASBWI · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:57 am

While I'm happy that they disposed of the "sharkfin" tail (call me conservative, but somehow I'm just not attracted to concepts that look like something out of a Flash Gordon comic book), I'm not entirely sure of the new tail design - on one of the pictures, it seems a bit too small (see the pic of the 787-8), but I guess if it's functional, so be it. Someone else said it best when he mentioned that it looks like an giant EMB-170, especially with the profile of the fuselage and nose area. Still, not a bad-looking plane smile

WAH64D · Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:58 am

I'm disappointed by the loss of the shark fin. I don't think muck of the aft fuselage and tail now. In fact, if you put an A380 nose and less flexy wings on the thing, it could quite possibly be the ugliest aircraft in the skies. Big grin

Having said that, it still looks clean and modern and I'm sure it'll be a big hit!

Mark_D. · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:05 am

Boeing 7E7 -- Urban myth.

Calm down, Boeing7E7, calm down -- you'll be all right Smile

Scoz · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:06 am

It does look like a bigger 767, but no matter what it will still be a great plane. Especially with its range and technological improvements. It does look different from the original designs.

I eagerly await it being introduced, just like any new Boeing or Airbus product.

Pronto · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:08 am

Well, it's different, but now it's practical - the other renderings were just a bit too much, don't you think? (It still has the four piece windscreen!) I think these new ones are too few and too simple to go on making simple criticisms as comparing them to "warmed up 767s". Just a side comment, that IS the aircraft the 787 is to replace. I think as more details come out and the actual aircraft begins assembly, some people who don't like this "new" look may change their minds...

Bluebellya380 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:09 am

Boeing punked out!!! They had such a good thing going. Now it looks like a big FD928! Boring , but not as boring as the A350. I'm disappointed. weeping

singaporegirl · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:11 am

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 81):
The A330 is still the best looking plane around, these new 787 drawings are a bummer, I don't like it at all, it no longer looks graceful.

i agree

Ready4Pushback · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:13 am

It's very difficult to tell what the tailfin looks like anyway - i think it has some white at the front on the upper tip, making it difficult to see how curved it is. Are there any better pics anywhere?

Sinlock · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:15 am

Quoting Eisenbach (Reply 24):
Didn't you note that the plane has on the first picture winglets - but I don't see winglets on the other pictures.

But I guess these are just design dreams of Boeing and the engineers will shape the plane as they want.

I'm suprised no one else picked up this one...............

The 787-3 will have a shorter wing and a diffrent winglet shape that will fit the flight profile it will see in the Asain markets it's targeted at.

787-3 (165-170ft)
787-8/9 (195ft)

Ken777 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:18 am

Sadly for us (and some Boeing engineers) the wind tunnel can be rather cruel on those pushing the design envelope. At least Boeing has now finalized the design and it's ready to shrink it on down to the 737E . . .

windshear · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:19 am

I think this is the way of the future...

As manufacturors close in on optimum design and performance, I think the shape will come in second. Thus the 777 has optimum performance and fuel burn, thus the 787 with almost matching range and fuel per seat costs as the 777, should in fact, resemble the 777 in some way.

I understand why you are disapointed, but I think you have to wait and see for the real shape, and the interior will look stunning...

This is the Airbus effect I think... The over all cockpit of the Airbus family form the A320 to the A380 looks VERY similar, the A380 even looks kinda like the Beluga which is an A300 design upgrade.

Boaz...

brightcedars · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:30 am

I have to say I'm disappointed. The 7E7 seemed it'd be a sexy design and it turns out the 787 is just a shrink of the 777. Not that I don't like the final design or that of the 777; but Boeing had put my expectations higher.

Boeing7E7 · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:31 am

Quoting Mark_D. (Reply 86):
Calm down, Boeing7E7, calm down -- you'll be all right

I'm fine, just perplexed at the stupidity of so many that were told the drawings were only concept drawings when they came out.

Kangar · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:32 am

I think a lot of people on the forum got fooled by the sales pitch for the 787. The rationale seems to have been that "If it looks this radical, it will surely meet the large performance improvement claims, ergo it is a sizeable leap forward" People used a similar judgement to criticise the A350, stating that because it was very conventional/similar in appearance to the A330, that it can't be any good. Both of these assertions are incorrect. Now that the final 787 design in appearance at least is much more conventional, people are starting to feel a little cheated. Performance is where it's at.

SVNFSM · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:33 am

I'm not disappointed either. The sharktail really made it stand out, but there was something about it I wasn't too fond of. Glad that this is final, I just can't wait to see those huge windows in the cabin! cloudnine

SVN/FSM

ContnlEliteCMH · Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:35 am

Quoting Keta (Reply 56):
Did you notice that the engine nacelles have now the same undulations* that the 744QLR had? That's for noise reduction for sure, but won't this affect efficiency? Earlier 787 drawings didn't show this.

* I don't know how they're called in english, you can see what I mean on this picture. It's from a 747-400QLR.

In English we called those "serrations."

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net