Now that the shark tail fins are gone, I would like to really understand what new stuff the 787 is bringing in terms of technology.

No need to answer "Composites! composites! composites!" I got this part! my question is how will composites improve performance?

I agree that putting an entire fuselage section in an oven and having it all nice and well right after that is pretty elegant. But does it really make sense for the "tube part" (fuselage cross section)? Is the cost of bringing a few sheets of metal (or glare) together such that investing in an all composite fuselage make sense?

The A380 wing box is in composite. Isn't that the most complex part in the airframe? What will Boeing gain by having the fuselage skin in composite? How is that a revolution?

What are the main other technological advances for the 787?

Go check out AC's presentation (it's available on their website) a few weeks ago. They lay out in details why the 787 is a game changer. (Here is a hint, the money saved over the 786 is worth twice what the plane costs).

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): The A380 wing box is in composite. Isn't that the most complex part in the airframe? What will Boeing gain by having the fuselage skin in composite? How is that a revolution?

Don't forget the upper fuselage shell is made of carbon fibre.


Regards
Udo

[Edited 2005-04-30 16:43:54]

Composites are stronger and lighter than the metals that are currently used...Also, they can be manufactured to resist specific forces, so they can make each part according to their specific needs...

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): Now that the shark tail fins are gone, I would like to really understand what new stuff the 787 is bringing in terms of technology.

The shark tail fin was an aesthetic thing. Nothing to do with the technology.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): No need to answer "Composites! composites! composites!" I got this part! my question is how will composites improve performance?

Stronger, yet lighter. It means the fuel burn will be less. It will also make the cabin more comfortable for passengers.
You really should keep up with all the discussions about this.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): Is the cost of bringing a few sheets of metal (or glare) together such that investing in an all composite fuselage make sense?

Yes, because it will make the aircraft more efficient and comfortable.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): What will Boeing gain by having the fuselage skin in composite? How is that a revolution?

A lighter, more fuel efficient aircraft and a more comfortable passenger experience. There have been non-stop discussions about this.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter): What are the main other technological advances for the 787?

More efficient engines, hence why Airbus wants to use them on the A350. They will also be bleedless making maintenance easier and making engines interchangeable. I learnt this from the discussions on this forum. You really should read it more.

The 787 incorporates a lot of the innovations Boeing researched as part of the Sonic Cruiser project.

It will have 'bleedless' engines - air will not be bled from the engines for cabin heating and to run systems. Thus the engines will deliver around 12% more power for the same throttle setting. Other advantages are fresher air in the cabin, and weight-saving due to less ducting and fans.

it will also have high-aspect-ratio, thinner wings. This means that ,although it will have a slightly shallower rate of climb than less modern aeroplanes, it will be able to fly higher and faster with the wings generating less drag. This of course will further reduce fuel consumption.

Advanced streamlining techniques developed for the Sonic Cruiser will also be incorporated.

Thank you for your replies but I still don't see how applying this baked composite technology such a plus.

I agree it's never been done. I agree it looks good. What is the weight gain on 1 meter of fuselage cross section compared to what Airbus is doing? Why not make composite parts and bring them together?

I mean, can anyone go beyond the "Composites! composites! composites!" argument?

Can you really revolutionize airliners by changing the "tube"?

More info. in reply 5, A380900 - crossed with yours.

Why do we have to rehash this for you? It's been discussed a million times.

However if you need a quick summary:

Reduction in weight while maintaining fuselage strength
Reduction in parts as fuselage segments are large cylindrical single pieces
Elimination of seams and rivets within fuselage segment
Ability to make large windows
Ability to increase cabin pressure without compromising structure or increasing fuselage strength
Ability to maintain higher humidity levels without increasing corrosion

Quoting A380900 (Reply 6): Thank you for your replies but I still don't see how applying this baked composite technology such a plus.

By making larger pieces, it reduces the possibility of having failed welds, etc. It helps to make it stronger.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):

By how much? That is my point. How is it really going to change things?

I mean Airbus is arguing they use composite "as much as is necessary". I'm sure they have thought of building a big oven and bake airplanes in it.

Is it really a technological breakthrough like the invention of the wheel?

For small airplane, I can see how it makes things better as they really "cook" most of the airframe in one shot. For bigger aiplanes, you cannot do that. What's the point of cooking fuselage part? Is there really a technological breakthrough here? Will it reduce the weight of the tube by 1/3 or sth?

[Edited 2005-04-30 17:12:46]

This has been long in coming for Boeing. With the Sonic Cruiser research and their military programs, they are in a position to do this. Meanwhile, Airbus has been wrapped up in the A380 for a while, and as such have not been working on this technology. As such, Airbus are not up to the same level in this kind of applications. This will change with the A400, which is supposed to have a composite fuselage.

Reduction in weight while maintaining fuselage strength :
>Less weight = less fuel... OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...


>Reduction in parts as fuselage segments are large cylindrical single pieces
Makes errors even more expensive.

>Elimination of seams and rivets within fuselage segment
ok less weight... like we mentioned earlier.

>Ability to make large windows
Nice... but would prefer more legroom

>Ability to increase cabin pressure without compromising structure or increasing fuselage strength
Ability to maintain higher humidity levels without increasing corrosion
Other parts will corrode. This is theoretical and my bet the % humidity change wont be perceptible.

Sorry, the 787 will certainly perform well but does not merit all this hype. As usual, americans are very good in "making the show". I still believe air industry is a serious business but i know i am naive. Now everything is about communication.

Reduction in weight while maintaining fuselage strength :
>Less weight = less fuel... OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...
>>what kind of a point is this, ok low seats=high seat/fuel cost, so Big Sky air should scrap their metros and start flying A380's? Not every route requires a jumbo jet, the point is to reduce the cost per seat/mile to less then comparable aircraft, and introduce lower seat costs for larger (non-stop) segments with higher frequencies to make them more convenient for passengers and therefore more profitable for an airline, the bottom line making more money where it can be made

>Reduction in parts as fuselage segments are large cylindrical single pieces
Makes errors even more expensive.
>>having not seen an entire composite fuselage, I can only comment that typical composite repairs on other structures are typically as easily made as those to sheetmetal structures, rest assured Boeing will have done their research on this and repair schemes will be as easily acquired as well as accomplished as current repairs, not to mention these fuselage pieces are still comparable to size as current models, i.e. next generation 737 shipped on rail as entire pieces.

>Elimination of seams and rivets within fuselage segment
ok less weight... like we mentioned earlier.
>>This is where your money starts being made, less weight less assembly time, its win, win

>Ability to make large windows
Nice... but would prefer more legroom
>>Large windows=perception of roomier cabin, not quite the same as the legroom, but who knows with lower seat/mile costs more legroom is possible with some carriers, especially with longer segments, not really up to the manufacturer though.

>Ability to increase cabin pressure without compromising structure or increasing fuselage strength
Ability to maintain higher humidity levels without increasing corrosion
Other parts will corrode. This is theoretical and my bet the % humidity change wont be perceptible.
>>What parts are those? There's not a whole lot left on a fly by wire/composite structure aircraft that's susceptible to corrosion that's gonna be a concern, seats? seat tracks? galley carts? somebody name something here that isn't already susceptible to corrosion from all the soda pop spilled all over the place from f/a's and pax (another wonderful reason for composite structure to any of us that have ever cleaned corrosion under a lav or galley). But its more important to remember that current a/c spend most of their time in regular humidity conditions, the real gain here is not the lack of corrosion from higher humidity, its the ability to maintain that higher humidity by eliminating the current bleed air/acm (air cycle machine) combination that removes most of the moisture from the air while removing the engine heat. I for one look forward to any increase in in-flight humidity.

In conclusion this technology is a long time coming, it seems manufacturers have spent more time developing computers and fly by wire systems, and new computer design systems then they have been integrating composite technology into major structure. Imagine where we would be today if Boeing had built the 777 the same way. The changes might be played up a bit for the public, but the changes will truly be major to the airlines, and those of us that maintain the world's fleet.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Makes errors even more expensive.

However, quality control with composites can be precisely monitored. The Ge90 features a composite fan, and since 1995, only two individual blades have ever required replacement.

Don't forget that a 787 will require maintenance cylces half as often as current aircraft because of the more durable composite materials.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Nice... but would prefer more legroom

Airline's problem, not Boeing

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Sorry, the 787 will certainly perform well but does not merit all this hype. As usual, americans are very good in "making the show"

Oh please... the French have the most reknown marketing firms in the world. And making the show? What's that shtick Airbus puts on every year at Paris and Faranborough? :-/

Quoting A380900 (Reply 10): Is it really a technological breakthrough like the invention of the wheel?

You're so dense. Do you really think a new material is on par with the wheel, which arguably altered the course of human history?

Quoting A380900 (Reply 6): What is the weight gain on 1 meter of fuselage cross section compared to what Airbus is doing? Why not make composite parts and bring them together?

By making the fuselage a bit wider than the A330 fuselage, the 787 can:

- Seat 8 abreast in more comfort
- Have the option of seating 9 abreast in relative comfort
- Overhead crew rest unit like on 777/747. Increases revenue area compared to A330/A350

Composites are to 787 what ETOPS was to the 777 what FBW was to the A320. Comprende?

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...

Yes, the plane's designers are really betting that potential customers will fall for the neat black color.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...

Has there ever been a more hollow attempt at Boeing bashing? On this board? Yes. But it's still up there.

Since the A380's first flight, everything that seats less than 500 is a load of crap to some people. It's far better than anything else in its size class and it's a size class airlines clearly want.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14): However, quality control with composites can be precisely monitored. The Ge90 features a composite fan, and since 1995, only two individual blades have ever required replacement.

Wow! That is awesome. Goes to show what good QC can do for a company. I think that real cost savings can come (for any company) by reducing scrap and non conforming parts for ever being produced.

PG

Quoting A380900 (Reply 6): I mean, can anyone go beyond the "Composites! composites! composites!" argument?

Boeing and its partner suppliers have made exhaustive trade studies on systems architecture, structures (including composites), aerodynamics, powerplant - in short, all aspects of aircraft design. I was involved in trade studies on the hydraulic system, and the result of our trade studies included 5000 psi and large electric pumps which ultimately saved weight reduced power loss.

The criteria for choosing the best alternatives ultimately boiled down to minimizing risk and achieving the lowest life cycle cost for the airplane. This encompasses manufacturing cost, weight, fuel burn, maintenance cost, etc. It's not possible for members of this forum, who were not privy to this process, to know all aspects of the decision process. Even though I was involved, I only know a minuscule part of these issues, as I am only one of thousands of engineers world-wide who participated in these studies.

It's conceivable that another group of engineers would have arrived at a different design due to their assessment of risk and cost projections. But the bottom line is, these decisions were made by the best aviation minds in the world - not just Boeing, but the supplier base, the same supplier base that also serves Airbus.

Pete

Nobody's mentioned the obvious advantage of the modular construction of the 787: you can have the subcontractors better compete against each other. "The section A of frame #157 goes to the Long Beach Aviation Workers Guild Commemorative Team, section C of #158 goes to Ni Hao Aviation of China, the winning bid for section D of #160 is submitted by United Aviagorod of Belarus."

-Eilennaei

Quoting A380900 (Reply 6): Thank you for your replies but I still don't see how applying this baked composite technology such a plus.

That is because you don't want to see what a plus it is.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 10): For bigger aiplanes, you cannot do that.

Yes you can, that is the point.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Reduction in weight while maintaining fuselage strength : >Less weight = less fuel... OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...

Ok, and that is why Boeing sold so few 767s????    First, the 20% reduction in fuel burn will combine with lower MX costs to give a massive cost savings over not just the already efficient 767 but also over larger planes. It is is all together likely that the 789 will have lower CASM than the A333/A343/772A/772ER because of its reduction in costs.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): >Reduction in parts as fuselage segments are large cylindrical single pieces Makes errors even more expensive.

Like DFWRev said, QC is to the point that it is statistically insignificant

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): >Ability to make large windows Nice... but would prefer more legroom

Then call your airline and tell them you want more leg room. Boeing is making a difference with the larger windows, something they can control

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): >Ability to increase cabin pressure without compromising structure or increasing fuselage strength Ability to maintain higher humidity levels without increasing corrosion Other parts will corrode. This is theoretical and my bet the % humidity change wont be perceptible.

The humidity change will be something like 30%, which is perceptible. Additionally, it is not so much about corrosion as it is about the amount of humidity the 787's structure and systems can actually keep in. Beyond that, it is far easier to protect things like wiring from humidity than it is an exposed metal skin

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Sorry, the 787 will certainly perform well but does not merit all this hype. As usual, americans are very good in "making the show".

The 787 does deserve all the hype it is getting because it is not only selling amazingly well but it is also introducing major changes to the way aircraft are built and the way they operate. That and it is lowering costs, which is good for both airlines and passengers. Finally, it is doing all of this while still costing the same as the aircraft it is replacing, and less than competitiors.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 10): Is it really a technological breakthrough like the invention of the wheel?

Not even close

Quoting A380900 (Reply 10): For small airplane, I can see how it makes things better as they really "cook" most of the airframe in one shot. For bigger aiplanes, you cannot do that. What's the point of cooking fuselage part? Is there really a technological breakthrough here? Will it reduce the weight of the tube by 1/3 or sth?

You can always make a bigger oven.

Quoting LineMechQX (Reply 13): >Elimination of seams and rivets within fuselage segment ok less weight... like we mentioned earlier. >>This is where your money starts being made, less weight less assembly time, its win, win

Don't forget that this also leaves less rivets/bolts pointing out of the fuselage, further reducing drag. Hey, if a clean aircraft saves about 1% of fuel over a dirty one, I'm sure those bolt-heads make a difference too.

Of course there are aerodynamic improvements as well, but composites are stealing the show because they allow for some many new things.

Cheers,
PPVRA

Quoting A380900 (Reply 10): I mean Airbus is arguing they use composite "as much as is necessary". I'm sure they have thought of building a big oven and bake airplanes in it.

And of course if Airbus isn't doing it then there must be a good reason. It can't be because it's expensive technology and Airbus had already gone in a different (not all-composite) direction with the A380 and now they need to - oh, how did Aither put it - "Make the show"?

Really, A380900, I would give you more credit than this thread. Maybe my attitude changed as I read it due to Aither, but I can't help but feel like you were in the mood for a 787 bash.

-Dave

I´m sure the B787 will be as big success as the B777, thousands Russian technicians are working on the B787, something Boeing learnt while designing
the B777. The Russians are good on designing airplanes, personally I think
that the engines are the biggest improvement, but it sure adds up....

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5): it will have a slightly shallower rate of climb than less modern aeroplanes

Oh no, slow rate of climb A343 threads will be replaced with 787 ones?  

I think they think this airplane is a game-changer and so do many airlines.

You have to put this in perspective. 20-30% gains are beyond huge. Given that profit margins at airlines are so low and that there have been relatively small gains in efficiency of recent airplane design, small differences multiplied over time yields big monetary differences. This airplane will pay for itself quickly in savings.

Simply put, it is cheaper, better and faster than anything out there. This plane is cheap to operate, is a better experience for the passenger and requires significantly less maintenance meaning less employee costs and more time in service earning money. And all of these savings are BIG compared to recent gains made in aircraft design.

Yes, this plane, should it meet its design specifications, will radically change how future planes are made and how airlines operate. I don't think it is hype.

And while you are blasting the American hype, you have repeated the Airbus's own meaningless hype about per seat costs. They seemed to have invented this argument with the A380. Truth is, it doesn't matter if your per seat costs are low IF YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPE SITTING IN THE SEATS. The A380 has a definite role but it is limited to high density routes. Most planes fly with much less people and Boeing is arguing that people want more nonstop flights at more convenient times meaning smaller planes. Speaking only for myself as a passenger, I agree.

While the Airbus fans on this site continue to question Boeings hype you are not hearing that from Airbus itself who has shut up about the 787 and are giving it cautious credit - at least Leahy. I interpret that as they are licking their wounds and going back to the drawing board for the next battle as they should.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Sorry, the 787 will certainly perform well but does not merit all this hype. As usual, americans are very good in "making the show". I still believe air industry is a serious business but i know i am naive. Now everything is about communication.

So, if you admit to being naive, why would you accuse Americans of "making the show?" I mean, if you are aware of your own inexperience and ignorance, why would you say this?

The last time I checked, our economy was still leading the world. I'd say that's a little more than "making the show." And as far as the Boeing 787 goes, this airplane is definitely upping the ante. For the first time in a while, Airbus may have to play catch-up, hype or no.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 22): but I can't help but feel like you were in the mood for a 787 bash.

I must admit... Yet I sincerely wonder how much you can improve things just by having all composites "tubes". I'm sure the use of metal/glare must be quite close.

Quoting MrComet (Reply 25): Truth is, it doesn't matter if your per seat costs are low IF YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPE SITTING IN THE SEATS.

What is this new angle a lot of people seem to take on the forum? If A380s fly empty they won't make money? Well, it's hard to disagree. I really don't see the point.

To give a real world example of the advantages of this type of construction, compare the Cessna Citation CJ-2 to the Raytheon Premere.

The Premere uses a construction similiar to what the 787 will use. The CJ and premere use the same engine, and are about the same size. However, the Premere is about 100kts faster and has greater range.

Enough of the A vs B crap. Airbus went big, and Boeing went for another niche. Time will tell us if the A380 is a success. However we already know that an aircraft in the smaller 250-300 seat range works. It works so well that Airbus created the A350 to try and soften the blow of the 787. There are a ton of A330s, 767s, and 757s out there and this is now 20-30 year old technology. These are going to need to be replaced.

Carbon fibre composites are the most important thing to in the aerospace industry today. The great thing about them is that they can be engineered for a specific purpose. Boeing and Airbus are really only dabbling in what can be done with composites, but you only have to look at Scaled to see what the future holds.

Aluminium, for example, has a specific strength (tensile strength to density ratio) of about 2x10^4 m. Kevlar has a specific strength of about 20x10^4 m! That's a an entire order of magnitude stronger. Celion 3000 (HS) is even higher, around 23-25x10^4 m.

Aluminium has a specific tensile modulus (modulus of elasticity upon density) of about 3x10^6 m. Compare that to Thornel P100 which is about 33X10^6m That's more than an order of magnitude bigger.

You can engineer them to do whatever you want. Tinker with the fibres or the matrix, and you can get a whole load of properties engineers could previously dream about. For cheap yet light parts, use fibreglass. For stronger parts use graphite. Where you can afford it use Kevlar. If you want to reduce weight in a part where you could only use titanium in the past, try engineering a composite to go in its place.

That's not the only benefits. Polymer Matrix Composites (PMCs) are excellent pressure vessels. The result is obvious: Boeing is using the better radial load properties to lower the cabin pressure to 6000ft at altitude and increase humidity.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 26): The last time I checked, our economy was still leading the world.

That comment is worthy of Aither's clueless replies.

We also lead the industrialized nations in all the other relevant statistics: violent crime, percent of population imprisoned, income disparity, child mortality, obesity, etc.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 27): Yet I sincerely wonder how much you can improve things just by having all composites "tubes". I'm sure the use of metal/glare must be quite close

Do you even understand what you're saying? GLARE is a composite! It's an aluminium and glass composite and it seems that much more of it was used in the A380 than was originally planned, apparently due to a weight emergency easly on.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Other parts will corrode. This is theoretical and my bet the % humidity change wont be perceptible

What other parts? The increase in humidity is to around the levels it is in an office, which is pretty high compared to levels at altitude in current airliners. Combine that with the increased pressure and you have a much better flying experience.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 31): Do you even understand what you're saying? GLARE is a composite!

Hey dude, slow down. I'm comparing Boeing's proposed technology to what Airbus is currently doing. As we all know, Airbus is not 100% metal for the fuselage...

Quoting A380900 (Reply 32): Hey dude, slow down. I'm comparing Boeing's proposed technology to what Airbus is currently doing. As we all know, Airbus is not 100% metal for the fuselage...

If Airbus were developing the A380 now, they'd want all-composite fuselage and wings. The performance of the A380 would benefit from it too.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 33): Quoting A380900 (Reply 32): Hey dude, slow down. I'm comparing Boeing's proposed technology to what Airbus is currently doing. As we all know, Airbus is not 100% metal for the fuselage...

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 33): If Airbus were developing the A380 now, they'd want all-composite fuselage and wings. The performance of the A380 would benefit from it too.

I think that's the point. He seems to question Airbus not doing a 100% composite fuselage - and thus the wisdom or benefit in doing one - when the reality is that, if Airbus were to take on the A380 as a fresh aircraft today, they'd likely do a 100% composite one.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 27): Yet I sincerely wonder how much you can improve things just by having all composites "tubes".

A380900 - could you clarify for us - are you still wondering, or have the 20-something posts in this thread answered your question?

-Dave

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5): This means that ,although it will have a slightly shallower rate of climb than less modern aeroplanes,

Where did you get that idea?

Quoting A380900 (Reply 27): I'm sure the use of metal/glare must be quite close.

Glare is a composite material, but it's a generation behind the carbon laminate being used in the 787. It saves weight, but it doesn't benefit from many of the advantages of carbon laminate. Glare is still manufactured and fitted like aluminum skin, laminate allows an entire seemless tube.

Glare is new material but old manufacturing. Laminate is newer material and new manufacturing. So to sum up:

The 787 makes more extensive use of more advanced materials than the A380. The advantages this will give customers have been listed at length above.

Quoting Jeffrito (Reply 30): That comment is worthy of Aither's clueless replies. We also lead the industrialized nations in all the other relevant statistics: violent crime, percent of population imprisoned, income disparity, child mortality, obesity, etc.

So? Perhaps guilt dominates your world view, and if you can't enjoy success for its attendant problems, that's your own personal issue. But I don't see how this is at all relevant to my point, which was to refute the mild assertion that American business is good at "making the show." American business is *measurably* productive, so much so that one must be pretty thick to conclude that such success is merely a show. If Aither did not mean to say that American economic success is just hype, he can correct us. But if he did, then his point is truly clueless.

Is Boeing's five decades of success just "making the show?" How about Airbus's recent success? If Boeing actually builds a 767 replacement that has 20 to 30% reduced operating expenses over the 767, is that just hype? Of course, it isn't. It's a stalwart American economy doing what so many others have done and will continue to do: produce. I expect Airbus, a company with a proven track record of excellence, to do the same.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 22): A380900 - could you clarify for us - are you still wondering, or have the 20-something posts in this thread answered your question?

I think he didn't like hearing the answers.

Gee, the title of this thread isn't slanted at all is it?

Just to add to the already pointed out benefits, I would say the goal of three days for final assembly is pretty impressive too - I think that is also part of what makes it cheaper to produce, but someone can correct me if I am wrong??

Quoting LineMechQX (Reply 13): >Ability to make large windows Nice... but would prefer more legroom

You get both.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Less weight = less fuel... OK but the low number of seats still make the 787 seats/fuel cost pretty poor...

Not hardly, and the average aircraf twill save nearly one million gallons of fuel per year.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Makes errors even more expensive.

or... Due to strength - Less likely.

Quoting Aither (Reply 12): Ability to maintain higher humidity levels without increasing corrosion Other parts will corrode. This is theoretical and my bet the % humidity change wont be perceptible.

As a B-2 pilot.

Are there any drawbacks? Why do people say it is expensive to do all composite? The up front cost is higher but it's cheaper afterwards?

What's the weight benefit? (for say, 10 meters of tube) Nobody here seems to know in spite of the numerous specialists in the "787 rules the universe" BS.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 26): The last time I checked, our economy was still leading the world.

Is this a joke? You owe more money than you will ever be able to pay back. You borrow everyday just to maintain your standard of living. your currency is in ruin and will further weaken as it sees its monopoly on commodity trading disappear. You have a fiscally irresponsible administration. Don't worry dude, the reckoning is coming. All you have left is idiotic belligerence and overconfidence. Reminds me of... Boeing!

Quoting MrComet (Reply 25): I think they think this airplane is a game-changer and so do many airlines. You have to put this in perspective. 20-30% gains are beyond huge.

Can you please stop it will: never make 20/30% gains! I mean come on, it is not coming from outer space. Maybe compared to the very first versions of the 767 but that would surprise me. Do you realize airplane makers are fighting for percentage points? What is your benchmark any way 20% means nothing without precise measure.

[Edited 2005-05-01 05:49:25]

[Edited 2005-05-01 05:52:14]

All new technology gets hyped by the manufacturers; Airbus did the same thing when harping the A380's merits over the much older 747-400. Even a stretched, updated 747 couldn't truly compete on an even footing with the all-new A380 and the same thing will be true of the A350 vs. the 787. We're already beginning to see the fallacy of the Airbus strategy with the spate of recent 787 orders by key Airbus customers. Whatever lightening and performance improvements the A350 gets over its A330 forebear, it will still be heavier and less than fully competitive with the all-new 787 due to its derivative of an older design roots. Airbus has been trying to refute the compelling argument they made with the A380 and is beginning to learn the futility of doing so. They simply didn't do an all-new design here because doing a heavily changed derivative was cheaper and faster to market. Only problem for them is that efficiency in this class is crucial, thanks to rising fuel costs and predictably, airlines are going for the newest technology that will best achive it. If recent trends hold and A350 orders continue to lag, as is looking increasingly likely, Airbus will have to scrap it and do what they should have done before, an all-new design truly comparable to the 787. If so, they'll be years behind in this vital market, not an enviable position given they've been on such a roll, overall, until now.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Is this a joke? You owe more money than you will ever be able to pay back. You borrow everyday just to maintain your standard of living. your currency is in ruin and will further weaken as it sees its monopoly on commodity trading disappear. You have a fiscally irresponsible administration. Don't worry dude, the reckoning is coming. All you have left is idiotic belligerence and overconfidence. Reminds me of... Boeing!

Oh, right. I forgot. You're the guy who insists that the rest of the world really hates us and is "coming for us."

No, this isn't a joke. Though you may not understand, the majority of Americans get up everyday, and work hard to keep our standard of living. I'm sure the French have plenty of smart, hard-working people to fuel their economic engine. So does the USA. And so does Boeing.

(Patting you on the head...) You just continue to think that we're just a bunch of dupes in a great conspiracy, that only you can see. You *could* be right, but I seriously doubt it.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Are there any drawbacks?

The in-service reliability has yet to be proven. Immediate concerns are ramp damage to which Boeing added extra layers of material in areas likely to be bumped and each aircraft will carry a "patch kit" that last until the next maintenance overhaul.

Boeing will also have to demonstrate that 36-month maintenance cycles are viable.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Why do people say it is expensive to do all composite?

Because the properties of composites are so different than aluminum they require a time/resource consuming learning curve.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): The up front cost is higher but it's cheaper afterwards?

Bingo- carbon laminate is both cheaper to manufacture than aluminum, and when components reach final assembly, they "snap" together with far less hassle. Assembly time for the 787 has been reduced to three days, meaning less wages to pay. A labor reduction of 14 days compared to current aircraft is massive

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): What's the weight benefit?

Boeing says the 787 will weigh 30% less than an aluminum aircraft with comperable payload. Source-

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158388_air28.html

By volume the 787 will be 80% composite, but by weight, the 787 will be 57% composite.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Nobody here seems to know in spite of the numerous specialists in the "787 rules the universe" BS.

I found the numbers, with sources, in two minutes on Google. Tell me- did you try looking on your own?

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Can you please stop it will: never make 20/30% gains!

The SFC of 733 was 22% less than the 732. That's documented. With all the tech going into the 787, a 20% reduction in fuel burn is not unreasonable.

The total opperating cost of the 787 will be about 12% lower than today's aircraft. Remember that the single greatest cost is not fuel or maintenance, but paying the cabin crew. The only thing Boeing can do in that regard is increase the cruise mach so that the crew is flying the airplane for less hours.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): What is your benchmark any way 20% means nothing without precise comments.

From Boeing: 20% fuel reductions compared to comperable aircraft. That means the 763ER and A332.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Do you realize airplane makers are fighting for percentage points?

Oh please... look at the numbers Airbus are advertizing for the A380 economics.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): What's the weight benefit? (for say, 10 meters of tube) Nobody here seems to know in spite of the numerous specialists in the "787 rules the universe" BS.

First off A380900, when you come at a situation with such obvious bias it takes all your credibility away, even when someone points out facts you still dispute it and write it off as lies.

A quick search on the internet will reveal many sites discussing the advantages of composites. I looked at many different ones, it looks like most composites offer about a 20% (but up to 30%) weight savings versus aluminum for aircraft applications.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Can you please stop it will: never make 20/30% gains! I mean come on, it is not coming from outer space.

Boeing claims that it will be 20% more fuel efficient than other airliners in the same size class, this is the manufacturer's claim, so remains to be seen, but Boeing has not shown themselves to lie about performance in the past. If they didn't think they could get it 20% more efficient, why would they claim it? BTW, this (as I understand it) has a lot to do with the bleedless engine technology, though I am sure the weight savings from composites will be considerable also since less weight = less fuel burn.

a380900
After that last tirade, you've shown you are only interested in attacking things you don't understand. You are not worthy of response. If not for the intelligent people who wasted their time trying to educate you, this thread ought to be deleted...

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Nobody here seems to know in spite of the numerous specialists in the "787 rules the universe" BS.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Don't worry dude, the reckoning is coming. All you have left is idiotic belligerence and overconfidence. Reminds me of... Boeing!

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Can you please stop it will: never make 20/30% gains! I mean come on, it is not coming from outer space.

Note to self: Disregard all future A380900 posts - life's too short.

-Dave

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Nobody here seems to know in spite of the numerous specialists in the "787 rules the universe" BS.

No, it is just that you are a specialist in ignoring educated responses for your own biases

Quoting A380900 (Reply 42): Can you please stop it will: never make 20/30% gains!

Yes, it will

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 45): Remember that the single greatest cost is not fuel or maintenance, but paying the cabin crew.

Not these days

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 45): The total opperating cost of the 787 will be about 12% lower than today's aircraft.

And it keeps getting lower as fuel prices rise