backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by Stele.. on Mar 21 at 8:56 AM


Is this 10 Forward or an airplane interior?
Boeing shows us a little more of their 787 Dreamliner

Boeing has posted some new images of its 787 Dreamliner including its interior and composite body. With the 787, Boeing hopes to block some of the blows thrown by Airbus in recent years

The Dreamliner will be available in three variants covering a wide gamut of passenger loads and route length:

The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 - 250 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles (14,800 to 15,700 kilometers), while the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 - 290 passengers on routes of 8,600 to 8,800 nautical miles (15,900 to 16,300 km). A third 787 family member, the 787-3 Dreamliner, will accommodate 290 - 330 passengers and be optimized for routes of 3,000 to 3,500 nautical miles (5,550 to 6,500 km).


As much as 50% of the 787's primary structure including its wings and body will be composed of composite materials. The plane will be able to travel at Mach 0.85 and uses about 20% less fuel than planes of comparable size.

The 787 is scheduled to make its first flight in 2007 with first deliveries taking place in 2008.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I like it
By slash196 on 3/10/2006 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, we need a more comfortable plane. The way they stuff passengers in nowdays makes the experience awful. As nice as these pictures are, I have a feeling they're the first-class section.

Also, the A380 can't even land at most American runways, it's too heavy. That will hurt acceptance.




RE: I like it
By defter on 3/10/2006 1:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, the A380 can't even land at most American runways, it's too heavy.


That's incorrect, since A380 puts smaller pressure on runway than B747.


RE: I like it
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2006 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
The A380 has more landing wheels, so it exerts less force per wheel...in theory, at least. It does, though, require a 200 ft wide runway, which is not something most US airports have.


RE: I like it
By defter on 3/10/2006 3:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Original poster talked about weigth, not about wingspan.

However, I doubt that this 200ft limitation affects large airports in US (A380 definately won't be used on small airports).


RE: I like it
By Keeir on 3/10/2006 5:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe that there are very few airports in the world that can currently land a A380 (as in have the airplane land, taxi, and get to the terminal). This is due to many factors--> Space, Runway Length, Wieght (both tarmac and support stucture such as bridges), etc. I am unsure but I think its significantly less than 50. Of course, many more are planning improvements, so this number will only go up.

The 747-8 however will be able to land pretty much at every airport that currently can land any 747 aircraft. Again, I am unsure, but I remember this is well over 200.


RE: I like it
By timmiser on 3/10/2006 7:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
Plus, the A380 is turning out to be much heavier than expected, so it's value is decreasing. Needing more runway than originally predicted, carrying less weight (fuel/passengers/cargo) than originally promised.


RE: I like it
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/10/2006 8:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
I have a few friends who work for AWA (now US Air), and the company just bought a few a380s. The problem is that the airport gates are not physically big enough to cope with the 200ft wingspan without modifications. AWA/USA is changing the gates on a bunch of airports (PHX, LAS, ORD) in order to use the bigger configuration. But, bigger gates mean fewer gates, so for AWA's sake let's hope that the hub + spoke model is really going to continue.

Personally, however, I feel the Boeing method of cheaper, smaller, faster aircraft with more spoke to spoke flights is the way to go.


RE: I like it
By Googer on 3/16/2006 12:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
At Tampa International Airport, there are parking spots at the loading gates labled A380, A340, A330 727, 747, DC9, and others. But I know for a fact the A380 can fit.


RE: I like it
By Filibuster on 3/10/2006 10:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly, we need a more comfortable plane. The way they stuff passengers in nowdays makes the experience awful. As nice as these pictures are, I have a feeling they're the first-class section.


If I recall from a Popular Science last year the 787 is supposed to allow for much more humid air and higher air pressure (closer to ground pressure) because of the composite body. They don't have to worry about corrosion due to the moisture and it can handle higher pressure.

I'd personally prefer more seats across if they gave me more room in front...I've got long legs.


RE: I like it
By masher2 (blog) on 3/11/2006 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 5
> "the 787 is supposed to allow for much more humid air and higher air pressure (closer to ground pressure) because of the composite body."

A recent study has linked deepvein thrombosis incidents to poor air quality on long flights. I can't help but think this will give a boost to 787 sales.


Composites
By GoatMonkey on 3/10/2006 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is anyone else bothered by the use of composites in airplanes? I know they're stronger and lighter, but they just get to a point an break. There is no bending. When you fly on most planes, when you look out the window you see the wings flexing all the time. It seems like a composite wing is just going to snap at some point. Are they reinforced with aluminum or something? Could someone who knows more about airplane construction enlighten me on this?





RE: Composites
By Filibuster on 3/10/2006 10:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read the composite body has lots* of sensors to keep tabs on the condition of the body, so at least they'll know that the wing is about to snap off. :)

I don't know much about airplane construction or composites really, so thats all I can say.

*(it was surprisingly high but I don't recall the exact amount)


RE: Composites
By rushnrockt on 3/13/2006 12:16:31 AM , Rating: 1
I am sorry, do you even understand what a composite is? You seem to be workign with a rudimentary concept of composite = plastic spatula.
If you like your steel/aluminum so much, why don't you check out the safety stats on C-130 Hercules or MD-80s. Both of those planes are very much metal and both of them had problems with wing fractures or as was a frequent case with C-130, just falling off.
Using your arguments, I can probably say that carbon nano-tubes must break easily just because carbon is also part of coal that can crumble in your hand.


RE: Composites
By GoatMonkey on 3/13/2006 7:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not argueing anything. I was asking for more information.



RE: Composites
By wandergeist on 3/13/2006 2:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Military aircraft have been using composites for a long time now, and they take far more abuse than commercial aircraft do. The AV-8B Harrier has an all-composite wing and has been in service for two decades now; various other miltary use composite structures as well. Neither the JSF nor the F-22 would be possible without extensive use of composite stuctural elements, and Boeing is the contractor responsible for the composite wing on the F-22.

The fact is that any material will fail when stressed beyond its design limits. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6589
Aircraft structures are built to meet their requirements plus a sizable safety margin -- exceed that, and the material will fail no matter what it is. There is nothing inherent to composite materials that would change that; afterall, aircraft used to be made mostly out of wood, which is a natural composite.

The primary concern with composites is inspection. Metal fatigue displays certain telltale signs (sometimes visible to the naked eye) and the industry has long experience with detecting them. Composites require different techniques (typically involving ultrasound) and there is less to see with the naked eye (though no one would rely on visual inspection exclusively with metal either). Airlines adopting aircraft using composite materials have to adopt the necessary inspection practices. But that has already been going on for some time: significant portions of the tail and structural elements in the 777 and several recent Airbus designs (320,330,340) use composite materials.


RE: Composites
By GoatMonkey on 3/14/2006 8:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for making a useful post. It seems to be a rare thing on the internet. Everyone's just looking to start a flame war over the smallest things.

Someday we won't have problems with pilot error like that article mentions. They just need to get Skynet online.

But seriously, you would think that there could be a computer sensor measuring the stress on the rudder in that case and prevent to co-pilot from being a dumbass. I know those things are risky though. Computer programs try to be too smart and end up screwing things up.



plane
By msva124 on 3/10/2006 4:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
It looks to me like a regular airplane with a more "futuristic" interior. The armrests don't appear any more comfortable than the current ones. There is no seperator between arms/legs, to avoid the awkwardness of touching a complete stranger. The only real improvement I noticed is bigger windows.

In a word, overrated.




RE: plane
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2006 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 3
> "It looks to me like a regular airplane with a more "futuristic" interior....In a word, overrated."

Another armchair quarterback with no real understanding of his subject. The interior of a commercial airliner isn't even designed by the builder-- its developed by the owner, and installed after the plane is built.

The improvements on the 787 have nothing whatsoever to do with the interior.


RE: plane
By msva124 on 3/10/2006 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
That must be why Boeing is promoting them so heavily then.


RE: plane
By johnford64 on 3/10/2006 6:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
i understand what you are saying, and for the record i am a liscensed pilot, but i spend most of my time IN the airplane as opposed to on the outside, therefore i care more about the interior!

Unless i am flying it i dont care what its like other than that, well except total flight time!


RE: plane
By masher2 (blog) on 3/12/2006 11:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
> " for the record i am a liscensed pilot, but i spend most of my time IN the airplane as opposed to on the outside, therefore i care more about the interior! "

Umm, so you're saying you don't care about safety, fuel efficiency, range, handling, or anything else...just give you a sexy interior and you're happy?



Airbus in trouble
By timmiser on 3/10/2006 8:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
A problem that Airbus has with their A380 is that it eats up ALL of the resources of the consortium. Since the development of the A380, fuel prices have soared as we all know. Because of this, airlines are shying away from the A380 and the other Airbus models looking for more fuel efficient aircraft.

Boeing has responded to the airlines' efficiency needs by developing the 787 & 747-8 and it is selling like hotcakes.

The problem for Airbus is that they don't have the resources to invest in designing or redesigning aircraft (like they normally would) that can compete with the 787 or 747-8 and won't for years to come. This is why that in 2005, Boeing has come back from the dead and equaled Airbus in total sales $$ and should surpass Airbus to retake the lead in civil aviation it had owned for so long.





RE: Airbus in trouble
By Stele on 3/16/2006 3:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder that many compare the 787 with the A380 and henceforth pronounce the former the winner because it is more agile, versatile, cheaper to own and run, doesn't have special requirements with respect to airports etc...

The two planes were designed with rather different purposes in mind. And neither company forces airlines to buy a 787 over an A380 or vice versa - instead, if they *need* the capabilities of either, they buy it. For traffic heavy routes, an A380 may prove more resource-efficient, but if passenger demand does not justify the beast, the 787 would be the carriers' choice.

For that matter, the A380 isn't even the 787's direct counterpart - the A350 is, and it sure looks at least as interesting in all senses of the word as the 787.

One thing though, I sure hope 787's cockpit is an improvement to the 777 - an advantage of the Airbus flight control system is that it keeps the pilots in the loop, informing them of most going-ons in the flight systems. The 777, however, doesn't do as well, because it assumes that since it's extensively automated, feedback should be minimised - to make itself as idiot-proof as possible, perhaps. That's not always desirable, especially to veteran pilots who prefer to just *know* what's going on even if nothing's wrong.

Also, one of Airbus' key characteristics that help airlines maintain training efficiency is the fact that all their models - from the A320 to the A380 - have very similar cockpit and controls. Moving between models just requires about a week of familiarisation, and even then it's mostly for the flight characteristics than instrumentation. Boeing hasn't quite reached that level of standardisation yet, though that's not to say they won't. And that archaic yoke (was retained instead of a side-stick because pilots were too used to it)... imho I'd trade it for the compact side-stick and the useful writing/coffee/meal tablespace on the Airbus' :P

And say what you may about ETOPs, more redundancy is never a bad thing, especially when in one case you lose 50% while in the other you lose 25% of your power when one engine goes. And if one wishes to argue that modern engines are safer, the fact is shit *does* happen... plus, extremely efficient engines aren't always a plus - by definition, a very high efficiency requires greater stress on the components as the components are working very close to their rated spec. Couple that with the fact that a failure could occur over a long-haul trans-Pacific flight with no land for a thousand clicks in any direction, imho there is a strong case for 4 engines with good efficiency over 2 engines with record efficiency :P

Oftentimes, however, it's not just a question of who has the better plane. As the Air India decision showed, there may well be other non-commercial factors involved in the success of a brand/model. Even leaving those grey reasons aside, there're the usual pragmatic factors like continuity, technician/mechanic training (if an airline has been using Boeing for the last decade and trained its maintenance crew accordingly, they're less likely to suddenly switch and incur all the accompanying extra costs) and so on. Guess we'll have to see how it all goes.

Just my 2 cents'!


RE: Airbus in trouble
By masher2 (blog) on 3/17/2006 3:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Some good points, but let me correct a couple.

> "That's not always desirable, especially to veteran pilots who prefer to just *know* what's going on even if nothing's wrong"

But what is desirable to pilots is not neccessarily desirable to the corporation buying the planes. We have to realize that automation will only increase in the future, and that (whether or not the 787 is truly safer than the A380) it will eventually lead to a near-total elimination of pilot error.

> " by definition , a very high efficiency requires greater stress on the components as the components are working very close to their rated spec."

No, an efficient engine is-- by definition-- one that maximizes the thrust/fuel consumption ratio. I realize that one common way of doing this is to run the engine closer to design specs, but there are others. With advanced technology and materials, a higher-efficiency engine CAN also be safer, and run with more overhead on tolerances.


RE: Airbus in trouble
By timmiser on 3/19/2006 6:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. Defintely on paper, the two airplanes are not designed to compete with each other. That is what the 747-8 is for.

Just wanted to correct one thing on your post:

quote:
Also, one of Airbus' key characteristics that help airlines maintain training efficiency is the fact that all their models - from the A320 to the A380 - have very similar cockpit and controls. Moving between models just requires about a week of familiarisation, and even then it's mostly for the flight characteristics than instrumentation. Boeing hasn't quite reached that level of standardisation yet, though that's not to say they won't.</quote

Actually, it was Boeing who started this trend way back in the mid 80's with the 757/767 programs and continued with it ever since on their other models. It can be difficult to tell the difference between a 757 and 767 cockpit and that was a very unique selling point for the Boeing aircraft and was one of the main reasons for Boeing's success in the mid 1980's.



RE: Airbus in trouble
By Stele on 3/21/2006 8:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
masher2 , timmiser : Thanks very much both for the kind words and feedback, very much appreciated :)

@ masher :
quote:
But what is desirable to pilots is not neccessarily desirable to the corporation buying the planes.We have to realize that automation will only increase in the future, and that (whether or not the 787 is truly safer than the A380) it will eventually lead to a near-total elimination of pilot error.


I totally agree with you, and that's the way it is in the tug of war between what the cockpit crew want and what the corporation doing the actual purchase wants. It does, however, sometimes beg the question "Who's flying the thing anyway?" :P

I certainly do not dispute with you that automation will only increase in the future, which is why I wasn't against that per se. Instead, I merely noted that in the hustle to automate every last detail, some designs adopt a machine-only approach, cutting out the human factor almost completely. As I pointed out, feedback is a good thing, even if nothing's wrong. By all means the AI can and should do everything by itself, on its own, but at least inform the crew what exactly it's doing - hence keeping them 'in the loop'.

Pilot errors occur because of the limitation of humans, but that's not to say that automation is completely immune from mistakes either. Again, more automation would be good, to raise the average level of safety (as you rightly attribute, to an elimination of pilot error) but imho the two should ultimately complement rather than totally displace one another. Which brings us back to the reason I prefer Airbus' philosophy of keeping the aircrew better-informed of what the plane's doing.;)

quote:
No, an efficient engine is-- by definition-- one that maximizes the thrust/fuel consumption ratio. I realize that one common way of doing this is to run the engine closer to design specs, but there are others. With advanced technology and materials, a higher-efficiency engine CAN also be safer, and run with more overhead on tolerances.


Good point! But could it not also be argued that if there is a very large overhead on tolerances, then the engine isn't doing as much as it really could be pushed to do, and hence is not as 'efficient' use of materials and such? Perhaps with modern technology and materials we'll see engines run closer to design spec, because they won't need as large a margin for safety as they used to... something along those lines.


@ timmiser :
quote:
Actually, it was Boeing who started this trend .... and was one of the main reasons for Boeing's success in the mid 1980's.


Thank you for the information, I stand corrected :P

And, for an obligatory forum cornered-rat argument: Anyway the sidestick and cofee table's still cooler than the traditional yoke! Latter makes you feel like you're flying a DC3 or some such antique :PP


Slashdot?
By pawel on 3/11/2006 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 1
Is it just me or this site is really going the Slashdot-like way and anything that is new, cool, geek, l33t comes up in the news? I have switched to you guys, because I am fed up with all that crap, I want computers only!




RE: Slashdot?
By msva124 on 3/11/2006 2:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, not gonna happen. They need advertising dollars to keep the site running. To get advertising dollars they need visitors. "Cool" stories draw visitors.

Perhaps there could be a pay-news site if it was very professional and well edited. But it would have trouble attracting visitors initially. It would have to start as a free site, then switch to either a pay site or a pay/free hybrid.


RE: Slashdot?
By boredstudent on 3/11/2006 6:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't want to read an article, do just that, don't read it. Don't bitch because it was written. The name of this news site is not "DAILYCOMPUTERTECH" and it is not, nor does it claim to be, an exclusively computer-related news site.


RE: Slashdot?
By msva124 on 3/11/2006 11:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
Visitors to this site attract advertising dollars. Without us it would not exist. We have every right to complain about things we don't like.

I hope you aren't a business student. If you are, you have a lot to learn.


RE: Slashdot?
By boredstudent on 3/12/2006 1:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
This site will not change it's business model to cater to the whims of the minority of it's 'customers'. When someone does not support the business model of a company (one of the most fundamental things about that company), their best recourse is not to complain, but to take their business elsewhere and let their money speak for them.


RE: Slashdot?
By rushnrockt on 3/13/2006 12:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
"I hope you aren't a business student. If you are, you have a lot to learn."

Seems like you are the one in need of some learning. As said above, if you look at this as business, then you vote like every consumer votes, go somewhere else. You posting here just shows that you are willing to support this website, their articles and the community. So remember, when you are replying to me, you are helping DailyTech.


It wont look that nice...
By Doormat on 3/10/2006 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
As is mentioned several other places, airlines are looking to cram 9-wide in coach class (the picture above show 8 abreast in coach and 5 abreast in first, 6 abresat in business). The -8 will have probably 250 seats to fill and the -9 will have 290 seats to fill. I cant wait to fly on one though.




RE: It wont look that nice...
By ViRGE on 3/10/2006 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's no way it'll be that open either. The airlines will assuredly find some way to cut off first-class from coach(a partition with just 2-3 slots, ala the 757), and someone is undoubtedly going to find a way to install bigger overhead luggage bins.


RE: It wont look that nice...
By wandergeist on 3/13/2006 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
True. The airlines are driven by efficiency, not what looks airy. That said, Boeing went to a lot of trouble to design overhead bins that store as much as possible but don't jut into the headroom of standing or sitting passengers. The most recent 747 models (-400 on) and the 787 are a huge step in this direction: the bins are huge, but the cabin doesn't feel cramped in the way the older aircraft did.


RE: It wont look that nice...
By Chuckles on 3/10/2006 12:46:57 PM , Rating: 3
Remember that this is Boeing's interior design concept.
The individual airlines contract their own interior designers and fabricators, and then ship the completed subassemblies to Boeing-Everett for installation. Boeing itself supplies the specs for connection points, which the interior design people use to lay out the interior.


awesome
By Eomer of Aldburg on 3/10/2006 11:36:46 AM , Rating: 2
rad! Love living in Washington state. Boeing and Microsoft and Nintendo of American are all so close :P




RE: awesome
By creathir on 3/11/2006 1:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
Uh...
Boeing moved its corporate HQ to Chicago... just FYI...
- Creathir


RE: awesome
By wandergeist on 3/13/2006 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, a couple of hundred suits went to Chicago. But all Boeing's commercial aircraft are assembled in Washington: 737s in Renton, the widebodies in Everett, and various oddball projects at Boeing Field in Seattle. The 717 (nee MD-80) was built in Long Beach after Boeing acquired McD-D, but that has been discontinued.


747 replacement?
By TxT on 3/10/2006 12:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
So what is going to replace the 747? I've read somewhere that twin engines airliners are ok to fly over seas now.




RE: 747 replacement?
By defter on 3/10/2006 12:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing will replace 747 with 747-8 which is a slightly longer version of 747


RE: 747 replacement?
By George Powell on 3/10/2006 1:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. However the 747-8 is hugely upgraded in almost every respect to the current generation 747.

Twin engined aircraft have been playing a long way from a diversionary airport for a long time now.

It is called ETOPS - extended range twin operations, and this applies to all twin engined aircraft flying more than 60 minutes away from a suitable diversion airport.


Sonic Cruiser
By PrimarchLion on 3/10/2006 12:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
You think this is fancy, wish the Sonic Cruiser would of made it into production. Mach .98, same fuel efficiency (as opposed to 20% increase), less hours for aircraft crew, thats the money saver.




RE: Sonic Cruiser
By masher2 (blog) on 3/10/2006 2:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "Fast forward to today and does any see a piano bar on a 747? "

Continental had one for a while-- in the first class section of course. I'm sure some of the privately owned 747s have either this or similar-level amenities.


RE: Sonic Cruiser
By timmiser on 3/10/2006 7:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Only problem was that not enough airlines wanted to buy it, thus it was cancelled.


787 is just as foreign as Airbus
By shadowzz on 3/12/2006 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
The 787 is assembled in Everett, Washington but the parts come from 10 different countries, Sweden, Canada, South Korea, Italy, England, China, Australia, Japan , and France. Boeing only makes the vertical fin.




By masher2 (blog) on 3/12/2006 11:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing makes considerably more than the "vertical fin", though they are outsourcing some 70-80% of the total components for the 787.


By bob5820 on 3/15/2006 6:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing is primarily the designer, system integrator and final assembler of the 787, and a good part of the aircraft is actually manufactured by other companies, a good portion of which are US based. Goodrich, the company I work for, is providing the engine nacelles and thrust reversers, along with the engine management for those aircraft with RR engines. We are also building the landing gear, and evacuation systems on the A380. Rather then refer to the 787 as foreign, I think Global would be a better description (for Airbus's product too). Remember Boeing needs to sell these to a global market, not just to US airlines. In fact the Asia Pacific and the Middle East are going to be the hot spots in terms for wide body aircraft over the next few years. It's this market, not the American or European market that the A380, and to some extent the 787 were designed for.
Global sourcing also make the aircraft easier to sell. Its a lot easier for Boeing to convince China to buy the 787 when some of its components are actually made there.


Don't believe the pictures
By lifeblood on 3/10/2006 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
When Boeing first started to produce the 747 they put out PR pictures like this showing the interior with a piano bar, tons of room, and happy smiling passengers. Fast forward to today and does any see a piano bar on a 747? All I ever see is uncomfortable passengers crammed into tight seats with minimal cusioning.




RE: Don't believe the pictures
By Nobody Else on 3/10/2006 6:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
Does anybody recall "Pub Class" complete with "Pub Pong?

:-)



Flight Plan!!!!!
By slider169 on 3/10/2006 2:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't they just use those setting in the movie "Flight Plan"???




RE: Flight Plan!!!!!
By DarthPierce on 3/10/2006 3:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think the plane in flight plan was the aforementioned airbus a380


Germans not flying Airbus
By Googer on 3/10/06, Rating: 0
RE: Germans not flying Airbus
By brownba on 3/10/2006 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 3
huh? from the story you linked...

"Lufthansa will have the world's second-biggest fleet of A380s once all 15 are delivered, starting in 2008."

doesn't sound like they don't want to fly the A380.


That is one wierd ariplane.
By Plasmoid on 3/10/2006 11:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Im certain if for no other reason then that almost all airlines seem to have suddenly become very conservative and low-cost oreintated that it wont be like that by the time any of us see it.

20% less fuel consumption is a good idea, only the airbus is aiming to carry a lot more then 20% more passengers so not sure how much that will ofset it.




Can't wait
By George Powell on 3/10/2006 11:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
As an aircraft engineer I'm very much looking forward to seeing what advances come with the 787.
Should be great when it comes along, and I reckon that most airlines will cram people in, certainly down the back anyway.
First is more likely to be 4 abreast in service on longhaul flights though.




I hate that name!
By Googer on 3/10/2006 12:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
Dreamliner to me is the most annoying name for an Aircraft.




Composites
By static1117 on 3/10/2006 4:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Dont worry about the composite material. Composites have been used in military aircraft for a while now, and nothing I have worked on just breaks for no good reason.




New materials
By bobsmith1492 on 3/10/2006 7:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm interning at an aerospace company, and have heard bits and pieces of info about the plane. The new material is the main benefit, as noted. It allows a much lighter plane with thinner walls, and yet, will allow higher interior pressure due to the increased strength. The benefit to the passenger comes from the increased pressure. You won't have such a "high-altitude" effect, that results in tiredness and headaches during plane trips.

One unfortunate side effect is that the wings are so thin and the material so flexible, that the wings sag WAY down. It could be disconcerting to see your wings about to fall off (apparently.) :P But, then, when it flies, the wings fold way back up under the weight of the plane.

This should be an interesting plane. Boeing is taking almost an opposite approach to Airbus - not a huge monster, but a plane that can go where needed, more efficiently. You may get more efficiency from the huge Airbus, measured in passenger-dollars per flight and fuel or something like that, but it could only happen in limited situations, and as such, will be relegated to major city-to-city flights, whereas the dreamliner will be useable in many different areas.

It seems like Boeing stands to come out ahead on this tradeoff; more, smaller planes sold should lead to higher profit. Of course, Airbus is run by a consortium of socialistic country-states, to put it bluntly (ok, I mean European governments subsidize them heavily), so they're not as concerned about profit.




Fuel
By goku on 3/10/2006 10:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if we'll ever see an enviro friendly aircraft or not...




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki