backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by honeg.. on Jul 6 at 2:44 PM


(Source: Charles Conklin)

(Source: Charles Conklin)
An eager photographer catches the 787 Dreamliner in the buff

It has been a long time coming, but the first Boeing 787 Dreamliner has rolled off the assembly line. Charles Conklin -- an avid aviation enthusiast -- managed to snap some pictures of a fully assembled Dreamliner sans paint.

According to Flightblogger, the official roll-out ceremony for the Dreamliner is on July 8 with the first delivered scheduled to take place in May of next year. The production run of aircraft is completely booked until 2013 at the earliest.

The Dreamliner is the next generation of airliners for Boeing and makes use of composite materials in 50 percent of its body and wings. The use of composite materials has helped Boeing keep the weight down which allows the Dreamliner to be 20 percent more fuel efficient than its closest rivals. Top speed for the aircraft is Mach 0.85.

Business travelers will appreciate the integrated networking capabilities on the Dreamliner. Boeing had initially planned to equip its Dreamliner with wireless networking, but instead decided on a wired networking to save 150 pounds per plane.

As of April, 44 customers have ordered 544 Dreamliners at a cost of $75 billion USD.



Comments     Threshold


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

Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By UNCjigga on 6/28/2007 3:57:31 PM , Rating: 3
Please explain this to me. Would the use of wireless require some sort of shielding around the entire passenger cabin or something? I don't understand how thin air weighs more than hundreds of feet of Cat5e.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/28/2007 4:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
Read the comments in the old article:

http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5865


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By Keeir on 6/28/2007 4:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
There are alot of factors at work. One of the factors is shielding for other systems.

Another is that every structure on the aircraft needs to be attached to the aircraft such that the structure is good for 9g loading. A heavy wireless access point (or more likely several heavy wireless access points) may require more and more structure to maintain flight capability which would not be required for a wire installation that may not require any additional structure

I am sure there are many more factors that one only really discovers attempting to create a wireless network that would be of same quality as wired.


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By PrimarchLion on 6/28/2007 4:39:15 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt that the entire structure needs to be able to survive 9g loading. Do you have a source for your information? I just can't imagine this aircraft having a flight envelope any larger that 2.5g, and factor of safety in aircraft design is usually not larger than about 1.2 due to weight constraints.


By HotFoot on 6/28/2007 5:02:49 PM , Rating: 1
The max design load is nowhere near 9G. That 9G figure is for fighter jets. I believe the typical airliner is designed with a max load factor of 4-ish. Add to this the structure must handle 1.5x this load factor without failure (but with permanent deformation).


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By Keeir on 6/28/2007 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
Federal Aviation Regulations. In specific FAR Chapter 25 subpart C - 25.591 of which the following is a brief quotation.

"
(3) The occupant experiences the following ultimate inertia forces acting separately relative to the surrounding structure:

(i) Upward, 3.0g

(ii) Forward, 9.0g

(iii) Sideward, 3.0g on the airframe; and 4.0g on the seats and their attachments.

(iv) Downward, 6.0g

(v) Rearward, 1.5g

(c) For equipment, cargo in the passenger compartments and any other large masses, the following apply:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, these items must be positioned so that if they break loose they will be unlikely to:

(i) Cause direct injury to occupants;

(ii) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to adjacent systems; or

(iii) Nullify any of the escape facilities provided for use after an emergency landing.
"

I read this as saying any structure which has the possiblity to fall within the passenger cabin and hurt passengers must stay attached at a 9g landing situation and other emergency situation such as a 3g sideways evasive action.

I just assumed that some/all of the wirless equipment fell under this category


By Keeir on 6/28/2007 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oops missed the whole quotation, even with the preview

"
(2) When such positioning is not practical (e.g. fuselage mounted engines or auxiliary power units) each such item of mass shall be restrained under all loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The local attachments for these items should be designed to withstand 1.33 times the specified loads if these items are subject to severe wear and tear through frequent removal (e.g. quick change interior items).
"

note that (b)(3) is where I started the quotation


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By PrimarchLion on 6/28/2007 5:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
I was just checking FAR 25 as well =)

I had an aircraft design course this spring, my group designed a military transport aircraft. We didn't take the 9g forward inertia forces into account too much, but it was just a preliminary design course.


By Keeir on 6/28/2007 5:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
Military requirements may be totally different. Due to significantly lower cycles, higher inspection intervals, not caring if a few grunts here or there get smacked on the head...

The FARs are neat and show that in many cases the Margin of Safety for civilian aircraft is significantly larger than 1.2 due to survivability requirements (check out the ditching condition. I have a hard time believing the A380 or B747 are good for those...)


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By Amiga500 on 6/28/2007 6:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
The airframe has to take 3g (with fact of safety of 1.5) - leading to 4.5g IIRC.

Of course, that does not mean the interior of the pressure cabin - but the wings/wing spar/wingbox/fuselage.


By ChronoReverse on 6/28/2007 6:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, which is why when I saw this video I was like =O at the engineering put into the 777 (not 787) that allowed the thing to hit 154%.

That's practically perfect (above 150% and not too much above it).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8


By themadmilkman on 6/28/2007 4:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
I would venture to guess that it is because most of the wiring for a wired network is already in place. Perhaps the cable that also carries data to the LCD screens and audio to each seat can also handle networking duties? If this were the case, the extra wait would only be from adding the additional ports, etc. to each seat.


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By TomZ on 6/28/2007 4:11:55 PM , Rating: 6
"We're putting in about 50 pounds of wiring and taking out about 200 pounds of other gear" including wireless antennae, wireless access points and thickened ceiling panels, said Sinnett.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstech...


By Hawkido on 7/5/2007 4:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Which airline doesn't paint their planes (they only use clear coat) to save on the weight of the plane. I can't remember the amount of fuel saved per 1000 miles of flight but it was astounding. Paint weighs alot. Also one flight line cut back the number of olives it put on it's salad to reduce costs on both food and weight and they reported a massive annual savings.

I know, no sources, but someone here probably has them on hand, or has the time to look them up.


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By ttnuagadam on 6/28/2007 11:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
actually what i dont understand is why they're worrying about 150 lbs on something that weighs 75 tons. I mean i know every little bit helps, but why gimp wireless networking?


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By oab on 6/28/2007 11:40:32 PM , Rating: 3
Because at $5.6-6.20* a gallon for Jet-A fuel, every little bit helps. If you can get the same functionality, at less weight, then by all means you do it. Besides, wired > wireless anyway.

Boeing is going anal on weight for the 787, its the reason they are using composite materials, for the sole purpose of reducing weight.

Less weight = less power needed by the engines
Less power = less fuel
less fuel = lower costs
lower costs = higher profit
profit = good

*http://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html for JFK INT in NY


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By TomZ on 6/28/2007 11:53:47 PM , Rating: 3
Wired is also simpler, less risky, more secure, and more performant than wireless.


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By Treckin on 6/29/07, Rating: -1
By Ringold on 6/29/2007 4:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
They strip them to the bone every couple years as it is for full refurbs of sorts, so not sure how much upgrading and whatnot plays in to it. Sounds like it's every other factor that trumps it.


RE: Wired = less weight than Wireless?
By tarrbot on 7/4/07, Rating: 0
By P4blo on 7/5/2007 9:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt they would bother with networking redundancy so overpaid execs are assured of 24/7 share prices :) I didn't design the 787 but I would bet my left foot the network infrastructure for passengers bears little resemblance to that of the flight systems!

One other thing about wireless, it seems to me it would really begin to chug with a full planeload of people all on laptops, PSPs, wap phones and PDAs.... Give me gigabit ethernet ANY day over wireless.

Question: anyone know what sort of internet access speed the 787 setup might offer or how it's delivered to the plane?


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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