backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by stromgald30.. on Dec 18 at 2:47 PM


Boeing's 787 Dreamliner takes-off from Paine Field

  (Source: Boeing)
After a rocky gestation period, Boeing sets off with the 787

It's been a long time coming, but Boeing's 787 Dreamliner has finally made its first flight just days after its taxiing run. After two years of delays, the next generation airliner took to the air at 1:27 pm EST from Paine Field in Everett, Washington.

The flight is expected to last for more than five hours as the pilots test the flight characteristics of the plane and the engineers on the ground crunch the raw data that is streamed back to them. The 787 prototype will land at Boeing Field which is just south of downtown Seattle after the test flight.

This first flight kicks off a nine-month testing phase for the 787 which will conclude with the delivery of the first production aircraft to All Nippon Airways in Q4 2010 – a total of 840 orders have been placed from airlines across the globe.

The 787 prototype is just one of six aircraft that will be used during the nine-month testing period to gain FAA certification.

While Boeing is hoping that most its major hurdles with the 787 Dreamliner are behind it, there will be new competition in the coming years from the Airbus A350 XWB. Like the 787, the A350 XWB's fuselage and wings are made primarily of composites, however, materials like aluminum and titanium materials are also used in the airframe. And also like the 787, the A350 XWB has a cruising speed of Mach 0.85 and promises drastic cuts in fuel consumption.

Airbus has received over 500 orders for its A350 XWB and the aircraft is scheduled to enter service in 2013.



Comments     Threshold


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

A350 XWB passenger experience
By xii on 12/15/2009 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong: since the 787 Dreamliner uses composite materials, it decreases the pressure difference and humidity difference felt by passengers during a flight, right?

Does somebody know if that's also true for the A350 XWB which also uses composite materials?




RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By Jaguar36 on 12/15/2009 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Composites alone shouldn't have any effect on humidity or pressure differences.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By beerhound on 12/15/2009 2:32:49 PM , Rating: 5
Correct, composite material alone doesn't affect the humidity or pressure. Boeing says the lighter weight of the composites allowed them to build the cabin stronger without a weight penalty and that allowed them to raise the pressure differential. Bottom line is that the 787 will have a lower cabin altitude than any airliner before it and that will contribute to less fatigue for the passengers and crew. Gulfstream is doing the same thing on the upcoming G650. Go to their site to check that one out if you really want to see how to travel in style. LOL


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By blowfish on 12/15/2009 2:55:27 PM , Rating: 3
I think the reason for the higher pressure differential is rather that composites have better fatigue properties than aluminum alloys. You can have higher differentials with a composite structure, more closely approaching its maximum strength. In effect, it's a benefit of using composites, rather than Boeing designing the fuselage to be stronger.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By lco45 on 12/15/2009 6:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
Correct. Fatigue is the one and only issue with maintaining a higher pressure differential.

Luke


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By Amiga500 on 12/15/2009 2:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
They do. Fatigue isn't so much of an issue when you've a very good idea of the strain field.

So a composite fuselage can undergo many more aggressive pressure-depressure cycles than a traditional aluminium fuselage.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By RubberJohnny on 12/15/2009 9:49:17 PM , Rating: 4
Thats funny in yesterdays article http://www.dailytech.com/Boeings+787+Dreamliner+Li...

You stated:
quote:
Talk to any stresser and they will moan about the stupidity of putting composites into wing spars (and even worse - ribs) right now. Or fuselages.


Why the sudden change of opinion? have you done some research in the past 24hrs and realised you were talking out of your rectum?


By mikeyD95125 on 12/16/2009 1:05:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yikes! The BS detective is back on duty.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By Amiga500 on 12/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By sxr7171 on 12/15/2009 2:25:19 PM , Rating: 3
It's just an upgraded HVAC system. But they did cite that the lack of so much metal allows them to increase humidity in the cabin in operation without worrying about oxidation of metals.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By blowfish on 12/15/2009 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but fundamentally upgraded! Instead of taking engine bleed air, which inevitably contains traces of (toxic) lubricants, my understanding is that they are using a separate system.

There have been several cases of passengers and crew getting sick from substances leaking into the cabin air - and it's more of a problem for air crew, who obviously get much longer term exposure than the average passenger. Since they banned smoking on planes, airlines get away with not changing the air so much which makes things worse too.

I can't wait to experience the better quality cabin air for myself, and I hope it forces Airbus and the rest to follow suit with all of their fleet.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By sxr7171 on 12/15/2009 5:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they moved away from engine bleed to electric heaters.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By Amiga500 on 12/16/2009 3:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
That is for the de-icing systems.

The air supply will come from an electric compressor.


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By SocrPlyr on 12/15/2009 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
To sum up the comments, the composite fuselage is stronger and doesn't corrode. It allows the difference in cabin pressure to the outside to be higher (thus allowing cabin pressure to be higher at altitude). It also allows a higher cabin humidity level, which should make passengers more comfortable (low humidity is also a partial cause of jet-lag).


RE: A350 XWB passenger experience
By SocrPlyr on 12/15/2009 3:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot a link to Boeing's PR materials.
http://newairplane.com


So...
By Iketh on 12/15/2009 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
...was this at 1:27pm on the day of this article (today, like 30 mins ago)? Or when exactly was this?




RE: So...
By Jaguar36 on 12/15/2009 2:14:09 PM , Rating: 2
Give or take ten minutes or so, yeah it was today.


RE: So...
By Iketh on 12/15/2009 2:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
Oh cool, so this thing is in the sky as we speak... wonder if I can find a live feed from boeing or something...


RE: So...
By SocrPlyr on 12/15/2009 3:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Took off ~1.27 PST today.
She is still in the air right now.
She is expected to land around 3.30 PST (note article states 5+ hour flight, but that is wrong and prob taken from the IFR).
Go to
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1/history/20...
to see flight info.


RE: So...
By SocrPlyr on 12/15/2009 3:35:02 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, that I was trying to be exact and I posted PST instead of EST lol. Then I go myself all confused. Anyways, last I heard the plane should land around 4PM EST.


RE: So...
By Oregonian2 on 12/16/2009 12:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, it took off around 10:30 am here on the west coast.


Smaller versions?
By Iketh on 12/15/2009 2:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
Are there smaller planes already made with this idea such as Learjets? Or is this coming to fruition for this first time here?




RE: Smaller versions?
By ksherman on 12/15/2009 2:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
The Gulfstream G650 is one.


RE: Smaller versions?
By Amiga500 on 12/15/2009 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Lear 65 is gonna be all composite. In design right now.


RE: Smaller versions?
By delphinus100 on 12/16/2009 3:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much anything built by Scaled Composites, up to and including SpaceShipTwo and White Knight 2...


Dreamliner made with Chinese parts
By monkeyman1140 on 12/18/2009 10:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
Would you fly on a plane made of Chinese parts? They can't even make quality roller bearings, can openers and children's toys much less advanced technology parts for avionics.




By stromgald30 on 12/18/2009 2:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
Check your facts before spreading FUD.

Chinese parts on the Dreamliner are limited to a few composite control surfaces that I'm sure Boeing will inspect and quality check (like all received parts) before installation. They're not building 'advanced technology' parts like avionics and such.

In reality, Boeing has had more problems (and delays) with the Italian and Japanese sections not meeting Boeing's specifications than the Chinese built items. However, this doesn't mean the Chinese are better since their components are also simpler to build.

Sources:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorele...
http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20070629/787assemb...


boeing, airbus
By D2Lalma on 12/16/2009 5:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
??? Airbus is a very strong competitor, if u check order/delivery stats in 1980 Airbus was "nothing" compared to boeing. Even in 1990 boing delivered 500+ planes Airbus only ~100. But from 2002 Airbus is on pair with boing.

Anyway the future is very nice for boeing and airbus, asian orders will double the demand, check order stats from 1990/2000 and 2009. demand is huge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airbus-boeing_co...




Flexing?
By Chernobyl68 on 12/16/2009 11:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
I saw the video on CNN...is it me or did it look like the wings were flexing an awful lot for an empty plane?




Pretty sad for Boeing
By sxr7171 on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Jimmybones on 12/15/2009 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am by no means an airplane expert but the Dreamliner is a radical departure from the previous constructions methods and appears to be a true make or break decision.

I look at what Airbus has achieved as being able to make a 2010 Honda Accord and producing the Honda Accord Crossover. Yes something was achieved but it isn't a departure from the norm.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By sxr7171 on 12/15/2009 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
But the A350 will be right up there. If this plane was finished on time it REALLY would have helped matters.

I suppose Airbus too will suffer with their first composite aircraft. It remains to be seen. I hope Boeing moves quickly to put what they learned into an A380 topper.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By hduser on 12/15/2009 2:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
The A350 is a half step compared to the 787. It remains to be seen if Airbus or Boeing can deliver on their promises of savings and economy.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Amiga500 on 12/15/2009 2:59:00 PM , Rating: 1
Nah, its pretty much identical.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By stromgald30 on 12/15/2009 5:37:41 PM , Rating: 4
Boeing has no plans to compete with the A380 any time soon. Boeing's own market analysis has identified that the market for the A380 is too small, and they do not want to compete there.

Boeing's 747-8 (upgrade/enlarging) of the 747 will take some of the A380's thunder if it gets any sales, but the fact is that as the infrastructure/airports develop in the middle east and asia, the need for an A380 will diminish.

Boeing's next major project is to take its lesson learned on the 787 and apply it to the upcoming 737 replacement (rumored to be the 797). This attacks Airbus' A320 cash cow and the biggest segment of the market.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Amiga500 on 12/16/2009 3:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
All the talk is that Boeings next project will be the 777 upgrade/redo.

The single aisle stuff... well, Boeing recently scrapped the 737RS as it wasn't giving the gains they needed to justify the expense.

Both Airbus and Boeing and the engine manufacturers are currently wrestling with the problem of, geared turbofan, propfan or high bypass conventional turbofan... There is alot of work to be done there yet.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By stromgald30 on 12/17/2009 3:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Boeing will most likely be updating the 777 since the larger A350XWB's will be competing with the lower end of the 777 passenger range. However, it's not a complete re-design. It's pretty similar to how the 747 was upgraded to minimize the impact of the A380.

However, Boeing's current road map is to replace the 737 first, which is losing badly to the A320, then work on an 777 & 747 replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Pr...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/03/03/20...


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Solandri on 12/16/2009 7:02:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Boeing has no plans to compete with the A380 any time soon. Boeing's own market analysis has identified that the market for the A380 is too small, and they do not want to compete there.

Just to reiterate this, Boeing has pitched a full upper-deck version of the 747 to the airlines ever since they first made the 747. There never has been enough interest in it from the airlines so Boeing never made it. The fact that the A380 is currently sitting at about half the orders it needs to break even is, I think, ample evidence that Airbus overestimated (maybe vastly overestimated) the market for the plane.

I do see demand for a plane the A380's size filling in in the future, as the rest of Southeast Asia modernizes. But the A380 seems a bit premature.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By stburke on 12/15/2009 3:37:24 PM , Rating: 5
I'll bite and thrown down a little lecture here.

First off, congrats to Boeing! It's always exciting to see new things in the air. I wouldn't call the 787 revolutionary in the way we travel, but more of big step in the evolution of a concept design that we've been using for decades. Certainly the manufacturing process is phenomenal and revolutionary given the complexity and the scale. But if you look at it the same design has been in place for decades. The real game changers were to be the Blended Wing Body (BWB), Concorde, and the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Those aircraft would (did) revolutionize the way we perceive air travel.

Basically Airbus and Boeing have two almost radically different approaches to everything. Whether it be cockpit automation or air route evolution. Airbus took the side of the "Hub" network that we're all so familiar with. If you want to get from A to B, it requires a stopover in Hell, I mean Atlanta. That and the booming middle class in Asia is why Airbus developed the A380. Instead of 2 A330's/767's etc. on the route, a more efficient single plane could do all that lifting, all while freeing up slots at restricted hub airports (HND, LHR, etc.). Boeing initially took this position when the 747-X was introduced, and subsequently short lived. on the other hand Boeing saw a future in point-to-point service. Now instead of having to go through LAX or SFO to get to Tokyo, you could utilize smaller hubs like Denver, Salt Lake City, & Portland. The 787 is the midsize hub's dream. It has the legs to do all the long lucrative routes that airports and airlines want, all while being ~20% more efficient per pax carried.

Initially what Boeing proposed was the Sonic Cruiser. A plane similar in capacity to the 787, but could fly mach .98. Ultimately airlines favored efficiency of speed.

As far as the A350 goes, it was initially a re-engined A330, then a re-engined aluminum-lithium fuselage A330. Then finally, the larger composite A350XWB in development today. Supposedly it offers an 8% reduction in costs over the 787. Airbus (and everyone) saw what a blockbuster Boeing had on its hands and decided it wanted a cut. The re-engined and original A350 were very similar in capacity to the 787 models, so what market was there was already eaten up by Boeing. Airbus was smart and went larger and now they're positioning the A350 more like a 777-200/300 replacement. They're selling quite well now actually. Several airlines have order both the 787 and the A350, including just recently United.

For creature comforts, the 787 does sport a higher cabin pressure thanks to the strengthened fuselage. As well as a higher humidity since there's a smaller chance for erosion on the metal. The A350's cross section is wider than the 787's by about 5in which translates into almost .5in wider seats.

The A350 also doesn't use the full barrel fabrication that Boeing used for the 787 fuselage. There, I have no idea what the repercussions are for that but I can image more parasitic drag on the airframe, and maybe a simpler manufacturing process.

Either way they're both interesting aircraft and have certainly set a new precedent in manufacturing and efficiency. Thanks if you sat through all this!


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By DBRfreak on 12/16/2009 1:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The A350 also doesn't use the full barrel fabrication that Boeing used for the 787 fuselage. There, I have no idea what the repercussions are for that but I can image more parasitic drag on the airframe, and maybe a simpler manufacturing process.


I'd say that if you use flush fasteners and generous amounts of sealing putty, you can eliminate a good bit of the drag issues. I would guess that most of the issues will come from added weight - maybe thicker edge bands to handle more fasteners and stronger primary structure (stringers, longerons, etc). The benefits should be simplified manufacturing and perhaps simplified maintenance.

I may be completely wrong, however.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/15/2009 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
The A350 XWB won't enter service until 2013 if all goes as planned.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By amanojaku on 12/15/2009 1:59:17 PM , Rating: 4
It's not all bad for Boeing. There aren't that many airlines that dropped the 787 in favor of the A350 or A380. In fact, most that switched chose existing Boeing aircraft, so Boeing still got paid even if the R&D money is thought of as a waste.

The poor global economy has been slowing travel, so I suspect the delay was a sigh of relief for a few airlines in retrospect. You'll notice that most of the cancellations did not include new purchases of other aircraft from anyone.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By sxr7171 on 12/15/2009 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you are right. I just hope they are designing something else in the background to catch up when things start looking good again.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By hduser on 12/15/2009 2:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Boeing has to pay a penalty to airlines because of the delays to the 787. In lieu of paying the penalty, they've offered substantial discounts to these on existing aircraft in production.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By stromgald30 on 12/15/2009 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
Boeing is biting the bullet and opening a second line for the 787 out in South Carolina to mitigate the effect of the delays. This should minimize their penalties once they get that production line up and running.

However, one major concern I have (and is also the reason why they didn't plan for two lines in the first place) is what will happen as they finish the back log and demand drops. Then there will be layoffs, bad publicity, and possible plant closures.

Boeing is building the SC plant to help alleviate pressures now, but it remains to be seen if it'll be a good move in the long term.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Oregonian2 on 12/16/2009 12:14:21 AM , Rating: 2
That won't be unusual. I'm a couple hundred miles south of Boeing's metro Seattle mega facilities, but I've heard stories about how Boeing employment there goes through huge boom/bust cycles (but employees don't mind because they make megabucks during the boom periods).


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By Masospaghetti on 12/16/2009 9:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is "dropping the 787 in favor of the A380". The 787 holds ~300 passengers, the A380 seats betwen 500 and 800. Both are designed for completely different markets, the A380 being for the longest transcontinental routes and the 787 for mixed service.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By MozeeToby on 12/15/2009 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 4
Boeing set out with the 787 to maximize profitability for the airlines by reducing costs rather than increasing seats. Only time will tell what the actual fuel and maintenance numbers are for the aircraft but given that many, many flights are flying below capacity these days, a bigger airplane is not always better.

If the maintenance and fuel numbers for the first customers are good, you'll see more orders in the future. If not, Boeing still has a winner just fulfilling orders that have already been placed.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By blowfish on 12/15/2009 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
Many of the problems stemmed from the outsourcing of parts of the plane - but like Airbus, Boeing will get better at doing that.

I was quite surprised that Boeing took such a bold step in the introduction of composites for the primary structure, effectively leap-frogging Airbus.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to flying in a 787 and feeling the benefit of better cabin air quality, whilst looking out through larger windows. To date, my favourite "ride" has been the 777.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By walk2k on 12/15/2009 2:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
I just get a spinning wheel on the Boeing page, anyone else?


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By gcouriel on 12/15/2009 3:11:08 PM , Rating: 5
to say that Airbus designed 2 airplanes in the time it took Boeing to design 1 jet shows you did no research. a quick look would have netted you the results, and would have spared us your comment.

according to Wikipedia (i know, not the most trusted source of information, but i don't have the time for more "in depth" research), the Airbus A380 was first conceived in the late 1980's to compete with the 747. it wasn't until 1994 that the designs were finally begun. all told, it's a 13-year turn around from design to first flight (2007). that's building a CONVENTIONAL jet, without experimentation with new, exotic materials.

the A350 XWB was conceived in 2006, following criticisms of the A350 project, and design were modified at that time. it is currently scheduled for release in 2013, but as we've seen, that's not a firm date with anything this complex. that's a 7-year turnaround time from concept (albeit based on an already designed aircraft) to first flight.

the 787 (formerly 7E7) was first conceived in the late 90's, with design beginning in 2003 (as the 7E7). first flight was today, so all told, it's a 6-year turnaround from design to first flight.

here are the websites i looked at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By killerclick on 12/15/2009 6:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
The A350 is barely a paper airplane at this time and it will enter into service in three and a half years at best by which time Boeing will nicely ramp up 787 production.
As for the A380, so far it's been a pretty much a commercial failure. Only 200 firm orders while break-even is estimated at ~450. While I'm sure it will be profitable eventually (in 10 years or so), it's still a niche aircraft.


RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By rippleyaliens on 12/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad for Boeing
By delphinus100 on 12/16/2009 4:00:09 AM , Rating: 3
First: Just because we may never own one, doesn't make the technology any less cool.

Second: Even without owning it, there's a pretty good chance that some of us will eventually fly aboard one (in which case, our money does help fill the tanks)...


Conspiracy is as conspiracy does
By ggordonliddy on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
Prototype or production type?
By CubicleDilbert on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Prototype or production type?
By FPP on 12/15/2009 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hogwash.

This flight will make them able to instrument zillions of points and validate tons of data. It puts it in the air for performance feedback. There isn't a plane flying that has not had post-design changes and this plane is no exception. If successful, it fundimentally changes the way planes will be designed and built at Boeing. It's necessary to remember, they not only reinvented the airplane, they reinvented their design and procurement processes as well. It is a monumental change in the way they accomplish every goal.


By stromgald30 on 12/15/2009 5:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
The A380 is significantly different than the 787 and A350XWB in terms of construction. I don't claim to foretell the future, and nobody really knows whether the 787 or A350XWB will be more successful. Obviously, Boeing is going to beat Airbus to the market, but their mistakes may also teach Airbus a few things (much like the 737 vs the A320).

Just because it's a prototype doesn't mean that they'll need to redesign/requalify a new aircraft. The flight tests done on this first aircraft will validate many things in the design. Unlike the roll-out, which was a purely PR move, this first flight was also an engineering test.

Your lack of trust in Boeing is very one-sided and not logical. Airbus' A380 suffered some serious design flaws that delayed their first flight as well. If you're going to hold Boeing and Airbus to such a high standard of designing it perfect the first time, I doubt you would find any aircraft acceptable.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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