: Boeing 787 First Flight Set for Dec. 15



gdwriter
12-13-09, 02:17 AM
As my friends here know, besides being a car buff, I'm also an aviation enthusiast, particularly big Boeing jets. So I've been following progress on the new Boeing 787, and weather permitting, it will make its first flight at 10 a.m. PST Tuesday, December 15.

Today, there were a number of taxi tests, and there are already some videos on YouTube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul7YJLWLxt0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew0knX7a8YI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELcKx31GcKU

Lots of pictures and a couple of videos at FlightBlogger (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/12/138-photos-and-2-videos-of-not.html) and the Seattle P-I (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/188085.asp) aerospace blog, including a shot of the nose wheel lifting off the ground during a high-speed taxi run:

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20091212/621787_test_26.JPG

She's a beautiful bird:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/6/5/1624568.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/6/5/1624569.jpg

I especially love the graceful curve of the wings:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/9/5/8/1570859.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/3/6/6/1233663.jpg

V-Eight
12-13-09, 02:18 AM
I thought those were flying a while ago?

gary88
12-13-09, 02:28 AM
Can't wait to fly to Poland in one of these when they come out :dance:

Night Wolf
12-13-09, 02:30 AM
I like the paint job, it'll be neat to see it fly, but it's a matter if the airlines will pick it up.... either way, looks like Boeing made a better move then Airbus with the A380.

Aron9000
12-13-09, 02:34 AM
So which plane does this replace in Boeing's lineup? I guess its a big brother to the 737, right?

Night Wolf
12-13-09, 02:50 AM
Boeing has too many twins..... it was explained to me a while back by someone at Boeing, but I don't remember the whole order.

The 737 is staying, they have the new models out, that is the short flight plane, the 747 is staying. the 777 is the long range plane, IIRC, the 767 (wide body) is no longer made for passenger use but they are still being made as a refueling tanker. The 757 (narrow body) is no longer being made.

So the 787 should fit in where the 57 and 67 were, leaving the 37 for short range, 87 for medium-long range, and the 47/77 for long range.

I could be wrong tho, I really haven't been keeping up to date with the airlines since I stopped working for them. Comparing the 787 to the ancient military cargo planes I work on everyday would be like comparing a '49 Ford to a Veyron.

gdwriter
12-13-09, 02:58 AM
I like the paint job, it'll be neat to see it fly, but it's a matter if the airlines will pick it up.... either way, looks like Boeing made a better move then Airbus with the A380.The 787 is the fastest selling jetliner in history. Boeing has booked 840 orders from 57 airlines, including of interest to Gary88, LOT Polish Airlines.


So which plane does this replace in Boeing's lineup? I guess its a big brother to the 737, right?It's mostly going to replace the 767, but in some instances it may also replace a 757 or 777 with some airlines or some routes. It will also compete with the Airbus A330 and A340.

gdwriter
12-13-09, 03:00 AM
Found another video with a better view of the nose wheel lifting off:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbEh1KQZTQ

Jesda
12-13-09, 04:33 AM
What a magnificent beast!

Night Wolf
12-13-09, 08:19 AM
The 787 is the fastest selling jetliner in history. Boeing has booked 840 orders from 57 airlines, including of interest to Gary88, LOT Polish Airlines.

It's mostly going to replace the 767, but in some instances it may also replace a 757 or 777 with some airlines or some routes. It will also compete with the Airbus A330 and A340.

Just because the orders were placed dosent mean much at this point. The real test will be how well the initial flight tests go, if they can produce it as fast as they claim, and if all the airlines keep their orders. The A380 had a lot of orders placed too. The big airlines are not doing well, people aren't flying like they were. Smaller airlines are popping up but they are flying regional jets or 737/A320 sized planes. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out tho.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-13-09, 11:16 AM
Cool stuff, I like how it looks too....very modern and sophisticated. Is this the biggest thing Boeing offers or is it still the 747?

Rick, why is this better than the A380? Because it's not as big?

Night Wolf
12-13-09, 01:33 PM
Cool stuff, I like how it looks too....very modern and sophisticated. Is this the biggest thing Boeing offers or is it still the 747?

Rick, why is this better than the A380? Because it's not as big?

The 787 is a medium-sized jetliner, the 747 is much larger and iirc, the 777 is a good bit larger as it is made for long range. I flew one nonstop from Kona, Hawaii to Chicago - it was nice.

As for the A380 - its just too darn big to be practical. There is a very limited number of airports that can accommodate it. In this economy it is hard to fill up the plane enough to justify cost of operating it. Four engine planes in the commercial world are generally not very economical to operate either. Airbus made a (unattractive) statement with that thing, but I don't see it as a good move business wise, then again unlike Boeing, Airbus is not a private company and is backed by the French gov't.

gdwriter
12-13-09, 05:55 PM
Just because the orders were placed dosent mean much at this point. The real test will be how well the initial flight tests go, if they can produce it as fast as they claim, and if all the airlines keep their orders. The A380 had a lot of orders placed too. The big airlines are not doing well, people aren't flying like they were. Smaller airlines are popping up but they are flying regional jets or 737/A320 sized planes. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out tho.There have been some cancellations due to the production delays on the 787, but there will still be hundreds of them going into service over the next decade.

If you look at the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_787_orders) of airlines (http://www.newairplane.com/787/) who have ordered the 787, only three U.S. carriers: Continental, Northwest (now Delta) and United have placed firm orders while American has announced an order, but it's not final. The current recession won't last forever and travel will pick up again once as the economy recovers. In other parts of the world, there's still strong demand for air travel, so many airlines are eager to get their 787s delivered.

By contrast, the A380 has a total of 200 firm orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries) from 16 airlines. It fills a much smaller niche than does the 787, and frankly, I think it was a vanity project by Airbus to build something bigger than the Boeing 747. It doesn't help that the A380 is ugly:

http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Airbus-A380-21.jpg

Boeing is also updating the 747 with fuel-efficient engines from the 787 and a redesigned wing that has that similar graceful curve.

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/747-8.jpg

http://blog.flightstory.net/wp-content/uploads/747-8i-ext.jpg

With the fragmentation of the aviation world and more point-to-point flights overseas, there's simply less demand for extra large jets like the A380 and the 747. Sales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8#Orders_and_deliveries) for the passenger version of the 747-8 have been slow, but the freighter version is selling well, and the first one recently rolled off the production line at Boeing.

http://assets.bizjournals.com/story_image/524861-0-0-1.jpg

If nothing else, the 747 has a bright future as a freighter. In his book 747, Joe Sutter, the chief engineer for Boeing on the 747, says more than half of the world's air freight is carried on 747s.

Ironically, when the 747 was in development, supersonic transports were thought to be the wave of the future, and it was expected that the 747 would spend its career as a freighter. Which is why the nose opens up for cargo and why the cockpit is at an upper level, giving the 747 it's distinctive hump:

http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/UPS%20Boeing%20747-400.jpg

EcSTSatic
12-13-09, 08:01 PM
I work at Spirit AeroSystems where we make the forward section of the Dreamliner. For non-aviation types, that's the forward entry door and everything in front of it. It's pretty amazing to see carbon fiber turned into a major aircraft assembly. I think we own the largest autoclave anywhere.
Image gallery (http://spiritaero.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=18&mode=gallery)

Nutz
12-14-09, 12:06 PM
Those jets on the 787 sound powerful and got moving quick.

thebigjimsho
12-14-09, 04:43 PM
That looks nice, Gary.

But, going back to Boeing, I flew back and forth to JAX yesterday from BOS and had 2 legs on an Airbus 320, 1 on an A321 and 1 on a 737. The 737 is garbage comfortwise. I had open seats next to me on all legs and the only one I couldn't sleep on was the 737.

The 737/757 is just not wide enough for 3+3 seating. And I don't know if it's a USAirways thing, but the 737 had the least legroom as well...

gdwriter
12-14-09, 05:15 PM
Those jets on the 787 sound powerful and got moving quick.Yeah, I love the sound of those engines as well. But I love the sounds of those noisy old jets like the B-52, 707 and 727, too.


That looks nice, Gary.

And I don't know if it's a USAirways thing, but the 737 had the least legroom as well...It might be since seat pitch depends on the airline. I flew on a Delta 757 between PDX and MSP last weekend and was surprised at the amount of legroom I had. The CRJ between MSP and GFK was godawful, though. No room at all, but at least it was only an hour-long flight.

I've generally been OK on a Southwest 737; flying Alaska to ORD for the Chicago meet, and they only fly 737s, so not sure how that will be.

I'm flying a Hawaiian 767 from PDX to HNL Sunday. I prefer the 2-3-2 layout on those. I've requested a window seat, but it's not yet confirmed. According to the seat map on Orbitz, there are only three seats open on the whole plane, so I'm hoping I get the one I asked for.

Jesda
12-14-09, 07:16 PM
I freaking hate those Bombardier regional jets. Its just painful.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-14-09, 08:32 PM
I miss the Concorde. When I was in Windsor England in July of '03, I was out running with my headphones on, just jogging along full blast and I heard this unbelievably loud woosh noise coming from behind me, so I turned around and what do I see? A freaking Concorde, probably on one of it's last flights ever before they were all decomissioned later that year.

http://www.ludd.luth.se/~texas/flyg/concorde/big/concorde_3.jpg

Night Wolf
12-14-09, 09:45 PM
Yeah, I love the sound of those engines as well. But I love the sounds of those noisy old jets like the B-52, 707 and 727, too.

It might be since seat pitch depends on the airline. I flew on a Delta 757 between PDX and MSP last weekend and was surprised at the amount of legroom I had. The CRJ between MSP and GFK was godawful, though. No room at all, but at least it was only an hour-long flight.

I've generally been OK on a Southwest 737; flying Alaska to ORD for the Chicago meet, and they only fly 737s, so not sure how that will be.

I'm flying a Hawaiian 767 from PDX to HNL Sunday. I prefer the 2-3-2 layout on those. I've requested a window seat, but it's not yet confirmed. According to the seat map on Orbitz, there are only three seats open on the whole plane, so I'm hoping I get the one I asked for.

Those "noisy old jets" you speak of are turbojets. That is, the engine is a straight-thru design, everything that goes in, goes thru the engine and then out the exhaust. The engine exhaust is what actually provides the thrust. They are very inefficent. I see/hear them everyday as they are on the KC-135, hard to miss the 4 black trails behind the aircraft too.

http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Tanker/kc135a.JPG

Modern aircraft use turbofan engines, that is when the engine drives a seperate fan disk to create thrust. There are two versions of this engine, low-bypass and high-bypass, the difference is just that, how much thrust is created by the fan, vs the engine. An example of a low-bypass engine is the JT8D, such as on the 737-200.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Shaheen_Air_International_Boeing_737-200_.jpg/800px-Shaheen_Air_International_Boeing_737-200_.jpg

They had the old clamshell style thrust-reverser

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Boeing_737-200_thrust_reverser.jpg/800px-Boeing_737-200_thrust_reverser.jpg

The other, being a high-bypass engine, which is what is commonly seen today. The engines main job is to turn the fan disk, which typically provides 85% of the thrust, while only 15% of the thrust is provided by the engine exhaust. The air provided by the fan is bypassed around the engine core. Of course all turbine engines have accessories or do other jobs - provide bleed air, run generators, hydraulic pumps etc...

By their design, turbofan engines, especially high-bypass are much wider then turbojet or low-bypass. Retrofitting can be seen on modern 737's. Ever wonder why the engine cowling looks funny? It was for proper ground clearance of the engine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Boeing_737-400_Engine.JPG/800px-Boeing_737-400_Engine.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Polynesian_Blue_737-800.JPG/800px-Polynesian_Blue_737-800.JPG

High-bypass engines use the cascade style thrust reverser for the by-pass air

http://www.si39.com/sitebuilder/images/tr_jap_large-600x450.jpg


I freaking hate those Bombardier regional jets. Its just painful.

That's what happens when you take what was otherwise a business jet and turn it into a regional airliner. The real fun part was maintaining them. As a business jet they are fine - quite nice actually..... when they are flown maybe 3 times a month. With the regional airlines putting as much as 10 cycles (takeoff/landings) a day on them, they were pretty much getting tore up. The CRJ-200 was pretty much a stretched Challenger 605/Global Express. It was not made for airline use. Many parts of the aircraft were requiring inspections/replacements - that would otherwise not be a problem for various things due to the amount of use put on them. The CRJ-700, while still on the same platform, was worked over a bit and made to be a better regional airliner. The 900's were basically a stretched version of the 700, with a first class. They are efficent to operate, and pretty neat technical-wise, but it would be like using a Bently as a NYC cab.... for 10 year, atleast with the 200's.

I remember being at the gate flying standby, some lady was arguing with the gate agent, I guess her husbond worked for Delta, but she was flying standby on our CRJ, she was getting fed up and said "well am I atleast getting first class!?" The gate guy said "honey, this whole plane is first class!" I literally started laughing out loud at that comment. It was a 50-seat CRJ-200. It was also fun leaving in the AM on a flight after working the whole night.... flying on the same plane we just did an engine change on. Somebody would sit next to me, then the questions would start.... "so what do you do for a living" "I am a mechanic" "Ohhhh, like on cars?" "Nahh....aircraft" "oh, wow.... little ones?" "I suppose.... well... airplanes like the one we are on now" "oh.......oh.... do you work for this airlines?" "Yeah.... we just changed number one engine last night........ ya know... I don't remember if we torqued the forward motor mount correctly......" ".........are you serious?" "yeah.......nah.... its torqued"

Hmmm, this is the only picture I have at the moment, lots others tho. This is a CRJ-700. Ahh, I miss that poor electric golf cart.... and the fun times towing way over it's max weight with it. That water cart, fully filled was about 3,500lbs.... Oh, speaking of which.... don't drink the water on airlines, any airlines. That includes coffee and tea made with water from the potable water system.... well atleast if you are concerned about the quality of water you consume. Bottled water is OK.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/cid_893.jpg

Now I work on these things.... kickin it old school! I don't think they'll ever get replaced... not when we are working on a program that replaces an essential portion of the airframe, that would otherwise cause nearly any other aircraft to get scrapped. The average plane I work on is 30 years old, giving these things a new lease on life...

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/air%20show/Spring%2009/5-02-09174.jpg

That picture was taken at an airshow, we are not allowed to take pictures at work. There are some pictures of our program on various gov't websites tho. We replace the center wing box, so all the engines and both wings come off, then the process starts of removing the old box, and putting the new one in. On average, the planes are here 9-12 months. We work on everything from regular cargo models, refuelers, gunships, as well as other special-ops versions. Every 130 must have the box replaced, so we are getting them one by one, nearly in the order they were made.

This was actually the building I used to work in, it was nice, they had the wing stands. The building I now work in can't fit them, so we have to use moveable stands for everything.

http://www.afmc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/web_030331-F-0000C-002.jpg

How the planes look part of the time. The "wing" still on the plane is the center wing box.

http://media.macon.com/smedia/2009/03/05/23/148-20090305-231739-pic-919148218.standalone.prod_affiliate.71.jpg

codewize
12-14-09, 10:41 PM
Quite a nice looking craft

Nutz
12-15-09, 12:43 AM
To me one of the best sounds is that of a dying breed in my area, an L-1011 just buzzing up to the clouds, or a heavy DC-10.

I have an incredible video of Air Force One coming in for a landing about 50 feet over my head and later in the day taking off from Hopkins Intl. here way before nine eleven changed everything. I might have to upload it, it's funny seeing the wings hanging off the sides of a runway that was never intended to have such a big plane.

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 12:47 AM
KC-10

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/air%20show/Spring%2009/5-02-09205.jpg

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 12:49 AM
I miss the Concorde. When I was in Windsor England in July of '03, I was out running with my headphones on, just jogging along full blast and I heard this unbelievably loud woosh noise coming from behind me, so I turned around and what do I see? A freaking Concorde, probably on one of it's last flights ever before they were all decomissioned later that year.

http://www.ludd.luth.se/~texas/flyg/concorde/big/concorde_3.jpg

It never made money, in fact each flight ended up costing money. It was basically made to prove supersonic passenger flight was possible.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 12:55 AM
Even the early turbofan 707s (many of which were converted from turbojets) sound extremely cool, like this 1959-vintage Qantas 707 restored a few years ago:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0arPKg6HvQU

Not sure if this B-52 is turbojets or turbofans. Only the H models still in service have the turbofans, but it sounds great:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ywdXX7f8Jk

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-15-09, 12:57 AM
It never made money, in fact each flight ended up costing money. It was basically made to prove supersonic passenger flight was possible.

Oh yes, that's what was so cool about it, it was just an ego-trip. Kinda like the '57-60 Eldorado Broughams and '56-57 Continental Mark II's. They both were made to show off their manufacturer's skills and wrangle up the big dollar customers. Those also always lost money when they were made as well.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 01:09 AM
^^ Good analogy, Chad. The Concorde is a beauty. I've seen one at the Smithsonian annex near Dulles, where the Dash 80, the Boeing 707 prototype that did a barrel roll, is on display. The Museum of Flight in Seattle has a former British Airways bird. I had thought about driving up to Seattle to see it arrive a few years ago, but couldn't make it. I think there are tours of the plane there, and I'd like to check it out the next time I'm in Seattle.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 02:15 AM
Boeing will have a live Webcast of the first flight here: http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html

Not sure if the weather is going to cooperate or not.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 02:30 PM
She is airborne and absolutely gorgeous in the air. The Boeing Webcast is probably the best place to see the video since they had multiple cameras and angles, including an incredible head-on shot as she left the ground.

I'll post some videos once they're up on YouTube.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 03:05 PM
Didn't take long:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv9ZU4EEMao


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSN_qLWTho


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKmIZohwUlY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDyxcTF1jls

gdwriter
12-15-09, 03:40 PM
More videos:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDyxcTF1jls


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdM5_dPQg0Y


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63w30kwiN8A

gdwriter
12-15-09, 04:37 PM
Pics from the Boeing Blog (http://boeingblogs.com/randy/):

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/K64825-01_lg.jpg

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/K64825-02_lg.jpg

The Future of Flight Center has a photostream up on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/futureofflightcenter/) as well.

codewize
12-15-09, 05:15 PM
I watched and listened to the entire thing live. It was pretty cool.

Those are some big ass engines.

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 05:22 PM
Job security taking flight!

Gary - I am surprised at your amount of pictures and videos posted of an airplane flying, as you usually have something snarky to say about me doing the same thing. Ah well, carry on...

gdwriter
12-15-09, 05:23 PM
^^ I remember when the 777 came out, the engines were enormous, and needed to be for the world's largest twin-jet. Will have to look to see how they compare in size. I expect the 787 engines are smaller in dimension since the plane is more the size of a 767.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 05:26 PM
Gary - I am surprised at your amount of pictures and videos posted of an airplane flying, as you usually have something snarky to say about me doing the same thing. Ah well, carry on...Different viewpoints of the take-off. And the first flight of an all-new aircraft, and the first to use composites instead of aluminum is ever-so-slightly more interesting than the same photos and videos over and over of a run-of-the-mill Jeep.

There. Snarky enough for you?

gdwriter
12-15-09, 05:28 PM
Landing at Boeing Field in Seattle in a few minutes. Took off from Paine Field in Everett, adjacent to the Boeing manufacturing plant where the 747, 767, 777 and now the 787 are built.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 05:36 PM
Picture-perfect landing. More video to come soon.

Boeing reports >300K viewers of the live Webcast.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 06:03 PM
I was wrong about the engine dimentions:

Diameter of the Rolls Royce Trent 800 used on the 777 is 2.79 m (110 in). Thrust is 75,000 to 95,000 lbf.
Diameter of the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 used on the 787 is 2.85 m (112 in). Thrust is 53,000–75,000 lbf.

The lower thrust number makes sense since it's a smaller plane that's emphasizing fuel efficiency.

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 07:16 PM
Different viewpoints of the take-off. And the first flight of an all-new aircraft, and the first to use composites instead of aluminum is ever-so-slightly more interesting than the same photos and videos over and over of a run-of-the-mill Jeep.

There. Snarky enough for you?

All I see is just another bus in the sky that is going to break and need to be fixed. I'm sure you will enjoy staring at it though when you just missed your flight because it is stuck at the gate due to problems associated with all-new aircraft. The plane took off, how many angles do you want to see? The composite sure looks much better then aluminum in all those videos tho!

This snarky thing is pretty cool.... we'll have to keep it going. Your turn.

gdwriter
12-15-09, 08:13 PM
Video of the landing. Wish all the flights I've taken were landed this smoothly:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2kt6v4qMSs

billc83
12-15-09, 08:13 PM
Rick doesn't like it cause it's made by Boeing and not Jeep or BMW... :D

gdwriter
12-15-09, 08:16 PM
This snarky thing is pretty cool.... we'll have to keep it going. Your turn.It can't be any fun to fly. It's big and heavy and doesn't have a stick shift (though it does have a stick, unlike the Arbi).

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 08:20 PM
It can't be any fun to fly. It's big and heavy and doesn't have a stick shift (though it does have a stick, unlike the Arbi).

You're right, that thing must be one of the most boring aircraft around to fly.

Many airline pilots enjoy going back to small basic single-engine Cessnas or the like, from time to time because it brings them back to what flying is all about, man and machine.

Kind of like a stick shift Jeep or BMW.

Hmmm, this seems fitting for the thread:

http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/potty/images/12.jpg

http://www.willys-mb.ru/images/article8_clip_image008.jpg

Gary - you can add this to your aviation folder:

http://www.willys-mb.ru/article8_e.html

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 08:27 PM
Rick doesn't like it cause it's made by Boeing and not Jeep or BMW... :D

Boeing builds a good airplane. One of the best things about them is the layout of their maintenace manuals - very good. Actually the CRJ shares this too. Compared to just about any Lockheed aircraft, which has you going from one place to the other.

Tho the worst defintily goes to ATR. A French built plane. Well, the fuselage is built in France, the engines are shipped from Canada and the wings from Italy, then it all gets sent to Spain for final assembly.

But the best part is - the maintenace manuals are translated from French to English - literally.

Reading them, makes no sense. You will find things like "torch the gear bay" which means shine a flash light in the wheel well. There is another part where they talk about removing a small ~1/4" nut from an electronic device, the tool they recomend to use? A "pipe wrench". Now when I think pipe wrench I don't think, well, aircraft maintenace as a whole. What they mean was use a socket. How you say? Look at a socket - it looks like a pipe. It is also a wrench. Yes, it is that bad. The entire set of manuals were like this, the aircraft itself wasn't too bad, overall to work on, but trying to translate what is written in the pages, to what it really means was another thing.

The fun continued inside the airplane too, to all the safety/emergency placards, such as "rotate rearward the observor seat" and "extract occupant" as two of the steps to remove the 3rd seat in the flight deck.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-15-09, 08:29 PM
Lockheed Martin's software development team is headquartered in the city I live in. :)

gdwriter
12-15-09, 08:45 PM
Oh swell. Now that blasted Jeep is invading this airplane thread. Quelle surprise.

Night Wolf
12-15-09, 08:49 PM
Wait, I need to post a dozen pictures and videos of it...

thebigjimsho
12-15-09, 10:57 PM
Thanks Gary, see what you've done?

thebigjimsho
12-15-09, 10:58 PM
Lockheed Martin's software development team is headquartered in the city I live in. :)
Headquartered in the city you live in? Where is that at? :bighead:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-15-09, 11:11 PM
Eagan MN. My bad, it was Lockheed Martin's Maritime System's division.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=lockheed+martin&fb=1&gl=us&hq=lockheed+martin&hnear=Burnsville,+MN&cid=15030839920975089180&ei=tE8oS4_UOYTenAeBirSfDQ&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQnQIwAw

gdwriter
12-15-09, 11:51 PM
Thanks Gary, see what you've done?
I've enjoyed watching that beautiful bird fly far too much to allow anything Rick posts in this thread to bother me.

EcSTSatic
12-16-09, 10:04 AM
I was wrong about the engine dimentions:

Diameter of the Rolls Royce Trent 800 used on the 777 is 2.79 m (110 in). Thrust is 75,000 to 95,000 lbf.
Diameter of the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 used on the 787 is 2.85 m (112 in). Thrust is 53,00075,000 lbf.

The lower thrust number makes sense since it's a smaller plane that's emphasizing fuel efficiency.

To put the dimension in perspective, the 777 nacelle has the same outer diameter as the 737 fuselage.

Woohoo! Now maybe our stock price will recover. Spirit AeroSystems (formerly Boeing Wichita) is still tied very closely to Boeing's performance. Probably over 80% of the work we do is still for Boeing.

thebigjimsho
12-16-09, 11:39 AM
Headquartered in the city you live in? Where is that at? :bighead:


Eagan MN. My bad, it was Lockheed Martin's Maritime System's division.

http://maps.google.com/maps/place?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=lockheed+martin&fb=1&gl=us&hq=lockheed+martin&hnear=Burnsville,+MN&cid=15030839920975089180&ei=tE8oS4_UOYTenAeBirSfDQ&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQnQIwAw
Sorry, Chad. My statement was for the SPGNs...

Super Perceptive Grammar Nazis...

gdwriter
12-16-09, 02:08 PM
To put the dimension in perspective, the 777 nacelle has the same outer diameter as the 737 fuselage.I remember reading that when the 777 came out. Jet engine technology like so many other things has come a long way over the past 50 years.

gdwriter
12-16-09, 02:12 PM
Boeing's 787 first flight Webcast (http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html) has a nicely edited video, including air-to-air footage and an aerial view of the landing.

This is also a good summary video of the flight, including a different view of the landing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JV_91Ifwdo

gary88
12-16-09, 02:16 PM
Lockheed Martin's software development team is headquartered in the city I live in. :)

Boeing's world headquarters is a 5 minute drive from my place :cool2:

gdwriter
12-16-09, 02:44 PM
Boeing's world headquarters is a 5 minute drive from my place :cool2:I never understood why Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle. That would be like Apple leaving Cupertino or Coca-Cola leaving Atlanta.

EcSTSatic
12-16-09, 02:57 PM
I never understood why Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle. That would be like Apple leaving Cupertino or Coca-Cola leaving Atlanta.

Or Pizza Hut leaving Wichita - which they did. The original Pizza Hut shack is on the WSU campus. I once flew back to Wichita sitting next to Frank Carney, co-founder of Pizza Hut and now Papa John's Pizza. I was returning from Boeing Seattle and he was returning from discussing new stores on the west coast. He was pretty upset with all of the quality cutting at PH so he helped grow PJ's.

Ranger
12-16-09, 06:01 PM
I never understood why Boeing moved its headquarters from Seattle. That would be like Apple leaving Cupertino or Coca-Cola leaving Atlanta.
Same reason UAL is moving it's Headquarters from a 30 acre campus in the suburb to downtown Chicago Willis (Sears) tower. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$

gdwriter
12-17-09, 04:09 PM
Official Boeing video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korA15lt_WI

It's a larger viewing window if you watch it at YouTube. This is the best overall video I've seen, so if you don't want to watch all of them (Rick), this is the one to watch.

70eldo
12-18-09, 07:11 AM
The 787 is a beautiful bird! I am happy for Boeing they finally got it airborne. However, they still have some big hurdes to overcome to finally get the production right. I truely hope they will master that.

And that from a guy who engineers for Airbus! I am just a aerospace fanatic too. I was even in flight academy for the KLM. I also engineered for JSF at Lockheed-Martin and smaal projects through Fokker for Hawker Horizon and the killed Fairchild-Dornier 728/928.

For those who wonder: the A380 was developed in the same time as the 787, but was in no means the competitor for the 787!!! The new A350 will be. And that one has now more than 500 orders within 3 years. It will mostly replace the A330/A340. As a sidenote, the 4-engined A340 shares practically the same body and wings as the A330. 4-engines was necessary for the 180 minutes ETOP to cross the Atlantic. But after the 777 got it certified with only 2 engines, the A330 also followed. Which made the A340 more obsolete for future orders.

Airbus might be openly gov't funded, but Boeing is undeniably as well. Just differently. Just stop the rant. A lot of airliners have a mixed fleet and don't care about these things. It's not to be compared with the car market!. The whole deal about the competition has been hyped up by media. Not by Airbus and Boeing.

Interior, leg room, comfort: all things that is decided by the customer (the operating airliner). Not the manufacturer. The interior can be bought from different interior suppliers and you are free to configure the seatings. There's just a maximum set, based on maximum load of the aircraft. So you cannot compare A320 with 737 (or whatever aircraft) based on leg room.

Fact is, the new technologies (engine, passive/active sound insulation, etc) make the cabin a lot more quiet. I had the opportunity to fly in the (test)A380 (MSN7). That's just another world of traveling. And I can imagine traveling in the 787 will be equally comfortable. Less noise and movement just makes traveling for a long time so much more bearable!
And not to forget; next generation climate control makes the air quality a lot better. Even the hull materials which allow for the cabin air pressure not to drop too much compared to 1 atm. will contribute significantly to the passenger well-being.

All in all, new aircrafts are getting more efficient, more comfortable and even more beautiful. As an engineer I admire any aircraft. I love the classic propellor aircrafts the most. Especially planes like the Catalina!

70eldo
12-18-09, 07:28 AM
Boeing builds a good airplane. One of the best things about them is the layout of their maintenace manuals - very good. Actually the CRJ shares this too. Compared to just about any Lockheed aircraft, which has you going from one place to the other.

Tho the worst defintily goes to ATR. A French built plane. Well, the fuselage is built in France, the engines are shipped from Canada and the wings from Italy, then it all gets sent to Spain for final assembly.

But the best part is - the maintenace manuals are translated from French to English - literally.

Reading them, makes no sense. You will find things like "torch the gear bay" which means shine a flash light in the wheel well. There is another part where they talk about removing a small ~1/4" nut from an electronic device, the tool they recomend to use? A "pipe wrench". Now when I think pipe wrench I don't think, well, aircraft maintenace as a whole. What they mean was use a socket. How you say? Look at a socket - it looks like a pipe. It is also a wrench. Yes, it is that bad. The entire set of manuals were like this, the aircraft itself wasn't too bad, overall to work on, but trying to translate what is written in the pages, to what it really means was another thing.

The fun continued inside the airplane too, to all the safety/emergency placards, such as "rotate rearward the observor seat" and "extract occupant" as two of the steps to remove the 3rd seat in the flight deck.

ATR is (also?) final-assembled in Toulouse, France.
Anyway, I can confirm the bad translations. I have been working at Airbus Toulouse for almost 3 years and I had to struggle with frenglish a lot. It helped that I also know french, so I could trace the original context. Engineering documets are suffering from the same translations. But also translated from German or Spanish. Of course the communication within Airbus is all english, but imagine how bad french-english, german-english and spanish-english clash with additional cultural differences at meetings and internal communications. Add to it, that people from all over the world work at Airbus. It is a true miracle how well built aircrafts result from it. I could fill a stand-up comedy act with all situations I experience on a daily basis!

gdwriter
12-18-09, 12:58 PM
The 787 is a beautiful bird! I am happy for Boeing they finally got it airborne.

And that from a guy who engineers for Airbus!

For those who wonder: the A380 was developed in the same time as the 787, but was in no means the competitor for the 787!!! The new A350 will be. And that one has now more than 500 orders within 3 years. It will mostly replace the A330/A340.

The whole deal about the competition has been hyped up by media. Not by Airbus and Boeing.

Interior, leg room, comfort: all things that is decided by the customer (the operating airliner). Not the manufacturer. The interior can be bought from different interior suppliers and you are free to configure the seatings. There's just a maximum set, based on maximum load of the aircraft. So you cannot compare A320 with 737 (or whatever aircraft) based on leg room.

All in all, new aircrafts are getting more efficient, more comfortable and even more beautiful. As an engineer I admire any aircraft. I love the classic propellor aircrafts the most. Especially planes like the Catalina!:yeah:

I love pretty much anything with wheels or wings. If I'm visiting some place with an air museum, it's almost always one of my stops. I'm fortunate to have the Spruce Goose (http://sprucegoose.org/) at a museum just 30 minutes from my house, and I've taken many visitors to see it (they have plenty of other nice planes as well).

Although I'm a big Boeing fan, the A330 is a lovely plane. I like the wing shape on the A380, but it looks odd in front with the lower-level cockpit.

But for anybody who enjoys aviation, this has been an exciting week.

EcSTSatic
12-18-09, 01:33 PM
Do they still let you tour the inside of the Goose? We got to go thru it when it was down in CA. Amazing!

EcSTSatic
12-18-09, 01:36 PM
I remember the videos of the tower they build on the bed of a truck known as "Waddell's Wagon" to give future pilots a perspective of what it would be like to taxi the 747. Boeing gambled the whole company on that program.

gdwriter
12-18-09, 02:33 PM
Do they still let you tour the inside of the Goose? We got to go thru it when it was down in CA. Amazing!Yes, you can go inside the Spruce Goose, but just in through the side door; the cockpit and rear cargo area are blocked off by glass walls, but you can still see inside pretty well.


I remember the videos of the tower they build on the bed of a truck known as "Waddell's Wagon" to give future pilots a perspective of what it would be like to taxi the 747. Boeing gambled the whole company on that program.Boeing has a history of betting the company on a new airplane design. They did it with the 707 and the 747. Both bets paid off handsomely, which I believe will happen with the 787 as well.