Boeing When Will the Boeing 787 Finally Take Flight?

[Ivan Seeking]

Finally! It is two years late.

It is supposed to fly from Everett to Seattle right about now. This has a direct impact on my income so this is great news for me personally as well as everyone at Boeing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

CNN is providing live coverage. It is taxiing right now.

Funny [I hope] but I am actually nervous. Of course it would be terrible if there were signficant problems.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There she gooooooes! woohoooo!

 

[hypatia]

Wow, it's big! And it is beautiful. Hope everything goes well on its maiden flight.

 

[drankin]

Finally! It is two years late.

It is supposed to fly from Everett to Seattle right about now. This has a direct impact on my income so this is great news for me personally as well as everyone at Boeing.

Direct impact for me as well. The 787 will keep us in projects for years to come.

 

[drankin]

There is so much that can go wrong, and if nothing goes wrong, then somethings wrong...

I've got knots in my stomach. I can only imagine how the guys at the runway feel.

The test pilots are most relaxed people in the program. But they are crazy.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

These airport delays are getting out of hand. This flight was two years late.

 

[drankin]

These airport delays are getting out of hand. This flight was two years late.

In this case better late than never. :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Direct impact for me as well. The 787 will keep us in projects for years to come.

You, me, an army of suppliers and vendors, as well as the Boeing employees. In the otherwise bleak world of manufacturing, this a very good day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

These airport delays are getting out of hand. This flight was two years late.

Slow too. Five hours to get to an airport forty miles away.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This video from 2007 briefly discusses the financial and technical challenges of the 787. Today is considered to be historic for Boeing and the airline industry generally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PxH0-eT_0

Takeoff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fucq5BoEfEI

 

[mugaliens]

Yeah!

Observation: The chase plane wasn't exactly in the safest location, wingtip vortex-wise! Would have been tragic to get off the ground only to loose a wingtip...

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Yeah!

Observation: The chase plane wasn't exactly in the safest location, wingtip vortex-wise! Would have been tragic to get off the ground only to loose a wingtip...

If it did I'd say Boeing got the curse of North American Aviation when they bought it up. Airship 2 of the XB-70 project was lost to a wingtip vortex accident.

I wonder if it is the angles of the cameras but the wings of the 787 look like they are turned up fairly high

 

[Cyrus]

Man, those wings sure were bending in that video!

 

[Sorry!]

Man, those wings sure were bending in that video!

I noticed that too... must be a very comfy ride on the inside

It's quite amazing to see how far we've come in my opinion...

 

[drankin]

Man, those wings sure were bending in that video!

In structural testing, they pulled those wings up and together until they snapped, prematurely. That was one of the major delays. They had to do a massive modification. This was only a few months ago.

 

[Cyrus]

My prediction is that the 787s are going to have a lottttt of problems with delamination of all that composite materials. Private jets are having those problems now. Get into the carbon-fiber repair business for airlines and you'll be a rich man.

 

[Borek]

In the first video it is stated something like "plastic means no fatigue" - how true is it? I mean - I can easily believe material properties will change at different speed, but "no fatigue" sounds like an exaggeration.

 

[drankin]

My prediction is that the 787s are going to have a lottttt of problems with delamination of all that composite materials. Private jets are having those problems now. Get into the carbon-fiber repair business for airlines and you'll be a rich man.

I'm sure they have test data for every composite component.

Boeing puts every component through several life cycles in testing. Their standards are above the private jet manufacturers in my experience.

I'm more concerned about it's ability to withstand lighting strikes. The composite cannot conduct around the airframe like the typical aluminum airframe. According to our senior electrical engineer the wire mesh "bus" system is the most sophisticated part of the aircraft. I'm curious as to how THAT was tested.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure they have test data for every composite component.

Boeing puts every component through several life cycles in testing. Their standards are above the private jet manufacturers in my experience.

I'm more concerned about it's ability to withstand lighting strikes. The composite cannot conduct around the airframe like the typical aluminum airframe. According to our senior electrical engineer the wire mesh "bus" system is the most sophisticated part of the aircraft. I'm curious as to how THAT was tested.

I have not been following this airplane too closely, but apart from being composite, why is this thing special? How does its performance look like compared to a similar airplane?

My guess is that its only 5-10% more efficient...<YAWN>. Someone build that damn blended wing body airliner already! They all look like the same ole B-707 from 1960!

Johnson, they want a new airplane! "Ok boss, well take off two of the engines and rebrand it!"

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/images/K63965-03_lg.jpg

In 50 years, this is all we can do?...errr. The older one had stiffer wings. The 707 is a much prettier airplane IMO. Hell, it was the airplane that defined the "jet age."

 

[drankin]

I have not been following this airplane too closely, but apart from being composite, why is this thing special? How does its performance look like compared to a similar airplane?

My guess is that its only 5-10% more efficient...<YAWN>. Someone build that damn blended wing body airliner already! They all look like the same ole B-707 from 1960!

It's like Windows7, it's new, looks newer, higher "tech", has bigger... windows. If you don't have it your competitors will. Other than that, it's just more expensive and keeps the money moving in the industry.

Oh, and it's "green"er.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh, and it's "green"er.

They changed its color?

 

[Borek]

On pictures it looks blue.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

So what really are the advantages of the 787?

 

[Borek]

According to Boeing it will use up to 20% fuel less plus it will be much quieter than other planes.

 

[Wallace]

I've flown a few times now in the new A380's and they are a dream! So quiet and smooth compared to anything else I've flown it. I'm very far from an expert in the aviation field, but Airbus seem to have gotten such a first mover advantage from the A380; the Dreamliner will have to be pretty special to out-do it.

 

[Sorry!]

I've flown a few times now in the new A380's and they are a dream! So quiet and smooth compared to anything else I've flown it. I'm very far from an expert in the aviation field, but Airbus seem to have gotten such a first mover advantage from the A380; the Dreamliner will have to be pretty special to out-do it.

I'm pretty sure it already has... I remember seeing something like 900 Boeings were already ordered. The most for any aircraft.

 

[Wallace]

Do you know any figures about how many A380's have been bought/ordered by comparison?

 

[Sorry!]

Do you know any figures about how many A380's have been bought/ordered by comparison?

The figure was actually 840 ordered for Boeing. A380 in comparison to date has 202.

EDIT: Reason that it is lower than what I said before I suppose is due to the delays, it was at 910.

 

[Borek]

Thay are not easily comparable, as they are targeted at different markets. Or perhaps at different philosophies of air transport.

 

[Wallace]

Ah okay, I had though they were essentially direct competitors. Is the Dreamliner aimed at smaller, shorter flights than the A380?

 

[jtbell]

This has a direct impact on my income so this is great news for me personally as well as everyone at Boeing.

And for a lot of people here in South Carolina. Boeing is going to build a second assembly plant for the 787 near Charleston.

 

[minger]

According to Boeing it will use up to 20% fuel less plus it will be much quieter than other planes.

Notice the chevrons on the jet nozzle. That is very state-of-the-art right now with a lot of work being to done to understand exactly how they even work. For acoustic reasons btw.

Also, did anyone notice as the plane flew over the camera, the change in perspective gave the eerie illusion that the wings were being swept back?

p.s. As far as the differences between the 707 and 787. Well the 707 was like a 180 passenger airline, where the 787 is almost twice that. Sure, similar shape, way different scale. Lots of difference there.

 

[Borek]

Ah okay, I had though they were essentially direct competitors. Is the Dreamliner aimed at smaller, shorter flights than the A380?

I think A380 is more aimed at the idea of large hubs supported by local networks of short flies, while Dreamliner is aimed more at the peer-to-peer type of airport network. But I can be wrong.

 

[FredGarvin]

Notice the chevrons on the jet nozzle. That is very state-of-the-art right now with a lot of work being to done to understand exactly how they even work. For acoustic reasons btw.

I thought the 787 only had secondary nozzle chevrons because of the large bypass ratio. I can't tell from the videos that Ivan linked to.

Also, did anyone notice as the plane flew over the camera, the change in perspective gave the eerie illusion that the wings were being swept back?

I always thought they were! I thought they were going with a kind of hybrid delta wing configuration. I never looked into it though.

p.s. As far as the differences between the 707 and 787. Well the 707 was like a 180 passenger airline, where the 787 is almost twice that. Sure, similar shape, way different scale. Lots of difference there.

Lower emissions, greater range with less fuel consumption, quieter (in both the cabin and surrounding areas).

 

[tmyer2107]

So what really are the advantages of the 787?

I recently flew on one of Continental's new airplanes. Wasn't near as noisy and had much less turbulence than anything else I've flown in. Also had outlets at every seat and tvs in the seat in front of you, it made for a much more enjoyable flight. I would definitely pay a few extra dollars to fly in that plane again rather than another flight on another airline. I think that is going to be the biggest advantage for the 787. It will attract customers to the airlines that have them because they know they will have a more comfortable, enjoyable experience.

 

[Cyrus]

Notice the chevrons on the jet nozzle. That is very state-of-the-art right now with a lot of work being to done to understand exactly how they even work. For acoustic reasons btw.

Also, did anyone notice as the plane flew over the camera, the change in perspective gave the eerie illusion that the wings were being swept back?

p.s. As far as the differences between the 707 and 787. Well the 707 was like a 180 passenger airline, where the 787 is almost twice that. Sure, similar shape, way different scale. Lots of difference there.

So.....why don't I just upgrade the engines on my existing airplanes and save hundreds of millions of dollars?

In other words, I want to see the Cd of this airplane in a wind tunnel compared to other airplanes. If it is indeed 20% lower, I'll buy Boeings marketing ploy. Otherwise, they should just say it has 20% more efficient engines and thank whoever makes the engines. This is exactly what boeing does when selling their hummingbird helicopter. Its engine has a very low SFC, but they attribute it to its 'optimum speed rotors'...woooo optimum speed rotors yeah sure...

 

[minger]

I thought the 787 only had secondary nozzle chevrons because of the large bypass ratio. I can't tell from the videos that Ivan linked to.

They've found the chevrons to reduce acoustical waves, but don't really (that I know of) successful numerical models. From what I know they experimentally found that x number of chevrons reduced noise while y increased. If they were angled at a they reduced and b they increased.

I was recently at a conference a NASA rep was presenting some stuff on it (among other aeroacoustic research). Pretty cool stuff. They may be there for another reason, but that one I do know of.

 

[minger]

So.....why don't I just upgrade the engines on my existing airplanes and save hundreds of millions of dollars?

In other words, I want to see the Cd of this airplane in a wind tunnel compared to other airplanes. If it is indeed 20% lower, I'll buy Boeings marketing ploy. Otherwise, they should just say it has 20% more efficient engines and thank whoever makes the engines. This is exactly what boeing does when selling their hummingbird helicopter. Its engine has a very low SFC, but they attribute it to its 'optimum speed rotors'...woooo optimum speed rotors yeah sure...

Even if the Cd is the same, it has a bigger cross sectional area. In order to be bigger and consume less fuel, I would imagine the Cd would be lower. We have MUCH better tools today to help with design, which helps with that.

 

[Cyrus]

Even if the Cd is the same, it has a bigger cross sectional area. In order to be bigger and consume less fuel, I would imagine the Cd would be lower. We have MUCH better tools today to help with design, which helps with that.

I'll believe that when I see some actual numbers. Companies are notorious for marketing things in a shady way. I can show you plots of tilt rotors on helicopter websites that make them look like a godsend. I don't believe Boeing. I'm pretty sure the guys that build the 707 did a pretty good job, I don't see much difference in aerodynamic shape between those two pictures. Looks like business as usual to me. I still think its the same airplane, made of different materials (ok, kudos on that at least) with better engines (thats where the fuel savings comes from).

If their airplane is really that good and they are really proud of what they did, give a plot of Cd*A compared to other airplanes.

 

[FredGarvin]

They've found the chevrons to reduce acoustical waves, but don't really (that I know of) successful numerical models. From what I know they experimentally found that x number of chevrons reduced noise while y increased. If they were angled at a they reduced and b they increased.

I was recently at a conference a NASA rep was presenting some stuff on it (among other aeroacoustic research). Pretty cool stuff. They may be there for another reason, but that one I do know of.

I have had the chance to see a lecture from one of the head gurus at Boeing. They do have predictive models but they are still working on aspects of it. It had some really good insight into the design of the chevrons. One thing we went into a fair amount of detail on was the fact that, as bypass ratio increased, chevrons on the jet nozzle became less effective and chevrons on the bypass duct took over. One of the major tradeoffs apart from performance of the engine, was that the chevrons always slightly increased higher frequencies while helping to attenuate the lower.

I wonder if you ran into any of the folks from Glenn that we have done work with. I liked working there. What a great facility.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't see much difference in aerodynamic shape between those two pictures.

I see a bunch of differences in the wing planform and the way the engines are hung. I see a bit in the fuselage, especially in the front.

Plus look at the differences in max takeoff weight and range. The 787 is heavier and can go as far if not farther while carrying less fuel. That is partially engines, but there has to be some good airframe improvements for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787

 

[lisab]

I recently flew on one of Continental's new airplanes. Wasn't near as noisy and had much less turbulence than anything else I've flown in. Also had outlets at every seat and tvs in the seat in front of you, it made for a much more enjoyable flight. I would definitely pay a few extra dollars to fly in that plane again rather than another flight on another airline. I think that is going to be the biggest advantage for the 787. It will attract customers to the airlines that have them because they know they will have a more comfortable, enjoyable experience.

Configuration (e.g., seat width) and amenies are decided by the airline, not the plane manufacturer.

 

[Borek]

with better engines (thats where the fuel savings comes from)

Lower mass doesn't play any role? Only better efficiency of engines?

 

[Andre]

Yes lower weight --> less air to push down to keep flying, -->s a lower angle of attack, ---> less induced drag --> less trust required

But the effect is largest at low speeds. Als less weight means less energy/fuel required to climb to cruise altitude

 

[mugaliens]

They all look like the same ole B-707 from 1960!

In this case, looks are definitely deceiving...

 

[Cyrus]

In this case, looks are definitely deceiving...

How so? In what way is it aerodynamically different than any other school bus they make?

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/9573/jglt.jpg

Yeah, not impressed by the 787 so far...

Hooray for substandard improvements in technology! Hey, at least it has a fancy paint job...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

These airport delays are getting out of hand. This flight was two years late.

I told a slightly modified version of that joke to a buddy at Boeing. After a silent pregnant pause, he said he was going to hang up now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How so? In what way is it aerodynamically different than any other school bus they make?

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/9573/jglt.jpg

Yeah, not impressed by the 787 so far...

Hooray for substandard improvements in technology! Hey, at least it has a fancy paint job...

What is the kts for the 787?

 

[Borek]

What is specific productivity?