Boeing When Will the Boeing 787 Finally Take Flight?

[Cyrus]

I think there is more to it. Each technology has it limits. We have not yet found these limits for semiconductor & electronics, so there is plenty of room for advancement. That's not necesarilly the case with planes.

Think about history - we started with wooden frames, canvas and piston engines. If I recall correctly they hit the wall around 200 kts, they were not able to fly faster (even if they were able, it doesn't make my point invalid, read on).

We replaced wood and canvas with metal, and we made planes that were capable of getting around 600 kts. Again, that was technological limit, no amount of tweaking would change the situation (much).

We replaced piston engines and propeller with jet engines - and we get supersonic. Again, this technology has its limits - no idea where they lie, but I would bet Blackbird must be relatively close.

That's why I am not expecting much to change when it comes to planes. Sure, there can be some kind of technological revolution (I would be happy to vitness it) - but there are thousands of people, both professionals and amateurs, trying hard to reinvent the plane. So far most of their inventions were not substantially better than what we already have. Could be that's because we are again close to the technological limits.

Edit:


Perhaps there is no place for it?

Finally, someone is hot on the trail. Each quantum leap in technology is due to a key enabling technology. For the helicopter, it was the turbine engine. For aircraft today, there needs to be a key technology that will allow for a big leap in performance. This is where the money should be spent - finding "that" technology. I say it in quotes.

 

[Borek]

Each quantum leap in technology is due to a key enabling technology.

Speaking of quantum leaps... Each next energy level is closer to the previus one, so the differences become smaller and smaller, and finally once you try to jump too high you will find you are no longer part of the atom

 

[Borek]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but Universities don't design aircraft.

Few years ago students from Warsaw Technical University have built a model aircraft that won some international competition - highest payload for the model weighting under xx kg or something like that, I don't remember exact details. You think they have skipped the design stage?

Now, designing and building a model is not the same as designing and building full scale aircraft, but that's a good way of testing new ideas. So it is not entirely impossible and it is done all the time.

 

[Cyrus]

Few years ago students from Warsaw Technical University have built a model aircraft that won some international competition - highest payload for the model weighting under xx kg or something like that, I don't remember exact details. You think they have skipped the design stage?

Now, designing and building a model is not the same as designing and building full scale aircraft, but that's a good way of testing new ideas. So it is not entirely impossible and it is done all the time.

I'm not talking about model airplanes: I was hoping that would have been clear by the topic of the thread. I am aware of how aircraft are designed, as I have done wind tunnel testing on scale models. However, my point still stands.

When your company sells "Legacy" aircraft, that's the problem.

 

[turbo]

I'm not talking about model airplanes: I was hoping that would have been clear by the topic of the thread.

Your wind-tunnel expert has to deal with models - that's the nature of the work. Boeing has to deal with real airplanes. Given a shift from aluminum skin to carbon composites with all the changes that must entail regarding attachment of the skin to the airframe, and the improvements in fuel-efficiency and noise reduction that they claim with the new design, it seems a bit presumptuous for a newly-minted engineer to disparage their work.

As a process chemist and troubleshooter in a new state-of-the-art pulp mill 3 decades ago, I had to help several new engineers learn the difference between theory and practice AND relate that to the realities of business. A couple of percentage points of efficiency in an energy-intensive business could make your bosses into heroes and ensure your job forever. As the lead operator and troubleshooter on the world's most advanced paper machine a few years later, I was fighting that same battle with a whole new batch of engineers, some of which had cut their teeth on equipment that was "cutting edge" about 50 years prior. Not easy.

This example may seem 'way OT, but it is not. You cannot hope to extrapolate your educational experience and your limited professional experience to an entire field of endeavor, nor critique a very large successful corporation with a track record like Boeing's without some really solid professional references to back you up. You don't like the new Boeing offering? Fine, but you might want to be prepared to offer some actual reasons, because right now, you are sniping and whining.

I hope they get the craft tested and certified for production (even if it is a bit late) and capture their targeted share of the market. We can certainly use the jobs, and every foreign-based carrier that orders units helps run down our trade deficit.

 

[Cyrus]

Your wind-tunnel expert has to deal with models - that's the nature of the work. Boeing has to deal with real airplanes. Given a shift from aluminum skin to carbon composites with all the changes that must entail regarding attachment of the skin to the airframe, and the improvements in fuel-efficiency and noise reduction that they claim with the new design, it seems a bit presumptuous for a newly-minted engineer to disparage their work.

Who said I have a 'wind-tunnel expert'? I never said any such thing. In addition, did I not give you a source with a graph of the evolution of performance over the last 40 years of aircraft. If you have trouble interpreting it, let me know. If you have data that shows otherwise, please provide it as I would be interested in seeing it.

As a process chemist and troubleshooter in a new state-of-the-art pulp mill 3 decades ago, I had to help several new engineers learn the difference between theory and practice AND relate that to the realities of business. A couple of percentage points of efficiency in an energy-intensive business could make your bosses into heroes and ensure your job forever. As the lead operator and troubleshooter on the world's most advanced paper machine a few years later, I was fighting that same battle with a whole new batch of engineers, some of which had cut their teeth on equipment that was "cutting edge" about 50 years prior. Not easy.

And that's exactly the wrong mindset if you want to come up with revolutionary, and not evolutionary aircraft designs. Thank you for making my point.

This example may seem 'way OT, but it is not. You cannot hope to extrapolate your educational experience and your limited professional experience to an entire field of endeavor, nor critique a very large successful corporation with a track record like Boeing's without some really solid professional references to back you up. You don't like the new Boeing offering? Fine, but you might want to be prepared to offer some actual reasons, because right now, you are sniping and whining.

It was based on my readings of a leading aerodynamicist. It's not my "snipping and whining." Did you miss that in my post? I was pretty clear about it. Go back and reread it if necessary, as I generally don't like being misquoted.

I hope they get the craft tested and certified for production (even if it is a bit late) and capture their targeted share of the market. We can certainly use the jobs, and every foreign-based carrier that orders units helps run down our trade deficit.

That has nothing to do with the technical aspects, which is what I'm talking about.

 

[FredGarvin]

Considering the author is not from the "Intel/Playstation generation", invalid point. How do you know he 'lives in a vaccum,' when he frequently visits the pentagon to talk with sr. military staff on aircraft performance specifications. Really, your baseless accusations are uncalled for.

Who is he? If he is doing nothing but bashing progress, then he is definitely in the minority, especially in the industry. Tell me who "he" is and I would be more than happy to look at what he considers to be worthy. Also tell me what advancements he is responsible for himself. Or are we just talking another academic that does nothing but write papers?

Look at the rate of progress of aircraft 40 years after the right brothers. Contrast that to the rate of progress 40 years after the B-707.

Most of those advancements after Kitty Hawk were due to engine development. Since the 707 we have had many advances although mostly military. So what exactly is a development that is up to your standards.

 

[FredGarvin]

...Universities don't design aircraft.

You just made the most prolific point of this debate.

 

[Cyrus]

Who is he? If he is doing nothing but bashing progress, then he is definitely in the minority, especially in the industry. Tell me who "he" is and I would be more than happy to look at what he considers to be worthy. Also tell me what advancements he is responsible for himself. Or are we just talking another academic that does nothing but write papers?

Most of those advancements after Kitty Hawk were due to engine development. Since the 707 we have had many advances although mostly military. So what exactly is a development that is up to your standards.

I am referencing this book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0966955315/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Note: this was written before the 787, so I am basing what I said mostly on what is contained within it but still applies in here. The spirit still holds true.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, because its not like a leading aerodynamicist wrote the book I scanned for you. Or that I gave you something I was told by an aerodynamicist at boeing. Perhaps we should do more reading on this subject?

OK, without further attribution (since it was not provided by Cyrus), here is the "authority" on which he bases his claims. Pretty lame.

 

[FredGarvin]

Who said I have a 'wind-tunnel expert'? I never said any such thing. In addition, did I not give you a source with a graph of the evolution of performance over the last 40 years of aircraft. If you have trouble interpreting it, let me know. If you have data that shows otherwise, please provide it as I would be interested in seeing it.

Again, one chart and a silly equation that you are saying debunks a 15+ million dollar aircraft program. Yeah, right.

And that's exactly the wrong mindset if you want to come up with revolutionary, and not evolutionary aircraft designs. Thank you for making my point.

And this comes from your vast experience in industry and in getting designs to the marketplace or your parroting of one person's technical opinion?

 

[Cyrus]

Again, one chart and a silly equation that you are saying debunks a 15+ million dollar aircraft program. Yeah, right.
And this comes from your vast experience in industry and in getting designs to the marketplace or your parroting of one person's technical opinion?

Are you going to provide me with data that shows where this airplane is "spectacular"? I'm waiting.

I think you can take a lot from the early team at skunk works, who designed things to be great, not to make money. As a result, they build fast, cheap, amazing airplanes under budget and under time. Meanwhile, you're happy about 20% increases in performance? ...while being 2 years delayed?...

That "silly equation" is quite important. I suggest you look at it harder and interpret what it means.

 

[turbo]

I think you can take a lot from the early team at skunk works, who designed things to be great, not to make money. As a result, they build fast, cheap, amazing airplanes under budget and under time. Meanwhile, you're happy about 5% increases in performance? ...

A friend's father was involved in the design and implementation of the Blackbird. If you think that plane was cheap, you might need a refresher course in economics.

 

[Cyrus]

A friend's father was involved in the design and implementation of the Blackbird. If you think that plane was cheap, you might need a refresher course in economics.

By cheap, I mean within its designated budget. If I want a lesson in economics, I'll read an economics book.

 

[Cyrus]

All right you two, go away! I have to do work. I'll continue this discussion tomorrow.

 

[Cyrus]

PSS: Boeing has yet to verify its performance claims via flight testing yet. I'll be interested to see the real data.

 

[turbo]

All right you two, go away! I have to do work. I'll continue this discussion tomorrow.

I'm still here. Dream up some justifications for your attacks against Boeing in the meantime. It will make tomorrow's frigid (0-15 deg) day a little more entertaining.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm still here. Dream up some justifications for your attacks against Boeing in the meantime. It will make tomorrow's frigid (0-15 deg) day a little more entertaining.

Go away, I have a final tomorrow. Leave me be to study! I promise I will thrash you all day tomorrow.

 

[Cyrus]

I fly a lot and I don't want to step into some crazy state-of-the-art weird shaped plane. I want tried and true reliability.

Interesting comment, as this airplane is neither tried nor true for reliability.

 

[turbo]

Interesting comment, as this airplane is neither tried nor true for reliability.

Interesting viewpoint, since incremental improvements in previously certified and proven-safe aircraft seem to have served us well. Perhaps you have a better model?

 

[russ_watters]

7 pages of fanboydom in two days? C'mon, guys, it's an airplane, not a video card.

Locked pending moderation/cleanup.