Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the million-lines-of-code-on-the-wing dept.

Transportation 278

Bordgious and a number of other readers sent word of the 787 Dreamliner's first flight after two years of delays. The four-hour test kicks off nine months of airborne testing. Aviation Week has video of the test flight and a timeline of the 787's development. Here is the flight path. 840 of the planes are on order now, down from a high of 910, as some customers canceled orders due to the delays.

cancel ×

278 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yawn. (-1, Troll)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451052)

A big, really nice plane. Will wonders never cease? Oh yeah, FP.

Re:Yawn. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451088)

Boring, not at all. This is a revolutionary plane, Boeing are looking at 25% less running costs and 30% less fuel than the 767 it replaces - I would say rather an achievement, if a litttle later than advertised!

Re:Yawn. (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451348)

rather an achievement, in between times the airframe and primary structure cracks and it falls out of the sky.

Re:Yawn. (1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451396)

this one wasn't designed by french engineers, sorry.

LOL. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451548)

Which is why the A380 was delivered 2 years ahead of the 787 to great acclaim, while Boeing fucked up just about every aspect of their design work. You yanks are hilarious, if it wasn't for your massive government subsidied of Boeing through sweetheart military contracts, that incompetent company would have been out of business decades ago.

Re:LOL. (4, Interesting)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451900)

And where would Airbus be without all the massive euro-subsidies?

Re:LOL. (5, Insightful)

ThatsLoseNotLoose (719462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451996)

the A380 was delivered 2 years ahead of the 787

Yeah. Airbus runs a flawless operation.

"The first A380 was delivered to Singapore Airlines in October — 18 months behind schedule after billions of dollars in cost overruns for planemaker Airbus."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23689448/ [msn.com]

Re:Yawn. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451964)

French planes don't fall out of the sky. They just RTB every time you turn on the auto-pilot.

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451496)

No way dude. These aircraft are so durable that you could hijack one and fly it right through a skyscraper!

Re:Yawn. (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451544)

ABetwen times? car to ,ist at least two times that happened?

Flight is rather an achievement , in between times airplanes aren't flying into buildings.

Re:Yawn. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451618)

I think you typed your response with half your fingers on the wrong keys.

Re:Yawn. (5, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451916)

rather an achievement, in between times the airframe and primary structure cracks and it falls out of the sky.

Well, at least you agree it is a novel aircraft. Though perhaps not quite as much as you think; warplanes have been using composites for some time now, so there is good reason to believe it will work. There was a bit of scandal [wired.com] a few years ago when Dan Rather made some very shaky accusations about the Boeing design. Admittedly there is inherently some risk whenever you take a step forward, but that's how we progress. Personally I'll be excited the first time I get to travel on one.

Re:Yawn. (2, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451388)

Boring, not at all. This is a revolutionary plane, Boeing are looking at 25% less running costs and 30% less fuel than the 767 it replaces - I would say rather an achievement, if a litttle later than advertised!

Less fuel == less pollution and greenhouse gases.

Are the airlines doing this to be nice and "Green"? Nope.Were they doing it because they were legislated to? Nope. And they're (engines makers, plane makers and airlines) always pushing for more fuel efficiency and noise reduction.

Burn less fuel saves money and it just so happens to reduce green house gases.

I think there's some sort of lessen here.

Re:Yawn. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451506)

The lesson is that it is spelled "L-E-S-S-O-N"

Re:Yawn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451560)

Yes, but probably not the one you think it is.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451748)

I know it's poor to reply to yourself (esp. as AC). But...

Way Hay! I've never joined the millions of Slashdotters, but still have a 100% record (of 4) of +5 comments!!

Re:Yawn. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451100)

I still marvel at the fact that we can pack a bunch of evolved monkeys into a big steel box, fill it up with stuff that burns, cause thousands of controlled explosions every second to rotate big spin-y things and cause the contraption to soar through the air (and actually land in a controlled fashion).

Call me old-fashioned.

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451234)

You're not old fashioned at all.

Now excuse me, for I must send this package via gyrocopter to the Prussian Embassy in Siam.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Linzer (753270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451340)

Now excuse me, for I must send this package via gyrocopter to the Prussian Embassy in Siam.

If you can reach the Prussian embassy by gyrocopter, then you're probably in Siam already. Oh, wait...

Re:Yawn. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451588)

Simpsons quotes.
Get them right or don't try.

Yes, I'd like to send this letter to the Prussian consulate in Siam by aeromail. Am I too late for the 4:30 autogyro?

Uh, I better look in the manual.

Oh, the ignorance. ...

This book must be out of date: I don't see "Prussia", "Siam", or "autogyro".

Well, keep looking!

Re:Yawn. (4, Informative)

dziban303 (540095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451408)

thousands of controlled explosions every second

I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.

Re:Yawn. (4, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452082)

I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.

Yep, that's right. The really amazing thing about jet engines is just the materials science we had to master before we could make turbines which don't disintegrate every time you turn them on. Try to picture 6 metal wheels splined and bolted to each other with hundreds of small metal vanes on the end of them ... spinning at about 12,000 revolutions per minute while being blasted by a continues blast-furnace of 1,000+ degrees Celsius. It makes me shiver every time I think about it.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451666)

Given that this is a jet and not a piston-powered aircraft, that would be "one continuous controlled flame". No explosions involved, sorry.

Evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451782)

Like global warming, evolution is a hoax. Educate yourself. [expelledthemovie.com]

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451334)

A big, really nice plane. Will wonders never cease? Oh yeah, FP.

Cynical Slashdot nerd is not impressed, set faces on stun.

Re:Yawn. (-1, Flamebait)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451664)

Even more cynical Slashdot nerd unimpressed. Demands cynical Slashdot nerd turn in his nerd card, for not knowing the word "phasers".

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451808)

I definitely set *my* face to stun.

Re:Yawn. (4, Informative)

Pembers (250842) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451958)

Yet more cynical Slashdot nerd demands that even more cynical Slashdot nerd turn in his nerd card for not recognising a Simpsons quote that references Star Trek...

(It's Grade School Confidential, the one where Principal Skinner and Mrs Krabapple carry on a sordid affair in school. Bart finds out about it and exposes them in front of his classmates. "Set your faces to stun" is what he says just before flinging open the door that the lovers are hiding behind.)

Re:Yawn. (2, Funny)

dziban303 (540095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451364)

Avaition Week? Why, that's my faovrite peroidical!

Re:Yawn. (3, Interesting)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451730)

I work across the street from Paine Field, the airport it took off from, and I can tell you that it was pretty exciting to us. We have nothing at all to do with the industry, and we were all still keeping an eye out for the takeoff. Something of an oddity for guys who are used to hearing/seeing dozens of planes take off every day, including a couple of liftoffs of the DreamLifter every day. How often do you get to see history first hand?

Re:Yawn. (2, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451988)

Any barrel rolls?

Wow. (1)

2names (531755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452212)

Flamebait and Troll in the same post. My work here is done.

And the wings might not even fall off in flight! (-1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451108)

My confidence in the airframe is low.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451148)

Why?
Be specific, list computer modeling you have done, as well as any weakness in the chemical compounds. Please link to appropriate chemical analysis

What's that? you can't do that? STFU.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451244)

It's the vibe of the thing.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (3, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451302)

Why?
Be specific, list computer modeling you have done, as well as any weakness in the chemical compounds. Please link to appropriate chemical analysis

What's that? you can't do that? STFU.

He doesn't have to. Boeing themselves had admitted to some fairly serious issues with cracking in the airframe and wings, cracking that their computer models didn't predict [wsj.com] . We're talking about an airplane in which major sections are literally baked together in a kind of giant oven. People have every right to be concerned about this aircraft until Boeing has proved that it's safe. From finance, to climate, to aircraft design, we seem to be relying too much on computer models, and in every case, it's bitten us in the ass. Computer models are a necessary tool, but aren't the panacea you seem to think they are.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451338)

Boeing can demonstrate that the plane is safe, but they can't prove it.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (0, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451672)

Boeing can demonstrate that the plane is safe, but they can't prove it.

And an "international consensus" of scientists can demonstrate that the planet is warming, no - cooling!, no - changing!, and that it's our fault, and that polar bears will die, and that I have to give their politicians of choice money.

But they can't prove it.

Oh wait, they don't need to prove it, all they need to do is lie and said they proved it.

Off topic?
Flamebait?
Troll?
Unprofitable Truth?

THE CHOICE IS YOURS, SLAPCHOP MODERATORS.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (3, Insightful)

Tycho (11893) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451998)

Just because a consensus group of scientists cannot simplify a conclusion into terms that you already understand is not a valid reason for you to reject their conclusion. Attacking their methodology as being politically motivated without some concrete statement or evidence, cherry picked e-mails are not evidence. Of course, attacking their methods with ignorant, irrelevant complaints is not valid. If you want to make informed criticism of the evidence they are using, then why aren't you in graduate school right now studying to become a materials engineer or a climatologist?

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30452140)

Just because a consensus group of scientists cannot simplify a conclusion into terms that you already understand is not a valid reason for you to reject their conclusion. Attacking their methodology as being politically motivated without some concrete statement or evidence, cherry picked e-mails are not evidence. Of course, attacking their methods with ignorant, irrelevant complaints is not valid. If you want to make informed criticism of the evidence they are using, then why aren't you in graduate school right now studying to become a materials engineer or a climatologist?

BULLSHIT

I'll take Richard Feynman's view over yours any time.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451400)

Composites are not perfect but look at the alternative.

Aluminum is also pretty scary stuff. There are major issues with corrosion. Aluminum has some very funky physical properties compared to other metals. It has zero stress endurance which means that parts WILL crack eventually if they are not replaced regularly.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (4, Interesting)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451448)

Which they've fixed [nwsource.com] .

Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner on Monday successfully completed the wing test the jet failed last May, and now looks set to fly before Christmas, according to two sources familiar with the test outcome.

Engineers are still analyzing data from the repeat test and haven't yet given the official thumbs-up, but the composite fibers in the wing did not delaminate when it was bent to the same point as in the previous test, the sources said..

Again, it has to pass the design limit test before the FAA will let it fly, so since it just flown, they've proven it's safe.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451956)

Again, it has to pass the design limit test before the FAA will let it fly, so since it just flown, they've proven it's safe.

Yeah. Just like the de Havilland Comet was safe. It even flew thousands of flights with passengers before the disasters began. Metal fatigue was new then. Not that I claim that tests haven't been improved significantly since then but if you think it's safe just because it has just flown, you're nuts.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452050)

It only takes one experiment to prove something? Mathematically, sure, but we're talking about practical safety here, which can't be proven mathematically or even using extremely sophisticated computer models.

Otherwise, I've proven that...

Windows is perfectly stable.

Linux crashes all the time.

Itanium CPUs always die within the first year.

Hopping up two flights of stairs is safe.

...

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451502)

I don't think they are a pabacea.

But when some spouts of an accusation they should back it up with SOMETHING. The poster did no such thing.

Nice making a claim and then linking to a site most people don't have access to. Bad Form.
I do happen to know about that incident.

Yes there was a design flaw, and they fixed it. Good luck and finding any vehicle that didn't have a design flaw found while building it.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (4, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451542)

Engineering standards of practice require, at the very least, some rough hand calculations in order to determine if the computer is sane. If your computer is trying to tell you that the capital of France is Jupiter, you want to know that it's wrong. (First-order approximations are often sufficient. Consult a local P.Eng for details.)

Ideally, you run the simulation on two different programs on two physically separate computers using different architectures. (i.e. Intel and AMD) Normally you don't do that because it's insanely time-consuming and costly. It's also the safest way to do computer modelling. (Whenever I wonder about costs, I think about answering the question of "why didn't you spend $X thousand on the simulation?" starting with, "Well, Your Honour, ...")

Nevertheless, there isn't enough processing power on the face of the earth to fully simulate the airflow over the wings of a 747. Assumptions and simplifications are made in order to get a "good enough" answer. (One of my friends crashed what was at the time the #80 supercomputer because he tried to get too fine an analysis.)

Before the plane gets FAA approval, they have to run a bunch of test flights, including several planes that get flown to destruction (and one of them goes through a "wing flex" test to see what it takes to make the wings fall off). Now, we know that Boeing wants to make these planes as cheaply as they can. It's a fact of business. cheaper plane = higher margin. They have 840 planes on order, of which the last 740 will cancel if they shave the margins closely enough to cause lift's magnitude to drop below gravity's magnitude.

Finally, if it's not a safe plane, pilots will refuse to fly it and then you'll be sitting there with a really fucking expensive tiki hut that looks like a plane.

But it'll be a TIKI HUT!!! (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452174)

Dude, that'd be the most bad-ass tiki hut on the planet

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

destroyer661 (847607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452014)

Perhaps they need to do this [livevideo.com] more?

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (0, Troll)

MouseR (3264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451426)

Because it's been shown in the past that the airframe was a design failure and they had to patch it up and change the design.

I too have very little confidence in it. Until it's done with testing and proves changes are adequate.

No need to be hostile. He's voicing an opinion.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451490)

Because it's been shown in the past that the airframe was a design failure and they had to patch it up and change the design.

I too have very little confidence in it. Until it's done with testing and proves changes are adequate.

No need to be hostile. He's voicing an opinion.

You mean the design load test the FAA requires before the plane leaves the air? Yea, it passed that. They're debating on if an ultimate load test will happen in the spring.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451704)

I think you mean "leaves the ground". The FAA don't require any tests before planes leave the air, that happens naturally.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451520)

Yeah, and I won't trust that you didn't rape a 12 year old until you prove to me you didn't do it.

THAT's the logic he is using.'

Fact of the matter is I don't believe you raped a 12 year old no matter what people are saying about you~

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451658)

He's voicing an opinion.

To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, he is only entitled to his opinion if it is an informed opinion.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (4, Funny)

MouseR (3264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451864)

Might as well close Slashdot.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452004)

But I have no where else to go.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452126)

Digg, 4chan, reddit, CNN, Fox news.

The entire Internet awaits you, son.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451150)

I wonder if it is light enough to make a ballistic parachute practical?

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451216)

I'm sure they said the same thing when they started using metal instead of wood ribbing and fabric.

ill-informed nonsense (5, Informative)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451266)

Compared to an aluminum airframe? Are you kidding?

Aluminum has zero stress endurance limit. That means that it WILL crack eventually.

And why don't you ask Hawaii Airlines about corrosion problems with aluminum?

Composites are much more reliable and have much lower maintenance costs.

There are a lot of composite parts in the triple 7 and they are well documented to be more reliable than the aluminum ones in the 767.

Indeed, Aluminum sucks (5, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451346)

Even just crossing the atlantic, it lost an "I"

Re:Indeed, Aluminum sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30452036)

I know you're going for "ha ha", but there's nothing wrong with using the name Aluminum. IUPAC recognizes it, Davy used it in his landmark publication, and it's consistent with a standard naming convention for oxides/elements (alumina/aluminum, lanthana/lanthanum, magnesia/magnesium, etc.).

Re:Indeed, Aluminum sucks (4, Informative)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452090)

Having tried to break down the material in the 787, I can tell you that's one tough material. Compared to the 1/8th inch thick aluminum most planes are made off, I think it's a step in the right direction. And since the wings didn't fall off in flight it looks like they got the issues with the wingbox figured out by now.

Re:ill-informed nonsense (1)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451812)

Lol yeah Hawaii... where old aircraft go to die.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451354)

It has to exceed design load before the FAA will even let it fly, it's passed the design load, and they're expecting to test to ultimate load in the spring.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

CottonThePirate (769463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451594)

I'll fly in when it's passed the full year of flight and safety tests the FAA requires for certification. It flew today certified as an experimental flight, which requires much less rigorous testing than a commercial flight. I have every confidence it will fly eventually, but I'd like all the bugs to be worked out.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

Noose For A Neck (610324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451756)

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to fly in it until it's certified for commercial operation. Unless you're way better connected than I am. It's a pretty silly point to make.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451850)

It has to exceed design load before the FAA will even let it fly, it's passed the design load, and they're expecting to test to ultimate load in the spring.

Careful.
I think there's already a movie named that.

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Interesting)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451488)

Actually, I can't think of a single instance of a composite wing structure failing in flight for a commercial aircraft. Aluminum, however, has a fatigue life limit, and several planes have fallen to spar failures (Boeing 707) or cabin structure failures (De Havilland Comet).

Now, there is the instance of the composite vertical stabilizer separating from the aircraft on an American Airbus A300, but that was attributed to the forces applied to it by the co-pilot and the lack of correct software control.

Bill

Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight (2, Interesting)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452066)

I was a crew chief on a KC-135a, back in the 80's. Ours was a pretty new plane, being put in to service in 64. Sitting on the ground, the left wing was visibly lower than the right and they still allowed it to fly. Had the most on time take offs for any of the tanker fleet at Fairchild AFB in '88. Kinda' miss the old beast. Is cool that they're still seeing service.

Visit the plant in Everett. (5, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451118)

If you've never had the chance to go, check out the Future of Flight museum [futureofflight.org] in Everett. It's an awe-inspiring tour of the Boeing factory where you get top-down view of the factory floor. It's the largest building in the world, with enough room to fit all of Disneyland inside. (and then you'd have 12 acres for parking)

Cars are made on assembly lines, but planes are too large to use the same techniques. They do it anyway.

(Sorry about any munged text here; /. previews as one character wide, 200+ down.)

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451296)

It's the largest building in the world, with enough room to fit all of Disneyland inside

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I'll come visit once you're done.

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451450)

Everett factory footprint: 98.3 acres (not including parking, which is a lot more, or the tunnel system which extends way beyond the buildings footprint). Also the largest building in the world by volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Everett_plant

Disneyland footprint: 85 acres of publicly accessible space. No word on how big Walt Disney's secret underground bunker is though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Land#Park_layout

So yup, you could fit the non-secret parts of Disneyland inside it. and still have around 13-14 acres of parking.

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (3, Informative)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451470)

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451994)

*woosh*

The sound of a joke, over your head, joining the Mile High Club.

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (1)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451628)

If you happen to have a relative that works there, they have a family tour once a year that you can go on. They let you down on the work floor for that tour, instead of just up on the catwalks. The only thing that they have running is one of the ceiling cranes spinning a plane around, so you aren't dodging anything. If you have the chance, I highly recommend it.

Re:Visit the plant in Everett. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452256)

Cars are made on assembly lines, but planes are too large to use the same techniques. They do it anyway.

If they assemble planes using assembly line techniques, then by definition they aren't too large to assemble by assembly line techniques.

Video without the Blah-Blah (2, Informative)

WebMasterP (642061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451128)

If you just want to watch the flight with all the blah-blah in the post, this blogs video has it without much lead-time garbage. http://www.airlinereporter.com/?p=2491 [airlinereporter.com]

Watched it land (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451168)

it was pretty cool.

When do I get to fly in one? (1)

y0k4z3 (1701172) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451182)

They did a webcast for this and everything, with no shortage of fanfare: http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html [newairplane.com] It was interesting, especially with the t-33 escorts buzzing the ground rendezvousing for take off, heh. Anyways, I wanna know when I finally get to fly in one. It'd be nice to fly in a less than 10-20 yr old plane on a 12 hour flight between the US and Japan, ugh.

Re:When do I get to fly in one? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451374)

Why would you fly between old countries like the U.S. and Japan when there are brand new ones that you could visit?

Re:When do I get to fly in one? (1)

y0k4z3 (1701172) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451524)

Work.

Re:When do I get to fly in one? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451556)

To clarify, I'm razzing you for complaining about flying on a 10 year old plane.

Re:When do I get to fly in one? (1)

y0k4z3 (1701172) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451872)

Haha, fair enough. I was specifically referring to the fact that I flew a 777 the first time to Japan, which was actually nice (since 1995). But the rest have all been archaic 747s (around since the 70s). Not trying to complain, but after I got that personal screen on the seat in front of me, anything else feels like torture. But I'm sure that will all change in due time. Maybe I've just been unlucky with older models.

Re:When do I get to fly in one? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451714)

Well, according to TFA, All-Nippon Airways (famous for their Pokemon planes) are the first customer that will receive delivery of one...

Since this is a plane designed for small-volume, long distance flights, it's possible they might use it on one of their Japan - US routes.

One of friends saw the flight... (2)

mortal-geek (1697010) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451232)

He was more in the "fanboy" column but he did like the sight of the beast in the sky.However, I have a question, with the delay and all on the delivery of the aircraft, isn't it too late relative to Airbus A350?

Re:One of friends saw the flight... (1)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451260)

No, considering that Boeing has 870 orders already for it!

Bill

Re:One of friends saw the flight... (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451416)

The A350 is still 2+ years from first flight. By that time, Boeing will have delivered a few dozen of the 787, presuming that nothing happens during flight testing and initial service to throw off the delivery schedule, and will have delivered even more by the time the first A350 has been delivered, as that plane will still have to go through its own ~9-month test plan. The A350 was largely a panic response to the 787, as evident from the dismissive attitude taken towards the 787 by Airbus early on, and then the rushed design paralleling the 787 (including the use of large fractions of composite materials) later on as orders stacked up in Boeing's corner while A380 orders languished. To this day, the A380 has barely more than 200 firm orders, whereas the 787 has well over 800. The A350 has 500 on firm order, but that may change as the 787 gets out the door.

Re:One of friends saw the flight... (4, Interesting)

MACC (21597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451522)

Well the dreamliner is supposed to replace the 767 and compete against the A330
and the nook upwards.
It was sold to customers as being 20% more fuel efficient than a 767 and thus slightly
besting the basic A330 specs from around 2002.
But the current implementation is about 10% overweight ( seemingly for the forseeable future )
moving it into A330 ballpark figures ( Similar empty weight ). Improved engines with better SFC are
available for the A330 as well. One reason the A330 has sold quite well in the last 2-3 years
while dreamliner sales have tanked shortly after the initial rollout 2.5 years ago
( i.e. after it was obvious that the dreamliner was a potemkin liner )
Quite a lot of customers currently seem to stay the ride more for cashing in on penalties
than actually receiving any planes later on ( The current backlog will not be satisfied before
2020/2022)

The A350XWB on the other hand is not a direct competitor to the dreamliner.
It fits above the 787 and below/into the 777 space. Which is rather typical.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus stage new types spec by spec against a competitors
distinct type but try to hit the weak spots in between with the initialy
produced version.

Complicated flight plan (0, Troll)

101010_or_0x2A (1001372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451464)

Their flight plan is complicated. They should use my optimized algorithm to get from point A to point B along a curved surface. They'll save even MORE than 25% on fuel

Re:Complicated flight plan (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451934)

And they could save even more if they just buzzed the ground instead of flying thousands of feet up!

tub/girl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30451546)

look at the wings on this thing! (1)

silentjay (979424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451570)

seriously, as commercial airliner, look when it takes off - the flex of the wings - then look again at nature, an eagle or similar, there's a reason nature choose that profile.

Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (2, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451620)

Did they put a separate door for the pilots? If they would start making it physically impossible for the passengers to enter the cockpit giving each a seperate exterior door, we could get rid of a bunch of the useless security theater.

Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (3, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452054)

Yeah. Because pilots are superhuman and never have to take a piss or eat something.

Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30452146)

give them their private restroom and fridge ;)

Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30452216)

Did they put a separate door for the pilots? If they would start making it physically impossible for the passengers to enter the cockpit giving each a seperate exterior door, we could get rid of a bunch of the useless security theater.

I think the pilots might complain if you take away their ability to go wee-wee and harass the flight-attendants.

I think I'll pass... (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451632)

Looking at that flight plan [flightaware.com] makes me a bit nauseous. If all flights on the dreamliner go like that, I think I'll drive instead. That distance appears to be less than 40 miles, yet it took over 3 hours; I can do better on my bicycle. On the plus side the flight arrived over 2 hours early so I guess that wasn't too bad.

Re:I think I'll pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30452202)

The plane could not fly far from Boeing field. Only the pilots were on the plane and they wanted to do some flight testing. So it had to stay in range to transmit data back to monitoring engineers, clueless. Fowl weather terminated the flight plan early.

Not my cup of tea (1)

Anynomous Coward (841063) | more than 4 years ago | (#30451832)

With that V angle - look at them wings bending upwards during takeoff! - maintaining inverted flight is going to be no fun.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>