Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 To Deliver First 787 Today

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the come-fly-with-me dept.

Transportation 366

mosb1000 writes "The era of the plastic jumbo jet has finally arrived. Boeing is delivering their first Dreamliner to All Nippon Airways today. From the article: '"Comfort and cost are concerns of the business traveller and the 787 will deliver extreme advancements in fuel efficiency and many traveller features that will improve the journey," said Michael Qualantone, senior vice president & general manager, American Express Global Business Travel. Indeed, this twin-engine, bendy winged, widebody craft has raised the bar for fuel efficiency. Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could, Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent.' I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one."

cancel ×

366 comments

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516308)

Well, you can already try the Airbus A380 - that has been available for a while now.

What was your point again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516400)

Well, you can already try the Airbus A380 - that has been available for a while now.

I've flown in a 747. That's been available for a while now, too. Like the A380, it's big and cool, but not meaningfully different from any other airliner made in the last forty years.

The 787 has higher cabin pressure and larger windows, which should make flying a little more comfortable. What was your point again?

Re:What was your point again? (1)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516428)

His point? Something about violently taking it in the ass durring flight without stressing the airframe and causing cracks, I think.

Re:What was your point again? (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516698)

A380 has 5000-ft cabin pressure, 787 has 6000-ft cabin pressure - so the A380 is better in this regard.

Windows on the 787 are 196.88 inches square vs "bigger" for the Airbus (I can't find the number). I doubt it makes much difference.

But why compare these two planes? They are for very different markets...

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (1)

Jerslan (1088525) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516424)

If you knew anything about either plane, you would know that they have absolutely nothing in common. The A380 can carry nearly twice as many passengers, so if you're going to compare it to a Boeing plane it should be the 747.

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516646)

Both planes are of recent design and architecture.
The difference (compared to older planes) lies more into the passenger's comfort (see above), fuel consumption, noise etc... than into the size of the planes.

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516920)

Aren't you forgetting the whole carbon fiber thing?

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516426)

A380 is 20% composites and B-787 is 29%.

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516434)

Sorry, 787 is 50% composite.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/programfacts.html [boeing.com]

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516602)

50% composite by weight, not volume. It was in the article.

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516688)

I would rather remain in the conservative side. You know, I would rather avoid any de Havilland Comet.

Re: I can't wait for my first chance to fly in one (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516644)

Depends how you look at it - the A380 has some of the largest composite structures ever used in the aviation industry, and tonne-to-tonne each A380 contains more composites than a 787.

Hopefully (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516318)

it goes smoother than the delivery of the 747-8 a week or two ago. Sort of embarrassing to have your first delivery customer refuse delivery.
I'm sure that won't be the case, though, as Cargolux seems to have been acting at the behest of the new parent company in an effort to get further reduced rates on the 787; Japan has too much invested in the 787 project for ANA to play games like that.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516486)

it goes smoother than the delivery of the 747-8 a week or two ago. Sort of embarrassing to have your first delivery customer refuse delivery.

More embarrassing to not be able to afford the final payment - I thought that was Cargolux's story.

The subject (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516650)

is not part of your comment.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516656)

Make that the launch customer, and another customer canceling three 747-8s because of weight and performance issues...

Not a great week or two in the 747-8s year :(

Airbus (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516332)

This 1st post brought to you courtesy of Airbus.

All Nippon Airways? (0)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516338)

wait, I thought calling them Nips was non-PC these days?!!

Re:All Nippon Airways? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516366)

Which is why they used the term Nippon and not "Nips". Much like some people with darker skin may be from Nigeria.

For those who need a car analogy (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516342)

This is like when a car manufacturer makes a new car!

Re:For those who need a car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516540)

This is like when a car manufacturer makes a new car!

I think this is close to when a car manufacturer designs a new supercar or new model. Making one car is not much of an event since they have factories that make hundreds a day.

Re:For those who need a car analogy (1)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516692)

This isn't like a 'new model', more like the switch from gasoline to electric car production.

Re:For those who need a car analogy (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516590)

Yeah, but let's hope it's not analogous to the AMC Pacer [wikipedia.org] .

Re:For those who need a car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516626)

Well, sure, if your new car cost several million dollars, has better seating comfort, performance, and fuel economy (20% better). Maybe if the new car was like this [bmw-i.com] .

Re:For those who need a car analogy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516728)

Ever hear of the bathtub curve? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (2)

Optic7 (688717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516348)

The countless delays just lead me to think that there were too many problems with this new design or application of technology.

Delays Equal Good Testing (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516450)

A great way to get innovative technology into use without delay is to test it too little.

Would you want to fly in the airplane equivalent of KDE 4.0 or the first Unity Ubuntu desktop?

Seeing as how Airbus has been selling a lot during the 787 development I get the feeling that Boeing actually gets lots of integrity points out of all this.

Ah but what about DNF (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516600)

Yes, there is rushed development and then there is long delayed development where somehow they can't figure it out and someone decides to launch it just to get it out of the door. Like say, a shuttle launch. No matter what the engineers say.

Boeing has killed a lot of people with stupid design flaws and cost cuttings, most aircraft companies have. Lets wait a bit to see if this will be a turkey or an eagle.

Re:Ah but what about DNF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37517018)

You really are a moron.

Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (1)

Gumber (17306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516550)

Aeronautical engineers involved with civillian passenger aircraft seem to have an appropriately conservative attitude about risk. That doesn't mean that there won't be problems when they try to innovate, but I have a hard time imagining that the 787 will actually go into commercial service without thorough vetting. Its still a new design, of course, and problems will be discovered and fixed once the aircraft are in regular use.

It may be less safe than, say, an older model with more real world use, or a new model with less ambitious design and technology, but it is less safe from a baseline with a remarkable degree of safety.

Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516582)

The main delay, as I remember, was manufacturing. Of course they tested the products after it was built, and found the company they hired to make the carbon fiber body made it with too many faults. So they had to correct it and try again.

Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516720)

The main delay has been quite a few things - union issues (several strikes throughout the 787s development life), manufacturing issues (subs not being able to do work right, subs not being able to do work on time, subs getting work wrong), design issues (strength issues with side-of-body wing attachment points, cracking in several spars) and performance issues (engines not yet up to contractual specific fuel consumption rates - also affecting the 747-8 as that uses the same GeNX engines).

Boeings issue was that they wanted to not only produce a revolutionary aircraft, but they wanted to do it on a tight budget and completely change the way they both designed and built the aircraft. Not a good idea to switch all three critical parts of the journey on a brand new product...

So now, they paid the price - they had to write off the first three aircraft built (OEMs never want to do that, its a several hundred million dollar decision), the next 25 or so are overweight and have engines that don't meet fuel burn (but the aircraft itself has better-than-expected aerodynamics, offsetting some of the performnace issues), and while the engine manufacturers are putting together PIPs (performance improvement packages) for the engines, those early build aircraft won't get to see them for 5 or more years.

Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516830)

The constant delays owed a lot to spectacularly terrible Dilbert-esque program management. That is, the kind where you farm out design and assembly to a bunch of subcontractors but don't stay on top of them through the process, or the kind where you slap the airplane together temporarily so you can roll it out on marketing's absurd target date, only to cause yourself several additional months of rework. There were also a ton of supply-chain problems (fastener shortages and the like).

Further, management was way too optimistic with the original schedule, which required production to ramp up before all the bugs had been worked out. They gambled that there wouldn't be significant rework required, but as it turned out, there was.

You worry too much. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516926)

Your statement is applicable to every commercial airliner designed in recent decades, going all the way back to the 707.

Re:I would be a bit worried to fly in this plane. (1)

Boronx (228853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516936)

I think you're right. After looking into how much they shook up the old design process, I'm not getting in one until they've flown a few thousand times.

Plastic? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516362)

I'm not a materials chemist, but I'm pretty sure graphene doesn't quite meet the definition of "plastic." I guess the criteria aren't as well-established as I'd assumed. Long live the all-devouring synecdoche.

Re:Plastic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516494)

According to wikipedia "Each 787 contains approximately 35 short tons (32,000 kg) of carbon fiber *reinforced plastic* (CFRP), made with 23 tons of carbon fiber." (emphasis mine). Graphene on the other hand does not have any large scale practical applications as far as I can determine, you might be confused about what graphene is, as it does not appear to have anything to do with the Dreamliner.

Re:Plastic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516502)

Its like describing a metal as being "plastic" or finding the plastic deformation constant for a particular steel alloy. It doesn't necessarily always refer to a solid material made from a petrochemical base. Its just when someone said "plastic" your head went "lego".

Re:Plastic? (1)

grommit (97148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516594)

graphene? production level carbon fiber composites do not currently have graphene in them.

Re:Plastic? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516684)

And... then I looked even sillier. Thanks.

Re:Plastic? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516744)

Even if there was graphene odds are that it would still be embedded in epoxy. So the term plastic would work. The truth is that this is a "composite" but the world seems to believe that there is only four solds. plastic, metal, glass, and wood. Funny thing is that this is composites are a lot like wood and some of them will even use balsa as a core.

Re:Plastic? I think you are mistaken... (1)

Wdi (142463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516844)

No graphene anywhere in this (or any other) plane. You are confusing something.

The composite material are carbon fibers (essentially burned nylon), not graphene, nanotubes, buckyballs or anything similarly exotic. This is then drenched in polymer resin and backed. The polymer resin is the heaviest component in the overall composition.

Re:Plastic? Encapsulant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516990)

Graphite and other fibers are encapsulated in thermoset resin, typically epoxy. Hence, plastic.

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37517016)

Synecdoche is a cool word.

Good luck guinea pigs! (2, Insightful)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516374)

No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...

Every flight for guinea pigs (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516516)

No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...

Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet for a while. More aircraft have probably gone down to pilot error, mechanic error, or management (ex lack of proper maintenance) than have gone down to designer error. That said, being a guinea pig for the airlines is safer than being a potential target for an idiot on the highway. Life is full of risks, one has to leave mom's basement sometimes. :-)

Re:Every flight for guinea pigs (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37517002)

Using your logic one is a guinea pig on *every* flight, new design or old, fresh off the manufacturing line or in the fleet

Yeah, we call him the "test pilot".

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (1)

jtgarris (2434500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516528)

No thanks, I will wait for the first crash/accident before I fly on one...

You're going to wait for the first accident? Why the hell would you only fly on a plane only after confirming that it's not perfect. Why not say something logical like "No thanks, I will wait for the first couple of successful flights".

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516622)

Isn't it amazing how computers have trained us to think in a brain-damaged way? Believe it or not, the plane has already been tested more than any software most of us will write.

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (3, Informative)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516624)

You might be waiting a while. The B777 was in service for 14 years before one was crashed.

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516748)

Pick your aircraft well then, since there is a new version coming off the production lines practically every week (changes to materials, changes to structural members, enhancements to the FBW systems, enhancements to the aerodynamics packages etc etc etc. An aircraft launched in the 1980s is not built to the same designs today - there are a lot of differences...)

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (1)

toetagger (642315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516908)

Why do you want to fly in the first one that will crash?

Re:Good luck guinea pigs! (3, Informative)

rahst12 (1395987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516944)

The dreamliner has logged more flight testing and more flight-time hours testing than any other aircraft. ever. If Boeing had the remotest thought that it would crash, they'd delay and delivery a completed product, as such they are today. http://787flighttest.com/ [787flighttest.com]

All Americans fly American(Boeing) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516438)

You should feel obligated to fly american if you are american.

Hey it works for military contracts and getting elected

Re:All Americans fly American(Boeing) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516696)

Does it work for getting elected? It's not as if we elected an American or anything.

Re:All Americans fly American(Boeing) (0)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516896)

But at the time, the choice was between Obamma and some guy who didn't even pretend to have been born in the USA.

Re:All Americans fly American(Boeing) (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516834)

You might want to see where Boeing are getting a lot of the 787 from, if you think its American...

Wings from Japan, fuselage pieces from Europe, major assemblies from China and Korea, design packages in Russia... hell, the large composite rear pressure bulkhead is made by EADS, the owner of Boeings largest competitor Airbus!

The cry to "fly American" (and it is actually one you hear a lot) really ignores the direction in which Boeing is going for a lot of its production...

Re:All Americans fly American(Boeing) (1)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516898)

As silly as it sounds, I do. I fly Southwest as often as I can when traveling on business. All 737's of slightly varying generations. It also helps that southwest's business practices (No bag fees for up to two bags, no assigned seats) don't completely suck ass like other airlines.

Re:All Americans fly American(Boeing) (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37517014)

Yeah fly American with Boeing 100% Chinese, Korean and Japanese parts!

It will high tech and modern (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516500)

Yet it will probably still have the outdated "No Smoking Signs".

Re:It will high tech and modern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516554)

Well, how else will I know when it's okay to not smoke?

Re:It will high tech and modern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516588)

There are new "No Smoking Signs" now?

Re:It will high tech and modern (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516598)

Most smokers seem to have to be reminded that they're not allowed to smoke by frequent, visible, almost obnoxious signs. Even then sometimes they forget....

Re:It will high tech and modern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516714)

Also the plane is not necessarily going to be in the US/Europe regions only. Where it has been eliminated by law. Fly in say somewhere like russia and china and people light up...

I dont smoke but I find the way people treat those who do to be detestable. Borderline psychotic in many cases...

Most people that I do know who do smoke are *very* accommodating. I would say almost too accommodating. You would be too if people treated you as if you had the plague every-time you mention the words 'light up'.

Re:It will high tech and modern (2, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516810)

Borderline psychotic is blowing out stinky carcinogenic gasses and particulates for innocents to breath. Borderline psychotic is endangering other families in a townhouse or apartment building by going to sleep smoking. Borderline psychotic is throwing butts out a window by fields in a drought. And just look at how they act when they can't get their nicotine fix, many go over the borderline at that point. Why accommodate people like that in any way? They should be banned from having health insurance or receiving any public medical benefits.

Re:It will high tech and modern (2)

ari_j (90255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516996)

The average smoker also has trouble judging distances, as evidenced by the accumulation of cigarette butts right next to "no smoking within 40 feet of entrance" and similar signs.

Re:It will high tech and modern (2)

ari_j (90255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516770)

On some recent planes, mostly smaller regional jets like the CRJ-900 and the Embraer 175, I have noticed the lack of no smoking signs. They had been replaced with "Turn Off Electronic Devices" signs, which we can only hope will be obsolete (and for the right reason) soon, as well.

Re:It will high tech and modern (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516880)

Because its not illegal to smoke onboard an aircraft in many countries, although the airline may still ban smoking themselves.

Comfort and cost - ehh? (1)

el_jake (22335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516544)

What about Quality?

Cap'n Tex (2)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516546)

Some 50 percent by weight of the 787 airframe is lightweight carbon-fibre composites that could, Boeing says, help reduce fuel costs by 20 percent.

"Why, this thing is so dang light, I could prolly fly it with the engines off. I think I'll try..."

in an era of (0)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516556)

telecommunications and the internet, are these things really all that relevant to international business? I cant imagine they serve any other purpose than airborne cattle-cars for the unwashed in economy class, and exotic chariots of booze and decadence for wealthy elite.

Re:in an era of (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516666)

Sometimes sending one peon to a place like India or China is vastly more cost effective for a business than just ranting at them over the internet.

Re:in an era of (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516670)

telecommunications and the internet, are these things really all that relevant to international business? I cant imagine they serve any other purpose than airborne cattle-cars for the unwashed in economy class, and exotic chariots of booze and decadence for wealthy elite.

Funny that humans seem to really want to interact with other humans rather than some simulacrum. If you think this desire for person to person contact just results in an 'unwashed economy class' or 'booze and decadence' I think you need to get out more often.

Basements aren't a very healthy place to spend your entire life.

Re:in an era of (3, Insightful)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516784)

There are some things that can't be done via telepresence. Like it or not, business almost always boils down to personal connections. This is especially true outside of North America. In Europe and Asia, it can take years to build a relationship between a vendor and customer to the point where the customer will be willing to spend significant amounts of money. However, once you've built that relationship, you'll need to do a lot to lose that business.

By the same token, telepresence doesn't let you turn a wrench or otherwise get your hands onto equipment. Not everything has a command line or a web interface, and even those that do occasionally fail.

More comfort? Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516578)

Comfort is not a function of the plane but of the number of seats the airlines cram in. So, hands up anyone who thinks that, in a Dreamliner, as opposed to any other plane, you will actually be able to reach your economy class seat without advanced contortionism.

spot on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516660)

Is the seat pitch in Cattle (sorry Coach) Class more than 31in?
Remember that this thing can fly 8000miles on one tank full.
My thigh bones are 32.5 in long.
Guess what airlines, 32.5 does not fit into 31 especially on 12hr sectors. Now where's my lawyer? I need to make sure my DVT cover is up to date.

Re:More comfort? Yeah, right. (2)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516730)

Seating may not be better, but the air will be at least. Higher air pressure, higher humidity, dedicated intake compressors, and sophisticated filtering.

Re:More comfort? Yeah, right. (1)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516872)

Comfort is not a function of the plane but of the number of seats the airlines cram in. So, hands up anyone who thinks that, in a Dreamliner, as opposed to any other plane, you will actually be able to reach your economy class seat without advanced contortionism.

This all depends on the airline. Air Canada, for example, runs a 32" seat pitch on most of their aircraft, with a minimum pitch of 31". TBH, I'm 6'2" and fly some 120,000 miles a year. About the only aircraft I really have trouble with is CRJ-100s and the other tiny puddle jumpers. (That said, I love turboprops).

Re:More comfort? Yeah, right. (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516888)

Comfort is a function of passenger density and other factors, including cabin pressure, ambient humidity, air circulation, noise levels, etc. The factor you focus on is itself a function of passenger size, where on full-size commercial jets (of which the 787 is one) I have never been uncomfortable with an economy-class seat for any reason other than a supersized passenger seated next to me. And I'm not a small man. You have to be seriously obese for your main comfort problem on full-size jets to be how many seats are on the plane. Regional jets and turboprops are another issue, but the 787-8's maximum takeoff weight of 502,500 lbs. is more than 6 times that of the CRJ-900 in which seating comfort is an issue for non-obese people.

"traveller features that will improve the journey" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516618)

for business class passengers, at least.

Re:"traveller features that will improve the journ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516876)

Actually it affects all passengers. The air is more humidified and pressurized to a lower altitude. Should reduce "jet lag" and allow passengers to arrive feeling less hypoxic.

All-Nippon? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516620)

Can't be that All-Nippon if they buy their planes from the US...

Ticket prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516648)

I expect my costs to be 20% lower as well.

"bendy winged"? (3, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516676)

What does that mean? Do the wings bend (in the vertical axis I suppose) more than normal? Or are they curved along the front or trailing edge?

I once read somewhere that commercial jetliner wings are unbelievably strong, they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking. I recall that they are tested this way, and that on occasion they are tested until failure (in a heavily shielded test facility I hope!).

Oh well, I'm hoping that the next generation of aircraft have transparent hulls like some forecasts I think some european group made. Then airlines could market their flights as entertainment like theme park rides.

Re:"bendy winged"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37516738)

Except for those who hate heights.. flying enclosed not being able to "look down" is one thing, but being able to see down and every other which way is completely different

Re:"bendy winged"? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37517044)

Being able to see through all the baggage will be a neat trick. The stewardesses are going to be miffed about having to Windex the floors between each flight.

Re:"bendy winged"? (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516838)

I recall that they are tested this way, and that on occasion they are tested until failure (in a heavily shielded test facility I hope!).

In fact, if you have seen a video online of an airplane having it's wings touch, you've seen the 787 test of this. It would surprise me if other planes have achieved the same level of flexibility.

Re:"bendy winged"? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516958)

No, the 787 wings never touched in the bend test.

Re:"bendy winged"? (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516914)

Yes, the 787s wings bend a heck of a lot more than contemporary aircraft, because they are largely composite structures with a lot of bending strength (non-composite wings have to have a lot of rigidity in them because bending too much weakens the structures).

Aircraft wings are bend tested to a minimum of 150% maximum expected bend (so they take it to the maximum amount of bend you will ever see in an aircraft, and go past that point by another 50% - trust me, if you ever get near the 100% mark, you are already going to be unconscious in the cabin...).

The 787 made it to the 150% mark, and well beyond.

Re:"bendy winged"? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516924)

My understanding is that the 787's wings, under no load, curve upwards noticeably. And here is a video of the Boeing 777 wing stress test to failure [youtube.com] along the lines of what you mentioned.

Re:"bendy winged"? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516940)

I once read somewhere that commercial jetliner wings are unbelievably strong, they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking. I recall that they are tested this way, and that on occasion they are tested until failure (in a heavily shielded test facility I hope!).

There's quite a bit of mechanical, plumbing, and electrical inside an airplane wing, plus fuel. I doubt it's all that flexible.

Re:"bendy winged"? (2)

roothog (635998) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516946)

Here's the video of the 787 destructive wing break test: video [youtube.com] . Nowhere close to touching. Looks like they broke at about 20 degrees above the horizontal.

Re:"bendy winged"? (2)

TopSpin (753) | more than 2 years ago | (#37517030)

Do the wings bend (in the vertical axis I suppose) more than normal?

Yes, 787 wings appear to flex more than conventional airliner wings. It reminds me of a composite sailplane. Here [youtube.com] is a nice video of the plane and its wings flexing.

they can be bent almost till they touch at the top before breaking

Wings are just metal or composites, not magic. They are rather strong, however. Here [youtube.com] is somewhat dramatic video of the 787 wing tested to failure.

transparent hulls ... entertainment like theme park rides

Most passengers are work-a-day schlubs that want to sleep or work and pay as little as possible for the trip. The extra cost and drama probably won't be welcome beyond certain niches.

Plastic Aircraft (1)

chalsall (185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516802)

I remember about six years ago sitting in JFK awaiting to board a plane home (3400 km). The Captain happened to sit down beside me. We got talking, and I mentioned that I come from a family of airline pilots, and helped build two home-built aircraft in my youth; both of which were the "Quickie" design by Burt Rutan.

"Oh," says the Captain, "I don't trust composites. That's why I won't fly Airbus aircraft -- they have composite tails. I want metal everywhere."

I wonder if this same Captain is about to retire, or if he's going to limit himself to legacy, short-haul routes?

Made In China - outsourcing issues (2, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516870)

Wonder if the Chinese subcontractors cut some corners ro quality to make a little more money? or the other foreign subcontractors who make up 30% of the craft?

Wait for the -9 (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37516874)

The 787-8 is over-weight. That's understandable on a brand new design, but the 787-9 is in the wings (sorry) and will offer a longer airplane at the same weight. Many airlines are switching their orders from the -8 to the -9 since the 787 is supposed to be about efficiency, and the -9 is more so.

Speaking of which, as a bonus the 787 has a bleedless engine (more efficient), which means by side-effect that the cabin won't be filled with air that's been warmed by flowing through the engines. You can get all kinds of lovely solvents, lubes, and de-icers in the cabin air that way.

Re:Wait for the -9 (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37517004)

I don't see the -9 stretch being offered at the same OEW (operational empty weight) as the -8, no way at all, so if you didn't mean that can you clarify which weight you meant (MTOW - nope, MFEW - again nope...)?

 

Useful Headrests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37517024)

Holy crap!!! Someone designed a headrest that might actually be comfortable.

Forget carbon composites and fueling savings, that's an improvement I can really get behind!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...