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 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-make-it-fly-please dept.

Transportation 214

An anonymous reader writes "It's not just that the Boeing 787 Dreamliner may be unsafe or vulnerable to hacker attacks. At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state. The 787's carbon-fiber construction and next-generation technology have pushed back their delivery schedule once again, this time requiring a redesign of the plane's wingbox. Airlines will have to wait 18 more months to get it delivered, which is an extremely serious blow to the credibility of the company and their financial standing, as they would have to pay penalties to the buyers of more than 850 of these planes. And we thought Airbus had problems." Good thing Boeing can still count on its patent portfolio.

cancel ×

214 comments

Good for them (4, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 6 years ago | (#23052924)

It's good they are at least owning up to the fact it isn't ready rather than sweeping design problems under the rug. Sure they probably shouldn't have had the huge 787 rollout fainfair [flickr.com] months ago.

it scares the shit out of me just to think if Microsoft made airplanes.

Newfangled (5, Funny)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053018)

I'm old... and I ain't gittin in one of them
thar newfangled plastic planes never no-how!

Delivery date met or not!

Dadnabit!

Git off my larn!

-AI

Re:Newfangled (0, Offtopic)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053114)

So... I get modded Offtopic why?

I am old, unfrickin fortunately, I feel it
every time I stand up.

And I am NOT under any condition getting
in one of those planes. Ever? No, I will
maybe someday... if they are still flying
in 10 years+ and Acid rain and airborne
sand don't decay the wings into shreds.

Maybe it was modded offtopic for a dialected
speech? One from the south? Have something
against people from the south? There's a few
of us.

Or was I modded offtopic cause I hit second
place? Sorry... I was bored and when I read
it, I decided to post a quip that was true
to intention and it was second place.

Can't figure it out... offtopic, hmmm.

-AI

anyone with a spare point for the parent?

Re:Newfangled (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053532)

It's 'cos you signed your post, you goddamn offtopic bastard.

Re:Newfangled (4, Insightful)

cjsm (804001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053630)

People frequently get modded down for making reasonable comments on Slashdot if it doesn't fit in with standard Slashdot groupthink. You were not offtopic, you were implicitly stating you didn't trust composite aircraft as opposed to aluminum. A reasonable and on topic statement. God forbid anyone saying they think downloading music without paying for it is wrong.

Re:Good for them (5, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053208)

it scares the shit out of me just to think if Microsoft made airplanes.

Don't worry, they'd never get off the ground in the first place. Weight and the endless Allow/Deny questions would see to that.

Re:Good for them (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053288)

If the open source community made planes the pilots wings would come on a pocket protector :) BTW it scares the shit out of me that Microshit make anything

Re:Good for them (4, Funny)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053334)

From fortune

Unix Express:
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.

Windows Airlines:
The terminal is very neat and clean, the attendants all very attractive, the pilots very capable. The fleet of Learjets the carrier operates is immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet it explodes without warning.

Is it update time now? (5, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053598)

Man, that is so out of date.

Unix Express: Split into three operating companies.

Linux Cooperative:
All passenger bring a piece of the aeroplane and a box of tools with them to the airport. They gather on the tarmac, arguing constantly about what kind of plane they want to build and how to put it together. Eventually, the passengers split into groups and build several different aircraft, but give them all the same name. Some passengers actually reach their destinations.
All passengers believe they got there.

Apple Airlines:
The terminal is neat and clean, the attendants are attractive, the pilots very capable, the planes are beautiful, and you always reach the correct destination... unfortunately they have a fairly small fleet, most planes have no baggage compartment or overhead storage, and the seats aren't adjustable. Frequent Apple fliers are known to attack anyone who suggests that these are important features.

Legacy Air:
The terminal is neat and clean, albeit in an "industrial" style. You have to choose your plane ahead of time, because different planes only fly to different cities, and if your luggage doesn't match your plane you need to hire a baggage consultant to adjust it to fit. But the planes are fast, efficient, and always arrive on time or even ahead of schedule.

Windows Airlines:
The terminal is very neat and clean, with security barriers every few meters. The attendants are attractive, even if it's kind of creepy how much they want to "help" (especially in the restrooms). The pilots are allegedly very capable, though nobody ever sees them and there's an armed guard by the cockpit door. The fleet of jets it operates are immense. Your jet takes off without a hitch, pushing above the clouds, and at 20,000 feet a message pops up on the seat back in front of your asking "Should this plane explode now?". Some idiot always answers "Yes".

The funny thing is (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053710)

that Boeing which has a number of old MS engineers will have nothing to do with installing Windows in the cockpit and only rarely on the craft (they do use dos on the older seat controls).

OTH, Airbus pushes that crap. They (and jeppesen) went to MS to try and get MS to DO-178B ANY version of Windows. After reading it, Gates actually responded that it would be another 1-2 decades before they could even THINK about doing something like that.

It matters. But really it doesn't. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23052986)

The advantages of the 787 so ridiculously out class it's peers (weight savings with agressive use of composites) that as long as there's nothing forth coming that competes with it, it won't matter. Back in the 90's when I paid 98 cents for a gallon of gas shaving 1 lb off the weight of an aircraft saved airlines 20k a year in operating costs for that aircraft. Now with oil prices so high, imagine the savings by shaving up to 1/3 of the weight of some parts looks like?

Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053118)

Well, that depends on what your calculations say. Does running three 787s on one route twice a day work out cheaper than two A380's once a day? What do your projections say: do expect to continue running the same route for the next ten or twenty years?

When the bill is hundreds of millions of [dollars|Euros] you don't make your decision based on whether one is made with a cooler process than the other.

Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (5, Insightful)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053456)

Well, that depends on what your calculations say. Does running three 787s on one route twice a day work out cheaper than two A380's once a day? What do your projections say: do expect to continue running the same route for the next ten or twenty years?
Not to mention the serious decline in the number of open takeoff and landing spots at many airports. The rise in air travel combined with the trend towards smaller aircraft has helped choke many of them.

Airlines are being faced with the situation of not having the ability to add more and more flights to their schedules from certain locations. So it's not even necessarily a choice between fuel cost X and fuel cost Y. More like "We've got Z number of landing spots, and we can free up three of them with one plane. We can serve other markets with the two open spots the A380 gives us."

The Airbus isn't some magical solution applicable to all situations, and there are many where the 787 is the better option, but it's disingenuous to say the A380 is some kind of relic of a time gone by, a plane that doesn't meet the requirements of today's airlines.

Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (2, Interesting)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23054034)

It doesn't free up a spot if it takes just as long to unload, service and load one big airplane as it would two smaller ones. They increase spots by decreasing choices. It is getting more expensive to get direct flights. Two hop routes on bigger airplanes through a hub city are preferred by the airline because they can fill all the seats.

Re:It matters. But really it doesn't. (1)

stress_weenie (1002697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053464)

The problem is that the current state of composites being used doesn't actually save much weight. In the future, as our knowledge of composites on large fuselages increases it will probably gain a large advantage over aluminum. As it stands now though the composite vs aluminum weight advantage is extremely small if non-existent. The real advantage to the 787 is the engines. The new engines are where the better fuel economy lies.

Uh, no (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053678)

IIRC, the 787 is about 20% lighter than had they used metal. That is SIGNIFICANT in savings. And if Boeing will push it, and build the BWB (prototype X48), that will cut the average gas use to about 40%. Sadly, they are worried about no sales. Had they had it ready right now, all the airlines would be buying it, regardless of passengers wanting windows.

Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the arse. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23052990)

Until they make CF strong in both tension AND compression, I am sticking with aluminum.

Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (1)

F34nor (321515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053128)

...becasue when your 787 is underwater things are great!

Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053192)

There are more air planes in the sea than submarines in the sky.

Re:Designing with carbon fibre is a pain in the ar (0, Offtopic)

ambulatorybird (1151807) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053262)

There are more air planes in the sea than submarines in the sky.
Only because of gravity. I'm sure there are plenty of wrecked submarines under the sea, too.

Composites are hard (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23052996)

This is why Rutan is such a big deal.

Re:Composites are hard (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053042)

This is why Rutan is such a big deal.

Why? What do the Rutans have to do with the B787?

Re:Composites are hard (2, Informative)

astromog (866411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053090)

Probably nothing directly, but he did build a sub-orbital space ship out of composites.

Re:Composites are hard (2, Interesting)

AlecC (512609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053122)

Not Boeing, composites. Rutan has made a significant number of aircraft using composites on large scale. However, none within sight is the size of a B787, few intended for large-scale production, and none intended for the 365 days a year utilisation of a commercial airliner.

Re:Composites are hard (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053384)

What do the Rutans have to do with the B787?

They are probably still trying to work out how many Sontarans fit in an A380.

Did you see what happened when Adam Air went? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053660)

Massive hiring of the engineers and trademen by a number of other companies. Had the buyer of Adam been smart they would have put together their bid before adam went under. I know several local engineers went to bigelow (and maybe more). I thought that was interesting.

Yeah, well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053000)

I know I'd feel better flying in a plane that was properly made.

Comparison (5, Insightful)

The Bender (801382) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053006)

Ok, so everybody schedules aggressively, and everybody has unforseen delays. It's kind of funny now remembering how Boeing were crowing over the A380 problems, but what I'd like to know is how the 380 vs 787 delays stack up against each other.

Anyone got a clue?

Re:Comparison (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053086)

The A380 and 787 are two completely different types of airplanes... Meaning, the A380 is nearly all alum and is the largest production commercial airplane in the world. The 787 is all about efficiency..

The A350 is the equivalent to the 787, and yes they are exceptionally very similar. The only real advantage that the 787 has over it right now is that it will still come out earlier, and it already have over 900 firm orders...

Re:Comparison (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053198)

The A380 entered service for Singapore Airlines roughly 18 months late, with other airlines suffering between an 18 month and 22 month delay when they start receiving them later this year.

Airbuses delays were almost advantageous to the A380 however, since they were all post first flight and pre EIS (entry into service) - this allowed Airbus to iron out most of the issues a new type has when first put into service, with SQ having only three technical problems with their first three A380s in 6 months, which is a lot lower than other new types.

Boeing, however, are suffering their delays before they have even achieved the first 'power on' milestone in their first aircraft, and they are still relying on an uneventful flight test program to bring the aircraft in under the new schedule. This means that the 787 will probably still be subject to the usual new type issues with its first operators. And thats not even taking into account the possibility of *another* delay - which many in the industry are considering highly likely.

Re:Comparison (2, Funny)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053204)

...what I'd like to know is how the 380 vs 787 delays stack up against each other.
You can stack up about two dreamliners inside the A380 and still have some spare room for passengers.

Re:Comparison (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053244)

. It's kind of funny now remembering how Boeing were crowing over the A380 problems,

I remember a lot of crowing over those delays, but not from Boeing themselves. I heard it from their fans, who seemed to have a major ego investment in the idea that a company from their country is superior to a foreign company.

-jcr

Re:Comparison (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053332)

Oh, in addition to my other post, this 18 month delay is not the whole story - Boeing has put back the 787-9 stretch to 2012 (around a 2 year delay from its original EIS date of 2010) and decided to not commit to a schedule for the the 787-3 short range variant, which was supposed to EIS before the -9.

What impact does this have? It drastically reduces the head start Boeing had over Airbuses closest comparable aircraft, the A350-800, from 4 years to 2 years (the A350-800 has an EIS of 2014), meaning suddenly the A350-800 becomes a much more palatable rival. This may cost Boeing sales in the long run.

This delay also pushes back Boeings production schedule a full two years - Boeing now has two years less production slots to sell, which will certainly cost them sales in the medium term.

But the biggest impact this will have is Boeing is not in a position to offer the 787-10 stretch, which airlines have been demanding for about a year now - Airbus will be able to offer a comparable product, the A350-900, in 2013 right after the 787-900 EIS. This will definitely cost Boeing sales.

Airbus on the other hand, are looking likely to deliver the A350 on time and within schedule - they have laid out a schedule which is almost double that which Boeing laid out for the 787 (7 years from industrial launch to EIS for the A350 verses 4 years from industrial launch to EIS for the 787). That padded schedule gives Airbus more breathing space.

Re:Comparison (1)

backpackcomputing (1249130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053582)

Clearly, Boeing has lost time. However, with the US dollar down almost 50% against the Euro since 2002, this creates an enormous competitive advantage for Boeing vs. Airbus.

Re:Comparison (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053648)

Only while Airbus prices its aircraft in dollars (its studying a move to Euros) and while Airbus predominantly sources parts outside the dollar zone (the A350 will be built more than 50% in the dollar zone).

However, the weaker dollar is certainly going to harm Boeing - it pays all of its suppliers in dollars, regardless of their local currency, and there is a certain point at which the suppliers can no longer build the parts cost effectively with the dollar so devalued (they still need to pay their workforce and local suppliers in local currency, with the dollar nose-diving they get less local currency for their wares) - at that point, suppliers start telling Boeing to either cough up or go elsewhere.

Re:Comparison (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053596)

This isn't another 18 months, it's 18 months total schedule slip after this latest SNAFU. Boeing and EADS/Airbus have both experienced the joy of design-by-delegation: "You did exactly what we told you to do. OH SHIT!"

Re:Comparison Boeing is getting lazy (2, Interesting)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053914)

The biggest problem is the the US Government should have blocked the Boeing / Mc Donald Douglas merger. Then Boeing would have competition and have to actually work to be in business, not just know they had the US Military corporate welfare check in their pockets.

I think Boeing / MD should be broken up now under anyi trust laws.

While Boeing was scheming how far they could gouge the tax payers with the new Military tanker, they just forgot they have work to do on the 'VaporLiner'.

This is the perfect example of a good company caught up in greed instead of what they started as, building airplanes.

Oh my gods, it's running Windows (0, Offtopic)

Cannelloni (969195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053014)

I would be VERY worried if I heard the aircraft I was in ran Windows... VERY, very worried! It's hilarious when you think about it from a distance, but once in the air... "NononononOOOOOOOO! Please don't cr...!"

Re:Oh my gods, it's running Windows (0)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053054)

No frickin shat!

This damn phone I'm on crashes
so frequently, I just automatically
soft reset if I know I want to use
it for more than 5 min in a row.

I'll admit, it's probably my fault!
I did install programs on it. Silly
me.

So, as I always say, Windows OS's
work great til you actually use them.
Then it's all downhill from there.
-tis a joke, I'm an equal opportunity
offender.

-AI

Re:Oh my gods, it's running Windows (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053320)

atleast with windows you won't have some nerd saying it's your own fault for crashing, and you should have RTFM

Re:Oh my gods, it's running Windows (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053352)

atleast with windows you won't have some nerd saying it's your own fault for crashing

Nah, you'll just have a different nerd saying it's the driver's fault.

boeing, boeing, gone. as yOUR 'dreams' become.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053060)

illusions/nightmares. eye gas the only thing left to do is attack/nuke yet another 'enemy'. just kidding? we hope? the lights are coming up all over now. see you there? don't fret about transportation/accommodations, as we can definitely get there from here. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Wrong (5, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053102)

At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state.
Nope. I'd rather have it working properly in a year than have it falling out of the sky right now, thanks all the same.

They've also decided to change the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053108)

Boeing Vista Forever

Re:They've also decided to change the name (3, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053324)

Boeing Vista Forever

That'd be a 747 with a bit of smoked glass and a random reordering of seating positions.

In any state? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053116)

At this point, it seems everyone would be happy for it to arrive in any state.

Not me. When I catch a plane to California, I sure don't wanna end up anywhere else!

They had a shot at Airbus (1, Flamebait)

twomi (986768) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053132)

First, Airbus passed them on market share, but managed to mess themselves with their superplane wannabe, leaving huge window for Boeing to dominate the market with their Dreamliner, and it sure looked its going to work. And then they blow it by making the same mistakes as their competitor. Nice job.

Re:They had a shot at Airbus (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053146)

By "superplane wannabe", I take it you mean "superplane"? What's "wannabe" about it?

The A380 and 787 aren't direct competitors. The A350 will be Airbus's 787 equivalent, but yes the 787 delays could help Airbus in the long run.

Re:They had a shot at Airbus (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053250)

What's "wannabe" about it?

It's European. Remember that this website is in the US, where people become nervous when they don't see their flag for a couple of minutes.

Re:They had a shot at Airbus (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053874)

By "superplane wannabe", I take it you mean "superplane"? What's "wannabe" about it?

It still only has the ordinary symmetries of a plane. No supersymmetry in sight.

Good news! (0, Troll)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053150)

for the environment.

Re:Good news! (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053350)

Why? Because now older, less efficient and smaller, but more planes carry the passengers?

Re:Good news! (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053646)

It's not like we have to pollute, and that we can either pollute a lot with small and old planes or pollute a lot with new and big ones.

Sorry, but burning hundreds of m3 of oil in a few hours isn't and should never be considered efficient.

So, you prefer to burn more? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053736)

This would actually burn something like 20% less fuel, and you consider that bad?

Re:So, you prefer to burn more? (0, Flamebait)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23054016)

Yes, it's still bad.

I don't care (and the Earth either) about how efficient (better said, less inefficient) a plane is.

What really matters is how much will get wasted on a global level, taking into account every planed that has been produced.

Flying is sooooo 20th century! It's high time we realised this.

Heh. (1)

Altesse (698587) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053154)

Heh heh he. Ha ha ha. Bwah aha ahah ahaha, BWAHAHA AH AH AH AH !!!!!!!!!!!!

* Falls on the floor laughing, remembering all the trash Airbus got on sites like Slashdot and Digg when A380 was delayed *

Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (3, Interesting)

lbbros (900904) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053158)

explain to me what issues are there for which in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights? I wonder that sometimes (and I also wonder on Concorde's failure for the same reason)

Yes, somewhat OT, but it's been bugging me for a while.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053200)

Yeah I've always wanted to fly supersonic.
It would cut the long flights dramatically.

I also dont know why no one is going there anymore.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (5, Informative)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053276)

Uh I am a bit fuzzy on the details - used to be an aviation nut - but there is a payoff between fuel used/distance traveled/paying passengers.

Concorde just couldn't ride that fine balance economocally enough.

Then - most countries do not allow supesonic overflights - I remember concorde had to fly subsonic while over land and could only go supersonic while over the ocean on the trans atlantic crossing.

The Concorde was noisy - the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here - and with airports being so close to cities the overflights over suburban areas were problematic.

There is the issue of the optimum aerodynamic shape - there are basically three wing shapes: Swing wing (think B1 Bomber), works well in subsonic and supersonic flight - it is efficient during both flight profiles, but the mechanics is heavy. Probably the best option for the future.

"Normal" swept wings - not optimal for supersonic flight. Is the optimum configuration for carrying heavy loads long distances.

Delta Wings (Like the Concorde) - great for high speed flight, the Valkyrie bomber used a nice Delta wing design that "rode" the shock wave of supersonic flight at high speed to conserve fuel. It is not an optimum load carrying wing, and is not good for low-speed flight. Delta wings have a poor take-off and landing performance, i.e. it means that it lands and takes off at a high speed, and the landing profile is very "low" meaning it flies low over urban areas when taking off and landing. Also it needs a long runway to take off and land - the larger the plane the longer the runway needed. Whereas a wing for the A380 could be optimised for better performance in this flight envelope and not lose a lot of performance when it is actually airborne, for a delta the line to be walked is much finer.

Thus while the speed of supersonic flight would be great for international travel - plus the coolness factor - and there are technologies available today that were not available to the designers of the Concorde and Valkyrie (composite materials for one) there is still the trade-off of a wide range of flight envelopes (take-off, landing, subsonic flight, supersonic flight), size (the bigger you go the less efficient any design is), fuel use (supersonic flight uses a LOT of fuel - hence impacting plane size which makes the design less efficient and on and on) and then the greenies of course haha that makes large supersonic airlines not economically viable today.

Then also designing a supersonic superjumbo is a lot more expensive than is the case for a subsonic superjumbo. Development time is also much longer due to the newer tech, optimizing the design for all the flight profiles, engine design...

It is just not economically viable. It would actually make more sense to design a passenger liner that would "hop" into space to cross vast distances in the upper stratosphere and then fly down to land like a subsonic jetliner.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053310)

It would actually make more sense to design a passenger liner that would "hop" into space to cross vast distances in the upper stratosphere and then fly down to land like a subsonic jetliner.
The problem is that going ballistic is almost as hard as going to orbit. I think it is 5 km/s to go half way around the earth and 7 km/s to reach orbit. That little hop is actually going to cost you 70% as much as going to orbit.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053488)

Yeah, I should've said "...make more sense, but would cost more to design..."

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053554)

Then - most countries do not allow supesonic overflights - I remember concorde had to fly subsonic while over land and could only go supersonic while over the ocean on the trans atlantic crossing.
The Concorde was noisy


Even flying subsonic, with reheat off, it was much louder than just about any other civil aircraft.

the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here

In terms of passengers and cargo capacity Concorde was not a large aircraft.

Delta Wings (Like the Concorde) - great for high speed flight, the Valkyrie bomber used a nice Delta wing design that "rode" the shock wave of supersonic flight at high speed to conserve fuel.

The Valkyrie never made it out of the prototype stage. IIRC the wingtips would fold downwards in supersonic cruise.

It is not an optimum load carrying wing, and is not good for low-speed flight. Delta wings have a poor take-off and landing performance, i.e. it means that it lands and takes off at a high speed, and the landing profile is very "low" meaning it flies low over urban areas when taking off and landing.

With the TU144 retractable canards were needed to ensure stability at low speeds.

Whereas a wing for the A380 could be optimised for better performance in this flight envelope and not lose a lot of performance when it is actually airborne,

A conventional swept wing comes with flaps, slats and slots which are used to vary the shape of the wing (and make it considerably larger) for takeoff and landing. This creates more lift, at the expense of increased drag, which enables the aicraft to take off and land at much lower speeds.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (3, Interesting)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053610)

the engines needed to push a large plane to go that fast are very noisy, no leaky turbofans here

In terms of passengers and cargo capacity Concorde was not a large aircraft.
Well, as far as supersonic aircraft go the Concorde was big - Bigger than the B1 if I am not mistaken, and I have been at an airshow where a B1 did a few fly-by's (with and without 'burner - schweet...) and it is NOISY!

The Valkyrie never made it out of the prototype stage. IIRC the wingtips would fold downwards in supersonic cruise.
It did make a maiden flight - and an F104 crashed into it and the program was killed. It sucks to think that this beauty was killed off due to no fault of its own. Yes the wingtips folded down.

With the TU144 retractable canards were needed to ensure stability at low speeds.
Yes, and one crashed during an Airshow - grounding the project as well...

A conventional swept wing comes with flaps, slats and slots which are used to vary the shape of the wing (and make it considerably larger) for takeoff and landing. This creates more lift, at the expense of increased drag, which enables the aicraft to take off and land at much lower speeds.
Yes, and with a delta having poor Angle of Attack characteristics and being inherently low drag the extra mechanics needed to make it behave like a conventional swept wing at low speeds is prohibitively heavy.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (4, Informative)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053704)

Bad form, but your Comment about the XB70 Valkyrie prompted me to read it's wikipedia entry and I found this:

The biggest problem with sustained supersonic cruise is the buildup of heat due to skin friction. Duralumin, the traditional aircraft material, starts to go "plastic" at relatively low temperatures, and is unsuitable for continuous use above Mach 2.2-2.4. During the period that WS-110A was being studied, solutions to these problems were beginning to become available. New materials, especially titanium and stainless steel, were becoming more widely used in the industry, allowing operations at much higher temperatures.

Another concern for continued high-speed operation is the engines. Jet engines create thrust by increasing the temperature of the air they ingest, and as the aircraft speeds up, this air increases in temperature before it reaches the engines. The maximum temperature of the exhaust is determined by the materials in the turbine at the rear of the engine, so as the aircraft speeds up the difference in intake and exhaust temperature the engine can extract decreases, and the thrust along with it. Air cooling the turbine area was a key solution, which continued to improve though the 1950s and on to this day.

Intake design is also a major issue. The engine can only ingest subsonic air, so ramps in the intake are used to create shock waves that slow the airflow before it reaches the engine. Doing so removes energy from the airflow, causing drag. The key to reducing this drag was to use multiple small oblique shock waves, but this was difficult because the angle they made inside the intake changed with changes in Mach number. In order to efficiently operate across a range of speeds, the shock waves had to be "tuned." North American had already worked with advanced inlets on the A3J supersonic bomber for the U.S. Navy, which featured multiple ramps which were moved and angled automatically.

An aircraft able to operate for extended periods at supersonic speeds has a potential range advantage over a similar design operating subsonically. Most of the drag an aircraft sees while speeding up to supersonic speeds occurs just below the speed of sound, due to an aerodynamic effect known as wave drag. An aircraft that could fly past this speed saw a significant drag decrease, and could cruise supersonically with improved fuel economy. However, due to the way lift is generated supersonically, the lift-to-drag ratio of the aircraft as a whole drops, leading to lower range, offsetting or overturning this advantage.

The key to having low supersonic drag is to properly shape the overall aircraft to be long and skinny, as close as possible to a "perfect" shape, the von Karman ogive or Sears-Haack body. This has led to almost every supercruising aircraft looking very similar, with a very long and skinny fuselage and large delta wings, cf. SR-71, Concorde, etc. Although not ideal for passenger aircraft, the shaping is quite adaptable for bomber use.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053816)

fuzzy on the details, eh??

Shucks, what would I not give to see a post of yours where are not fuzzy on the details? :-)

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

Subbynet (905560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23054028)

"Concorde just couldn't ride that fine balance economocally enough."

This isn't quite correct. Concorde's operational life was actually always in profit for British Airways. It was France which had problems running at a profit.

I don't believe its fair to bring in development costs considering it was much more of a "look at what we can do" national project than a pure commerical project.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053212)

Sound and fuel costs. We currently have no way of stopping the sonic boom caused by an aircraft, so flying over populated areas supersonic is completely out of the question, and designing an aircraft that can carry an economical number of people longhaul while traveling at supersonic speeds but also while not costing an arm and a leg to operate is not an easy feat - you have to use a tremendous amount of fuel to get to your cruise speed (fuel usage drops off quite sharply actually after around Mach 1.2 - the biggest fuel usage area is the Mach 0.95 - Mach 1.5 areas) and people are no longer willing to pay the sort of money that would take.

Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053254)

We currently have no way of stopping the sonic boom caused by an aircraft

Not stopping it, but the lockheed skunk works has come up with a design that should vastly reduce it.

-jcr

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053300)

From what I have read, its a design which does reduce the pressure wave but its too heavy for an airline to consider when talking about economics. When its weight comes down through use of next generation materials (further hybrids beyond CFRP), it may become economical to use.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053280)

Its worth noting however, that Concorde, while a program failure, was quite profitable for British Airways in operation - at some points it was BAs most profitable area of operations across its entire business.

Yeah but not everybody can base a business on shuttling mega rich people between London and New York at mach 2.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053216)

explain to me what issues are there for which in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights? I wonder that sometimes (and I also wonder on Concorde's failure for the same reason)

Yes, somewhat OT, but it's been bugging me for a while.
Supersonic flight uses a lot more fuel than subsonic flight. If the cost of keeping an airplane in the air rises to the point where the time saved by going supersonic is worth the additional cost of fuel then airliners will be built which travel faster than sound.

The other way it could go is to use semiballistic transport. You would build something like a space shuttle. The engines would burn for a couple of minutes and accelerate you to 5 km/s. You would get about 30 minutes of free fall followed by aerobraking and landing at your destination. It is perfectly feasible, just horribly expensive.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (2, Funny)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053622)

The other way it could go is to use semiballistic transport. You would build something like a space shuttle. The engines would burn for a couple of minutes and accelerate you to 5 km/s. You would get about 30 minutes of free fall followed by aerobraking and landing at your destination. It is perfectly feasible, just horribly expensive.

Especially if you need an extra long runway (imagine what those protesting at Heathrow would have to say were they to be told that the new 09L/27R was going to be nearly 5km long) and the aircraft is going to require a D check after every flight.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053718)

The other way it could go is to use semiballistic transport. You would build something like a space shuttle. The engines would burn for a couple of minutes and accelerate you to 5 km/s. You would get about 30 minutes of free fall followed by aerobraking and landing at your destination. It is perfectly feasible, just horribly expensive.

And ever so slightly uncomfortable for the passengers, doing that just isn't feasible or realistic. What about infants, children, the elderly etc? Hell, my aunt pukes up on even the littlest bumps on amusement park rides and she's in her 40's.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053226)

Subsonic planes get more miles per gallon. They don't have to deal with a heated skin and consequently should be cheaper.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053234)

Simply put... Rising oil prices. The airlines don't want faster planes, they want planes that minimize operating costs.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

XMode (252740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053256)

There are 2 problems. Firstly there is the problem is safty [aeronautics.ru] and secondly the problem of fuel consumption (which is high, which means it costs passengers more).

From wikipedia "It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given, but that during the grounding of Concorde it became apparent to the airlines that they could actually make more revenue carrying their first class passengers subsonically."

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053534)

Firstly there is the problem is safty [aeronautics.ru]

That crash had zero to do with the problems associated with supersonic airliners. It ran over a piece that fell off another jet, blew a tire, and things escalated from there.

Fuel, sound, and money are the issues.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (3, Insightful)

call-me-kenneth (1249496) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053344)

explain to me what issues are there for which in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights?
Simple. Drag increases as the square of velocity [wikipedia.org] . Have you seen fuel prices lately?

Not true at mach numbers approaching one (4, Informative)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053432)

When you are talking about near supersonic or supersonic speeds, this is no longer true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_divergence_Mach_number In fact, drag increases much more rapidly as you approach the speed of sound, but then much more slowly after that point.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (3, Interesting)

basiles (626992) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053450)

The Concorde was extremely fuel hungry, even if supersonic. IIRC, Concorde is one of the few civilian aircrafts (I am not talking of military aircraft) whose take-off mass was more than 50% kerosene - so a Concorde was at take-off a huge amount of kerosene with some metal and human flesh... BTW, most of the time in my trips (only in Europe - I'm French) is not spent flying. It is spent to reach (or go away from) the airport and waiting. Supersonic flights (that are much too expensive for me) do not help here. So subsonic flights do make sense, and even more non aircraft traveling, e.g. high speed trains like TGV (traveling quite fast, without much waiting, from center of cities to center of cities) or ICE. And my feeling is that TGV trains are more friendly to environment (In France, the electric power is mostly nuclear) and much more comfortable. BTW, I never understood why there are so few high speed trains in the USA.

WHY no high speed rail. (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053800)

Because we had high speed transportation via airports for over 50 years from just about any city to another city. And it has been much cheaper than Europe's due to deregulations. Even now, the only high speed rail that really makes sense for the bulk of America (geographically speaking), is the transrapid Maglev (much faster than the TGV and far less energy). Keep in mind that unsubsidized flight is lower price than even our heavily subsidized slow trains. And a new highspeed rail would costs many times more.

About the only reason why we will see high-speed rail come here is the use of nuclear power. Our next president will no doubt be pushing nukes/AE and combine that with the expected carbon tax from EU and we will see change come here.

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053590)

in 2008 we still have to resort to sub-sonic air flights?

Exactly the same reasons we "have to resort to" sub-200MPH car travel...

"Getting there faster" should never be a goal in designing a commercial passenger jet. The vast majority of flights are so short that you spend more time on the ground, in the terminal, than you do in the air, so the overall improvement would be minuscule.

The Boeing 787 significantly reduces fuel consumption, which should reduce ticket prices, and hopefully put airlines in a more tenable position.
The Airbus A-380 forgoes any fuel savings, and opts, instead, for fitting far more people in a single plane, which should reduce the epic congestion problem causing delays at airports.
Both are laudable goals, and a supersonic aircraft would not-only fail to address either problem, it would make both issues far worse.

The fact that passenger aircraft have increased in speed over the years is really almost accidental. Jets became popular NOT because they were faster for the passengers, but because the maintenance costs were so much lower than traditional propeller aircraft. In fact, even slower turboprops look to be making a comeback, due to their lower fuel costs. If fuel prices continue to rise unchecked, it won't be long before we'll all be back to traveling in passenger trains, and trans-oceanic steamers. Maybe they'll rename "coach" seats "steerage".

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053656)

"Getting there faster" should never be a goal in designing a commercial passenger jet. The vast majority of flights are so short that you spend more time on the ground, in the terminal, than you do in the air, so the overall improvement would be minuscule.

Maybe instead effort needs to be put into making the time on the ground shorter, rather than longer :)

Re:Can someone enlightened with engineering.... (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053924)

That is exactly why Boeing made the 787 smaller than the A380. Boeing believes the future is in more flights between smaller regional airports, so you fly closer to where you actually want to get, with more direct flights, and don't have to get through a huge airport and load/unload with so many other passengers.

Cost of Carbon Fiber (2, Informative)

bhima (46039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053248)

Early last year when we got into this discussion it was stated that Carbon Fiber had doubled in price because Boing and Airbus were buying so much of it. Unfortunately carbon fiber isn't exactly like oil and there aren't hundreds of websites tracking the costs minute by minute.

Anyone have any idea what the current price for carbon fiber is?

naming (4, Funny)

neonsignal (890658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053340)

And I guess the executives who agreed on the name dreamliner are starting to regret their decision...

Suggestions for a new name? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053486)

Vaporliner?

Re:naming (1)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053516)

As long as they don't call it the Dukeliner...

Re:naming (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#23054006)

And I guess the executives who agreed on the name dreamliner are starting to regret their decision...

They probably regret calling the company "Boeing", too. I recall a comedian making fun of it once (but not their name): "Sounds like something just fell off the airplane: 'Boeing!'"

QUadrofolio (1)

quadrofolio (971489) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053428)

I think justice is served. I remember the smug Boeing remarks all to well saying that the delay for Airbus was sure to break the company (Ok, combined with the Euro political mess they had). Now the shoe is on the other foot I am only to glad to say: How you like me now! Airbus has it problems but the EU is producing some very technological advanced stuff nowadays. I for one am proud to see these flying giants!

Aren't airplanes a little "Last Century?" (1, Insightful)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053430)

In an era where we can communicate around the world with unprecedented ease and speed, shouldn't we be flying LESS?

I'm not thinking about social/pleasure travel, but business travel (which accounts for a large percentage of all flyers). If you work in IT, there are very few tasks you can't accomplish over the WWW, and it seems that most of one's travel obligation has more to do with proving to management that you actually exist. "Face time" is a crutch for managers who don't get it.

Seriously, folks.

Re:Aren't airplanes a little "Last Century?" (3, Insightful)

at_18 (224304) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053716)

In an era where we can communicate around the world with unprecedented ease and speed, shouldn't we be flying LESS?

I'm not thinking about social/pleasure travel, but business travel (which accounts for a large percentage of all flyers). If you work in IT, there are very few tasks you can't accomplish over the WWW, and it seems that most of one's travel obligation has more to do with proving to management that you actually exist. "Face time" is a crutch for managers who don't get it.


Oh sure, we do fly less - in percentage terms, not in absolute terms. At my workplace it seems there is some kind of telephone- or video-conference with the other side of the world something like every other day, for various projects. A videoconference is much cheaper and convenient than an actual meeting.

But, we are now used to a much higher degree of interaction with our foreign partners. So, if ten years ago it was two meeting and two flights a year, today it's ten meetings, of which 2/3 are by videocon - and three or four by plane. Only 1/3 of the meetings involve flying, but the number of flights has gone up anyway.

Re:Aren't airplanes a little "Last Century?" (1)

leathered (780018) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053876)

A very valid argument although I'm sorry some crack-addled mod didn't agree.

Case in point would be a family member who works for one of the world's largest networking and comms tech companies. Now you would think that they would be leading the way in telecommuting and video conferencing for their employees. Nope, they fly her all over the world to attend meetings, many of which have questionable business value.

Though you'd be surprised that even in tech companies many members of senior management are complete luddites when it comes to things like that.

Re:Aren't airplanes a little "Last Century?" (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053946)

I'm flying coast to coast next week to give a 40 minute PowerPoint, and it's not the first time. So I am quite interested in this.

I do think teleconferences and videoconferences are still a poor substitute for meetings (as opposed to presentations, which aren't so interactive anyways), but we should be working harder on figuring out and fixing what's wrong with videoconferencing so it doesn't feel so socially impoverished.

Patent will sink the world? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053512)

Good thing Boeing can still count on its patent portfolio.
And why shouldn't they? Sure there are a lot of crap patents out there that are ridiculous and that questionably meet the criteria of "novel". But at the same time, there are many more less incendiary patents that are both novel and take a substantial amount of expertise and effort to pull together.

You seem to forget that not all patents are of the "one-click" variety. Many of them take a lot of creativity and knowledge to pull together.

It isn't surprising that a big company with huge resources and a huge R&D and engineering team (perhaps the largest in the world) considers its intellectual property a valuable asset.

I'm sure subby could've done better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053538)

It's amazing to me that people (average, /. reading folks) are so critical of an engineering giant like Boeing. Yeah, they're meeting with delays; IN PRODUCING THE MOST ADVANCED SUPER-JUMBO EVER. If only they had the brain trust that is Slashdot, they surely would have finished this project AND produced economy class flying cars. Well, just as soon as they stop playing WoW and resign from their prestigious job at Geek Squad.

Re:I'm sure subby could've done better. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23053604)

Since when was the dreamliner a super-jumbo? The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a mid-sized, wide-body, twin engine jet airliner.

sp1 (1)

gomatt (1064232) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053608)

don't delay, just put the fix in service pack 1

Who writes these summaries? (1)

Wister285 (185087) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053818)

It was expected that the 787 Dreamliner would be delayed even longer. This is welcome news. Just look at the BA chart.

Hence the Name (2, Funny)

nlightnmnt (1259790) | more than 6 years ago | (#23053930)

Airlines will have to wait 18 more months to get it delivered, which is an extremely serious blow to the credibility of the company and their financial standing
In their defence, they did call it the Dreamliner.
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...