More updated pictures:
http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/
787 Rollout
Moderator: Latest news team
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
An interesting piece of info re: wing testing:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... eing-.html
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... eing-.html
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
I have a feeling that on 7/8/7, Boeing will announce Qatar's order for the 787. Qatar chief al Baker is quiet on the order, saying he has to "wait." In my opinion, the order has been made and they are waiting for the roll out date.
For all the Boeing fans, roll out should be televised in your Country! if not watch it live on Boeings website!
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provid ... ID=7099407
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provid ... ID=7099407
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Well I don't see what you really mean, this plane has little difference with common airliners flying today in regards to its exterior design...The nose is rather disappointing, I had expected something a bit sharper, as was advertised during its marketing campaign.
Gorgeous airplane!!! She's got clean lines.
My wife doesn't understand it when I say an airplane has clean lines. I guess only an airplane geek can appreciate them.
Just take a look at the difference between the reality :
http://www.heraldnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... s=Itemnr=1
and the marketing design
http://images.google.be/imgres?imgurl=h ... %26hl%3Dnl
It looks more like an A310 with a cone-like nose to me...
And the cockpit windows are a bit different than advertised so are the wing's trailing edge, the circulary form between the base and the edge seemed to have been exagerated in the designs....
Big differences are in the engine cowling, it looks like a broken egg, but why not?
Other difference is in the wings' edges that look a bit twisted, very similar to the Cirrus designs.
I m rather disappointed, let s hope this machine keeps promise on its technical specifications, otherwise I see a series of cancellations...
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all
Well, you can streamline a tractor and make it look downright cool (ala the streamline craze of the 50s), but an airplane has a whole lot of different criteria to deal with.
First of all, slick looks do not translate into aerodynamic efficiency (though a truly ugly looking airplane is probably badly designed). Boeing with their A35 (F35) competitor had an ugly looking aircraft, that was very aerodynamically efficient (keeping in mind its also somewhat stealthy).
There’s no free lunch in the higher speed aerodynamics, and you have to accept shapes and forms that work, then make them as efficient as possible (wings are less constrained and can be optimized, but you still have to land (slow speed), and in the case of the A380, you bump into a length restriction, and have to make wider.
The nose is a tough one as you cannot just designed for efficiency, you have to put a two man crew up there (side by side) and they have to be able to see out (someday no, but for now yes for both technical and public perception reasons). You also put the pilots on the main deck, and maybe that is not best, but that pesky front landing gear has to go someplace as well (a missile does not have those limitations).
So, yes the early presentations were a lot of hype, but that’s also part of the business.
This one looks sort of herky, and I like that (but then I to me function is far more important than looks, though I do like good looking machinery).
As for its success, that is not dependent on looks, and you can bet that Boeing particularly (bus Airbus and the rest if not quite as well) do know how to make designs that function as intended. In the good old days it was always a crap shoot, neither Boeing nor Airbus (Embraer, Bombardier, Gulfstream, Cessna etc) have made a non functional dog as long back as I can remember. They pretty much have met the specifications (A340 excepting) and often times exceeded them.
Me, I am not worried, the roll out is going to be fun, and the exciting part is when it flies and we find out if it all works as intended.
I am betting it will, with some interesting glitches that pop up, but they will resolve them in reasonably short order (6 months or less).
First of all, slick looks do not translate into aerodynamic efficiency (though a truly ugly looking airplane is probably badly designed). Boeing with their A35 (F35) competitor had an ugly looking aircraft, that was very aerodynamically efficient (keeping in mind its also somewhat stealthy).
There’s no free lunch in the higher speed aerodynamics, and you have to accept shapes and forms that work, then make them as efficient as possible (wings are less constrained and can be optimized, but you still have to land (slow speed), and in the case of the A380, you bump into a length restriction, and have to make wider.
The nose is a tough one as you cannot just designed for efficiency, you have to put a two man crew up there (side by side) and they have to be able to see out (someday no, but for now yes for both technical and public perception reasons). You also put the pilots on the main deck, and maybe that is not best, but that pesky front landing gear has to go someplace as well (a missile does not have those limitations).
So, yes the early presentations were a lot of hype, but that’s also part of the business.
This one looks sort of herky, and I like that (but then I to me function is far more important than looks, though I do like good looking machinery).
As for its success, that is not dependent on looks, and you can bet that Boeing particularly (bus Airbus and the rest if not quite as well) do know how to make designs that function as intended. In the good old days it was always a crap shoot, neither Boeing nor Airbus (Embraer, Bombardier, Gulfstream, Cessna etc) have made a non functional dog as long back as I can remember. They pretty much have met the specifications (A340 excepting) and often times exceeded them.
Me, I am not worried, the roll out is going to be fun, and the exciting part is when it flies and we find out if it all works as intended.
I am betting it will, with some interesting glitches that pop up, but they will resolve them in reasonably short order (6 months or less).
Qantas bumps up their order:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... s_by_index
I think this may be the first of many announcements to coincide with roll out presentations, I've heard numbers that would bring orders up to nearly eight hundred, we'll see on Sunday.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... s_by_index
I think this may be the first of many announcements to coincide with roll out presentations, I've heard numbers that would bring orders up to nearly eight hundred, we'll see on Sunday.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
When a new plane is announced, the deisgn has not been completed (other than the preliminary specifications used for proposals and guarantees), so the marketing people draw a representation of the concept that they can release to the public. Then the engineers and aerodynamicists work on calculations and verification tests (e.g., wind tunnel) to actually design the plane.
This is why there are differences between the concept and reality.
I am certain that Boeing has validated the 787 design and will meet their performance boggys.
This is why there are differences between the concept and reality.
I am certain that Boeing has validated the 787 design and will meet their performance boggys.
A very well done promotional video from ANA for their upcoming 787's
http://www.ana.co.jp/promotion/b787/index_e.html
click on the movie button.
http://www.ana.co.jp/promotion/b787/index_e.html
click on the movie button.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
Re Ruscoe's point re 787 nose, the Caravelle nose was purchased from De Havilland from Comet aircraft, in fact, as I recall, Caravelle purchased first three or six noses for Caravelle direct from DH. So the 787 has a Comet design nose. A small historical footnote only, but seems to have come full circle again. Also, if Boeing tradition is followed tomorrow, the rollout will be totally static with 787 not moving. This stems from original 707 which was an actual moving rollout, but the gear collapsed (whoops)and ever since a Boeing Rollout is completely stationary.
ALAFCO increases it's order:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... 2007-1.htm
also more info from Qantas increasing their options and purchase rights:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... craft.html
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... 2007-1.htm
also more info from Qantas increasing their options and purchase rights:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... craft.html
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.