Renamed Boeing 787 Dreamliner hits 260 orders, first 787 fuselage completed

High-Performance Composites ^ | March 2005 | Staff

[Paleo Conservative]

So why isn't Boeing proposing a bleedless system for the 747 Advanced? It's supposed to use the same engines as the 787.

[PAR35]

Who needs a stand? Since we are told that a visual inspection of the tail is all that is needed, you can just do that on a walk-by.

[Seaplaner]

But the 747 was a lot more overweight.

True, but that was what, 1969?

Perhaps a more recent Boeing comparison might be in order. The 777, if the documentary I saw was correct, was spot on it's weight.

On this subject, I'd love to know just how Airbus plans to shed 10,000 or so pounds from the A380. You can only drill so many lightening holes and redesign so many structures. Perhaps an aero engineer can enlighten us.

.

[scottywr]

I'm sure the Vietnamese are familiar with the quailty of other fine Boeing products.

Now that is hilarious.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Any idea why the use of composites for the structure?

[Tribune7]

Those Airbus marketing geniuses who came up with the five tonne overweight A380 just might be kicking themselves in tail feathers right now.

It's another Concorde.

[COEXERJ145]

Who pays list prices?

No one especially launch customers. For a long time Boeing sold the 747 at list price. If a airline wanted a 747, they paid the list price or found a used one somewhere. Now of course that isn't the case since airlines have a choice for large aircraft.

[Larry Lucido]

Damn! I guess I should have gotten my order in sooner, now it looks like I'll have to wait six or seven years to get one.

Wait a year and get a used one. You know they lose a third of their value when you drive them off the lot.

[Larry Lucido]

Except for the sexual peccadillos of recent times the comapny will endure.

Didn't the company just save $30 million or so due on a recent sexual peccadillo? Maybe they should secretly encourage more.

[Paleo Conservative]

The 777, if the documentary I saw was correct, was spot on it's weight.

How close is "spot on"?

[RayChuang88]

Because it would be too expensive to redesign the power accessory systems for "bleedless" operation on the 747 design. The 787 design--being a from scratch design--incorporates "bleedless" engines from the start.

[Paleo Conservative]

It's another Concorde.

[Paleo Conservative]

On this subject, I'd love to know just how Airbus plans to shed 10,000 or so pounds from the A380. You can only drill so many lightening holes and redesign so many structures. Perhaps an aero engineer can enlighten us.

They could make the tail lighter.

[Seaplaner]

LOL !

[Tribune7]

LOL

[B-Chan]

I noticed JAL's interest in the B787. Is this aircraft going to have transpacific range? I was under the impression that it was a "rightsized" point-to-pointer for the domestic market.

[Seaplaner]

How close is "spot on"?

Well, Paleo, you've got me there, because spots actually come in several sizes.

.

[Centurion2000]

That's just so wrong and so funny on so many levels

[Politicalities]

I noticed JAL's interest in the B787. Is this aircraft going to have transpacific range?

Easily. The 787-8 has a range of 8,500 nautical miles. That's enough to make Tokyo-New York nonstop.

Bleedless means that power accessories on the plane are no longer being powered by air "bleeded" from the jet engines to drive energy-generating turbines.

Interesting. Where does it derive electrical power from, then?

But give me a plane that can overide the system any day. The Airbust can't.

Pardon my skepticism, but I don't believe this. Who told you that the pilot lacked the ability to override the autopilot? I can't imagine that the FAA would certify any aircraft that wouldn't allow the pilot to take action in an emergency.

[B-Chan]

Thanks for the 411!