Skip to comments.
Boeing's Dreamliner gets near-giddy reaction from aviation buffs at Oshkosh air show
Chicago Tribune ^
| Jon Hilkevitch
Posted on 07/30/2011 8:14:43 AM PDT by UB355
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: UB355
I seem to get caught waiting for the good stuff all the time. I'm still waiting for the Kobe Tai clone I wanted to be ready.
21
posted on
07/30/2011 9:19:35 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
(Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
To: ASA Vet
Good luck getting that thing out of a stall, LOL!
To: American Constitutionalist
By the time they get the 787 into service, it will be a Antique by then. It may be late, but at least it's an aircraft that customers want, unlike the A380.
23
posted on
07/30/2011 9:23:59 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
To: ASA Vet
Fantastic, get those supersonic and you got the future.
24
posted on
07/30/2011 9:25:25 AM PDT
by
Tolsti2
To: UB355
25
posted on
07/30/2011 9:32:25 AM PDT
by
hattend
(As always... FUJM.)
To: ASA Vet
WOW. I haven't seen those before. Talk about your "Jetsons meet Buck Rogers" spacecraft designs! I wants me one. Better get busy making my next $5-Billion.
;^\/
26
posted on
07/30/2011 9:38:29 AM PDT
by
Gargantua
(those who "teach" will be held to a much higher standard...)
To: Tolsti2
I love the three-giant engines suspended on a frame above the fuselage. By tilting them slightly upward, mounted with the front a bit higher than the back, the natural lift from the thrust of those engines will maximize the efficient usage of the fuel consumed, and require a less-dense molecular air-lift to maintain flight. I’ll bet those babies can cruise at 40-50,000 ft no problem. Maybe higher.
27
posted on
07/30/2011 9:46:30 AM PDT
by
Gargantua
(Palin ~ 2012 "Going Oval On Obunghole")
To: Gargantua
I truly believe that style will be the future.
The only downside I see if the lack of window seats. I don’t fly anymore since 9/11 and was always super aware when I did and always wanted a window seat. These will be spam in a can style, but I suppose many don’t care. The lifting body will eventually prove itself, might take another 20-30 years or more though.
28
posted on
07/30/2011 9:50:53 AM PDT
by
Tolsti2
To: UB355
A neat time-delay YouTube (2:30) about Boeing building a Florida One aircraft for SouthWest airlines
HERE.
29
posted on
07/30/2011 9:56:08 AM PDT
by
Oatka
("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." –Bertrand de Jouvenel)
To: AFreeBird
I think the biggest drag on the program was the body section supplier Alenia in Italy passing wrinkled skin to innaproprite fasteners. What a costly decision that was for Boeing. But Airbus is using many of these same suppliers and they have had issues of teir own.
To: UB355
Gosh, another flying cattle car.
My favorite parts are my knees in my chest, the sweaty fat guy next to me, & the smelly dreadlocks 10 inches from my nose. The prostate exam at the gate makes it all worth it.
31
posted on
07/30/2011 10:51:06 AM PDT
by
Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
To: AFreeBird
problem with the flying wing will be the seating configuration, only 2 window seats a couple aisle seats and 35 middle seats in each row
32
posted on
07/30/2011 12:32:41 PM PDT
by
edzo4
(You call us the 'Party Of No', I call us the resistance.)
To: edzo4
The biggest problem is the people sitting furthest out in the wing, furthest from the centerline, will be barfing their guts out when the plane is manuevering to approach the airport.
They’ll be going up and down 20 or 30 feet at a time. Like a regular roller coaster ride.
A flying wing is a great idea for a bomber or a cargo plane (span loader) but not so much for a multi-hundred passenger plane.
33
posted on
07/31/2011 8:13:50 AM PDT
by
hattend
(As always... FUJM.)
To: AFreeBird
" Yea, it is. I guess coming up with all new production methods for an all composite aircraft isnt as easy as it sounds. Not to mention dealing with designs issues that pop up with any new aircraft. "
Yes, that is true, and a good point, but ? there is no excuse in how Boeing mishandled the whole project, mainly management.
The problems they had was not because they were developing new technologies, the problem was with being short sighted in when they could bring this plane to service, and how to managed the production method.
Yes, the new composites needed a learning curve, but, Boeing dropped the ball on this project, they even had to take some resources from another project, the 747-8 and bring it over to the 787 to get it out the door, that's why the 747-8 project suffered.
They basically had to for a lack of better words " fired " one of their suppliers to do the job and built a whole new plant in South Carolina, and almost fired their Italian supplier partner because of spotty work, and sub-par quality on some of the fuselage parts.
To: Moonman62
" It may be late, but at least it's an aircraft that customers want, unlike the A380. "
What customers wanted is a replacement of the 737, however ? engine technology and other technologies that would put it well far and above the current 737 and the A320 performance for that replacement was not mature 3 or 4 years ago to get the gains out of it that the customers want now.
Just take a look at the recent American Airlines order of over 400 new planes, and most of that order went to AirBus, wake up Boeing !
Airbus is going to re-engine the A320 and called it the A320 Neo, they got well over 1000 orders now.
Both Boeing and Airbus say that the technologies for the new replacement, new sheet planes is not there , yet.
Before Boeing introduced the 787, and launched it, they should had matured the composite technology, matured their production methods, and waited another year or two to launch the 787.
They over promised the time frame of when it would be in service, and mis-managed the project from the start, and now it looks as though they have waited to long to launch the re-engined 737... they dropped the ball. there is no excuse for this.
To: ken5050
Even in the early 1970s, 747 sightings were relatively rare. I grew up next to Logan Airport and the planes would come right over my house. Upon hearing a 747 approach, we’d run out of the house to see it as it was still a novelty. You could always tell when it was a 747, it had such a distinctive roar. Back then, only Pan Am and TWA seemed to be flying them.
To: American Constitutionalist
37
posted on
08/06/2011 7:22:37 PM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
To: American Constitutionalist
I actually think it was 2007 - as in 7/8/7, to be exact.
38
posted on
08/06/2011 7:24:25 PM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
To: TalBlack
Pretty sure it’s because there are not so many aluminum sections to join together. The fuselage is made from long, contiguous sections the way I understand it. So no need for there to be as many fasteners. A good thing in many ways.
39
posted on
08/06/2011 7:56:17 PM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson