OT: 787 Dreamliner
Admittedly, I'm a sucker for airplanes. First flight of Boeing's 787 -- two years late, nonetheless -- is slated to occur today and will be webcast.
http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html
eeeeeee composites
December 15th, 2009 at 11:45 AM ^
and I am absolutely ecstatic about the 787.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Yay GE! Yay Boeing!
December 15th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
...and Rolls-Royce :)
December 15th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
*drool*
I visited GE Aviation a couple years ago for a tour of the building where they were working on the flight control system. The amount of redundancy in the system is absolutely incredible. Something like two separate boards each with three separate processors making every single calculation and comparing results. It's a modern marvel. Hopefully I can ride on one someday.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
I work in the chemical industry and we've run our plants in a completely redundant fashion since the 70's/80's: boards, cpus, comparing outputs, etc. Very comforting to know when you're riding 6 miles in the sky or reacting chemicals. Just wanted to clarify your statement 'it's a modern marvel', this stuff's been around.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:18 PM ^
Yeah, sorry, I just meant that in general the 787 is a marvel. The redundancy in and of itself is cool, but like you said, not new.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
Do airlines really need bigger planes? Last time I checked, the only profitable airline was Southwest. How is the 787 going to solve anything?
December 15th, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
The argument is that the 787's use of composites makes it more fuel efficient, thereby driving down one of the biggests costs of flying. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:11 PM ^
if only someone would post a link to a website that described every single advancement in this plane, then i would be able to answer your questions.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
Any annoyance over larger planes should be directed at Airbus. Boeing and Airbus each took a look at what they thought the future was, Boeing went with more fuel efficient flights, Airbus went with the A380, their superjumbo that holds up to over 800 people (roughly 400 to 500 in a typical set up).
I find there are enough idiots holding up the boarding process on a 100 person flight from Detroit to Chicago, I can't imagine how long it'll take to board that thing.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Yeah, there is already enough "redundancy" at the airport. Two morons trying to crowd the entrance to the jet way even before boarding has begun; two flight attendants trying to figure out how to stow idiots' oversized roll-aboards; two people demolishing the same airplane bathroom; it goes on and on...
Flying is one of the most annoying things in life. I don't think the Dreamliner is going to help. Our society needs a lesson in manners and on how not to be narcissists. That would be a huge start.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^
These idiots seem to multiply during the holiday season. Primarily for that reason, I have opted to drive 12+ hours from Michigan to NC to visit the family for the last few Christmases.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^
Nobody's making money in the airline industry these days, but international air travel is an obvious market that the 737 can't handle.
The 787 is really a replacement for the 767, which is used mostly on international routes and high-volume, long-distance domestic ones. It's offering a 20% decrease in fuel consumption, which is an absolutely ENORMOUS jump in efficiency, a 30% savings in maintenance, etc., etc., offering a much better deal in the long run for the airlines that operate those types of routes. If you're trying to say that an international airline should follow the Southwest model and just use one type of airplane to save on maintenance costs, the 787 would probably be your airplane of choice. And Boeing is going to replace the 737, but probably not for another 10 years.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:49 PM ^
There are numerous profitable intercontinental long-haul carriers, almost entirely non-US. They're looking for a next gen plane to replace their aging 747s (and other aging birds). The 737 does not fit that bill. The 787 is, as other posters have noted, a massive technological advancement and should have superior operating economics in comparison to equipment being replaced - 747s, 777s, A330s, A340s.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:53 AM ^
Looks like only 1 US-based airline (Northwest) has purchased the plane thus far. That's a bummer. (Although if you live in Michigan obviously not as much.) I'm excited to see it/fly in it. And no US-based customers for Airbus' A380, another plane I'd love to fly aboard.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
United just slapped down an order for 80-ish 787s. earlier this month.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
Luckily NWA/Delta's hubs are in 2 cities that I fly in/out of most: MSP and DTW.
Also, Delta should be receiving deliverie of the 787 much earlier than United, as they were the 3rd? customer for Boeing.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:18 PM ^
I'm a sucker for vehicles myself. Mostly cars, but I like planes too. I'm rather psyched for the 787. Now I just need to book an international flight.
The 787 could be very beneficial. First of all, Boeing obviously is an American company (Airbus is Euro). Now they just have to do well with this. Also, the plane is more fuel efficient and carries more passengers, which is apparently a major issue for many American airlines. But will it hurt if they're consistently flying at partial capacity? Do the laws of supply and demand apply as much to the airline business in America?
From my understanding, American airline companies are at a huge disadvantage compared to other countries' airlines, which are usually nationalized and have the perks of government funding to pay for their every need, such as new fuel efficient planes, and don't have to worry as much about no-frills competitors such as Ryan Air (the way that Delta has to worry about Southwest, for example). Apparently US fleets are still largely out-dated and inefficient (it was only last year that AA retired 40-45 MD-80s!), and we know what happens when they have to spend too much money on fuel.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
the only one in america who has an undying love of travel but hates to fly. i guess you can call it a curse. i hope this plane has amazing new safety measures.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
I doubt it is safer than flying.
"Four hundred and fifty people died in 12 fatal U.S air-transport accidents from 1996 to 2000. Meanwhile, 209,117 people, including 30,189 pedestrians and bicyclists, died in 186,474 fatal traffic crashes. In 2000 alone, 37,409 crashes killed 41,821 people.
That's 114 people, per day, who died on the highways--the equivalent of a large commercial aircraft crash every other day!
In the same five-year period, there were 50,141,570 aircraft departures. These flights totaled 31,535,345,000 miles and 77,682,791 flight hours. So your chances of being on a flight that crashes and kills people would be 1 in 4,178,464. You could fly one flight per day for more than 11,000 years without incident."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FKE/is_4_47/ai_86504189/
December 15th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^
Am I the only one who's reminded of the Canyonero?
December 15th, 2009 at 1:14 PM ^
Wrong airplane: Canyonero!
December 15th, 2009 at 5:19 PM ^
If it doesn't smell like steak and seat 35, I'm not interested.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:25 PM ^
So quick question. I know for all the airplane geeks this could not matter less. But us normal folk are concerned about the cabin what it looks like how it feels etc.
Now all the pictures online show this awesome cabin with cool lights great seats etc. Do we expect this to make it to production? Will the cabin be any better and more enjoyable than the typical 30 year old piece of shit I normally fly in?
December 15th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
Well, yeah. The Design Center at Boeing has been working on LED installations for some time, and they've been placed on some new 737s already.
As for the seats....mmm, hopefully, but the biggest difference you'll notice is that you'l be less dehydrated and will probably experience less jetlag because the cabin pressure is set lower (I could get nerdy here).
December 15th, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Boeing employee here, slacking at work while watching the first flight online...
...and posting about it on mgoblog. :)
December 15th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
it's still earlier than the Airbus guys who couldn't get the A380 into full production because of European manufacturing division negotiations, poor software configuration control, wiring ... anyone who thinks we're the worst at actually manufacturing something, go take a look at any European aerospace manufacturing project (aircraft/satellites/rockets)... absolute mongolian clusterf*k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Delivery_delays
December 15th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
just got back from the flightline watching the first flight (BA employee here) it was pretty exciting even though i work on the 747-8... big step for us...
you can check out where the plane is here:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1
enjoy the new era of aircraft...
BTW amazingly quiet and the bending on the wings is beautiful...