Boeing are FINALLY about to deliver a 787!
Discussion
Turbodiesel1690 said:
Sifly said:
Check out the interior shots...............
A window in the Bog, whatever next?!!
Most people p155 all over the floor as it is, and thats without the added distraction of a window to stare out of!!?
BA 747s have a window in the first class lav, and sensor activated tapsA window in the Bog, whatever next?!!
Most people p155 all over the floor as it is, and thats without the added distraction of a window to stare out of!!?
I do wonder if the authorities will become very strict about retiring aircraft.
I have the 'pleasure' of having read/modified/corrected calculation files for aircraft spanning 35 years from one major manufacturer. As time has moved on, there has been a drive to move weight out of aircraft designs via optimisation and understanding of methodologies. We are pushing analysis to hit adventurous weight targets, and this means that there will be less room for life extensions and so-on in 20 years time.
The differences in approach between the 787 and the 350 interest me. Boeing plumped for a very flexible wing. Looks like NASA's X-29 research wasn't in vain!
I have the 'pleasure' of having read/modified/corrected calculation files for aircraft spanning 35 years from one major manufacturer. As time has moved on, there has been a drive to move weight out of aircraft designs via optimisation and understanding of methodologies. We are pushing analysis to hit adventurous weight targets, and this means that there will be less room for life extensions and so-on in 20 years time.
The differences in approach between the 787 and the 350 interest me. Boeing plumped for a very flexible wing. Looks like NASA's X-29 research wasn't in vain!
russ_a said:
When ever I see a 787 take off I always expect the wings to snap!
If you want to see it break follow the links on this page, it also shows the A380 and B777!787 Cert Blog
Number31
coanda said:
I do wonder if the authorities will become very strict about retiring aircraft.
I have the 'pleasure' of having read/modified/corrected calculation files for aircraft spanning 35 years from one major manufacturer. As time has moved on, there has been a drive to move weight out of aircraft designs via optimisation and understanding of methodologies. We are pushing analysis to hit adventurous weight targets, and this means that there will be less room for life extensions and so-on in 20 years time.
The differences in approach between the 787 and the 350 interest me. Boeing plumped for a very flexible wing. Looks like NASA's X-29 research wasn't in vain!
I wouldn't worry about lifing issues, fuel burn and engine shop visit cost will drive obsolescence and drive aircraft retirals for these types.I have the 'pleasure' of having read/modified/corrected calculation files for aircraft spanning 35 years from one major manufacturer. As time has moved on, there has been a drive to move weight out of aircraft designs via optimisation and understanding of methodologies. We are pushing analysis to hit adventurous weight targets, and this means that there will be less room for life extensions and so-on in 20 years time.
The differences in approach between the 787 and the 350 interest me. Boeing plumped for a very flexible wing. Looks like NASA's X-29 research wasn't in vain!
Number31.
I tend to think that extensions will be given wherever possible. I should think that a re-engine campaign will occur at least once during the life of these airframes. I'm interested to see if geared fan technology can be scaled up from single-aisle sized applications to ETOPS aircraft.
I think that there will be some very interesting through-life debates/issues with these aircraft concerning in-service damage and repairs, proof of efficiency, environmental concerns (in the sad event of a fire) and end of life concerns - it occurs to me that recycling a mainly-metallic aircraft is allot easier than recycling a mainly carbon airframe.
I think that there will be some very interesting through-life debates/issues with these aircraft concerning in-service damage and repairs, proof of efficiency, environmental concerns (in the sad event of a fire) and end of life concerns - it occurs to me that recycling a mainly-metallic aircraft is allot easier than recycling a mainly carbon airframe.
coanda said:
I tend to think that extensions will be given wherever possible. I should think that a re-engine campaign will occur at least once during the life of these airframes. I'm interested to see if geared fan technology can be scaled up from single-aisle sized applications to ETOPS aircraft.
The question is, whether there is any need. The GE engine on the 320-Neo is just as efficient as the P&W GTF and doesn't need to use any unusual technologies.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff