First scheduled UK 787 flight next Month

[onyx39]

December 13th to be exact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/97059...

[MitchT]

"It also has lower cabin pressure at higher altitude"

Gotta love the press.

[magpie215]

MitchT said:

"It also has lower cabin pressure at higher altitude"

Gotta love the press.

They are probably correct most cabins are pressurized to simulate around 8000ft when at cruise altitude of 35,000ft +

maybe the dreamliner simulates a lower cabin altitude of say 6000ft when at cruise?

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

[MitchT]

magpie215 said:

maybe the dreamliner simulates a lower cabin altitude of say 6000ft when at cruise?

It does, it's pressurised to 6000ft, which means it has a lower cabin altitude, not a lower cabin pressure.

[b4rk3r]

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

[mybrainhurts]

Is it my imagination, or is that thing carrying a huge dihedral angle..?

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

b4rk3r said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

You're correct of course: there is no technical comparison to be discussed.

My comparison was nothing more than comparing two new aircraft, that's all. A bit 'layman' yes, but trying to make the distinction between two different approaches from two different manufacturers. In my opinion, one has developed an aesthetic masterpiece, and one has developed a hideous mutation

[thehawk]

MitchT said:

magpie215 said:

maybe the dreamliner simulates a lower cabin altitude of say 6000ft when at cruise?

It does, it's pressurised to 6000ft, which means it has a lower cabin altitude, not a lower cabin pressure.

It's got a higher cabin pressure.

[Previous]

787- Pride of American taxpayers - Showing what can be achieved through illegal government subsidies.... From the country which is the largest advocate of the free market!


That said, tis a very good looking aircraft.

A closer comparison to the 787 would probably be the A350, First flight should be next year I think.

[hidetheelephants]

Previous said:

787- Pride of American taxpayers - Showing what can be achieved through illegal government subsidies.... From the country which is the largest advocate of the free market!


That said, tis a very good looking aircraft.

A closer comparison to the 787 would probably be the A350, First flight should be next year I think.

Given the problems Boeing have had I can see the A350 giving them a run for their money if it can be rolled out fast enough.

[Eric Mc]

b4rk3r said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

Because the press linked the two as being in competition years ago. They are not of course - two very different aircraft for very different purposes.

[thehawk]

Eric Mc said:

b4rk3r said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

Because the press linked the two as being in competition years ago. They are not of course - two very different aircraft for very different purposes.

It all depends on your context, in reality they are in competition, not directly, but for the way the airlines operate routes.

[HoHoHo]

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

b4rk3r said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

You're correct of course: there is no technical comparison to be discussed.

My comparison was nothing more than comparing two new aircraft, that's all. A bit 'layman' yes, but trying to make the distinction between two different approaches from two different manufacturers. In my opinion, one has developed an aesthetic masterpiece, and one has developed a hideous mutation

Well whilst writing this at 40,000ft in the 'hideous mutation' I can confirm much as my thread last week, it's bloody brilliant.

I'd much rather be on an A380 than a tiny little aircraft on a similar length of route/flight time (bearing in mind they are used for semi-long haul).

[onyx39]

HoHoHo said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

b4rk3r said:

Ray Luxury-Yacht said:

I are excite.

Beautiful looking aircraft, looks graceful and 'just right' to me.

Unlike the monstrous abortion of A380...

Jesus Christ, I still don't understand why people compare the 787 to the A380.

You're correct of course: there is no technical comparison to be discussed.

My comparison was nothing more than comparing two new aircraft, that's all. A bit 'layman' yes, but trying to make the distinction between two different approaches from two different manufacturers. In my opinion, one has developed an aesthetic masterpiece, and one has developed a hideous mutation

Well whilst writing this at 40,000ft in the 'hideous mutation' I can confirm much as my thread last week, it's bloody brilliant.

I'd much rather be on an A380 than a tiny little aircraft on a similar length of route/flight time (bearing in mind they are used for semi-long haul).

I was about to make a similar point.
Not travelled on the A380, although I would love to. When you are driving your car, do you care what it looks like, or are you more interested in the comfort and ride? Surely the latter... I could be the ugliest thing in the sky (which some say it is) but, if it's cost effective and sells seats / make the airlines money, surely this is more important?

[Eric Mc]

The airline industry needs a variety of diferent types of aircraft. Widebodies are necessary for some routes - single aisle for others. That has been the way since the introduction of the first widebody (the 747) in 1970.

There is a need for aircraft like the A380 AND the 787.

[onyx39]

Eric Mc said:

The airline industry needs a variety of diferent types of aircraft. Widebodies are necessary for some routes - single aisle for others. That has been the way since the introduction of the first widebody (the 747) in 1970.

There is a need for aircraft like the A380 AND the 787.

I think that was the point Eric.
Airbus were making the point that they thought "Hubs" was the way to go, where as Airbus dis-agreed. Hence them both stating that their new "baby" was the way forward.

[Eric Mc]

But both companies build wide body and narrow body aircraft. The two are not mutually exclusive. Airlines will operate both types.

Boeing already have their mega wide body (the 747) plus a smaller wide body (the 767) plus a narrow body (the 737 in all its permutations) and the new 787.

Airbus have their widebody (the A380) plus their narrow body (the A318/319/320/321 family) plus the upcoming A350.

Neither manufacturer has abandoned either concept.

[anonymous-user]

onyx39 said:

Airbus were making the point that they thought "Hubs" was the way to go, where as Airbus dis-agreed.

Sounds about right.

[anonymous-user]

HoHoHo said:

Well whilst writing this at 40,000ft in the 'hideous mutation' I can confirm much as my thread last week, it's bloody brilliant.

I'd much rather be on an A380 than a tiny little aircraft on a similar length of route/flight time (bearing in mind they are used for semi-long haul).

What's used for "semi-long haul"? the 787 has a longer range than an A380. Have you been in or flown on a 787 yet to make a comparison? To me the size of the aircraft isn't important, it's how much space I actually have around me.