
Boeing 787 First Flight Today 10AM PT - joshwa
http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/
======
amichail
What is the probability that a plane by Boeing or Airbus will encounter a
flight problem in its first flight that would be noticeable to the general
public?

~~~
borism
You mean like a crash? Quite low probability on a first flight.

Otherwise there are hundreds of minor problems that are revealed during flight
testing, after all that's the point of flight testing program.

------
banjiewen
Huh. I'm on my phone, so I can't view the site, but I saw a 787 go over my
head at about 7:30 this morning as I left home in west Seattle, which is just
northwest of Boeing field.

Strange that they're saying it's 10am. Then again, maybe I was mistaken. But
full-size jets that look just like 787s don't land at boeing field every day.

~~~
jonah
Quite possible it was - makes sense to me that they'd make private test
flights before the first public one. Good to reduce the chance of any serious
issues getting widespread publicity.

~~~
notauser
I believe they flew the A380 a few times before the big day.

Watching them throw it around a bit at the Paris air show was interesting.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH6tO1qZez8#t=1m06s>

~~~
borism
first flight is huge event for every airliner, media and spotters were camping
out next to Paine Field days before it. I'm pretty sure it would have been
spotted if it was flying before it was supposed to ;)

sorry to disappoint, but 787 first flight started today at 10:27AM PST
<http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1>

------
bodhi
In the design highlights, it has a diagram of the materials used in each
section of the plane. The pointy part at the back is the only part made of
titanium in the whole plane, does anyone have any idea why that would be?

~~~
designtofly
My guess is that it's the exhaust for the Auxiliary Power Unit [1]. The APU is
essentially a small gas turbine generator, so the exhaust temperature is
approximately 1000°C. This is way above the melting temperature of composites,
and even aluminum.

This site [2] has a very good discussion about the Boeing 737 APU and APU
exhaust (which they call an "Educator").

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_power_unit> [2]
<http://www.b737.org.uk/apu.htm>

------
gaius
Meh, it looks the same as any other airliner. Where're the radical designs, a
la Concorde (delta), Comet (engines in wings) etc etc? Boeing's just making
tweaks to a basic design that's been around since the 1960s.

~~~
gvb
The radical design is under the skin. OK, in and under the skin. "Its
materials (by weight) are: 50% composite, 20% aluminum, 15% titanium, 10%
steel, 5% other." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/787_Dreamliner#Features>

The Concorde had a delta wing so it could fly supersonically with acceptable
range (fuel economy vs. tankage). The trade-off for that speed was horrible
fuel economy and poor takeoff and landing characteristics (extremely high drag
- it had to use afterburners to get airborne).

WRT the Comet, airframers don't put engines in wings because they are a
_bugger_ to service there.

~~~
notauser
A big part of the reason for hanging the engines is actually because it means
you can make the wings less robust.

If you have in-wing engines they generally have to be near the root (where the
wing connects to the fuselage) because engines are large, wings taper and
wings shouldn't be too fat. Under wing engines can be hung wherever you like,
within reason.

If you simplify things a bit you can think of a wing as a cantilever which
supports half the weight of the plane, balanced by an equal upwards force
spread out along the whole wing.

By shifting weight towards the middle of the wing, as you can do by moving an
engine outboard, some of your weight is no longer at the end of the lever but
instead is closer (on average) to where the upwards force is being applied.
This decreases the load you have to design for even though the weight remains
the same.

~~~
borism
Engines are not just "hanged wherever one likes". There's an optimal point
along the wing where airflow entering the engine will provide optimal
performance, and it's not near the wing root.

~~~
notauser
It's pretty much a given that anything you read about aerodynamics on an
Internet forum will be a massive generalization made to illustrate a
simplified version of the point.

Look at the rubbish people keep on repeating about the reasons for inherent
instability for a prime example!

------
joubert
The Dreamliner cabin was included in the Cooper-Hewitt's 2006 Design
Triennial. It looked pretty nice, but only a handful of airlines have any
taste when it comes to their interiors.

------
mojuba
It's ugly. Just look at its nose from the side - it's evilish and ugly. The
most beautiful thing Boeing has ever designed is 747. Or compare it to A380.

~~~
borism
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It's a beautiful machine designed with very specific task in mind.

The only thing I dislike aesthetically is it's huge dihedral.

------
yosho
Wasn't that plane delayed for like 2 years or something?

~~~
notauser
First flight is a bit more than 2 years late according to Wikipedia.

However that's not bad for a project this complicated, being built in so many
different places. I know more than a few aerospace engineers who would be
delighted to deliver their projects only 2 years late.

For the frequent fliers here I'd recommend this wing load testing video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o> \- it's from the 777 program but
it's pretty interesting.

Personally I think the A380 will be more successful due to the increase in the
number of Chinese residents able to afford flights and their population
density making big city to big city routes a larger component of demand.
However there's clearly space in the market for both as they have different
roles.

~~~
gvb
"However there's clearly space in the market for both as they have different
roles."

Agreed, they serve very different markets in many ways. In addition, I see the
A380 and 787 as radically different approaches to the same problem: fuel
economy. The A380 approach is to use a lot of fuel but to haul as many bodies
as possible. By amortizing the fuel over more bodies, it gives good fuel
economy per body.

The 787 uses a very efficient aerodynamic design and reduced weight to use
less fuel per aircraft, thus amortizing less fuel over the (fewer) bodies it
hauls.

The weakness of the A380 approach is load factor: if the plane isn't full, it
will use more fuel per body.

The weakness of the 787 approach is that they _must_ hit their weight targets
to achieve all of their projected fuel savings. They are currently overweight
compared to their wishes (some of the first flight delays were caused by a
need to reinforce parts - that means more weight).

~~~
notauser
The A380 also gets cost savings from sharing the landing fees, taxes and slot
costs between more passengers.

That's more applicable for busy airports though - I'd bet that a lot of the
traffic at LHR and ATL will switch over to A380s, while it's not as necessary
for places like IAH.

------
johnohara
The wide-angle photo of the flight deck under "who's building" is very cool.

Beautiful aircraft.

