B788/9: Streets Ahead!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 53
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B788/9: Streets Ahead!
Superior hands-down (pg38-41):
http://www.isasi.org/Documents/libra...ducing-787.pdf
http://www.isasi.org/Documents/libra...ducing-787.pdf
Ok let's talk about dispatch reliability then shall we......
Seems it's doing ok according to this independent agency... Read the data then take your foot out of your mouth....
http://airinsight.com/2014/10/07/787.../#.VSuN2YbXerU
Seems it's doing ok according to this independent agency... Read the data then take your foot out of your mouth....
http://airinsight.com/2014/10/07/787.../#.VSuN2YbXerU
Air Insight is a blog pretending to be a consultancy- who exactly do they "Consult" for?
Now, Flight Global-
ANALYSIS: After three years in service, how is 787 performing? - 11/14/2014 - Flight Global
Says that Boeing have simply abandoned 99.5% and are trying, and failing, to make 99%.
So, snarky remarks MIGHT just display a certain arrogance....
Now, Flight Global-
ANALYSIS: After three years in service, how is 787 performing? - 11/14/2014 - Flight Global
Says that Boeing have simply abandoned 99.5% and are trying, and failing, to make 99%.
So, snarky remarks MIGHT just display a certain arrogance....
Can't read it, sorry.
Either way the data presented in the article I refer to does show 99.5%
Who are they? Well I'd never heard of them either until Google showed me, their data seems genuine and shows the FACTS surely?
http://airinsight.com/about-2/#.VSuotobXerU
Anyway, ANZ love their 789's.
Either way the data presented in the article I refer to does show 99.5%
Who are they? Well I'd never heard of them either until Google showed me, their data seems genuine and shows the FACTS surely?
http://airinsight.com/about-2/#.VSuotobXerU
Anyway, ANZ love their 789's.
It WILL be a great aeroplane and has taught Boeing a LOT about how to build a 21st century airliner (including a lot about what NOT to do!!)
While the 777-8 and -9 will be pretty conventional systems wise, I bet the eventual 737 replacement will be basically a mini 787.
HOWEVER, building an aircraft with that many innovations was always going to lead to a long period of teething problems.
The fleet average isn't at 99.5% yet, but the fuel savings are immediate and substantial.
My initial post was just a little reality check toward the posting of what was unmitigated propaganda.
While the 777-8 and -9 will be pretty conventional systems wise, I bet the eventual 737 replacement will be basically a mini 787.
HOWEVER, building an aircraft with that many innovations was always going to lead to a long period of teething problems.
The fleet average isn't at 99.5% yet, but the fuel savings are immediate and substantial.
My initial post was just a little reality check toward the posting of what was unmitigated propaganda.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Among camels and dunes
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and it flies even better than it looks! 
Reliability has been good so far. You don't feel so tired after 14:30 hour sectors in it, with a lower 6000 cabin and humidifier. Quiet and smooth, rides turbulence very well. Turbulence speed is M.84. We slow down for that!
Reliability has been good so far. You don't feel so tired after 14:30 hour sectors in it, with a lower 6000 cabin and humidifier. Quiet and smooth, rides turbulence very well. Turbulence speed is M.84. We slow down for that!
Does it still have to keep out of clouds or has that little eng icing thing been fixed? Would help with ride as well I guess?
The Ice Crystal Icing limitation has been 'relaxed', but not eliminated for the GEnx (the restriction never applied to the Trent powered 787). The GEnx powered 787 is now cleared to 37k in ICI, the 747-8 to 35k.
Work is continuing on obtaining full ICI limitation removal, goal is to get that for the GEnx 787 sometime this year.
Work is continuing on obtaining full ICI limitation removal, goal is to get that for the GEnx 787 sometime this year.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in the fortunate position of flying both the 787 and 777.
The 787 burns around the same as a 757 yet is larger than a 767 and can do it ULR. Reliabilty is an issue but it is improving all the time as the aircraft settles down. It will be a while before it reaches the truly outstanding levels of the 777 but its a fine aircraft that you most certainly feel healthier in after a long flight.
It handles like a little go-cart compared to the 777 and features like cruise flaps are truly innovative from a cost per mile basis. Electronic CB's etc are nice, not having a touch screen CDU is a pain and the overall data presentation possibilities seem rather excessive. All in all it will be a stellar performer with time but then any company that can produce the brilliant 777 should be given time. Just about everyone I know who fly both prefer to fly the 777 (from a handling/size point of view). A derated EFATO leaves almost no spare performance. It feels like its entire design from start to finish is optimised to reduce fuel burn. The 787 is the starting ground for the 777X although interestingly I understand the 777X will still retain bleed air for the Cabin.
The 787 burns around the same as a 757 yet is larger than a 767 and can do it ULR. Reliabilty is an issue but it is improving all the time as the aircraft settles down. It will be a while before it reaches the truly outstanding levels of the 777 but its a fine aircraft that you most certainly feel healthier in after a long flight.
It handles like a little go-cart compared to the 777 and features like cruise flaps are truly innovative from a cost per mile basis. Electronic CB's etc are nice, not having a touch screen CDU is a pain and the overall data presentation possibilities seem rather excessive. All in all it will be a stellar performer with time but then any company that can produce the brilliant 777 should be given time. Just about everyone I know who fly both prefer to fly the 777 (from a handling/size point of view). A derated EFATO leaves almost no spare performance. It feels like its entire design from start to finish is optimised to reduce fuel burn. The 787 is the starting ground for the 777X although interestingly I understand the 777X will still retain bleed air for the Cabin.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ winnerhofer:
B777 and B 787 do not have touchscreens in cockpit bar electronic flight bag (EFB): only cursor device for FMC/CDU, MFD.
A380 has 2 keyboards with pointing device and extra key when keyboard is stowed. These are interfaces all onboard info system in cockpit.
B777 and B 787 do not have touchscreens in cockpit bar electronic flight bag (EFB): only cursor device for FMC/CDU, MFD.
A380 has 2 keyboards with pointing device and extra key when keyboard is stowed. These are interfaces all onboard info system in cockpit.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the 777-8 and -9 will be pretty conventional systems wise, I bet the eventual 737 replacement will be basically a mini 787
The 737MAX isn't a 737 replacement- it's a 737.
At some point Boeing will build a clean-sheet 150 seater- that is what I was referring to.
At some point Boeing will build a clean-sheet 150 seater- that is what I was referring to.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, currently planned production for the MAX is at least for another decade, by then technology will be quite different once again and the 787 will be old technology. And as the proposed savings didn't materialize with the 787s non-bleed design i don't think we gonna see that again. Of course, if there will be a public discussion about the aerotoxic syndrome it might come back for entirely different reasons.
Boeing was studying a clean sheet replacement for the 737 before they were forced by the market to simply re-engine the 737. Indicators were however not for a 150 seat aircraft, rather a 180 to 250 seat one. Probably elliptical fuselage and twin aisle configuration as that allows shorter turnaround times (faster boarding and de-boarding). That is in line with the shifting proportions of ordered 737 variants that focus on the higher seatcount variants with not many for the small ones (only 81 out of over 2400 ordered MAX are -7).
Boeing was studying a clean sheet replacement for the 737 before they were forced by the market to simply re-engine the 737. Indicators were however not for a 150 seat aircraft, rather a 180 to 250 seat one. Probably elliptical fuselage and twin aisle configuration as that allows shorter turnaround times (faster boarding and de-boarding). That is in line with the shifting proportions of ordered 737 variants that focus on the higher seatcount variants with not many for the small ones (only 81 out of over 2400 ordered MAX are -7).
Seems like another great Boeing.
Interesting they went 'back' to steel oxygen cylinders to supply passenger oxygen rather than ox generators.
I've never been crazy about them with their heat generation but I thought they saved weight.
Interesting they went 'back' to steel oxygen cylinders to supply passenger oxygen rather than ox generators.
I've never been crazy about them with their heat generation but I thought they saved weight.
And the fuel savings and extra speed help make up for extra track miles keeping out of clouds. Should be a winner.