The Hype of the B787 at Farnborough

[Stuffy]

There has been quite a lot of hyperbole about the Boeing B787 at Farnborough.
Passengers will get less jet lag because it is quieter, 6,000ft equivalent cabin pressure. Cabin daylight adjusting times in the cabin etc.

It is more fuel efficient because it is lighter, a plastic aeroplane, just like an Airfix kit.

The argument about carbon-fibre versus alluminium, is far from straightforward ?

Well there have been troubles with sub-contactors over tightening bolts and crushing the carbon-fibre. Then there was all the delays caused by the departure at the wing box. Then beefed up with added weight.


What are we to believe ? Is this the answer for point-to-point flying ?

If say one operated the latest A330-200 on the same route, would there be any noticeable difference ?

Where does the 'hype' end and the reality begin ?

[A and C]

It will take ten years of airline service to answer your question truthfully.........All you will read below is going to be at best well informed guesswork.

[411A]

All you will read below is going to be at best well informed guesswork
Amen to that...:}

[CargoMatatu]

I GUESS you're right! :}

[sprocky_ger]

I am not able to answer your question - currently out of Chrystal Balls :}

Just one thing on the "plastic" comment: there have been reports about the carbon fibre which claimed the appearance toxic gases in case of fires. You may get unconscious upon impact but may not wake up again when those gases kill you.

[tubby linton]

It was interesting that at Farnborough this week Boeing would not give away any technical information about the aircraft.I belive that this aircraft's fuel economy comes from its very light structure and the fact that there is no air bleed demand from the engines.The basic tube is just a 767 with a new nose /tale.The wing was the usual Boeing slab and is very conventional apart from that it bends a LOT!The engineering that I saw was very conventional and large.The box on the back of the nose gear looks like a small safe !
I also thought that some of the toys in the flight deck were a bit superfluous.The radios allow you to store frequencies,but why would you want to???
I left the aircraft deeply underwhelmed by what I had seen

[Stuffy]

Not so much an airliner, more a marketing exercise.
I really don't see how much better this aircraft would be than a A330-200 on the same route. The beefing up of the wing to wing box has added weight. If a cavalier van driver hits the side of the aircraft, there could be unseen damage all the way along the fuselage. That is the nature of carbon fibre. Apparently this problem is being worked on.
Boeing came up with the 'Sonic Cruiser' to counter Airbus. They were flattened in the rush. Then they realised they couldn't build it !
I would like to see a comparison with an A330-200.
How much better ?
Boeing is not saying.
What if Airbus put the fancy cabins in their aircraft? What if they added an advanced engine?
Where's the hard facts and statistics, why have so many airlines fallen for the hype?
It looks just like another boring twin engined mid-range airliner.
There is plastic in an Airbus, but well away from the Kamakaze truck driver !

[777fly]

Very sad to read such negativity about the B787. A perception not shared by many major airlines who have swelled the Boeing backlog of orders for this aircraft to over 800, tolerant of production delays because they know what they will be getting. Boeing must be congratulated for taking, with this aircraft, a step as significant in it's way as the introduction of the B747. You only have to look at the way that lightweight composites have revolutionised what is now available in the light aviation field: Beautifully designed light but strong structures, better power to weight ratios, increased performance, lower noise, ease of maintenance. Boeing are pioneers in bringing those benefits to mainstream commercial aviation and putting an end to the 'heavy metal'. In aviation, weight= fuel, so the economics of a lighter airframe over years and years of operation will mean massive savings in fuel costs, let alone the economics of carbon fibre structures as the technology develops.

To answer some questions:

1. Yes, from a pilot's point of view it is extremely useful to be able to pre-load a series of ATC radio frequencies. On a typical longhaul route over Europe to the mid/far east there might be 20 or 30 radio frequency changes and the ability to store them would be a great benefit and would reduce selection errors.

2. Up to, and including the B767, you might well call the typical Boeing wing a slab. All that changed with the wing on the B777 and it is currently the best blend of art and mechanics since the ( aaaah!...) L1011 . The B777 wing is a joy to behold. Clean and low drag, Kuchemann wingtips without the need for ugly winglets, supercritical cruise performance giving excellent fuel economy, no ugly flap track fairings, super-strong with amazing flex.The B787 will take it further.....

[WHBM]

Yes, from a pilot's point of view it is extremely useful to be able to pre-load a series of ATC radio frequencies. On a typical longhaul route over Europe to the mid/far east there might be 20 or 30 radio frequency changes and the ability to store them would be a great benefit and would reduce selection errors
What is it that is novel here ? Even my 30-year old PA28 has four VHF presets. And how is it a 787 feature rather than a feature from the radio manufacturer ?

[sprocky_ger]

As long as we have not seen the B787 in some years of operation and as long as I did not have a ride I won't say any bad about it. Never even flew onboard a B747 and the only thing I can say it has a beautiful shape. :}

But thinking the B787 is a good product judging by the numbers of orders? IIRC there was a hype of the DH 106 also. Boeing placed the right product on the market at the right time. Say something the customers wants to hear - et voila, they got plenty orders. Time will tell if it was good or not.

[TopBunk]

1. Yes, from a pilot's point of view it is extremely useful to be able to pre-load a series of ATC radio frequencies. On a typical longhaul route over Europe to the mid/far east there might be 20 or 30 radio frequency changes and the ability to store them would be a great benefit and would reduce selection errors.What a load of twaddle.

Even if your example were correct, an 8 hour flight with 30 freq changes = 1 per 15 minutes. Hardly strenuous! And what if the frequency you are given is not in your list? You would have to select it manually anyway! Only thing ..... you would probably rely on it being in your pre-loaded selection - confirmation bias etc, then now you would find yourself having to go back to the previous freq to ask for it to be repeated.

Just a gimmick imho, and in any case CPDLC will prevail.

[Stuffy]

The word I want to refer to in the title of my thread is 'Hype'.

Flight deck electronics are not specific to one type ?

It is the claims of Boeing I want to address. Cheaper to fly, lighter, more efficient, etc etc.

Much of that claimed about the cabin, could, and is, put into rival airliners.

Is this plastic plane, significantly lighter and more efficient, thereby making point to point destinations cost effective. i.e. Manchester to Raleigh ?

Or is the cost of the materials, the beefing up needed on the wing box, making the difference with a competitor, not much to write home about ?

[WHBM]

I think one feature of the 787 that window seat users are going to HATE, and will be a real commercial turnoff, will be this automatic control of the window blinds by the cabin staff. Because they will shut the lot at every opportunity to get people to go to sleep for their own convenience of a quieter life.

So no more views of the lights below at night. Never see the Aurora again. No checking to see where we are in the morning, land, sea or cloud.

I already avoid carriers that do not allow me to pre-select a window seat if there is a competitor that does. This will be the same.

[ZFT]

100% agree - This is the biggest marketing mistake by far.

[tubby linton]

An article appeared in AWST show daily last week about the 787 and its flight testing.The chief pilot on the flight test team states that they have tried to make it as much like a 777 as possible.Perhaps they have forgotten that a lot of people coming onto this aircraft will not have flown a 777,or a Boeing at all!
The dimming windows on the aircraft were not all working properly.I think they will be a cabin engineers nightmare.Just imagine a child playing with them for 8+ hours!The multi coloured cabin lighting is also gimmicky.

[WHBM]

Will the dimming windows be controlled by the pax ? I understood they were controlled by the crew.

[NWSRG]

On the window shades, I thought the cabin crew would have a master control, but that the passenger could vary the tint within that. So, for example, during the day the passenger could control from 0 to 10, but at night they could only control from 7 to 10...if that makes sense...

On the aircraft itself, the general trend in development suggests that the performance will come. Maybe initially, the benefits over an A330 won't be massive, but as the carbon technology improves (we'll see changes for the 787-9) and as suppliers take full advantage of the all electric architecture, the gap will widen.

Surprised that Airbus have gone with carbon cladding on frames for the A350...gives them little room to improve over time. The Boeing approach leaves room for improvement.