View Full Version : B788/9: Streets Ahead!

12th Apr 2015, 18:09
Superior hands-down (pg38-41):

12th Apr 2015, 18:39
Now let's talk about dispatch reliability.....

12th Apr 2015, 20:06
AKA the 'Doomliner'. :}

13th Apr 2015, 10:38
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....


13th Apr 2015, 10:57
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 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-after-three-years-in-service-how-is-787-performing-405814/)

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....

13th Apr 2015, 12:29
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?


Anyway, ANZ love their 789's.

13th Apr 2015, 13:26
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.

13th Apr 2015, 14:10
What is the discussion purpose of this thread?

The OP seems to show only years-old marketing claims. Is there a new technical subject here ?

13th Apr 2015, 14:35
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!:D

13th Apr 2015, 14:42
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?

13th Apr 2015, 14:55
Every 3 months or so that little cloud icing limit gets higher, from FL290 now moved to FL375 currently. Soon to be removed altogether Don.

13th Apr 2015, 15:04
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.

13th Apr 2015, 15:11
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.

13th Apr 2015, 17:25
Do the A350 & A380 have touchscreens?

13th Apr 2015, 18:57
@ 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.

13th Apr 2015, 19:02
While the 777-8 and -9 will be pretty conventional systems wise, I bet the eventual 737 replacement will be basically a mini 787

Apparently not. The 737MAX will be a pretty conventional aircraft as well. The changes are only slightly more than just new engines apparently. The tail cone will be changed (787 style), the spoilers will be fbw, the rest of the flight controls will be the same as before (apparently with the same manual reversion). The flightdeck will remain the same, except that it will have only four screens instead of six, just a lot larger (15.1 inch), but apparently still no EICAS.

13th Apr 2015, 19:47
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.

14th Apr 2015, 04:54
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).

16th Apr 2015, 08:20
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.

16th Apr 2015, 08:55
And the fuel savings and extra speed help make up for extra track miles keeping out of clouds. Should be a winner.

17th Apr 2015, 07:59
Having flown the jump seat and the cabin on the 787 here are my observations.

Aircraft ride is unbelievably smooth. Due to gust load suppression and the wing design turbulence is hardly felt at all. Is extremely fast and easy to operate.

Having sat in the cabin all I can say is that it was a big let down. Basically the noise in the cabin during normal operation is quite unacceptable. There is an electrical humming which is constantly present which is quite annoying to say the least.

Nevertheless would love to fly it.

30th Apr 2015, 22:38
Despite the problems, a delightful airplane.

(Not sure what the discussion purpose is @lomapaseo, so let's meander . :~)

Handling:Yes, the 777's are easier to fly (= 'light' control loads), but one cannot escape the physical realm. Let's put it this way - a botched flare can be corrected on the 787 whereas it's not that simple on the Triple.

Noise levels:a conversational tone does just fine in the cockpit, no more trainer hoarseness. The in cruise ssshhhhh gives a peaceful easy feeling.
GENx have a bowed rotor issue which causes vibrations during the start sequence. Result, soon's the engine is running (=start ended) you can be forgiven if you think it has shut down, the engine noise just ceases.
Sometimes annoying whistling sound from the EE bay blower ducting, if certain sections are misaligned, it gives a distinct whistling sound, sometimes broken, a bit like morse code and infuriatingly difficult to trace to a fixed spot spatially. v evident, if at all, in the fwd galley and cockpit entry area. One of those sounds that you might not notice till you notice
Oxy-generators: FAA had an 'advisory' in 2011 requiring removal of these canisters from the toilets, could this have led to a general avoidance of the chemical generators?

Slippery eel:If you need Speedbrakes use 'em all the way, fully deployed if you want to see some effect - just make sure the rate at which you pull the lever for extension or push back for retraction is slower than the slowest crawl...

Star Trek Display Mode:The MFD's (multi function displays - inboard/lower DU's), are generally used to display 2 different displays each from amongst EFIS, EICAS, SYSTEMS, STATUS etc. But the nice one is to use the whole thing as a single ND ok, Sulu, take her away . . .

Environmental control: Definitely less fatiguing. Truly "arrive in better shape".

ICI Software fix at the moment, isn't the final one yet, operates some internal bleed/s (VBV type?) to open for a 15 minute period if the conditions are sensed to be conducive to ICI, and for a second 15 min period if required. Guess those nice fuel flow values take hit.

Brakes: Now there's a whole story . . . .

1st May 2015, 00:08
Interesting they went 'back' to steel oxygen cylinders to supply passenger oxygen rather than ox generators.

I think they are carbon fibre bottles. A clever control valve means they can be smaller too.

No Fly Zone
2nd May 2015, 10:58
While not overtly stated, the bottom line remains: whatever system you fly, know it inside-out... Know what the gonculators will do, why and how to get them out of the way when necessary. Current reading suggests that triple pilots have learned these methods and '87 boys and girls are still working through the process. The three week (or however long) upgrade course simply will NOT - cannot teach everything that you need to know.
This time, perfect stick and rudder just won't make it: one must know the systems well and yes, the function and effect of EVERY switch on knob, including how it may interact with other systems.
Most 787 sales remain foreign, yet basic training is done in English. Regardless of ESL levels, the pilot's brain simply does not capture everything presented. IMO, it will take another 5+years to build a cadre of truly, fully qualified pilots for the '87 series. The majority of the necessary learning comes through DOING (Flying in this case), not reading or watching or even SIM time. It is a very different beast, one that can be commanded, but damn sure not in 3-4 weeks time. It will happen; some will become experts, but we just are not there yet.

2nd May 2015, 14:13

The B737 replacement is the Y1 project with entry to service towards 2030. The aircraft will have greater capacity than many envisage. It appears Boeing will not build anything below a 210 seater or single aisle in the future. They will leave that segment to Bombardier, Embraer, Mitsubishi, Russian offering or Chinese offering. It is assumed Airbus will do likewise.

2nd May 2015, 14:40
Yup, that was my impression as well. That was why i was kinda surplussed that some think that boeing will ever do a 150 seat replacement for the 737. But then, the 737MAX will probably remain in production for 20 years after they are put into service, same as the 737NG.

2nd May 2015, 14:56
Autodrag feature is great too. In flap 25 or 30, fly the assigned fast speed on approach, and then when reducing the speed on the MCP, automatically the spoilers go up, ailerons go up, flaperons go down, pitch remains the same and the aircraft slows down on a ticky! Many great features and lovely to fly!:D

2nd May 2015, 18:21
@No_Fly_Zone has it down pretty accurately, just to add another 2 bits worth:

The cinchiest conversion IMHO has been the one from B744 to the B777.

B777 to B787 not so simple, the differences require a different mindset too. Keep kicking yourself when asked by an old fashioned B744 skipper sitting in the sim, half question, half statement, "so the APU can be started at F430 and is it's bleed only usable till 22,000 ft, or throughout the envelope?" and for that split moment, you puzzle over it, trying to figure how it works, yet vaguely resentful because you know the question isn't 'legit', you even start thinking - why did i never think about that??, then sudden relief . . . . "Oh, Captain, we don't have/use bleed air on this airplane, and the engines start using electric starter-generators. We do not have a X-Bleed Start, we have a X-Start.

"why am I seeing the amber alert HYD L + C + R before engine start, all pumps are 'on' or 'auto(= enabled)' " - so then . . . you ninny, brakes are electric, and there's no body gear or main gear steering! (it's sophisticated, and small)

The B787 IRU's can be aligned inflight - sweet? Once on the Triple I'd berated an ex-naval pilot for blaspheming, by even suggesting this. That too on his Soviet built heavy metal contra-rotating multi crewed Godzilla shaming monster bird. Clearly, it was his ineptitude at back-answering authority and my good luck that my statement prevailed.

4th May 2015, 13:04

Good post sir. You highlight the very problems with moden training for all computerised aircraft, and it is something that needs addressing.

4th May 2015, 13:54
What about radiation exposure on the carbon 787?
No shielding from metal as on older airplanes, is that a concern for crews?

4th May 2015, 14:09
A few millimeters of metal won't help in any way against cosmic radiation. You would need a few meters of lead or paraffin concrete to block that out.

In that regard there is no difference between metal and carbon.

4th May 2015, 14:16
We have a few 787s and some pilots prefer not to fly them because of increased radiation.
The difference should be easy to measure though, surely Boeing has done studies of radiation during test flights and the numbers should be available...

4th May 2015, 18:26
Not all that easy, normal dosimeter patches are not suitable. You need kinda special equipment for that, which is of course available, just hire a scientific institute that deals with stuff like that. I know Lufthansa did that quite a few years ago, they hired the PTB (http://www.ptb.de/index_en.html) to measure cosmic radiation and proposed countermeasures on delivery flights (if i remember correctly 744 deliveries).

The 787 could suffer higher radiation though, if it flies consistently higher than other planes.

4th May 2015, 23:01
Yes, the 787 does fly higher than most airliners - you find yourself up at F400/F410 soon enough on 8 to 10 hour flights.

5th May 2015, 00:47
The difference should be easy to measure though, surely Boeing has done studies of radiation during test flights and the numbers should be available.

Don't need much of a study, just do the math. Attenuation and fluxes are fairly well known.

It will be one of those things where someone mentioned it, they punched in the numbers laughed and said no problem.