Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Dreamburner 787 - What's the future

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Dreamburner 787 - What's the future

Old 13th Jul 2013, 03:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
Dreamburner 787 - What's the future

What do you think the future of the Dreamliner is?
Bomber Harris is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 03:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 53
I haven't seen a news report that has listed the cause of the fire yet, so it may well be a fire totally unrelated to previous problems. After the work that went into fixing the battery fires I doubt it would have been that problem resurfacing.
nojwod is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 03:24
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 873
Serious issue

Hi,

Concerning your question we must say this event must be understood VERY FAST.

I personnaly even paid would not board a 787 soon.

Bad news today for a plane that faced 3 years delays and the BAD BATTERY DESIGN (by Thales) Fiasco.

Sad.
RR_NDB is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 03:44
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 182
I agree. A very quick resolution is important for the public
Bomber Harris is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 03:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
I think that Boeing's marketing team should quietly bury the Dreamliner theme while the engineers and technicians work quickly and transparently to remedy the snags that have bedevilled the leading edge 787.

Boeing have pushed the envelope with some hitherto unproven or leading edge technologies in this aircraft and it would be a shame for such innovation not to be rewarded with commercial success but history is not kind to big technological leaps forward as the history of the Comet showed and if the general public, or worse, the financial markets lose confidence in Boeing's ability to show that the aircraft is as safe as its predecessors then all bets might be off and although I am sure the aircraft will endure, it might never be the success that Boeing were hoping for.

Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 04:10
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
Buy Airbus shares. As many as you can get. Now.
sisemen is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 05:46
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 105
Airbus shares?

Maybe.

But then again maybe the 787 teething problems will be sorted out about the time Airbus hit a steep composites learning curve on the A350.
Bobbsy is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:19
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 102
I believe the 787 is doomed. This technology is wrong for the application and there is no quick fix.

Right now, I would not fly on this aircraft. PERIOD. It is unfortunate that the authorities are putting people at risk. The next incident may become an accident with a large number of deaths.

This airplane should be grounded immediately.
robertbartsch is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:27
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 63
Posts: 373
B 787 Bleedless - future OK

The B 787 is the ONLY airliner flying which is BLEEDLESS - it does not use bleed air like every other jet airliner since 1962.

The Boeing salesmen sell it as 'more power' and 'more fuel efficient' but the truth is that the B 787 can not have a fume event and poison the crew and customers with toxic oil fumes.

The B 787's future is OK and one day Boeing will admit this little understood fact.
Dream Buster is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by sisemen View Post
Buy Airbus shares. As many as you can get. Now.
No, wait until you think Boeing are at the bottom of their current slump and buy Boeing.
cats_five is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 878
...but the truth is that the B 787 can not have a fume event and poison the crew and customers with toxic oil fumes.
Don't the compressors that are used for cabin pressurisation require some form of lubrication (oil!) as well? Where there is oil, there can be toxic oil fumes...
what next is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:49
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
It'll end up like the DC-10, that got a very negative perception from a troubled start, although from what I've read, it was a nice aircraft to fly. I wasn't that impressed at the back though, I did one round trip and avoided them after that (although it was an MD-11 by then).

Remember how everyone was pointing at the A380 when it had teething troubles? I guess it didn't plumb the depths quite the way the 787 is doing but it certainly wasn't a smooth introduction. I await the A350 with some degree of fascination to see how well it performs in its early days.
llondel is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:51
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Teething troubles and this latest event may prove to be totally unconnected to the design. This is a fantastic aircraft and I'm sure the A350 will be the same, but its early days for both ships
Facelookbovvered is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 07:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,823
Don't the compressors that are used for cabin pressurisation require some form of lubrication (oil!) as well?
Ours are air bearings they spin up and float. No oil involved.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:00
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Far East
Posts: 339
robertbartsch : how on earth, with the information you have, make such a sweeping unfounded claptrap statement. Would you have said the same sort of nonsense when cracks were discovered in the A380 wing spar?
CDRW is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:02
  #16 (permalink)  
BBK
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 397
My guess is that once the initial fuss has died down it will do just fine. What the 787 offers is much better operating costs ie lower fuel burn. That's the selling point.

Admittedly, if this fire is due to some difficult to fix design problem then I could be wrong. We shall see.
BBK is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:07
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 4,342
It'll be fixed - Boeing and the airlines have too much invested for it not to work.

Agree that the Dreamliner branding will start getting downplayed
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:18
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 66
Posts: 3,059
To put it in perspective, whilst there have been a large number of incidents in relation to the number of 787s in operation, no lives have been lost even if some of the incidents were potentially catastrophic. It must say something for the design and operation of the aircraft that damage has been limited.

I'm not in any way suggesting that everyone should sit back complacently and wait until there is a fatal accident, and I would be reluctant to fly on a 787 right now, and even more reluctant to fly on Ethiopian Airlines in view of the latest speculation on the cause, but I can't believe it's a fundamentally unsound aircraft.
Capetonian is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:38
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 71
Posts: 230
This incident is very serious, whatever the cause of the fire, to burn a hole in the skin means the inside of the fuselage at this point must be in a much worse condition. If this had happened in flight a depressuriseation would have occured, so Etops operation must be in question, along with any flt for that matter. Also with the other two incidents this week, The Atlantic turn back and the United cancelation ex Lhr earlier. major questions need to be asked.
Walnut is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2013, 08:40
  #20 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
Bomber

As you and I know:

Engineers and pilots involved in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, maintenance and service entry of any aircraft know that they cannot guarantee everything is perfect. This applies to the certification authorities as well. The final stage of testing, development and proving can only be done in service. To think otherwise is not to understand the business.

So from the engineers or test pilotsí perspective when anything goes wrong in early service and nobody is hurt every such incident represents invaluable knowledge which will allow them to refine the design or procedures associated with it.

Such incidents are therefore to be welcomed not wailed about on the internet. If some commercial and PR folk do not see things that way then I humbly suggest they do not fully understand the business they are in.

So far as whether folk want to fly on the aircraft there are two types of pax:

1 those that know a bit about aviation (and they may not for a while)

2 those who board through a tunnel and have no idea what the aircraft type is (there are a lot of those)
John Farley is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.