The Boeing 787. Is it a Dream or a Dudd?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing 787. Is it a Dream or a Dudd?
Boeing promotes the Boeing -787 as "The Dreamliner" but does it really live up to the marketing hype?
I flew Coolangatta - Singapore last Sat and back today on Scoots 787-900 Dreamliner and wasn't overly impressed. I will still stick with the 777 as my favourite aircraft.
Like to hear from the boys and Girls that fly the Dreamliner just how good or not so good this aircraft REALLY is.
Out of Singapore last night with an almost full load of passengers and an OAT of approx 28 degrees. I felt sluggish to accelerate, using all the runway to take off and sluggish to climb. After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away. Felt the aircraft it replaced on this route (the 777-200) performed a lot better. In reality I would like to know from the people that know better than I - the pilots is that the truth.
I found the ride a in smooth air very good but in turbulence – a lot more choppy compared to the 777. When the Dreamliner hit turbulence it seemed to bounce around like a cork, especially fishtailing/side to side movement generally. While the 777 it seemed to be a lot stable/steadier.
I want to like this new revolutionary aircraft but for me I keep my options open for now. Not overly impressed.
Is it faster than the 777? Think it fly’s a couple of 1000 ft higher.
Really welcome your input.
Perhaps a boost in engine output would be a good start. To improve its performance,
Dreamliner sceptic.
I flew Coolangatta - Singapore last Sat and back today on Scoots 787-900 Dreamliner and wasn't overly impressed. I will still stick with the 777 as my favourite aircraft.
Like to hear from the boys and Girls that fly the Dreamliner just how good or not so good this aircraft REALLY is.
Out of Singapore last night with an almost full load of passengers and an OAT of approx 28 degrees. I felt sluggish to accelerate, using all the runway to take off and sluggish to climb. After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away. Felt the aircraft it replaced on this route (the 777-200) performed a lot better. In reality I would like to know from the people that know better than I - the pilots is that the truth.
I found the ride a in smooth air very good but in turbulence – a lot more choppy compared to the 777. When the Dreamliner hit turbulence it seemed to bounce around like a cork, especially fishtailing/side to side movement generally. While the 777 it seemed to be a lot stable/steadier.
I want to like this new revolutionary aircraft but for me I keep my options open for now. Not overly impressed.
Is it faster than the 777? Think it fly’s a couple of 1000 ft higher.
Really welcome your input.
Perhaps a boost in engine output would be a good start. To improve its performance,
Dreamliner sceptic.
Tim,
Sluggish ---- nothing to do with the available performance, and everything to do with reduced/derated thrust takeoffs ---- for as long as I can remember we only use as much power as we have to ---- keeping the top EGTs down does all sorts of good things for turbine life.
I am not entirely unadjacent to a B787 operator, who is very happy with the commercial results, both the 800 and 900 are actually producing fuel burn figures below book and quite a bit below contract guarantee --- a somewhat unusual situation.
The pilots (all B777 pilots) love them.
Tootle pip!!
Sluggish ---- nothing to do with the available performance, and everything to do with reduced/derated thrust takeoffs ---- for as long as I can remember we only use as much power as we have to ---- keeping the top EGTs down does all sorts of good things for turbine life.
I am not entirely unadjacent to a B787 operator, who is very happy with the commercial results, both the 800 and 900 are actually producing fuel burn figures below book and quite a bit below contract guarantee --- a somewhat unusual situation.
The pilots (all B777 pilots) love them.
Tootle pip!!
After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was probably kept below 6000 ft by ATC restriction due to inbound traffic from the south and south east of Singapore. Quite normal when runway 02 is in use at WSSS and there is a lot of traffic inbound. Once clear of Tanjung Pinang (Tango India NDB/TPG VOR), it's usually unrestricted climb from there to cruising level.
Ok that is most likely the reason. Thanks wsss
Ok that is most likely the reason. Thanks wsss
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just from a passenger perspective, I am more concerned about seats and noise level.
I had the chance to fly to Narita on a LH380 and back from Haneda on an ANA 787 when it was new in service (before the battery s... hit the fan).
The A380 is exceptionally quiet, and the seats LH puts in economy are ok (but I wouldn't mind if they were an inch wider and had an inch more legroom).
The 787 was unusally noisy compared to the 777 and more so the A330/340 I usually get to fly in. I found the seats, the backs of which do not recline, but the seat bottom of which slides forward, hard to get used to. The extra width was needed to sit diagonally to make up for the poor legroom.
I had the chance to fly to Narita on a LH380 and back from Haneda on an ANA 787 when it was new in service (before the battery s... hit the fan).
The A380 is exceptionally quiet, and the seats LH puts in economy are ok (but I wouldn't mind if they were an inch wider and had an inch more legroom).
The 787 was unusally noisy compared to the 777 and more so the A330/340 I usually get to fly in. I found the seats, the backs of which do not recline, but the seat bottom of which slides forward, hard to get used to. The extra width was needed to sit diagonally to make up for the poor legroom.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 400 Orchard Rd
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sluggish to accelerate, using all the runway to take off and sluggish to climb.
After take-off it really wasn't doing anything special as far as speed increase and climb rate was concerned. For the first 10 minutes and then it was away.
I flew on a few domestic flights when they first entered service.
I'd imagine it was quite light on fuel (3 hour flight), but was pretty full of punters. It climbed like a fart in a bath tub.
My only gripe with it was a hydraulic pump (I'm assuming) that might as well have been on the seat next to me.... It was freaking loud! From memory I was towards the back. Sounded like it was a pump under the floor.
I'd imagine it was quite light on fuel (3 hour flight), but was pretty full of punters. It climbed like a fart in a bath tub.
My only gripe with it was a hydraulic pump (I'm assuming) that might as well have been on the seat next to me.... It was freaking loud! From memory I was towards the back. Sounded like it was a pump under the floor.
Shouldn't be too bumpy should it? It's not allowed to fly in cloud right? Luckily the fuel burn and speed help make up the extra track miles.
The 787 was unusally noisy compared to the 777 and more so the A330/340 I usually get to fly in.
Singapore SID's require 220kts until 4000', 250kts until 10,000' with climb restrictions due inbound overflying traffic.
Try a few long haul flights in a 10 across configured B777 and you might change your mind. 9 across is much more civilised.
I'm not sure which engine option Scoot has but in the case of RR, most engines are leased to the operator. There will be a clause that stipulates that if the operator achieves an average derate of x or better then RR will refund them a portion of the lease cost. This provides an incentive for the operator to achieve derated takeoffs, hence it could be the reason for your "lethargic" takeoff. Also a balanced field takeoff will feel the same in any aircraft I would have thought.
The 787 is faster than the 777-300 and climbs higher.
On a 11 hour sector, with the same payload, one of our 789s burnt 20t less fuel than a 777-200er. So I'm guessing the airlines love it too.
The 787 is faster than the 777-300 and climbs higher.
On a 11 hour sector, with the same payload, one of our 789s burnt 20t less fuel than a 777-200er. So I'm guessing the airlines love it too.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'm not sure which engine option Scoot has but in the case of RR, most engines are leased to the operator. There will be a clause that stipulates that if the operator achieves an average derate of x or better then RR will refund them a portion of the lease cost. This provides an incentive for the operator to achieve derated takeoffs, hence it could be the reason for your "lethargic" takeoff. Also a balanced field takeoff will feel the same in any aircraft I would have thought.
The 787 is faster than the 777-300 and climbs higher.
On a 11 hour sector, with the same payload, one of our 789s burnt 20t less fuel than a 777-200er. So I'm guessing the airlines love it too.
RR engines with Scoot so all that adds up - thanks !
I found the ride bouncy and not as smooth as the 777
The 787 is faster than the 777-300 and climbs higher.
On a 11 hour sector, with the same payload, one of our 789s burnt 20t less fuel than a 777-200er. So I'm guessing the airlines love it too.
RR engines with Scoot so all that adds up - thanks !
I found the ride bouncy and not as smooth as the 777
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BELOW MDA > On a 11 hour sector, with the same payload, one of our 789s burnt 20t less fuel than a 777-200er. So I'm guessing the airlines love it too.
iT MAY SAVE THE AIRLINES 20t less BUT What is the ride and overall confort for the passengers ? Is it REALLY a Dreamliner to fly in ? Sure Boeing and the airlines have a very strong vested interested to make sure the passengers like it.
iT MAY SAVE THE AIRLINES 20t less BUT What is the ride and overall confort for the passengers ? Is it REALLY a Dreamliner to fly in ? Sure Boeing and the airlines have a very strong vested interested to make sure the passengers like it.
I'm not sure how you can compare the "ride" when you have no way of knowing if the weather you are flying through in one type is comparable to the weather you flew through in another type.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric aeroplanes have electric motors, heaps of people complain about the noise from the electric hydraulic pump on the A320. I know at home my electric fridge, electric dishwasher, electric kettle, electric wash machine are not noise free.
I meant the continuous noise, i.e. airflow and turbine, not intermittent events like a pump going into action. And ANA uses a 2-4-2 configuration on long haul, so seat width was good.
I meant the continuous noise, i.e. airflow and turbine, not intermittent events like a pump going into action. And ANA uses a 2-4-2 configuration on long haul, so seat width was good.