787 program on tv
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 program on tv
Hi,
would anyone be able to tell me what channel the unveiling of the 787 will be on in the UK this morning?
it says eutelsat on the boeing site, but wondered if this is actually on sky digital - never heard of it before!
thanks
would anyone be able to tell me what channel the unveiling of the 787 will be on in the UK this morning?
it says eutelsat on the boeing site, but wondered if this is actually on sky digital - never heard of it before!
thanks
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mumbai, INDIA
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the moon
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i got the times wrong because I was in work early on a sunday morning and mis-read the times - thats what shift work does to you!
is the channel quoted on the boeing website on sky digital? if so does any1 know which channel it is because I've never heard of it
is the channel quoted on the boeing website on sky digital? if so does any1 know which channel it is because I've never heard of it
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Whyalla, Australia
Age: 31
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can watch it live from
http://787premiere.newairplane.com/
starts in 13 minutes!!! im excited
Disregard, the Intro has started.
http://787premiere.newairplane.com/
starts in 13 minutes!!! im excited
Disregard, the Intro has started.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Whyalla, Australia
Age: 31
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are getting everyone to stand up so i believe in 5 minutes.. yup right now!!!! here it is..
I must say the Engines are huge.. you have missed it im sure someone will post it on youtube.
I must say the Engines are huge.. you have missed it im sure someone will post it on youtube.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Whyalla, Australia
Age: 31
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's very wide.. wider than an B777? First time i've ever watched a live premiere, i've seen the B747 and B737, but only on DVD.
Also, has anyone had a look at the new Boeing 747-800?
Also, has anyone had a look at the new Boeing 747-800?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not very wide, and smaller than a 777. It is essentially a 767 replacement- a medium capacity, leaving wide longhaul to 777/747-800.
And please see the definition of the Questions forum above. This should be in Spotters, or some other aviation enthusiasts forum! There are now multiple 787 threads running.
And please see the definition of the Questions forum above. This should be in Spotters, or some other aviation enthusiasts forum! There are now multiple 787 threads running.
Last edited by Rainboe; 9th Jul 2007 at 13:05.
for the show.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not very wide, and smaller than a 777. It is essentially a 767 replacement
Hard numbers...
767 is 503 cm wide
787 is 577 cm wide
777 is 619 cm wide
747 is 650 cm wide
So, 787 is 73 cm wider than 767 and 42 cm narrower than 777.
No version of 787 matches the capacity of Boeing 767-200. The smallest, 787-800, is longer than 767-300, and wider... probably more capacity than the slightly longer but much narrower 767-400.
Leaving longhaul to 777? 787-800 has surely longer range than 777-200.
Oh, and some moderator ought to move this thread, agreed.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotters Warning!
I think the 767 was a fundamental misdesign. It is only 1 seat wider than a narrowbody 737, albeit with an extra aisle, but that doesn't do a lot for efficiency. I've always been surprised at the apparent low capacity of such a 'widebody'. The A330 style fuselage has been shown to be a more efficient format, and presumably Boeing have brought the 767 replacement up to nearer that size. But as for being impressive and 'big', I was merely pointing out to a 14 year old Newbie that in that respect, it is not 'big'.
People think the technical innovation is in the fuselage. I think it is in the systems, which have really shown some revolutionary approaches. It will be interesting to see how they work in practice. Good aeroplane, but not the right size for longhaul for for the major international airlines for the world ahead.
I think the 767 was a fundamental misdesign. It is only 1 seat wider than a narrowbody 737, albeit with an extra aisle, but that doesn't do a lot for efficiency. I've always been surprised at the apparent low capacity of such a 'widebody'. The A330 style fuselage has been shown to be a more efficient format, and presumably Boeing have brought the 767 replacement up to nearer that size. But as for being impressive and 'big', I was merely pointing out to a 14 year old Newbie that in that respect, it is not 'big'.
People think the technical innovation is in the fuselage. I think it is in the systems, which have really shown some revolutionary approaches. It will be interesting to see how they work in practice. Good aeroplane, but not the right size for longhaul for for the major international airlines for the world ahead.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 767 was a fundamental misdesign. It is only 1 seat wider than a narrowbody 737, albeit with an extra aisle, but that doesn't do a lot for efficiency. I've always been surprised at the apparent low capacity of such a 'widebody'. The A330 style fuselage has been shown to be a more efficient format, and presumably Boeing have brought the 767 replacement up to nearer that size.
787 is 577 cm wide and 591 cm high
A330 is 564 cm wide and 564 cm high
Boeing has brought 787 well past the size of A330.
Boeing built the first widebody jetliner, and the first widebody airliner in service after Sud-Est Armagnac, in January 1970 with Boeing 747. Which is 650 cm wide - and plainly too big.
After 747, airplane builders were trying to make widebodies as small as they could. In 1971, Douglas built DC-10, which is 602 cm wide. In 1972, Lockheed built Tristar, which is 597 cm wide. Next, in 1974, Airbus built A300, which is 564 cm wide... and finally in 1982, Boeing built 767 which is 503 cm wide.
So, an obvious chase for a perfect small widebody...
And after 1983, there were two lines of small widebodies (Lockheed shut down, and Douglas stretched DC-10 to MD-11 instead of shrinking). Airbus 300 and Airbus 310, with Airbus 330 type fuselage - and Boeing 767.
What was the more successful - 310 or 767?
Another sign of the attraction of 7 abreast... this is the width of Boeing 2707. Boeing spent huge amounts to overcome the wave drag at such width, just for the sake of one extra seat and one extra aisle compared to 707. Whereas Lockheed and Tupolev found 5 abreast enough.
Bear Behind
Without wanting any sor t of A vs B debate (the day defintiely belonged to B on Sunday), the 787, at 13cm wider than an A330 (where you'd feel it, anyway) isn't really well past. Now the extra 61cm that an A330 has over a 767 - that is well past.
How does the A350 fuselage compare to the 787? Is it really an Xtra wide body or is it the same sort of 10 - 15cm that the 787 offers over the A330?
How does the A350 fuselage compare to the 787? Is it really an Xtra wide body or is it the same sort of 10 - 15cm that the 787 offers over the A330?
