787 DreamLiner
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it's gonna look better when streched... But those raked wingtips kick butt!
http://www.ostrower.com/jon/assembly...bair_pas-6.jpg
http://www.ostrower.com/jon/assembly...bair_pas-6.jpg
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The empennage looks a bit naff. Why have they abandoned the blade tail cone of the B777 and gone back to the pointy tail cone of the B767?
I must say, I do like large engines on an aircraft ... bit like large breasts on a woman.
I must say, I do like large engines on an aircraft ... bit like large breasts on a woman.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, I hope Boeings designers are better at drawing than their artists! That looks nowt like the 'artists impressions' on the PR bumpf.
Nose cone off a Comet, body off a B767 and engines off a B777. Welcome to the B787 mongrel!
Nose cone off a Comet, body off a B767 and engines off a B777. Welcome to the B787 mongrel!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787 - A350 -787 - A350 you pays your money and takes your choice. Both look pretty similar to me. Can't be long before we have in-flight refuelling for airliners so you can go all the way with a 787. That would be fun!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you feel sorry for the spotters, these days?
All those little twins look the same.
All those big twins look the same.
At least the four-engine ones are still OK: if it's fat, it's a 747, if it looks like a 747 on a diet, it's a 340.
Ah, the days when it was either a Meteor or a Hunter.....
All those little twins look the same.
All those big twins look the same.
At least the four-engine ones are still OK: if it's fat, it's a 747, if it looks like a 747 on a diet, it's a 340.
Ah, the days when it was either a Meteor or a Hunter.....
Paxing All Over The World
The artist drawings that they circulated a year or two ago were VERY clever. The swooping lines made it look like a dolphin - but when you looked at the image stripped of all it's fancy lines ... guess what? It's Mummy was a 767 and it's Dad a 777. 
Unfortunately, we are now in the era that the motor car manufacturers reached about a dozen years ago. That is to say that, the end user specified everything and the computers designed it and ... guess what? They all looked the same.
Unfortunately, we are now in the era that the motor car manufacturers reached about a dozen years ago. That is to say that, the end user specified everything and the computers designed it and ... guess what? They all looked the same.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, it does look like the 767, but what were you expecting? For a lot of airlines, it is what is going to be replacing 767s, because it has similar capacity/range etc...
And yes, it does look better than the A380!!!
And yes, it does look better than the A380!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
smelly Hangar?
Magoodotcom
Both of these examples are constructed from conventional materials under the skin (aluminium, steel & titanium etc), and have carbon fibre and other composite panels and structures attached (e.g canards, intakes, nose cones, wing panels, leading edges, moving surfaces etc).
The B-2 also has a composite-laced paint sprayed over it (you should smell the solvents in the curing hangar...PHEW!)
Cheers
Magoo
Both of these examples are constructed from conventional materials under the skin (aluminium, steel & titanium etc), and have carbon fibre and other composite panels and structures attached (e.g canards, intakes, nose cones, wing panels, leading edges, moving surfaces etc).
The B-2 also has a composite-laced paint sprayed over it (you should smell the solvents in the curing hangar...PHEW!)
Cheers
Magoo
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it:
Flies like a 763
Has performance of a 762 with the C2 engines
Attracts the same salary
and If it doesn't:
Land like a 762
Get painted either powder blue or bright yellow (with or without technicolour bird turd on the tail)
It will do me. What it looks like is a bit secondary. Now, about my wife............
Flies like a 763
Has performance of a 762 with the C2 engines
Attracts the same salary
and If it doesn't:
Land like a 762
Get painted either powder blue or bright yellow (with or without technicolour bird turd on the tail)
It will do me. What it looks like is a bit secondary. Now, about my wife............
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After all the hype this is very ho-hum. While the A380 may not appeal to some people's visual tastes at least it was a new and exciting venture. This 787 is same old, same old, and it doesn't exactly do anything in the beauty stakes either.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
EGBM,
On that basis, the last real ground-breaker was the 367-80. Everything else since then (including the 747 and A380) has been evolutionary.
All long tubes, swept wings low on the fuse, with engines in pods.
Double-deck aircraft? Old hat. Been done before, sixty years ago.
The Dreamliner (if one is to believe the press) is a leap due to the technology employed in its innards, its engines and in the construction of the airframe (ie. mostly composites).
How that last point will go in 15-20 years when they go to scrap the things will be interesting - how do you melt down carbon fibre?!
On that basis, the last real ground-breaker was the 367-80. Everything else since then (including the 747 and A380) has been evolutionary.
All long tubes, swept wings low on the fuse, with engines in pods.
Double-deck aircraft? Old hat. Been done before, sixty years ago.
The Dreamliner (if one is to believe the press) is a leap due to the technology employed in its innards, its engines and in the construction of the airframe (ie. mostly composites).
How that last point will go in 15-20 years when they go to scrap the things will be interesting - how do you melt down carbon fibre?!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Derby
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger, point taken, but to a recent generation whose last breath of excitement was Concorde the A380 offers something *slightly* different to the monoculture of single-deck bloaty multi-aisled twins, of which the 787 is ultimately just another example. As mentioned earlier by another poster, this may be how it's going to be, all things considered, and I can understand the practicalities of why this is the case.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
EGBM,
Actually you mention one which I forgot - Concorde. That was a real change. I shall go and do several rounds of 
at my foolish oversight and beg forgiveness from the PPRuNe community for doing so.
But yes I think you are right - the old tube-with-wings has been pretty much 'it' since they figured out how to carry more than two punters, a couple of pigs and a mailbag.
Boeing tried to break the mold just a bit with the Sonic Cruiser... bit it didn't 'fly', literally or figuratively. They did say, when launching the 787, that a lot of the work they did on the Sonic Cruiser - aerodynamics, composites - then got put into the 787 but the main difference is that, not going up into the transonic area, the operating economics are going to be much more reliable.
Actually you mention one which I forgot - Concorde
. That was a real change. I shall go and do several rounds of at my foolish oversight and beg forgiveness from the PPRuNe community for doing so.But yes I think you are right - the old tube-with-wings has been pretty much 'it' since they figured out how to carry more than two punters, a couple of pigs and a mailbag.
Boeing tried to break the mold just a bit with the Sonic Cruiser... bit it didn't 'fly', literally or figuratively. They did say, when launching the 787, that a lot of the work they did on the Sonic Cruiser - aerodynamics, composites - then got put into the 787 but the main difference is that, not going up into the transonic area, the operating economics are going to be much more reliable.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger,
You're pretty well right, even if we have been moving the pods around a bit over the years.
And a lot of the smaller stuff (RJ, BJ) still do it "à la Caravelle".
But you shouldn't have forgotten Concorde, even if it was a one-off (not counting the Tu-144).
You're pretty well right, even if we have been moving the pods around a bit over the years.
And a lot of the smaller stuff (RJ, BJ) still do it "à la Caravelle".
But you shouldn't have forgotten Concorde, even if it was a one-off (not counting the Tu-144).