Yaaaawn, another lookylikey:bored:

Perhaps it's gonna look better when streched... But those raked wingtips kick butt!
http://www.ostrower.com/jon/assembly...bair_pas-6.jpg

LOL.... first time I see a picture of them.
So winglets are out, Batman is in.

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.:oh:

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! :rolleyes:

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!

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.....

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. :}

Still looks better than an A380 to me! :O

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!!! :ok:

I agree, she looks heavy and sluggish, nothing like the artist impression.

smelly Hangar?
 

Yes, phenolics and epoxies can be quite smelly. Especially if copious amounts of free amine based hardners are used... It would not be good to use a solvent for anything but tool cleaning as solvents in resin would greatly reduce mechanical properties of the composite.

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............:E

Hurkemmer,

So does that mean that it would be detrimental to the airframe to strip paint using solvents?

Should metal scrapers be used instead... ?? :hmm:

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.

The A380 looks fat and "overweight" like a guppy compared to the A340. BUT with an extended body length - now that would be fascinating. How long before this arrives ?

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?!

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.

EGBM,

Actually you mention one which I forgot - Concorde :{. That was a real change. I shall go and do several rounds of :ugh: 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.

Taildragger,
You're pretty well right, even if we have been moving the pods around a bit over the years.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3.../12060002w.jpg
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). :ugh: