B788/9: Streets Ahead!
 

Superior hands-down (pg38-41):
http://www.isasi.org/Documents/libra...ducing-787.pdf

Now let's talk about dispatch reliability.....

AKA the 'Doomliner'. :}

Ok let's talk about dispatch reliability then shall we......

Seems it's doing ok according to this independent agency... Read the data then take your foot out of your mouth....



http://airinsight.com/2014/10/07/787.../#.VSuN2YbXerU

Air Insight is a blog pretending to be a consultancy- who exactly do they "Consult" for?

Now, Flight Global-

ANALYSIS: After three years in service, how is 787 performing? - 11/14/2014 - Flight Global

Says that Boeing have simply abandoned 99.5% and are trying, and failing, to make 99%.

So, snarky remarks MIGHT just display a certain arrogance....

Can't read it, sorry.

Either way the data presented in the article I refer to does show 99.5%
Who are they? Well I'd never heard of them either until Google showed me, their data seems genuine and shows the FACTS surely?

http://airinsight.com/about-2/#.VSuotobXerU

Anyway, ANZ love their 789's.

It WILL be a great aeroplane and has taught Boeing a LOT about how to build a 21st century airliner (including a lot about what NOT to do!!)

While the 777-8 and -9 will be pretty conventional systems wise, I bet the eventual 737 replacement will be basically a mini 787.

HOWEVER, building an aircraft with that many innovations was always going to lead to a long period of teething problems.

The fleet average isn't at 99.5% yet, but the fuel savings are immediate and substantial.

My initial post was just a little reality check toward the posting of what was unmitigated propaganda.

What is the discussion purpose of this thread?

The OP seems to show only years-old marketing claims. Is there a new technical subject here ?

and it flies even better than it looks! ;) Reliability has been good so far. You don't feel so tired after 14:30 hour sectors in it, with a lower 6000 cabin and humidifier. Quiet and smooth, rides turbulence very well. Turbulence speed is M.84. We slow down for that!:D

Does it still have to keep out of clouds or has that little eng icing thing been fixed? Would help with ride as well I guess?

Every 3 months or so that little cloud icing limit gets higher, from FL290 now moved to FL375 currently. Soon to be removed altogether Don.

The Ice Crystal Icing limitation has been 'relaxed', but not eliminated for the GEnx (the restriction never applied to the Trent powered 787). The GEnx powered 787 is now cleared to 37k in ICI, the 747-8 to 35k.
Work is continuing on obtaining full ICI limitation removal, goal is to get that for the GEnx 787 sometime this year.

I am in the fortunate position of flying both the 787 and 777.


The 787 burns around the same as a 757 yet is larger than a 767 and can do it ULR. Reliabilty is an issue but it is improving all the time as the aircraft settles down. It will be a while before it reaches the truly outstanding levels of the 777 but its a fine aircraft that you most certainly feel healthier in after a long flight.


It handles like a little go-cart compared to the 777 and features like cruise flaps are truly innovative from a cost per mile basis. Electronic CB's etc are nice, not having a touch screen CDU is a pain and the overall data presentation possibilities seem rather excessive. All in all it will be a stellar performer with time but then any company that can produce the brilliant 777 should be given time. Just about everyone I know who fly both prefer to fly the 777 (from a handling/size point of view). A derated EFATO leaves almost no spare performance. It feels like its entire design from start to finish is optimised to reduce fuel burn. The 787 is the starting ground for the 777X although interestingly I understand the 777X will still retain bleed air for the Cabin.

Touchscreens
 

Do the A350 & A380 have touchscreens?

@ winnerhofer:


B777 and B 787 do not have touchscreens in cockpit bar electronic flight bag (EFB): only cursor device for FMC/CDU, MFD.

A380 has 2 keyboards with pointing device and extra key when keyboard is stowed. These are interfaces all onboard info system in cockpit.

Apparently not. The 737MAX will be a pretty conventional aircraft as well. The changes are only slightly more than just new engines apparently. The tail cone will be changed (787 style), the spoilers will be fbw, the rest of the flight controls will be the same as before (apparently with the same manual reversion). The flightdeck will remain the same, except that it will have only four screens instead of six, just a lot larger (15.1 inch), but apparently still no EICAS.

The 737MAX isn't a 737 replacement- it's a 737.

At some point Boeing will build a clean-sheet 150 seater- that is what I was referring to.

Oh well, currently planned production for the MAX is at least for another decade, by then technology will be quite different once again and the 787 will be old technology. And as the proposed savings didn't materialize with the 787s non-bleed design i don't think we gonna see that again. Of course, if there will be a public discussion about the aerotoxic syndrome it might come back for entirely different reasons.

Boeing was studying a clean sheet replacement for the 737 before they were forced by the market to simply re-engine the 737. Indicators were however not for a 150 seat aircraft, rather a 180 to 250 seat one. Probably elliptical fuselage and twin aisle configuration as that allows shorter turnaround times (faster boarding and de-boarding). That is in line with the shifting proportions of ordered 737 variants that focus on the higher seatcount variants with not many for the small ones (only 81 out of over 2400 ordered MAX are -7).

Seems like another great Boeing.


Interesting they went 'back' to steel oxygen cylinders to supply passenger oxygen rather than ox generators.


I've never been crazy about them with their heat generation but I thought they saved weight.

And the fuel savings and extra speed help make up for extra track miles keeping out of clouds. Should be a winner.