Skip to comments.Boeing's Dreamliner gets near-giddy reaction from aviation buffs at Oshkosh air show
Posted on 07/30/2011 8:14:43 AM PDT by UB355
A Boeing 787 Dreamliner decked out like a flying laboratory received a rousing welcome at its U.S. public debut Friday.
The reception by thousands of aviation enthusiasts at the AirVenture air show rivaled the anticipation of airlines that are lined up to buy the first-of-its-kind jetliner.
The Dreamliner promises to expand on the economy of jumbo jets, but in a smaller, 250-seat plane. The improvements will allow carriers to operate the 787 profitably on longer nonstop routes, such as Los Angeles to New Delhi, Boeing officials said.
More than 50 airlines worldwide have placed orders for more than 835 Dreamliners, according to Chicago-based Boeing Co.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
All those non union jobs and green house gasses! Not to worry! Obama has sicced the Department of Labor legal goons on them to make sure that nothing is ever made in America again, unless by union sanctioned goons working on green projects. My grandchildren will envy coolies.
Los Angeles to New Delhi. I hope they can change the air filters in mid flight,.... Both ways!
By the time they get the 787 into service, it will be a Antique by then.
I could have sworn I read this last summer.
I hope they get to build some in South Carolina.
I’m actually surprised that this design was never activelly used. The efficiencies of the flying wing are insane.
If memory serves, Sept., or Oct. Is when ANA will take delivery of the first 787. They’ve already completed it’s service validation testing with them, pilots and air/ground crews are in training.
I am sure they will be ordered by the U.S. based airlines with the absolute maximum amount of small seats available with zero leg room. It will be outfitted complete with the rudest flight staff available, including one free TSA agent available for unwanted public groping, and an air marshal to to increase the illusion of safety while every so often physically assaulting a random passenger for not reacting immediately to irrational orders given by said rude staff.
The Dreamliner was suppose to enter service back in 2008, it’s 3 years late.
From WiKi on “Flying Wing”
A clean flying wing is theoretically the most aerodynamically efficient (lowest drag) design configuration for a fixed wing aircraft. It also offers high structural efficiency for a given wing depth, leading to light weight and high fuel efficiency.
Because it lacks conventional stabilizing surfaces or the associated control surfaces, in its purest form the flying wing suffers from the inherent disadvantages of being unstable and difficult to control. These compromises are difficult to reconcile, and efforts to do so can reduce or even negate the expected advantages of the flying wing design, such as reductions in weight and drag. Moreover, solutions may produce a final design that is still too unsafe for certain uses, such as commercial aviation.
Further difficulties arise from the problem of fitting the pilot, engines, flight equipment and payload all within the depth of the wing section. A wing that is made deep enough to contain all these elements will have an increased frontal area, when compared to a conventional wing and fuselage, which in turn results in higher drag and thus slower speed than a conventional design. Typically the solution adopted in this case is to keep the wing reasonably thin, and the aircraft is then fitted with an assortment of blisters, pods, nacelles, fins and so forth to accommodate all the needs of a practical aircraft.
Other known problems with the flying wing design relate to pitch and yaw. Pitch issues are discussed in the article on tailless aircraft. The problems of yaw are discussed below.
Yea, it is. I guess coming up with all new production methods for an all composite aircraft isn’t as easy as it sounds. Not to mention dealing with designs issues that pop up with any new aircraft.
“The sleek design that uses less aluminum means that a 787 has fewer than 10,000 holes drilled into it during assembly, compared with 1 million holes on a 747, and the number of fasteners on the first barrel section of a 787 has been reduced by 80 percent, Boeing said.”
I’m sure they’ve tested the crap out of this thing butjeeeez that’s a lot of missing fastener.
I was stationed in Spain in the late 60’s and to this day can recall the incredible public interest when PanAm flew the first 747 into Barcelona. Must have been 25k spectators to see the plane land, and later take off.. (PanAm’s flight was 154..JFK to Lisbon, Barcelona, Nice, Rome, then 155 on the return trip....I flew it often)
There is also a lot of missing aluminum that requires holes and rivets.
When do ya think Chicago-based Boeing Co. will come to their senses and move to Florida, Tenn, or Texas???
Or some other LOW tax place?
And wait you will.
I don’t even like ferris wheels...you guys can have these things.
Good luck getting that thing out of a stall, LOL!
It may be late, but at least it's an aircraft that customers want, unlike the A380.
Fantastic, get those supersonic and you got the future.
I love the three-giant engines suspended on a frame above the fuselage. By tilting them slightly upward, mounted with the front a bit higher than the back, the natural lift from the thrust of those engines will maximize the efficient usage of the fuel consumed, and require a less-dense molecular air-lift to maintain flight. I’ll bet those babies can cruise at 40-50,000 ft no problem. Maybe higher.
I truly believe that style will be the future.
The only downside I see if the lack of window seats. I don’t fly anymore since 9/11 and was always super aware when I did and always wanted a window seat. These will be spam in a can style, but I suppose many don’t care. The lifting body will eventually prove itself, might take another 20-30 years or more though.
I think the biggest drag on the program was the body section supplier Alenia in Italy passing wrinkled skin to innaproprite fasteners. What a costly decision that was for Boeing. But Airbus is using many of these same suppliers and they have had issues of teir own.
Gosh, another flying cattle car.
My favorite parts are my knees in my chest, the sweaty fat guy next to me, & the smelly dreadlocks 10 inches from my nose. The prostate exam at the gate makes it all worth it.
problem with the flying wing will be the seating configuration, only 2 window seats a couple aisle seats and 35 middle seats in each row
The biggest problem is the people sitting furthest out in the wing, furthest from the centerline, will be barfing their guts out when the plane is manuevering to approach the airport.
They’ll be going up and down 20 or 30 feet at a time. Like a regular roller coaster ride.
A flying wing is a great idea for a bomber or a cargo plane (span loader) but not so much for a multi-hundred passenger plane.
Even in the early 1970s, 747 sightings were relatively rare. I grew up next to Logan Airport and the planes would come right over my house. Upon hearing a 747 approach, we’d run out of the house to see it as it was still a novelty. You could always tell when it was a 747, it had such a distinctive roar. Back then, only Pan Am and TWA seemed to be flying them.
I actually think it was 2007 - as in 7/8/7, to be exact.
Pretty sure it’s because there are not so many aluminum sections to join together. The fuselage is made from long, contiguous sections the way I understand it. So no need for there to be as many fasteners. A good thing in many ways.