Boeing's Dreamliner gets near-giddy reaction from aviation buffs at Oshkosh air show

Chicago Tribune ^ | Jon Hilkevitch

[UB355]

OSHKOSH, Wis.

Advertisement

— 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.

[ASA Vet]

I seem to get caught waiting for the good stuff all the time. I'm still waiting for the Kobe Tai clone I wanted to be ready.

[Soothesayer9]

Good luck getting that thing out of a stall, LOL!

[Moonman62]

By the time they get the 787 into service, it will be a Antique by then.

It may be late, but at least it's an aircraft that customers want, unlike the A380.

[Tolsti2]

Fantastic, get those supersonic and you got the future.

[hattend]

BTTT

[Gargantua]

WOW. I haven't seen those before. Talk about your "Jetsons meet Buck Rogers" spacecraft designs! I wants me one. Better get busy making my next $5-Billion.

;^\/

[Gargantua]

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.

[Tolsti2]

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.

[Oatka]

A neat time-delay YouTube (2:30) about Boeing building a Florida One aircraft for SouthWest airlines HERE.

[NavyCanDo]

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.

[Mister Da]

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.

[edzo4]

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

[hattend]

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

" 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. "
Yes, that is true, and a good point, but ? there is no excuse in how Boeing mishandled the whole project, mainly management.
The problems they had was not because they were developing new technologies, the problem was with being short sighted in when they could bring this plane to service, and how to managed the production method.
Yes, the new composites needed a learning curve, but, Boeing dropped the ball on this project, they even had to take some resources from another project, the 747-8 and bring it over to the 787 to get it out the door, that's why the 747-8 project suffered.
They basically had to for a lack of better words " fired " one of their suppliers to do the job and built a whole new plant in South Carolina, and almost fired their Italian supplier partner because of spotty work, and sub-par quality on some of the fuselage parts.

[American Constitutionalist]

" It may be late, but at least it's an aircraft that customers want, unlike the A380. "

What customers wanted is a replacement of the 737, however ? engine technology and other technologies that would put it well far and above the current 737 and the A320 performance for that replacement was not mature 3 or 4 years ago to get the gains out of it that the customers want now.
Just take a look at the recent American Airlines order of over 400 new planes, and most of that order went to AirBus, wake up Boeing !
Airbus is going to re-engine the A320 and called it the A320 Neo, they got well over 1000 orders now.
Both Boeing and Airbus say that the technologies for the new replacement, new sheet planes is not there , yet.
Before Boeing introduced the 787, and launched it, they should had matured the composite technology, matured their production methods, and waited another year or two to launch the 787.
They over promised the time frame of when it would be in service, and mis-managed the project from the start, and now it looks as though they have waited to long to launch the re-engined 737... they dropped the ball. there is no excuse for this.

[SamAdams76]

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.

[DennisR]

False...

[DennisR]

I actually think it was 2007 - as in 7/8/7, to be exact.

[DennisR]

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.