Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

A 'Radical' New Plane?

What are the thoughts on how giant a leap forward the 787 is? Is it more of an evolution than revolution? It is still a very conventional airframe configuration, and many of the systems are just a progression of existing technology than a great advancement. Composites are already widely used in airframes (although not to this extent on large aircraft). 11:07 Feb 11 2005 (UTC)

Taking everything individually, it's more of an evolution, but combined I see it as very much a revolution. An aircraft of this size has yet to have a fully composite fuselage, and bleedless engines are also brand new. Compared to the A380 (hailed as a revolution by the press), which is in essence just a scaled-up A340, the 787 has a lot more new features. But yeah, it's a pretty subjective claim. -eric ✈ 01:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

New Technology on the 787

How much 'new technology' is there exactly on the 787? Apart from the airframe, which we know will mostly be composites, little seems to be known regarding aircraft systems. Details I have heard from industry sources suggest that systems design won't be so much of a step ahead as the change to the airframe. For example, the 787 will use AFDX (an ethernet variation) on a copper medium - not particularly radical since this is also on the A380. The use of bleedless engines though does mean that some systems will need significant changes.

Any details on technical aspects of the aircraft, particularly that which can be classed as 'new technology' would be welcome. As ever, cite sources where possible for validation.

  • Regarding "new technology," the 787 will use an entirely new electric-based architecture. Every single subsystem is revised to deal with this new architecture. The concept is a lot like the fuel-efficient "hybrid cars" starting to appear on the road today. The 787 also has a central computer instead of hundreds of individual boxes to further improve efficiency. See link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/174159_electric20.html --01:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Enviromental Control System (ECS) uses electric motor driven air compressor to pressurize the outside air and mixes the pressurized air with filtered recirculated air and fill the cabin and cargo compartment. The air becomes hot when compressed and heat exchanger is used to cool down the hot pressurized air. Yasobara 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

7E7 is dead...long live the 787

There is no longer much point in referring to the aircraft as the '7E7' or discussing what the 'E' may have stood for. '7E7' was only ever a pre-development designator for the programme, just as the 757 was the 7N7, the 777 the 767-X and the A380 the A3XX.

Hell you say. People still want to know the history behind the project. It's part of the development history. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:47, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Discussing what the 'E' may or may not have stood for is not relevant to the background of the project. In fact, as in all pre-development designators, letters such as these rarely stand for anything, apart from when it fits a publicity soundbite at a particular time. Hence why it changed so often; there is little evidence to show it stood for one thing in particular from the start.

Additionally, please remain polite when providing comments.

You should sign your comments. Adjectives such as the ones you have attempted to temper are explained elsewhere in the article regarding some of the design features of the aircraft. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:16, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

There is one very substantial question that I have yet to see answered regarding the new bleedless engines. How is Boeing going to pressurise the aircraft? Since all modern aircraft except the 787 use bleed air to pressurise the aircraft how will Boeing do it. Use of some sort of electric fan/ compressor is the most likely but I am unsure how effecient that will be. Also heating becomes a problem that was easily solved with bleed air but will be more difficult with the now use of electric heaters? I am usure of the effeciency of electric heaters and their relaiability is unproven. Answers are sought and not yet given to these items..

Japanese Aerospace

Excerpts from research paper "Japan's Aerospace Industry by Bill Gordon, Wesleyan University, November 1997"

"Several key conclusion can be reached from this essay's analysis of the Japanese aerospace industry:

Japan effectively competes today in the international aerospace industry in the manufacture of aircraft and engine components through its strategy of participating in international collaboration projects and focusing on strong niche technology areas.

Based on Japan's learning on the F-2 fighter program and their international collaborations, the country will soon possess the capability to develop and produce an indigenous aircraft, but it still lacks critical technologies to effectively produce a large aircraft engine without foreign assistance. Even though Japan may have the ability to produce an indigenous aircraft, it would be a strategic error to pursue this project alone due to its huge cost and commercial risk.

Japanese aerospace companies still have weaknesses in certain areas such as systems integration, assembly, design, and marketing, but they are actively seeking to gain experience and improve their skills in these areas by participating in key international collaboration projects.

Based on the worldwide and Japanese aerospace industry trends analyzed in this paper, I offer some predictions of the future:

Japanese companies will continue to join in international collaboration projects and will demand more significant participation in future projects—both larger percentage workshares and more critical and high technology sections of planes and engines. Japan will achieve this by exploiting the intense rivalry of the international prime contractors. Building on their Boeing collaboration projects, the Japanese will gradually increase their participation in Airbus projects.

Within twenty years, and maybe much sooner, the Japanese will join with a current prime aircraft or engine contractor in a 50/50 joint venture to develop and produce a new aircraft or engine. This joint venture might be similar to the successful CFM engine joint venture between General Electric and the French company Snecma.

Japan will never launch a totally indigenous commercial aircraft or engine program, but in the future Japanese aerospace companies will participate as equal rather than junior partners in international collaboration projects. " Fikri 09:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Someone forgot about the NAMC YS-11? Sekicho 17:43, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
Also the Kawasaki C1. Looks sort of like a mini C-17. -Joseph 01:23, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

A330-200Lite

Let's use the proper nomenclature. Anyhow, it's been offered to SIA. And I don't think Leahy will pull this one off. ;) -Joseph 20:45, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

7E7 second production line

I think at this stage it qualifies as a 'rumor,' but there have been noises about a second 7E7 production line, based upon strong initial demand. We probably won't know the answer to this one for a little while yet, but probably something to keep our ears to the ground for. If Boeing does a second line, it will definitely affect their ability to deliver product, given the sold-out status for 2008/2009. -N328KF 15:31, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

What strong initial demand? It has been my impression that most airlines are taking a wait and see attitude to the plane. The Air New Zealand order is a joke, most likely they had the order forced on them in order to get a good deal on the 777s they were buying -james_anatidae, 2004-07-26, 05:12 EST
Well, that's why I didn't just go add it to the article. The WSJ says Boeing has 200 orders, but just hasn't made it public. That qualifies as strong initial demand, but since it's not public, we can't say in the article "they have 200 orders." All I was saying was that it was something we should note for future potential inclusion into the article. -Joseph 11:15, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

If there was ever a talk page section that deserves to be preserved for posterity, this is the one. ericg ✈ 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

E is for Efficient

To the joker who keeps changing "efficiency" to "enabled":

[1]

-Joseph 00:24, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I am serious I have talked to many people in that company
it is enabled. Enabled comfort, enabled speed, enabled efficiency,ect. (anonymous)
Until you come up with something to back up your statement in the face of overwhelming evidence the contrary, leave it alone. We cannot alter the article because you "talked to somebody." -Joseph (Talk) 17:37, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Ok, go to newairplane.com and notice on most of the pages (LIKE THE ONE ON HOW IT IS EFFICENT) and notive how they say enabled. And these are not just somebodies they are people that work for the company, just last week there was a Boeing PR rep on the radio saying how the 'E' ultimatly stood for ENABLED. OK found it! LOOK HERE please http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/june/i_mv.html

  • Actually, the "E" originally meant "Efficient." Then Boeing began touting the idea that the airplane was "E-Enabled," which means the airplane is linked digitally to the passengers, the crew, and the airline's operations center. Then for marketing reasons they came up with all kinds of other things the "E" stood for. In fact, they made an "E is for..." video, where they listed all the things the "E" was supposed to stand for.
  • It's important not to take these pre-launch letter designations too seriously. The 777 started out as the 767-X, for example, and the 757 was the 7N7. The 7J7 was another Boeing airplane that was devloped to a great extent and then died. --Komodon 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ethernet

Are they really going to use ethernet? What about real time considerations?

What are you talking about? User:Xmnemonic
Is that really Xmnemonic? You weren't logged in, if so. In any event, Ethernet has latency...even the fastest Ethernet. It does look like the A380 is going to use Ethernet to link the avionics subsystems, so Boeing isn't the only one. -Joseph (Talk) 05:09, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
AFDX is time-deterministic. Although the latency exists, it is of a known duration. See links: http://www.afdx.net/afdx-tutorial.html http://www.techsat.com/afdx/index_afdx.html --01:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a little more explanation for AFDX. There's no separate stub for this in Wikipedia, so I stated it in full, retaining the abbreviation thus: Avionics Full Duplex Switched Ethernet (AFDX)/ ARINC 664

NPOV

The 7E7 design has replaced the earlier Sonic Cruiser that was offered as Boeing's answer to the Airbus A380 mega-airliner. In fact, it appears that the Sonic Cruiser, a new generation of high speed subsonic passenger aircraft after the (supersonic) Concorde, existed only in artwork and no engineering had actually taken place. Many commentators suggested it was a trial balloon offered to test the waters for a higher-speed airliner. The design proved to be uninteresting to the airlines, and was generally ignored.

This is nonsense. Neither the 7E7 nor the SC were meant to "answer" to the A380. The rest of the paragraph is obviously POV. Refs please? I know that Virgin Airlines for one expressed serious interest in the SC, before completely switching to supporting the A380. User:Xmnemonic

--The claim that the Sonic Cruiser existed "only in artwork" is likewise nonsense, as any of the 1000+ engineers who worked on it (including me) would tell you. At the beginning of the program, BCA CEO Alan Mullaly said the same technologoy could either make a fast airplane of equivalent efficiency to current airplanes, or a plane of equivalent speed which was 20% more efficient. The airlines said, "Make the efficient one instead."

-- Well we know the BWB will be in direct competition with the A380, But I am sure Boeing would rather you get a 7E7 over an A380 anyways.

The BWB? You mean a fragment movement of a few Boeing engineers has suddenly transformed into a fully fleged project? Even as Boeing reps deny that any BWB designs have gone further than the research stage, and company attitudes towards it are quite negative? Do tell.
Anyways, this and several other commercial aircraft articles have far too much of an editorial tone. Yes, often I agree with the viewpoints presented. But not eveyone else does, and they have no place in an encyclopedia. This is no venue for haughty industry analysis; leave that to AIR International and Jane's [Insert Title Here]. This is for plain facts, whose "shocking" impacts or industry responses are of no matter. User:Xmnemonic
Well said Xmnemonic. If it's not fact, or sourced opinion then leave it out. If it is sourced then give both sides of the argument equal emphasis.

Why shocking?

The 7E7-8 variant was priced at a list price of $120 million per copy, shocking the industry. Launch customer ANA is rumored to have received a 50% discount, though that may never be easily confirmed. Why is this shocking? Is it because the price is too high or could it be too low? Also, Boeing said they will announce most of their customers by September 2004. I can't find any information on this, so maybe we should edit out that phrase from the article. Anyway, i now understand why there is this heated debate between Airbus and Boeing. It is more to do with A350 than A380. The former is bound to affect 7E7 profitability by all means.

I removed 'shocking', which led to someone reverting it but also explaining why it is shocking :). Dan100 16:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

The initial list price of $120 million for the 787-8 was "shocking" at the time because it was lower than anyone expected. The Boeing 767-300 list for about the same, and a new generation of aircraft will typically cost more than the previous aircraft it replaces (for no other reason than inflation sometimes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanmac06 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Variants

Perhaps a Weight/Mass comparison between the 787 variants and 767-300/767-400 should be added. The Airbus A330 should also be added to the comparison. Andros 1337 21:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GEnx for AC?

While I have not read this officially anywhere, I think it is safe to assume that AC is going to buy GEnx power plants for their 787's, since the accompanying 777 orders exclusively use GE engines, and they would strive as much as possible to maintain fleet commonality. Is this enough of a basis to make them down under the GE column?

-Schuyler

No, IMHO. I have not put any engine selection data up until there is a formal announcement. Someone tried to do that once before and I reverted for that reason. It's subject to debate but I feel strongly on this. I apply these same rules to the order table that I created. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:18, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Options

This may sound silly, but what is an option (with respect to airplane orders)? If it has to do with price, then what agreement is made about the delivery date? CoolGuy 06:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

An option is like a reservation. Aircraft manufacturers often have huge amounts of orders that would otherwise be first-come, first-served. In order to cut in line, if you will, they place options with the manufacturer. If they hadn't done so, when they finally came up with the capital it could take years to have the aircraft built. -eric ✈ 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

specifications

Any one have a valid reason why the specifications are metric-only? Seems that if we have a single unit system in an article, it should correspond to the nation the article references most. In this case, Boeing is an American manufacturer who (as far as I know) still primarily uses the imperial system. If I'm mistaken, I'd love some direction. -eric ✈ 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

designation sequence format

To the anonymous user who dislikes the related links section: the format I'm replacing the little boeing one with is what we've been using for almost a year now across the rest of the project. It's a standard with the aircraft wikiproject and has been for some time, only now I've created a template from it. If you dislike it, bring it up with the project. -eric ✈ 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

to User: 81.178.83.249, who made claims of vandalism

This is also to users Dbinder and Denniss:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content clearly mentions that we're not using infoboxes for aircraft specifications & info anymore; it's been replaced by a bottom-of-the-page list. There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and in the archives which covers this as well. I'm leaving the box for now pending discussion at the wp:air talk page, since you're clearly not viewing my previous requests as valid. -eric ✈ 01:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Order analysis

I think the order analysis for the 787 (just as the analysis for the other models) shows some unclear spots. Many deals are not mentioned on the Boeing webpage (e.g. Air India deal). I would be careful due to the unclear nature of some deals in the past. A good reference for a full annual deal analysis is Speednews.

Dear anonymous poster,
The chart portion (which I am almost entirely responsible for) has been taken from three sources:
All three sources are considered authoritative. The reason the Air India order is not shown on the Boeing web page is that funds have been paid and the order has been announced, but the contract has not yet been signed. I will not vouch for the text portion of the Order analysis.Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:47:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Regarding the Air Canada orders, why are they negative? that makes the total count look really weird. I'm changing it to strikethrough, which I hope is okay for now. -ericg ✈ 18:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC) i see what you've done, never mind!

orders & options

Am I the only one who feels having text as well as a table for orders/options seems redundant and sloppy? It's hard to make textual descriptions of eight orders in a row interesting to readers, especially when it's in a table a screen down. Unless there are major objections, I'm going to delete all but the first orders in a few days. ericg ✈ 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Need to mention orders for other planes?

I don't see a point in mentioning all the orders some airlines have made for 777s (a.o.) alongside the orders that are for the actual plane 787, which is the topic of this page. I think someone wanted to point out that the airlines are buying large amounts of Boeing planes, what might influence the reader!? Why not focus on the orders that are of importance? FMB 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the textual "orders" section looks unprofessional and serves no real purpose. I'm going to trim it out. ericg ✈ 01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, didn' see that but I do see your point. I think a table is necessary enough. FMB 09:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

wrong picture

that is not a picture of the boeing 787. that is something else.

  • Please sign your posts. To sign just add four tidles (~~~~) after your post.
  • What picture are you referring to? Please link to the picture, and if you can, tell us what you think it is. --Akhristov 02:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing that Mr. Anonymous User is referring to the Sonic Cruiser picture. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Air Canada order history

The list of orders used to reflect the Air Canada order and cancellation. Now that the order has been reinstated, some revisionist history has taken place, making it appear that the order from early 2005 was never cancled and reinstated.

It was never really cancelled...and besides, that would just add clutter to the table. More detail can be shown in the Air Canada article if desired. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Air Canada ordered 787 and 777 in April, 2005 which was then recently cancelled because of labour issues. Air Canada then solved the issue with their pilots about flying the Boeings and then there was a fresh new order for 14 787s, with 46 options and 18 777s with 18 options. This new order was signed in November, 2005. So actually the order was cancelled.

A technical analysis of the 787-8

Performance analysts or other professionals interested in an independent technical review of the Boeing 787-8, based on the published baseline status as of Autumn 2005, will find a useful analysis in www.piano.aero in the 'samples' section (or link http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/samp1/ ). It's not approved by the manufacturer in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.143.5 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

I am the editor that removed this link, and I replied to this editor on his talk page. Here is most of what I said:
In all honesty, I don't think that the information presented is an accurate resource. It is an assessment of an aircraft that doesn't exist yet based on information that may or may not be technically accurate, as released by the manufacturer, and can't be confirmed until the aircraft is built.
It would be one thing if the aircraft existed and the analysis could be demonstrated to be within certain parameters of the actual aircraft. As it stands right now, I see it as just a link to a commercial site that sells software and happens to have an analysis of the 787.
Anyone else have any thoughts about including this type of information? McNeight 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

'contract signed' column

I feel this is unnecessary and makes the table way too wide. Most rows now are two lines high, and the links for most purchases lead to the details anyway. If it wasn't such a pain in the ass to get rid of, I would probably do this now. ericg ✈ 03:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. It makes the sheet too busy. The same thing can be accomplished by going to [2] and using a user-defined report to show all 787 orders. That'll show the sign dates.] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethiiopian Airlines

Would it be possible to consolidate the Ethiopian Airlines information in the table? Can we just list them as having purchased 10 planes instead of listing them twice with positive and negative numbers in the rights column. I think each airline should only be listed once in this table. I apologize for the confusion I caused, as I did not realize that this airline was listed twice.

My reversal of recent edits

Cleanup actions and thoughts:

  • I nixed the 787-10 column, because this table is meant to only reflect what is currently available for sale. Since the 787-10 is not yet officially launched, we should not list it. It also widens the table.
  • I nixed the "contract signed" column. My opinion is that this is less important to most people. For the people that care specifically about that, we can direct them to the BCA orders page. Unfortunately, BCA recently removed the ability for us to link to a specific type of report, but users can still generate their own. This column also widened the table.
  • We should clearly explain the difference between an "order," an "option," and a "purchase right."
  • We need to place a high premium on screen real estate to make sure this table is clear and comprehensible. Otherwise, we wind up with the bloody mess that is List of Boeing 777 operators. Eric's comment (above) about keeping the table entries to one row should be noted, as two-row entries are far less readable than one-row entries.
  • The vitrol embedded in table comments needs to be removed.
  • Let's think about other ways to express information. I submit the use of color coding to represent a firmed contract as an example.
  • While the table was initially created here, you may or may not have noticed that the table has been adapted for use in other English Wikipedia articles, such as Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-8. Furthermore, it has shown up on the 787's corresponding pages in Wikipedia for other languages. We should strive to keep this page nice and clean so that it can continue to set an example.

That's all for now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm proposing an infobox. I'll post it here and let you fill it out with information you think might be good to know. Then I'll post it in the article. — Alex 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We are moving away from infoboxes on aircraft. Why should this be an exception? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly why I posted it here, not in the article itself. — Alex 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, does anyone want to use the fligt deck image I uploaded in the article? — Alex 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's copyright Boeing. ericg ✈ 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible customer list

Is it really the place of an encyclopedia to be speculating on a list of customers? Many of the airlines listed are questionably interested in the 787, and the fact that people randomly add and remove them as they see fit doesn't improve the situation. I propose that we remove the possible customer list and replace it with an updated summary of recent orders. Airline 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't touch the speculative list — why do we need an updated summary of recent orders, when just above is the full order sheet, which is usually no more than 12 hours out of date? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This list and those on other pages are pretty dumb. Practically any airline flying a 767 or A330 could end up here. LCmucky 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Composites Fraction

Why is the composites content of the 787 quoted in the article at 61% by weight, when Boeing says "as much as 50% of the primary structure" on their official web site? Is there a better source? cheers from a wikipedia newbie -- Clem

  • The first one is the plane's total weight and the second is the main structure. Composities could be used more in non-primary structure locations in other words. -Fnlayson 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Null comparative in intro

Came here as a user. I note the introduction states, "With a less rakish nose and a more conventional tail, the final design has superior aerodynamics." Less rakish than what? More conventional than what? Superior to what? What are we comparing to, here? A previous design rev of the 787? Another Boeing plane? Most commercial aircraft? Null comparatives are a pet peeve of mine. --DragonHawk 16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Less rakish than previous drawings of the 787 published by Boieng. Duh. As for the superior aerodynamics, that should be left out until the source is established. 82.32.58.194 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

12/13/2006 Quantas Order

Why does the 12/13/2006 Quantas Order include the 10 planes destined for Jetstar? After all, they are ordered planes but left off the totals. Either list the Jetstar order seperately or call this a Quantas/Jetstar order. By the way, the first of these planes will be delivered to Jetstar in 2008.

mnw2000

Huh? They are listed separately. I'm not sure quite what you're saying. There are two separate lines, one for QF and one for JQ. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Potential customers list

We need to nix this list on here and Airbus A350 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded, I will give one more week for commentary, and then either begin paring the list down to the major press-attributed contests, or delete the list entirely. This applies to Airbus A350 as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of these are definately potential customers. There is also a list on the Boeing 747-8 article. Andros 1337 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Some are potential customers, indeed. Some are random speculation. I think the lists really detract from the articles, but if we have to keep it, we should cut it to the most important contests. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
These lists are crap, in any article. If it isn't sourced - ie, a quote from a CEO or the company entering a bidding war between Boeing and Airbus - it's 100% speculation. ericg ✈ 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

787-8 3-view

I have uploaded a 3-view of the 787-8 at Image:BCA 787-8 3-View.svg. I placed it within the article; Normally this would go near the specifications, but as we have a wide table, I had to place it somewhere else for now. If anyone has a better idea, feel free to try it. Also, if any sysops want to delete the two older revisions, please do so; it would save a little space on the servers. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Range

Range data needs metrication.--Arado 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seat width at nine abreast

I removed a statement that said that seat width would be 18" at nine abreast. The article also stated that seating would be 19" at eight abreast, which would be true for certain aisle and armrest widths, but not for 22" aisles and 4" center armrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.235.81.86 (talk • contribs).

Garbled text?

"Cabin interior width at 50" from the floor is 223" (recently increased by 1"), the interior cabin width is a full 15" greater than that of the Airbus A330/A340 and still about a foot wider. "

(Interior cabin width) ... "and still about a foot wider" than what? (expert needed here) - Leonard G. 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Some confusion about widths

A Boeing document stated that the maximum exterior width of the 787 will be 226.5", just four and a half inches wider than the Airbus A330. However, at "eye level" (fifty inches above floor level) the interior width of the 787 will be least 14" wider. Boeing considers "eye level" to be critical in the perception of space. Originally, the 787 was planned to have 18.5" wide seats (excluding armrests) with 21.5" aisles at eight abreast seating. For comparison, the 777 accommodates the same width seats and 19.25" aisles at nine abreast. Recently, the interior width has been widened by about one inch due to the elimination of some insulation. --71.1.199.139 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Tim G

Specifications

Can someone explain to me why the specifications section contains information about eight aircraft? Wikiproject standards state that the most common variant (based on preproduction sales data, at this point it's the 787-8 by a huge gap) should be shown; even so, I'm lost as to why we're comparing it to other Boeing aircraft (but, notably, not to Airbus aircraft) in the specifications section. This belongs in another section, or even article (comparison of second-generation widebody twinjets or something like that) and not in this section. ericg ✈ 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's probably something somefound on a webpage and transfered here. I'd be fine with moving it to another page and replacing it with the "real" specs. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ILFC Engine Selection

ILFC's engine selection isn't as clear cut as it has been for other orderers:

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20060718.html - ILFC orders GEnx for 24 firm and optional 787s
http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40362 - ILFC orders Trent 1000 for 20 firm and optional 787s

Given we are counting the engine totals based on firm orders only, and given the ILFC firm orders will be split, does anyone know the actual breakdown so that we can count them properly.

Until we do, I'm going to mark ILFC with both engines, but not include them in the total count. That will give a total of 121 to GE, and 95 to RR, at this stage. If anyone can provide a source indicating the breakdown for the firm orders, please do... --Nick Moss 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Weight issues

I heard that 787 was having its own development issues. Apparently its heavier that the specification they gave to their customers. I was looking on more details about this romours, but it look like the page haven't been updated

  • Within the past month or so, Boeing's designers opted to reduce weight on the aircraft by removing its two external power supply systems located in the aft of the aircraft. The original design called for two external power supplies in the front and two in the rear. The 787 is still expected to work fine with two one less external power jack. solarpilot 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Turns out Boeing is only yanking the right aft external power supply system. The left aft external power supply is remaining on the aircraft. --solarpilot 18:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aeroflot removing interest of 787

I am removing the sentence that says that Aeroflot has decleared interest in the 787 because there is no evidence that Aeroflot is no longer interested in the 787. Aeroflot is still evaluating both the B787 and A350.

"no evidence that Aeroflot is no longer" is a double negative.

Status and first flight

What is the current status of the first aircraft? And is there any more specific information on the date of its first flight? CoolGuy 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The wingbox and wing of the first aircraft are being assembled now. I think some of the Goodrich hardware for the first aircraft has also been built. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

>I believe first flight is still 2007. The exact date in unknown. Eisen8388 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada 787 Cancellation?

I found this on the net - http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/817/ - unless this is wrong, the order table needs updating.

  • That article's not wrong, it's just old...really old. Since then Air Canada has recommitted to the orders of the 787 and 777. NcSchu 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fly Globespan Option

The entry for 2 option for fly globespan is not supported by the article references. I suggest we either remove these two options or use a better reference.

we are short three commitments

The press release from Boeing announcing the Monarch order indicates there are 420 total commmitments. 377 of which are firm. Our only lists 417 total commitments, 377 of which are firm once you count the Monarch order. Any thoughts on where the other 3 come from?

It seems to me that the most obvious answer is that the Continental order from June 2006 representes 13 new orders, and the three remaining yet-to-be firmed orders from december 2005 that were thought to be firmed as part of the June 2006 order are, in fact, still unfirmed.

Comparison with A350

If there *HAS* to be a comparison table with the A350, then I am puzzled as to why the 787 is being represented by an as yet non existant variant that has no confirmed specifications or details available. Yes its release may be impending and the guesstimates on it's data may be accurate, but at this point in time the table is useless. It should be based on one of the existing available variants. skyskraper 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it. I would remove the comparisons from the A350 article as well but I can't be arsed to slog through that much table code. ericg ✈ 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Source???

I was wondering what source the specifications of the 787-3, -8, -9, and -10. Because I am seeing that the ranges listed on Wikipedia are different from that on Boeing.com. For example, on Wikipedia, it lists the range of the 787-9 as 16299km, wheras Boeing.com lists the range of the -9 as 15900 to 16300km. I just want to know is this source is from Boeing itself. Thanks! Sunset7611 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a big issue with a lot of the airliner entries, the ranges differ hugely from the manuf specific ranges. Differences that can't be explained by conversion from knots to miles or km's per hour. skyskraper 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada Options and Purchase Rights

It has been roumoured that Air Canada are planning to covert their 46 options and purchase rights into firm orders in a couple of months. I don't know that for sure, please confirm. Dk16 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this can be posted in the article, since Air Canada is only planning the order. — Alex (T|C|E) 01:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What Happened to -10?

I was wondering what happened to the information on the 787-10 variant? Nweinthal 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Nweinthal

It was probably pulled since the -10 hasn't been announced yet. Just a guess. ericg ✈ 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like the paragraph about Boeing studying a -10 variant got removed about a month ago (10/3). -Fnlayson 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The -10 is mentioned in the next to last paragraph in the Development section now. Edit: make that last two paragraphs of that section. -Fnlayson 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The -10 will be put back when confirmed by Boeing. Now that Airbus has its hands full with the A350, Boeing will not be launching the -10 anytime soon. Word I got is it would be launched no sooner than end of 2007 or even later regardless of what Emirates wants. Delivery would be in 2013, around same time A350 will be delivered. Boeing wants to keep selling 777-200ER and LR untill Airbus forces it offer the -10. Most People think the first A350 will be delivered in 2013. The 900 version which needs the 787-10 response will not be delivered till around that time. So there is lots of time. Thats 7 years from now.--Bangabalunga 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

787-3

I want everyone to know that about 1 month ago I went to Seattle and did a tour of the Boeing facilities there. I also visited the 787 display and had a chat with the people there about the 787. All the stuff mentioned in the 787-3 section are from notes I took while I was there. There were about 15 of us that day and we asked questions about the 787. Everyone except me asked general questions with regards to the whole plane and so on. I asked specific questions about the -3 version because I have always been intrigued by the purpose of this plane. I was told by sources there and all this can be confirmed by calling or e-mailing (Scott C. Strode 1-425-717-0571 or Adam Morgan 1-425-294-6103 or adam.k.morgan@boeing.com ) to confirm all my writings. There are no articles on the 787-3 any where on the net. Nobody cares about this variant. Nobody writes about it. The internet is all about the war between Airbus and Boeing and orders and deliveries and general stuff about the 787 program. Even after 2 years of development there is no single comprehensive site on all the details and everything. This is a combination of secrecy for the product and also lack of desire for journalists to get technical. Even while I was asking questions at the tour, the other tourists there looked at me funny as if "whatever dude, move on".

Boeing thinks the 787 is targeting the right market. For long haul it will be efficient and great for point to point flights. For shorthaul it is also a game changer. I would never make statements that are not true or theoretical. If you look at Boeing 777F, 2 months ago I added that parcel carriers would be intrested in 777F because they can make non-stop trips from U.S. to China without stopping at Anchorage on flights with lighter loads. And just this week, fedex orders 15 of them. Because of my previous employment I used to follow the aviation industry very closely and I had heard rumblings about FedEx negotiating a deal for a long time. Cancelling the A380 however was news to me.

I encourage you to contact the people I mentioned. Adam Morgan is the 787 communications director. He will confirm my 787-3 comments. Nothing is final with regards to specs however, but the general statements about it connecting major hubs and bringing higher capacity to these routes will be confirmed by him. The person at the 787 display is the one that mentioned the whole pendulum swinging too far comment. He said I quote "Thirty years ago flights from New York to LAX were on 747. Then moved down to 767. Then the 757. Now its on the 737. And Jetblue may even put people on Embraer 190 planes. We believe a correction will occur and the equilibrium will settle around the 787-3 size for major cities."

As the 787-3 comes on line in 2010, you will see more orders by large legacy carriers for this variant. I know wikipedia is concerned about people stating comments not cited and I am the first to agree with that. Just because some website haven't written on this does not make this untrue. Thanks--Bangabalunga 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here. I don't propose to remove the information again. Because of the way you have went about discussing this and obviously because of WP:AGF I don't doubt what you're saying - however verifiability is still an issue here. Conversations are hard to verify and I don't know how a Boeing employee would respond to tens or possibly hundreds of phonecalls to confirm facts or data. I would appreciate any other thoughts. Also as I said in my edit summary, any major claim a manufacturer makes about their product needs to be independently verified. Mark83 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I am ok with this. Nothing drastic or extreme said here. Bangabalunga also has a good track record. --Anais1983 18:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mark, thanks for your input. Although independantly varified is great, we always rely on the manufacturer to give us details. Look at how many times we cite the Boeing website to varify a claim in a paragraph. Many times. I am proposing to have Boeing send me an e-mail on this. Its not hard. I can get one. Then I can scan it and turn it into an image and put that as a citation. This is extreme but if it need be, I can do this. The Boeing communications department is very easy going. The receptionists are excellent and they will answer you within days at most. Many journalists, analysts, and even the public call them all the time. Take care --Bangabalunga 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


In general I agree with everyone. I agree with the reaction at first. However, I agree with Anais and Mark and we should let it stand now. --154.20.74.115 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Everything bangabalunga has stated is common sense and informative. I have nothing to doubt here. I have also heard the same comments during interviews on tv given by Boeing Executives.--64.85.54.101 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Bangabalunga. Just seems like the paragraph that starts "Thirty years ago.." would be better placed at the bottom of the Development section due to its more general nature. Just my opinion though. -Fnlayson 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Engine downselect

I suggest that speculation over why the Pratt & Whitney offering for the 787 was not chosen be removed. There is no solid basis for the statements made and seem to be based purely on a personal viewpoint. Marimvibe 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be cleaned up or sources provided. For starters I propose removing the marked out part here: Boeing may have wished to rely on evolved versions of existing engines rather than the higher-risk option of an all new engine from Pratt & Whitney, particularly in light of Pratt & Whitney's recent failures in the Regional Jet market and failed PW6000 engine for the A318. -Fnlayson 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This was not the opinion of the editors involved (one of which was me.) It was from trade articles at the time, such as AvWeek, Flight International, etc., and reflected what the magazines asserted that Boeing was thinking but could not say. The items should stay but we should find references. This was a pretty widespread statement at the time and not based upon one Wikipedia editor's thoughts. I strongly oppose removal, and suggest location of the statements in question. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 07:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll add in the UTC/Pratt position that it was the fact that Pratt couldn't make the business case work: According to UTC CEO George David, Pratt & Whitney "couldn't make the business case work for that engine." Also, according to industry sources, Boeing may have wished to rely on evolved versions of existing engines rather than the higher-risk option of an all new engine from Pratt & Whitney. particularly in light of Pratt & Whitney's recent failures in the Regional Jet market and failed PW6000 engine for the A318. I'll work on the George David citation. Marimvibe 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The other facet of engine interchangability, though not specifically stated by Boeing is — if you can switch between GE and R-R easily, then there is no reason why you couldn't switch to a newer engine variant that is not yet in production. So after the 787 has been around for ten or fifteen years, and a significantly improved technology arises (say, geared turbofans), then flash the computer, attach the new engine, etc...I'm obviously oversimplifying but I think my point is clear. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, you may not be aware, but PW is leaving the engine business on a stand alone basis. They only want to do alliances with Rolls Royce and GE on projects. They want to concentrate on their military engine business. You wont be seeing anymore PW engines as the 4000 is retired. 2000 was retired with the 757 and the 6000 has not done well. This has been the case since about 2002. Thats what the new CEO wants. He wants to make PW a smaller company with higher profits.--Bangabalunga 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like speculation to me, especially given attributed statements by P&W lately that they want to try a geared turbofan on the upcoming narrowbodies from Boeing and Airbus. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a new PW4000-100" package that will be going through certification starting next year, and as has been mentioned they are developing the geared turbofan, scheduled for a ground test next year and flight test the year after that. Then there's the new V2500 package, which is mostly turbine changes (i.e. Pratt development.) Also, there's the JT8D which will undergo modifications to be sold on the Aerion SSBJ. And the CEO has been there for 10 years. So basically the statement was completely unfounded. Marimvibe 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Show me one link, one source, one statement, one article, or one speech that says PW is developing an all new engine today or anytime in the future. A new engine like RR with Trent 1000. A new engine like GE with Gnex. Not a new variant and not a package for a fixup. If you guys go and see, Korean air and Ana are extremely upset with any large PW4000. they have had terrible fuel burn and reliability. the new 100" package is a patch up job. I love Pratt and Whitney. It has been my favorite engine maker ever since i was a kid. PW was the leading edge of engine technology. Most famous airplanes started with PW as launch engines. 737, 727, 747, A310, 707, DC9, and on and on. To me it is very sad that they messed up the last ten years under poor management and rather then getting themselves up and fighting back, they do a half ass job on the PW6000 then simply throw their hands up and give up on the commercial aviation market. Now they do engine alliance this and engine alliance that. They are not the once proud and dominant company they used to be. At one point not a single commercial airplane could survive without offering a variant of PW engine. Not so anymore, numerous Airbus and Boeing today dont offer PW. Its their fault and thats that. They want to be a small company of engineers that designs concepts then partners up with RR or GE. And on the side they can do military engines that pay well. --Bangabalunga 23:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From what you've described, it sounds more like they want to be a military engine company, with a small civilian design team on the side.

Anyway, such is life - nothing stays the same. In 50 years tehre are liable to be many different players in the aircraft and aeroengine sectors, esp from Asia. Boeing and Airbus both act as if they'll be around forever. But even now, Bombardier and EMBRAER are both encroaching the low end (100 seat) airliner market (tho not very well). They or someone else, like a Chinese or Russian company, could well make headway in the next few decades.

Remember, 50 years ago Boeing was primarily a military company, though they had several civilian designs which, while innovative, did not sell well. It wasn't until the company took a big risk on privately developing the Model 367-80 that its fortunes changed. Yes, they sold the KC-135 to the USAF first, but that didn't gurantee success in the civilian market. In fact, they had to widen the 135's fuselage, among other changes, to sell the airlines on the 707. They also gambled on the 747. I think one reason Boeing raises such a fuss over Airbus's "government subsidies" is that they risked the company several times with no guarantee of a customer, or bailout by the government.

Yes, it's sad when former big-name companies fail, especially if they did it to themselves. Douglas and McDonnell Douglas enjoyed a top position for many years, but is now a subsidiary of a company it once rn wings around. GE Engines floundered for years in the civilian market before finally being successful there. So one never knows; I guess that's what makes following Aviation so much fun, huh! -- BillCJ 23:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Geared turbofan development Also, new engine like the Trent 1000? Or new engine like GEnx? The Pratt offering was the only new centerline engine for the 787; there's a decent chance that's one of the reasons the business case wasn't there. Pratt is reverse engineering the CFM56, too, not a small feat. And while the 4000's may not be the best in fuel burn, they also don't themselves apart. As far as poor leadership is concerned, UTC has blown away GE in growth the last 5, 10, and 15 years, largely on the back of Pratt. Pratt is reverse engineering the CFM56, too, not a small feat. And while the 4000's may not be the best in fuel burn, they also don't themselves apart.
Everything I post about the aviation industry I've found a reference for. Marimvibe 02:40, 18 November

2006 (UTC)

Again, that proves my point. They want to be an engineering company. reverse engineer, develope, design, make kits, and so on. I am really sad about PW not being a powerhouse it used to be. In the mid 70's the vast majority of all large airplane engines were PW. They were even dominant in the propellor engine market. Where was GE? they were making toasters. Where was RR, they were bankrupt and insignificant. Jack Welch the CEO of GE for 20 years in his book (straight from the gut) even mentioned it. He saw the weekness at PW specially under this current CEO and pushed GE into engine building. RR was bankrupt in the 70's and doing nothing in the 80's. Now they are the number one engine company in terms of after sale service. They make engines from scratch and on their own left and right. Trent 500, Trent 900, and Trent 1000 are not very similar. They were all made the last 6 years. Did you know every RR engine in the world sends back signals to RR head quarters. they monitor the engines and call them in for service. PW doesn't do any of this. GE does. Look at Boeing deliveries for last year: [3] You will see that of the 290 planes delivered, 13 planes left the factory with PW engines. That is mind boggling. The 13 planes are 747-400ERF and some 767 models. In 20 years PW has gone from domination to insignificance. Many engineers have left PW and work for GE now. As mentioned PW profits are up everyyear, but based on lower revenues. They want to be a nimble small company making high margins. Thats fine. They can do that, but I believe we should just remove the PW part from the 787. No need to mention it. Just reword the paragraph and say the plane is offered with GE and RR engines. done. --Bangabalunga 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is going nowhere. The reason P&W was excluded was specifically mentioned in the press. All other points discussed here are tangental. IMHO the reason itself should stay, regardless of how Bangabalunga feels, even though that's been refuted by P&W directly. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - BillCJ 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this sentence needs to be removed or a source given :"Also, according to industry sources, Boeing may have wished to rely on evolved versions of existing engines rather than the higher-risk option of an all new engine from Pratt & Whitney"
Evolved engines? Boeing is not designing a brand new plane to then ask engine manuafaturers to give it evolved engines. Boeing asked for brand new engines. Gnex and Trent 1000 are brand new. This sentence is not correct. --Bangabalunga 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
GEnx is uses a variant of the GE90-94B core. The Trent 1000 is an evolution of the Trent 900. They are derived, and not all-new engines. P&W is the only one that had an all-new offering. See also: [4][5][6][7]
Now, I don't get what your beef is with a fundamentally important statement about the program. Are you down on Pratt? I don't see how your rampant, unfounded and baseless speculation that they are leaving the commercial market is important here. If you want proof that they're still serious, just a simple google search will turn up many indications to the contrary. Are you quite done now? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oversize Cargo Transporter

Do you think we should put an image of the large cargo frieghter or whatever boeing is calling it now that it has had a test flight? 72.83.117.107 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Nw

787-3 Fuel Capacity

Page 7 of the linked document gives a maximum fuel capacity of 11,086 gallons (41,965 liters). I doubt that the Boeing would install the fuel tanks from the longer range variants and have airlines partially fill them. Smaller fuel tanks are easier to make, easier to design and perhaps most importantly, they are lighter. Link - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf

If you read the 787-3 it says this model "currently" has the same fuel capacity as the 787-8. you are currect in that why have a huge tank if it will not be used. Center tanks and wing tanks typically cannot be removed because they are designed to conform to the structure. And a tank is only an empty shell not adding much weight normally. Details about the 787-3 are still not available in a comprehensive way. Thats why it says currently. If a firm spec is given by Boeing, it will be changed. The link you provided seems to me as a guideline on how much fuel to fill up a plane with at an airport (airport compatibility)--Bangabalunga 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/e/Talk%7EBoeing_787_Archive_1_6aa4.html"