Talk:Boeing 787

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] 787-10

Someone deleted my section on the 787-10, claiming it is not yet launched. However, that person is wrong as it is currently being offered to airlines for sale, clearly indicating that it is launched. I plan on putting the section back if there is no further arguments. (Edwardlay 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Please wait on further discussion. Thanks - BillCJ 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just got back from Seattle (I am a Aviation Engineer with a major carrier) and while correct that the B787 has not been "Launched" (or built) orders are being accepted - does this make the B787-10 acceptable (I think so)Davegnz 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Marcus, the link provided in the last edit about the 787-10 seems pretty specific that Boeing is going ahead with development of the -10. WHile "launch" may not be the best word to use, I do think we can cover some of the info in that source, along with other corraborating sources. I understand you may be a having a problem with your footwear here, but the links stands on its own. Has this been denied by Boeing? - BillCJ 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • THis link from Boeing confirms that the program has not been officially "launched", but the othe info in the first piece seem to be correct. - BillCJ 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that link says it has not been launched. I used the word because the title of that article I refernced said had launched in the title. Can we agree on a section without the word launched? Because that sounds good and informamtive to me. (Edwardlay 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
Hello, yes I plan on waiting until we have more opinion than just me and whoever deleted it. And there is no doubt that it will be produced. This article has the quote, "Mike Bair, head of the 787 Program, has stated that "It's not a matter of if, but when we are going to do it...". And since the Paris Air Show, it has been officially launched. Even the list of orders has a column for 787-10 orders. I think it deserves a section, as it will definatly be produced. Thanks (Edwardlay 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC))
From what I have seen, I agree with you, but I will wait and see what Marcus's (Bambuluga) objections are, and get his response. He has been in communication with Boeing people on the 787 program, though his info is original research. However, he may have a specific reason for wanting to wait on this based on what he knows, and I'd like to hear it first before committing to including this. - BillCJ 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Edward, your source for the 787-10 currently being launched and shopped around is the only source available. Anyone with a website can write anything it doesn't mean we bring it over to wikipedia right away. What is the rush?

We can explain this if you really want but not in the variants section. That section should be for the planes currently in production or officially launched and orders taken for. At the top of the page there is a few sentences on the 787-10 you are welcome to expand that. But there are only 3 variants of the 787 currently. Also did you know even if a 787-10 was sold today it could not possibly enter service until 2013 or 2014. That is 6 years from now. Again what is the rush? I know the A350 is suddenly doing well and we feel like our one feelgood story maybe slipping but we should not jump the gun yet. One other thing, Randy Baseler recently said the 787-10 will have the same MTOW as the 787-9 which would reduce its range to even lower than the 787-8. This is not what Emirates and other airlines want. So unless Boeing increaes the MTOW and gives the 787-10 a new wing it will not garner much support. Shopping ideas around is acceptable practice and common but a plane that is launched and orders being taken is not what is happening now.--Bangabalunga 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Again if you really feel strongly about this I will not object to you writing about it in the body at the top of the page. Expand the paragraph. But not in the variants section or we will get somebody else adding the A350R or the A380-900 for 1000 passengers Tim Clark wants or the 737-800F Boeing is tossing around since the beggining of this year. We have to keep a balance.--Bangabalunga 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Marcus, the link from Boeing confirms they are talking to customers about the -10, and working with them is developing specifications. What is wrong with having a section on it with details from the Boeing link, especially in light of the A350's variant in the same range? I know of no guidelines in WP:AIR restricting the Variants section to oficially-launched versions. Please point it out to me if there is one. - BillCJ 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill you are correct there is no guideline on how far we can go with variants. Maybe we should stop this and take it to WP:AIR talk to set a guideline then come back here. But all i am saying is this will open a whole new can of worms. We will get rumored variants on all aircraft pages. currently all Boeing and Airbus planes have officially launched products in the variants section and I think this is the right way to go about it. Thats all. Bill I dont own Wikipedia nor do I want to boss others around nor is this my intent, I just see us going down a slippery slope if we include the 787-10 right now.--Bangabalunga 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Bangabalunga- yes, I agree, rumors should not be just put on any page without any facts to base them on. Unfortuatly, this is not a rumor at all. Boeing has confirmed it, and my source is very reputable. And beisdes that, there are many sources that talk about the 787-10. Again, there is no doubt that the 787-10 will be produced. Boeing confirmed it. And your argument about the different A350, A380, and B737 variants doesn't make sense, because none of those have been confirmed by Boeing or Airbus, as going to be made. And your argument about the potential sucsess doesn't make any sense because this is an encoclopedia, not an opinion site. We deal with facts, which the 787-10. You clain you don't want to be the boss, but you removed my section without first opening any discussion. Now, I definatly don't want to personally attack you, I have nothing against you. I just feel that this isn't between my opinion and yours, this is a group choice. So, my feeling here is that it's okay for this section. Now, I'm going to wait some time but if I don't see a huge resistance supported by good points, I don't see any reason why that section cannot be added. Thanks. (Edwardlay 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
And I forgot to say, if you don't like my source, please enter 787-10 into any search engine and see what comes up. There are many more sources that confirm the 787-10. And I also forgot to say, that I am leaning against using the word "launch" anywhere in the section, as it becomes too opinated. Thanks. (Edwardlay 01:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Marcus, it's not rumored - Boeing itself has issued press releases about this - that doesn't qualify as a rumor. I understand your reasoning for wanting to be careful, but you're throwing ou the baby - admitedly a small one - with the bathwater this time. And I know you don't own WIkipedia - there is a user in the Baseball project who already claims ownership through his actions! :) - BillCJ 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • To me this article does not say Boeing has launched the -10. It says they are close to launching it. Specifically it says "Further out, Boeing is working with interested customers to define the 787-10, which has yet to be launched." Therefore I think the -10 info should stay in the Development section. There's already a paragraph there that covers most of this. -Fnlayson 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that source says its not launched. But I had one that said it is. But only one, so I don't think we shoudl consider it launched. But I believe there is enough information out to have a section and it is definatly going to be produced. So I think it would be appropiate to have a section as it is no rumor. (Edwardlay 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
  • If it were 2 different media outlets, I'd agree with that. But since someone can be misquoted or misrepresented, the manufacturer's release should have precendent on matters such as this. -Fnlayson 03:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I propose a section describing all of the details and plans, without saying launched. What do you think? (Edwardlay 03:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Until Boeing issues a press statement declaring the program launched, it isn't launched. Plain and simple. And until they get firm orders for it (which will be announced at launch,) it isn't necessarily definitely going to be produced. I'm not sure if they need to get authority to offer the -10 from the board or not, and even ATO doesn't necessarily mean anything (C-Series.)
However, I follow Bill's train of thought that the -10 is most likely a foregone conclusion. I personally don't have issues with articles discussing unlaunched aircraft variants, probably with a threshold of some level of serious design studies being done. There are articles on aircraft that are purely in the conceptual stage at this point (Boeing Yellowstone, Airbus NSR, Bombardier C-Series,) so why not discuss likely future variants? Marimvibe 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with this, however, we know that it is going to come out sometime in the future. It is not so much proposed as it is planned. A high ranking Boeing exec said "it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when." Now, I would stake my life on this claim, but I am about 99.99% sure it's coming. Thanks for your input. (Edwardlay 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Just because an exec says it's so doesn't mean it is. They have to say things like that to keep interest up, and then if it flops, they get brushed aside; all you have to do is look at Boeing's own history over the past 20 years- 7J7, Sonic Cruiser, 747-X... Marimvibe 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the writer of the non-Beoing source doesn't know what "launch" means in this context. But everything else quoted jives with the Beoing press release. I have no problem making a section on this now, and if it doesn't launch, we'll do what we've done in other aritcles, and place it under "Failed proposals" or some such. See the Boeing 747 article for several exampels of this, including the 747-300 Tri-jet, and the 747-500X/600X. - BillCJ 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, "brush aside" is a gross over-simplification in those cases, especially that of the Sonic Cruiser. Boeing was very serious about all of these, but no customers were interested. Marcaus has a link to a very interesting pices on the Sonic Crusier/787. Basically, Beoing was trying to sell the Sonic crusier as going faster for the same fuel, but htat the same technology good go the same speed for less fuel, and that's what the airlines wnated, hence the 7E7/787. - BillCJ 04:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For clarification, the executives get brushed aside after the company puts forth its best foot, not that the airplanes are brushed aside. Marimvibe 04:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I will reitirate once again that we can talk about the 787-10. No problem with that. But as Marimvibe and Fnlayson have said, until this is firm, until a press announcement is made with the CEO of some airline that just placed an order present, this does not belong in the "Variants" section. It belongs in the development section as it is now. --Bangabalunga 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Search Sonic Crusier, 747X, and 7J7 as Marimvibe pointed out. All proposed events that never materilized. But they had pages. Basically what I'm saying is that I believe it will be created, as Bill agreed, but even if it doesn't, it still deserves a section as Marimvibe said. That's my feelings, and I belive what the majority is thinking. (Edwardlay 04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
I think the officially-released info on the 787-10 is to the point that it needs its own section. Call it "Proposed variants", and put a hidden discliamer in limiting what we'll add here, but put the -10 there. Simple. Remember, this is an electronic encyclopedia - nothing is written in stone, and we make changes like this all the time. - BillCJ 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I could live with a subsection under Development, but I don't think there would be much to add on it other than the paragraph that's already there. Bill's idea works too. -Fnlayson 04:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I completly agree with Bill. That's a much better idea than what I had in mind. There will be probably be another proposed variant soon so that'll be good to have. Alrightly, can we have some agreement on Bill's idea. There's my vote, and obviously Bills', and I believe Finlayson's. Anyone else? I believe this is a good compromise. (Edwardlay 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
By the way, I have enough info to make this section worth it. (Edwardlay 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
The Most I can live with is a subsection under developement as Jeff said. Thats where my vote is. On another note the 787-3 which is my favorite variant and one where I research it relentlessly everyday, I barely find anything on it. This is a plane that is second in line, the design is basically frozen, will be flying in 2 years, enters passenger service in 3 years and I barely find anything on it, yet we want to write about a plane that will not fly for another 7 years probably.--Bangabalunga 04:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm talking about. That's what I proposed with my comment above. I would appreciate it if you don't delete what I write or knock it it any way, as we have had a discusion on it and it's a compromise, not just what I wanted. So, if I don't see any point against have the proposed section, I shall be adding it within a few days. (Edwardlay 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
Marcus, you're being intractable. We've offered a compromise, and you're not even trying to work with us.
By the way, since you've kept bringing up the 787-3 section, I finally took a good look at your in-depth reasoning on the need for the -3. It has no sources, which means it's Original research. I'm sorry I didn't catch that sooner. I know you have sources for this, but you need to cite them, or it will have to be removed. (The usual tiem is 2 weeks.) Thanks. - BillCJ 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Marcus, thanks for adding the sources. I wasn't trying to be contentious in requesting them, just hadn't noticed it before. - BillCJ 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, so now I'll be adding the proposed Variants section within the next few days. I'm just not sure where it fits better, a subsection in the devlopment section or the variant one? I figured I get some other people's opinion, as I really don't know. (Edwardlay 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC))
    • I had in mind putting it under Variants. That's were such content on the other pages I mentioned is. - BillCJ 05:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jeff upthere in putting it under development since shopping it around is not an official variant.--Bangabalunga 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Marcus, I would list all the airliner articles with that would change your mind. We're both pretty set on what we want, but we don't nend to fight about it. I plan on placing it under "Proposed variants" in the "Variants" section, but will also include a hidden note limiting what proposed variants can be placed there, and you're free to tweak that. There is no guideline or even suggestion anywhere in WP:AIR that the section should be limited to only "official" variants. If you feel so strongly about it, then please take the issue up at WT:AIR, and gain a consensus to do that. - BillCJ 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC
  • Just to let everyone know, I already wrote the 787-10 section in MSWORD, and I've just been waiting to figure out where to put it. I like the poll, and so when I get about 7 or 9 responces I will add the section where everyone wants it. Thanks (Edwardlay 18:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))


    • I can not believe all the 787-10 talk! Maybe this is why for Hall of Fame the applicants have to wait 5 years before they are eligible: its to let all the emotions cool off. Are you guys restless because the 3 variants have gotten stale and its been sooo long and we need something new? Or the rollout got you all wired up? Im a DIE HARD BOEING fan all the way and Im telling you it should not be under variants this plane is not launched nor does it exist in any way but the Boeing sales peoples head. There are no firm configuration such as length and capacity and orders are being taken for anything customers want. Dont show me some secondary website with figures as I only trust Boeing numbers and there is NONE! If an airline shows up and asks for a 777 combi with a freight door and wanted to commit 30 orders Boeing would take it. Tossing around ideas is not a variant cause otherwise throw in a 787 freighter while your at it. Too bad I cant vote in your table but mine would be development.--Bringonthe797 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There are definitely reliable sources (WP buzzword) that the 787-10 is under consideration. It hasn't been launched yet. As such, it's not in the same class as the other variants. WP allows mention of facts that have reliable sources. WP doesn't sanction facts that don't have reliable sources. I'm sure there are countless proposals for other 787 under lock and key at Boeing (787F, KC-787, E-787, 787-8LR, etc.) Archtransit 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The section today was pretty speculative. Talking about redesigning major areas of the 787. It went on to suggest a 77 m long -11 too. :) -Fnlayson 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart Wrong

Look at the gross weight in both lbs and kg for the 787-3 and the 787-8. Somethings wrong.

Also, it would be interesting to know what the differences in structure between the 787-3 and the 787-8 are. Since they have different gross and empty weights, there must be some structural differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs)

  • You must mean the Empty weight in the spec table. I'll look into it. -Fnlayson 01:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The empty weights sound about right. Although we have very little information about the 787-3 we do know the wings are 26 feet shorter which probably translates to about 10000 lbs but I dont know. Also weight is saved even more throughout the plane to make it as light as possible so a 19,000 lb difference is reasonable.
Also take into account that Jet fuel weighs exactly 6.7 lb for one gallon. Now you can make the following calculations:
Empty Weight = 223,000
290 passengers and luggage @ 210 lb each = 60,000
This means 283,000 lb already or 81,000 lb left for fuel.
81,000 divided by 6.7 = 12,089 gallons
This is a about a third of the 787-8's carrying capacity which gives the 787-3 about a third of the 787-8's range. 787-8 goes 15,000km and the 787-3 goes 5,000km.--Bangabalunga 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The empty weight (mass) metric values were the same for the -3 & -8. I fixed the conversion on the -3. The weights are estimates or preliminary now anyway. -Fnlayson 20:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


can we put this little tidbit calculation above in the 787-3 section? Its a nice little formula and the explanation is cool!--Pasbeat 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Sure I can add something there but better yet maybe I can make a table in the MTOW article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTOW listing several aircraft and how more payload limit their range. The formula above works for all Boeing and Airbus designed commercial planes. This does not work for military planes like the C17 or C5 or other military transports as they have different design criteria. So yes, go around and calculate all planes and you will get the same result as to why they have the range they do! Its fun.--Bangabalunga 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 787-10 vote

Another alternative is just to request at WT:AIR that other editors comment here on the dispute. Right now, we seem to be split 2-2, so we need othe input for a consensus. I will abide by the decision of the other editors in such a case, at least if or until the we decide on Project-wide guidelines for this. - BillCJ 08:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure Bill. It does seem like we are split 2-2 and just like you I am willing to abide by the consensus. Can we agree that no IP addresses and recent members (2 weeks or less) count towards the tally? --Bangabalunga 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea for rules, and a good way to solve this whole thing. (Edwardlay 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
Username Under Development Under Variants
--Bangabalunga 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Yes
Fnlayson 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, simpler ok with too
(Edwardlay 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) Yes, makes for easier navigation
BillCJ 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Under Variants
Nick Moss 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Until specs are released Once specs have been released
Ctillier 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Yes Add a cross reference
Marimvibe 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, possibly under some subsection

[edit] Discussion

There is absolutely no reason why a proposed variant should not be listed under variants - there's plenty of precedent in other aircraft articles for proposed variants being listed in such a way, even proposed variants that were not built in the end. Ten examples (no particular order - just the first ones I came across - only took a few minutes):

Of course, such vapourware needs to be identified as such, but it's a legitimate inclusion. Secondly, as a point of order, voting is not a way to resolve differences of opinion on Wikipedia - polling is fine as a tool for understanding the variety of opinions out there, but Wikipedia does not operate on a majority rules basis.

There's clearly a strong precedent for the inclusion of a not-yet-built or never-built version, so the onus is now on those who want to exclude it from this one particular article to make a case for that and then build consensus among other editors. --Rlandmann 21:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with commercial aircaft here not all aircraft. This is to determine the variant section of Boeing and Airbus and maybe even the Bombardier and Embraer planes thats all.--Bangabalunga 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, check out Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante, or the Bombardier CRJ. (Edwardlay 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC))
Then you need to make a case why commercial aircraft should somehow be handled differently from the other 3,000-odd aircraft that WikiProject Aircraft currently covers, and build consensus to exempt them. --Rlandmann 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Ten examples of commercial aircraft which list unbuilt, proposed variants in their variants section (again no particular order - just the first ones I came across):
There's more than ample precedence for this variant to be included in this section in this article. From a purely pragmatic point of view, even if consensus were reached here to exclude it, the very next editor who came along and wanted to put it back in again could happily do so by referring to WP:AIR guidelines and the precedence available. --Rlandmann 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I know Bill, but its not like I am happy about it. We get 787-10 under variants then we are gonna go back to the old days when we had 777-100 and 757-100 and others.... I personally think the old days of the 747 article was much better then the busy page it is now. Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_747&oldid=76799550 Dont you think its more organized than the page we have today? By all means talk about the 777-100 and what happened to it just not under variants.--Bangabalunga 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. Also you need to really that the "slippery slope argument" is a type of "logical fallacy". It does not neccessary follow that all that will happen just because we allow the -10 in. I could say that if we only allow "officially-launched" versions, then soon someone will want to take out the variants that haven't flown yet, and later someoneone will want to remove the onese that aren't in production, then the ones not in service.
People add all kinds of things to WP:AIR articles every day, much of which we all take out. A lot of them with add their own heading if one doesn't exist. Late last night, some enterprising IP user decided to add a "Typical routes" section to almost ALL the ariliner articles except for the Boeings. (No sources, of couse!) I was well past my bedtime, so I left it for today. THis mornign, an editor I've not seen very much reverted them all, as he should have. I have never seen any regular WP:AIR editor, or even an irregular one, even hint at something like a "typical routes" section before, anywhere, yet someone though it would be a good idea. So does this mean we shouldn't have an Operators section because people will think it's OK to add "Typical routes"? - BillCJ 00:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The typical routes got added to a few Boeing airline articles too. Had me wondering what typical was. Anyway, someone is more likely to add that, pop culture or trivia than something about a potential variant. -Fnlayson 01:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Bill's got a good point backed by numerous examples of other articles. It also appears that Bangabalunga is only going on opinion. I think it definatly belongs under Variants, not just because that it what I feel, but because that is what has been done on other articles. Can anyone argue with that beisdes saying they don't think it looks good or fits right? I'm happy to hear it, but I just don't think it's okay to argue on Opinion and I definatly don't want to hear that this posting will cause the downfall of Wikipedia, that because of this posting all other crappy posts will be allowed. That just doesn't make any sense. Thanks. ((Edwardlay 00:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
  • Log-in to sign please. (This page's history is showing the above comment by an IP user.) It's difficult to tell if someone is pretending to be you or not. Bangabalunga is welcome to his opinion. That's why we are seeking a consensus from a group of people. -Fnlayson 04:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not on my own computer and this one doesn't have my password saved. Anyway, of course he's welcome to his own opinion, but Wikipedia, if you read the instructions, is not based on his opinion, nor the majorities. So, we will make this decision based on the precedent on other pages, as Bill pointed out. That is what wikipedia is about. Again, I am unable to sign in as I do not remeber my password. Sorry. -Edwardlay
No problem on the log-in thing. Consensus with good reasons provided is used to set-up rules and guidelines all over the place here. -Fnlayson 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The real question is once the guidelines are set, do we have a right to change them? -Edwardlay
We're not setting guidelines here, just talking about what to do on this page. Guidelines can be changed by the same process with twhich tehy are set up, through consensus. - BillCJ 05:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Given there is not a huge body of information about the 787-10 yet, and it appears to still be somewhat fluid in its definition stage, I think it would be best dealt with by being mentioned under development. It doesn't have to be confined to that section forever though - once more information is made available by Boeing (or once it is being officially offered for sale, and not just discussed as I believe is the case at the moment), then it would be appropriate to give it its own section under variants. --Nick Moss 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So What's so special about this plane ?

In scanning the page briefly all I see are mostly technical specs.

Please add an "Innovations" section or something similar for layman who want a quick summary of that the big deal is.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.86.173 (talk • contribs)

  • Basically it's a lighter and thus more efficient design. It uses mostly composites in its design to get there. Some of that is covered at the top (in Lead). And there's already a Features section. -Fnlayson 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The features section is a bit of a hodge-podge - it could probably be tidied up. Given the game changing nature of this aircraft, I think an section highlighting the specific innovations would be a good idea (as opposed to including them in with information about the cabin width and seating configurations etc). --Nick Moss 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a section on innovations is a good idea it could replace the description-features paragraph which is filling up with trivia and the production paragraph which is trying to list every sub-contrator and build progress, I presume that somebody will keep this up to date for all 600 odd aircraft and ten of thousand of sub-contracted bits! MilborneOne 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, a summary paragraph or two would not be a bad idea. That'd allow some details in the Features list to be cut back or removed. -Fnlayson 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree as well, it needs a total writeup. I'll do a bit soon and you guys can tweek what I write.--Bangabalunga 19:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the first thing is to turn the bulleted feature list into paragraphs. The list is like trivia list. Easy for people to add entries without them fitting together. A summary paragraph at the beginning would do the original poster is asking for. -Fnlayson 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A summary paragraph or two describing what makes the 787 special would be a good idea. We should be careful that we maintain a neutral viewpoint and not have this sound like a Boeing press release.--Dan Dassow 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like Bangabalunga is doing a rewrite of the feature section and/or adding a innovations section. This is a good idea in my opinion. I favor adding an innovation section before the feature section, and removing trivia from the feature section. A layman (like me) will quickly be able to see why this plane is so different. Mikedz 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Near then end of this section is a paragraph "Early concept images of the 787 included …. ". IMO, this is not a feature or an innovation, just early concepts trivia which can be drop. The last sentence about the yoke may is a feature but I think irrelevant. -Mikedz 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That part described early features. But I moved it to the Development section, since it is 'historical'. -Fnlayson 21:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What's so special about this plane is that Boeing has outsourced the majority of the manufacturing. Typical to the ongoing trend of big business, Boeing would rather pay foreign workers low wages than to support the American economy. The effect of doing so was made clear by the fact that the parts did not fit properly, which has delayed its first flight even more.

[edit] Copyright violations

I noticed that a couple of non-free images were deleted. BillCJ did the right thing when he removed them, however I think we have a bigger problem, the images he deleted I recognized as Boeing images... their status is exactly the same as some identified as free: Avianica 787 and Continental plus 787 image we're currently using in the infobox.

Boeing is pretty emphatic that aside from news organizations, which Wikipedia is not, the images are not free:

Grant 1. Boeing owns and retains the copyrights in the images, except where expressly noted. Provided that the recipient is news media, Boeing grants a nonexclusive, limited right to download an image and reproduce it without alteration for news reporting or editorial purposes only. Except for the foregoing limited license, no other rights or permissions of any kind are given to the recipient.

– http://boeingmedia.com/license.cfm

I'm going to remove them here, and then go over to the commons and have them removed. (The commons are for free media only, so somebody made a mistake over there.) Anynobody 06:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Higher cabin pressure and humidity: Added weight?

Boeing plans to increase the air pressure and humidity inside the cabin of the 787. I'm unsure of the formula on this, but is there a significant weight penalty for increasing the mass of the air and humidity within the aircraft? ProhibitOnions (T) 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

At 8000ft altitude (traditional), the density of air is .9805kg/m^3, at 6000ft (787,) .9091 kg/m^3, giving a .0714kg/m^3 difference. Assuming the fuselage to be perfectly cylindrical, on the 787-9 there is a volume of 1132m^3, resulting in ~808 kg or 1778 lbs. On top of that there will be some additional structural weight for the pressure vessel as well as increased weight as a result of the stronger structural components needed to deal with the other weight increases, and additional fuel weight. I wouldn't be surprised if weight at cruise is 2000-2500 lbs heavier than if the aircraft were designed for the traditional cabin pressurization. Marimvibe 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For delta density times volume, I get (0.0714 kg/m3)*1132m3 = 80.8 kg or 178.2 lb. Rather minimumal really. -Fnlayson 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Going from 8000 feet pressure to 6000 feet pressure doesn't add 2500 pounds. Its not very significant. If it added 2500 pounds that equals the weight of 16 passengers which is too much for airlines to give up to make their passengers more comfortable.--Bangabalunga 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, adding something like 2000 lb wouldn't make much sense. -Fnlayson 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number built

I've commented out the "number built" section of the infobox for now. The plane which was rolled out does not even have all systems installed yet and has not operated on internal power. Do we have any established conventions for describing the "number built" for an aircraft? To me, the plane should at least be systems complete and possibly able to operate under its own power. --StuffOfInterest 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seating

In Boeing_787#Features there are two points related to seating in the 787 requiring citations. I have not been able to find sources for this information other than blogs. The information appears to be correct based upon the Boeing fact sheets and cursory calculations, although there is an element of speculation in the text. Should we:

  • Leave these bullets intact;
  • Cite the Boeing fact sheets;[1][2][3]
  • Remove the citation needed tags; or
  • Remove the bullets?

--Dan Dassow 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seating References

  1. ^ Boeing 787-3 Dreamliner Fact Sheet
  2. ^ Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner Fact Sheet
  3. ^ Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner Fact Sheet
  • I guess you mean the seat spacing bullets (items 4 & 5). Also the cabin interior width and increase (item 6) is uncited too. I say leave the fact tags on there for a month or so then remove if still unreferenced. That's generally what's done with unsourced content with old fact tags. -Fnlayson 17:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


I am new at this and have not edited this page and sorry if I get the format of the talk page wrong.

But I remember reading that the interior will be wider then planned because the insulation will be less then planned. I google and found the below link saying that Boeing stated that the interior will be 1 inch wider then planed because of less insulation. However this is from November 2005.

As a layman, I like an innovation section (talked about earlier) cutting back or removing the features section because the features section has too much trivia. I want to know, what makes this plane so great.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/248827_boeing18.html -Mikedz 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent and thanks. I added that as a reference. It covered everything but the newer A350 XWB. -Fnlayson 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad I can help. I may add comments to the talk section about this page. Just some suggestions from a layman's point of view. -Mikedz 19:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Airbus web site says about A350 XWB "With a cabin cross-section of 220 inches/5.58 meters from armrest to armrest, the A350 XWB provides wider aisles and the widest seats in the industry. Compared to its nearest competitor, the A350 XWB cabin is 5 inches/12.7cm wider, offering superior levels of spaciousness for passengers." http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a350/comfort.html --Yasobara 23:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Boeing web site has excellent charts of seat width and pitch for various passenger accommodation. It is well hidden but public information. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/787.html 787 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning - Page 10 thru 14 of the following document give you the reference you need. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf --Yasobara 02:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Someone User:67.80.158.27 has changed the cabin width at eye level to 18 ft 9 in. This is physically impossible. The external maximum width is 18 ft 11 in on page 8 in the Boeing document above. The maximum cabin width at armrest level is 17 ft 11 in by examining page 13 in the same document the business class seating 2 + 2 + 2 (57 + 22 + 57 + 22 + 57 = 215 in). Then you have to believe Airbus document's numbers: 206 inches at eye level and 215 inches at armrest. Page 18 in The A350 presentation at Paris Airshow 2007--Yasobara 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That'll work. Although 'approximately' needs to be added to the wording since the armrest height is not at eye level, at least the 50 in height they use anyway. -Fnlayson 20:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First flight in October?

Stop editing that the first flight has been delayed to October until there is an official statement. Unconfirmed speculation, even in the mass media, is not a source. 192.88.212.44 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Boeing may acknowledge further 787 delays next week. [1]--HDP 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


So the delays has several reasons according to this article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698754167616531.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I wonder if the 2006 shootout with Lebanon has anything to do with it? RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repair of Composites

The September 2, 2007 issue of the Chicago Tribune has an article that might be relevant, "Boeing coining plan for composite parts: Greater use of superstrengthened plastics in the 787 raises concerns about detecting damage -- now done using a quarter -- but company says visual inspections will be enough" By Julie Johnsson. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun_fiber_0902sep02,0,6108705.story?page=1 I am not sure how this article might be used. --Dan Dassow 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That would best fit in the "Composite fuselage" section. That seems to be partially covered by what is there now. -Fnlayson 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So the delays has several reasons according to this article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698754167616531.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I wonder if the 2006 shootout with Lebanon has anything to do with it? RGDS Alexmcfire

[edit] Takeoff Roll?

What is the estimated runway length for this plane...will it be able to use airports like LaGuardia with short (6000 ft) runways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can use 6000 feet runways specially the 787-3 and La Guardia has runways that are longer than 7000 feet by the way. American is looking at buying 30 of these to fly out of La Guardia.--154.20.78.130 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

::American insists on using ERJ135 and ERJ145 at LGA worsening the congestion. AA wanted the DC-10 to be able to use LGA. Archtransit 17:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New photos

BTW, I added a number of new photos, including some compositions I added with the use of free-use flickr or commons photos. Any opinions? I hope they helped give the article some visual benefit. Some pics for the lower sections of the article would help if anyone has them. Enigma3542002 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the photo of the chubby man sitting in the economy class seat an accurate representation? That doesn't look like an economy seat. Is there too much space between seats? The seat doesn't look too comfortable. Archtransit 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engine interchangeability

Is this still a technical concern? Mikedz 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "most unique" - nitpick on English Style

This is a nitpick on English style. The phrase "most unique" should not be used.

From: Hypertext Guide to English Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage Rules
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5014/courseNotes/5.TechnicalCommunication/tc_2_Usage.html

Do not use an adverb with an adjective that cannot be qualified.
Wrong: most unique, absolutely essential, quite impossible

Correct: unique, essential, impossible

The following sentence in Boeing_787#787-3
"Boeing sees the 787 family as a game changer with this variant as the most unique of the three."
should probably be changed to "Boeing sees the 787 family as a game changer with this as the unique variant of the three."

I did not see this problem with grammar until user:BillCJ reverted a change by user:67.167.166.218 on 17:13, November 10, 2007.

I am suggesting this change rather than making it, since I am not certain the revision captures the intent of the original sentence. I also do not wish to cause problems for user:BillCJ who is one of the guiding spirits of this article (Boeing 787) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation.

Sincerely,
--Dan Dassow 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

THnaks for the benifit of the doubt. I did check my old college English grammar book (Little, Borwn), and you are, of course, correct. THat's a tid-bit of Grammar that I meesed adding to my editing/grammar knowledge. I get in the habit of reverting IP edits made without edit summaries, as they are generally indistinguishable from vandalism. Sorry for the mistake on my part, and the lack of good faith extended to the IP. I hope he explains his edits next time, as I would have checkd my grammar book first with an adequate explanation. - BillCJ 23:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ, I probably would not have noticed this little grammartical error if I had not had it pointed out to me by a very good technical writer. Although the change by user:67.167.166.218 makes the sentence grammatical, it does not quite sound right.--Dan Dassow 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The useage you cite is correct "formal" English right now, and that is what Wikipeida uses, so no further arguments from me on that point. However, it may be another of those "formally" correct usages that goes by the wayside, as the current incorrect usage is very common, and most people (myself included) don't even know it's incorrect. I think using modifiers with the "absolute" words is very useful, and does serve a purpose. To me, it's a case of the language evolving past the rigid grammar rules, many of which didn't come from English originally. It's quite possible (is "quite" allowed here?) that the useage even predates the imposition of this grammar rule, as with the continued useage of double negatives in English, despite all the efforts of mathemeticians to stamp them out! :) - BillCJ 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "$10B - $12B" development cost estimate for 777, not 787

The article currently reads, in part:

Since its inception in 2004, the 787 has had research and development costs ranging from more than $10-12 billion[1].

But the cited article gives $10B - $12B as the cost of developing the 777, years go. It doesn't say anything about 787 development costs. Between its factual wrongness and its bad style ("ranging from more than"?), this sentence clamors for deletion. The cited article is http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003813795_777threat31.html

  • The 787 is still being developed too. If someone can find a reference for the 787's program cost so far, then update sentence & reference. Otherwise it should be removed as you suggest. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related content

I'd like to restore the "Related content" section back to the position and style recommended by WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. The issue of whether or not WP:AIR can have guidelines that differ from the standard MOS guidelines has been discussed above already, and is probably better discussed elsewhere such as the MOS talk page. For consistency with other airline pages, especially the other Boeings, it's best at this time to return to the usual WP:AIR format - the experiment has gone on long enough. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on WT:MOS to see if there should be a hard order on the sections. 哦，是吗？(review O) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (GMT)

Then I'll wait to see if this is decided in short order. If it looks to be a long discussion (past two weeks, I go ahead with this again. WT:MOS is certainly the place to discuss this, and perhaps I should have taken it there myself a bit earlier. - BillCJ (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compete

Can someone tell me why you guys mention the A350 competes with 787 when it does not? The 787 comes in 223 seater and 253 seater according to Boeing.com. According to Airbus the A350 comes in 270, 314 and 350 seater. It seams to me the A350 takes over from where the 787 leaves off.

Boeing and Airbus have for the longest time not competed head to head because its suicide. They always plug holes where the other one leaves off. Now if and when Boeing launches the 787-10 then it would compete with the A350-800.

Boeing and Airbus variants do compete with eachother if there is an overlap but the families typically dont. A variant of a family does but not the whole family. Since a family has 2-4 variants some eventually do overlap but we cant say this is tic for tac like being mentioned in both this article and the A350 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • An IP user added that and I moved to the bottom of the paragraph. The avaition press have been saying the A350 is to supposed compete with the larger 787 variants and smaller 777 variants. The 787-9 seats up to 290 in a probably typical 2-class configuration. Looks like some seating overlap at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

What is special about the 787, at least to the general public? Should we place in the introduction the answer to that question?

How about the use of lighting in the aircraft interior, being a long range/smaller widebodied aircraft, and less noise? I agree that the use of composites is the most pertinent innovation that should be placed in the introduction. These others may or may not be notable, certainly not as notable.

There is space for another introductory paragraph. If there is something to say (not expanded for the sake of expansion), this is an opportunity. In fact, 4 paragraphs are permitted. Archtransit (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Summarize the Design features info. It lists lighter weight construction, larger windows, better LED lighting, higher cabin pressure and humdity for passenger confort and long range as improvements. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To the industry, if not the general public, the most remarkable thing about the 787 is that so many have been sold so quickly - in fact it's the fastest selling commercial plane in history. This is mentioned in the article, but I think it deserves a place in the Lead --JCG33 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Good idea. That'd fit in after the more fuel efficient and composites sentence, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. I tied it in with roll-out as I think it sits better there. --JCG33 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] photo explanation?

The photo with the interior of the 787 that is half green should have an explanation. Why is half of it green? Comparison on potential lighting changes? Archtransit (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A lighting comparion is what I understood it was for. Looks to be a photoshop combination of a green image with a orange one. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have a serious security vulnerability in its onboard computer networks that could allow passengers to access the plane's control systems, according to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.--HDP (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker Attack section is confusing

The section currently reads:

2.2.4 Computer network vulnerability

In January 2008, Federal Aviation Administration expressed concerns about insufficient
protection of the Airplane network from possible intentional or unintentional passenger
access.[88][89] The computer network in the passenger compartment, designed to give 
passengers in-flight internet access, is connected to the plane's control, navigation 
and communication systems.

Boeing says that although the networks were connected, various hardware and software 
solutions were employed to protect the plane systems such as:

    * Air gaps for the physical separation of the networks,
    * Firewalls, for their software separation.

However, they still have to demonstrate to FAA that they have tackled the issue.

The first paragraph suggests the passenger network is connected to the plane's control network. Then the counterpoint of Boeing, says, to paraphrase, "Although the networks are connected, they've got air gaps between them." This sounds contradictory, and it's definitely confusing. Are the networks physically connected, or not?

Is anyone with more knowledge and I able to explain more clearly? Thanks, —Fudoreaper (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There are both. The networks are connected at points and have firewalls there. There are air gaps elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense. Two networks can either be physically connected or have an air gap. They cannot be both. If they are connected even at a single point they do not have an air gap.Causantin (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that's what was meant. There is at least 3 systems/networks involved: passenger, flight and maintenance/diagnostic. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing Shifts Schedule for 787 First Flight

First delivery now expected in early 2009--HDP (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potemkin village

How long between a full revealed aircraft and maiden flight is reasonable without calling it Potemkin village, not the first time an airframe has been shown off and not flown, last one I can think of is the Dornier-728. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong example. The Fairchild Do-728 was ready to fly, but the company was bankrupted by a secret FSB (ex-KGB) operation. The russkies wanted to get the design for cheap, in fact that plane is flying today as the Sukhoi Superjet 100, after they purchased the assets via a german faux front-end firm. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When there's a valid reference for its use. An editor or two calling it that is just opinion/original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 787-3

The section on the 787-3 sounds like it was written by someone from Boeing's marketing department. Bissimo2000 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It has some market analysis that is related to that variant. Which sentences are biased? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
He must mean the sentences that don't state that all Boeing products are inferior to those produced by the superior Airbus. In my experience, that is what is usually meant by "sounds like it was written by someone from Boeing's marketing department". Note that we usually don't get statements on Airbus pages that it sounds like it was written by someone from Airbus's marketing department! These criticisms generally go one way. Of course, I could be wrong! As you said, specifics would help alot here. - BillCJ (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Don't be so quick to judge. My comment was not based on bias. (I’m actually biased toward Boeing and the 787. I can’t wait to fly in one) Still, I think the section reads like a sales pitch. For every modification in this variant, there seems to be a well thought-out explanation of a researched sales niche. For example:
“It also believes legacy carriers that want to battle with low-cost airlines can use this plane with twice the capacity of a single-aisle craft but less than twice its operating cost.”
and
“Regions such as India and East Asia, where large population centers are in close proximity, can make good use of the 787-3.”
If marketing analysis was used to create the article, that is obviously justified, but it should be clear that these are Boeing’s thoughts, not those of an unbiased author.
Phrases like, “Boeing’s marketing research shows that,” or “Boeing expects that,” would go a long way in adding credibility to the neutrality of this section.
A counterpoint explaining the downside of flying an airplane such as this might also be helpful. I’m not sure what the downside might be, but if the airplane is as revolutionary as it seems, there is bound to be a downside.Bissimo2000 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I like to say that it's important to err on the side of neutrality when dealing with articles that have to do with subjects that polarize. Had I not made the comment, an Airbus fan would have.Bissimo2000 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The next to last paragraph already has "Boeing believes" type wording. Looks like the last paragraph is the only one that could use more of it. The info before the last couple of paragraphs is generic and fine as is, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a sentence saying something like "vehement opposition from the ILFC will likely lead to cancellation of this model", with no footnote. While ILFC seems to dislike the model, I don't think there's any evidence yet that it will be cancelled. Statements like that should be backed up by a footnoted source. Remember that information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Warren Dew (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 787-9 Competitors

I believe the 787-9 is meant to compete with the A330-200/A340-200 not the A330-300. The latter will likely see competition from a -10 model later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.50.245 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent 787 main page/latest version

When I search for b787 I get directed to the seemingly current main page for Boeing 787. I can clic on history on that page and clic on last version and get a page which says it is the latest version. That latest version includes following paragraph:

On April 9, 2008, Boeing officially announced a fourth delay, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and the initial deliveries to the third quarter of 2009. The announcement indicated the new schedule included extra time in the testing schedule to accommodate future unforseen delays.[62][1] In order to keep Boeing's latest schedule, the 787 must complete flight testing over three quarters, in line with the 9 month flight test campaign originally stated. In September 2007, after announcing delays, Mike Bair said that Boeing would keep the Certification Date using six flight-test 787s at a rate of 120 FT hours per month, higher than the 70-80 FT hours per month used in previous planes.[63] Boeing's previous major aircraft, the 777, took 11 months with nine aircraft flying 7000 FT Hours, partly to demonstrate 180 min-ETOPS, one of its main features.[64] According to the latest re-schedule, the maiden flight will take place more than a year after the original 787's rollout on July 8, 2007.

Why doesn't I get a page with this paragraph included when I search for Boeing 787, get a link to the 787 main page and clic on that link? It looks like the main page isn't the same page as the current or last version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.57.27 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • What kind of search; internet or using wikipedia's search box? Wikipedia's search capability is not that good. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I use wikipedia search. I go into "History" of the page I get up (lets call it page "X")and hit latest version. How can it be that the latest version of page "X" isn't the same version as page "X" itself?85.252.57.27 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The above paragraph is visible today in the main page, but it wasn't yesterday. Dont understand this...... Maybe it's a small bug here causing an older revision sometimes popping up as the apparent main page?85.252.57.27 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably takes some time for the search database to catch up. It'd be better to use an internet search engine with en.wikipedia.org as the search domain. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First flight August 27 2007

In Development problems and delays it says that the 787's first flight was originally planned for 27 August 2007. However, the reference supplied does not mention this date (in fact it talks about late September), and I can't find any other reliable source for it. Does anyone have a source? If not I think we should we remove the statement.--JCG33 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, I didn't check that close enough. Both dates seem familiar, but September more so. I guess change the first flight date to late September and keep the reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Done --JCG33 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False

> An Active Gust Alleviation system, similar to the system that Boeing built for the B-2 bomber <

Except that B-2 Spirit was made by american Northrop Inc. based on german Gotha-Horten patents. Boeing didn't even know of the B-2 until it rolled out to general public in 1988. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not quite. The B-2 Spirit article lists Boeing as a sub-contractor to Northrop, and Boeing explicitly lists the B-2 subsystems they worked on here. However, no mention is made of an active gust alleviation system. This possibly needs further fact checking. McNeight (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer networks connected yet airgapped -- inaccurate?

Directly from the page:

Boeing says that although the networks were connected, various hardware and software solutions were employed to protect the plane systems such as 1) Air gaps for the physical separation of the networks

How can the network be connected yet airgapped? Am I misunderstanding something here or is it wrong..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahrn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)