By: Skymonster - 23rd December 2009 at 10:21
Surprised ZA001 hasn’t flown a second time (add up the flight times for ZA001’s first flight and ZA002’s flight). Perhaps ZA001 has reached the current limit of its fatigue life – maybe they’re still checking to see if any cracks have appeared in the wing/fuselage join! 😀
Andy
By: chornedsnorkack - 23rd December 2009 at 09:18
Second frame flies!
What shall happen next?
Maiden flight of ZA003, or Type Inspection Authorization?
By: Bmused55 - 22nd December 2009 at 22:03
By: steve rowell - 22nd December 2009 at 21:32
Boeing says its second 787 will take to the skies on Tuesday. The company has scheduled a test flight for the second jetliner at 8:45 a.m. (PT). The aircraft will take off from Paine Field in Everett, Washington state, as long as flight conditions cooperate. About 25,000 people turned out for the first test flight last Tuesday. The 787 is the first commercial airplane made mostly of lightweight composite materials. The 787 program has been plagued by ill-fitting parts and other problems. The first flight was supposed to be in 2007, but Chicago-based Boeing Co. was forced to push it back five times. Boeing has orders for 840 of the jets. It plans to make the first delivery to Japan’s All Nippon Airways late next year.”
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th December 2009 at 19:42
they serve free alcohol on non-US airlines? Wow…isn’t that a bit dangerous?
Yeah, specially if you’re a passenger on a Russian Airliner:diablo:
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3571&fArticleId=vn20040721012118699C386596
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th December 2009 at 19:18
Of course, always considering the aircraft is fully loaded. But the aircraft can’t be held responsible for low load factors or an airline using an A380 for a service from New York to Hamburg (today flown by a B757-200 daily). The latter example would kill any new widebody in terms of costs, as you fly a 3000nm with an 8000nm aircraft. And you’ll never get the load factor.
The magic of aircraft design is too put maximum payload into minimum space without the payload realising the lack of space. Give them good video choice and nice meals, and they don’t mind the inches so much.
And free drinks are very important, that’s why on the long run all US airlines will go bust. No free drinks.
they serve free alcohol on non-US airlines? Wow…isn’t that a bit dangerous?
By: Arabella-Cox - 20th December 2009 at 18:52
Well, it got thru the first flight ok, so let’s hope all goes well.
By: chornedsnorkack - 20th December 2009 at 18:41
787 testing
Since the first flight thread is longish, and I cannot see this article quoted there, looking to the test programme, an article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/W787PLAN121809.xml
What shall the next news be?
ZA002 maiden flight?
By: symon - 19th December 2009 at 23:27
In case of the B787 (and the A350) I think they jumped on the “advanced materials” band waggon a bit too quick, sometimes I see no specific reason to use CFRP.
Only a fraction of the quoted “20%” (which is actually versus a B767-300 on a long range mission, versus A330 or B777 the difference is single digit percentage, mission dependent of course) is due to savings in structural weight.
By the way: the L1011 was technically a great aircraft, having many unique features. Just: civil aircraft don’t sell by being advanced but by being competitive in pricing and operational costs. Boeing never really pushed technology that far, but always created very competitve packages.
Is this not a contradiction? Aircraft can be very competitive in pricing and operational costs due to weight (and fuel) savings.
As already mentioned, at the end of the day, any weight/operational saving is for the better. Over the lifetime of the aircraft, the 787 will save tremendous amounts in comparison to aircraft of years past. And if the A380 gets the loads when the market picks up again, then it too will get terrific operational savings from seat per mile costs.
By: Balu the Bear - 19th December 2009 at 16:15
Congrats to Balu, I think he has posted the most read thread this year?
Cheers, mate! 
By: Schorsch - 19th December 2009 at 16:03
Sorry, can’t agree with that. I believe block costs are very important. If they weren’t all airlines would be flying biggest airplane available everywhere.
Of course, always considering the aircraft is fully loaded. But the aircraft can’t be held responsible for low load factors or an airline using an A380 for a service from New York to Hamburg (today flown by a B757-200 daily). The latter example would kill any new widebody in terms of costs, as you fly a 3000nm with an 8000nm aircraft. And you’ll never get the load factor.
The magic of aircraft design is too put maximum payload into minimum space without the payload realising the lack of space. Give them good video choice and nice meals, and they don’t mind the inches so much.
And free drinks are very important, that’s why on the long run all US airlines will go bust. No free drinks.
By: Schorsch - 19th December 2009 at 15:59
To the pax in cattle class, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a 1968 B737-100 or an A380 or 787. Maybe the noise level is a bit lower, but you still have some kid crying 2 rows ahead and the kids behind you pushing on the back of your seat.:mad: Still have crawl over others to get out of your window seat if you were lucky to get one, and then to queue up for the loo. When boarding at most big airports, you don’t even see the outside of the plane and have to guess what it is if you’re interested in knowing. I love flying!
Still, Eco class was and will be the backbone of airline business. Also: it is the most environmentally friendly.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th December 2009 at 15:05
To the pax in cattle class, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a 1968 B737-100 or an A380 or 787. Maybe the noise level is a bit lower, but you still have some kid crying 2 rows ahead and the kids behind you pushing on the back of your seat.:mad: Still have crawl over others to get out of your window seat if you were lucky to get one, and then to queue up for the loo. When boarding at most big airports, you don’t even see the outside of the plane and have to guess what it is if you’re interested in knowing. I love flying!
By: PMN - 19th December 2009 at 14:37
Like they do on 777
A lot of the -300’s are 10 abreast in economy, what difference does it make? You’ve still never explained exactly why you have such an obsession with cabin width.
Paul
By: chornedsnorkack - 19th December 2009 at 13:55
Sorry, can’t agree with that. I believe block costs are very important. If they weren’t all airlines would be flying biggest airplane available everywhere.
They are important. I thought that what was being stated is that 787 being 20% better than 767 in block rather than seat costs is “nonsense” in the sense of being incredible rather than “nonsense” in the sense of being unimportant.
By: Ship 741 - 19th December 2009 at 13:33
I guess per seat fuel, because all else is non-sense..
Sorry, can’t agree with that. I believe block costs are very important. If they weren’t all airlines would be flying biggest airplane available everywhere.
By the way: the L1011 was technically a great aircraft, having many unique features. Just: civil aircraft don’t sell by being advanced but by being competitive in pricing and operational costs. Boeing never really pushed technology that far, but always created very competitve packages.
Concur wholeheartedly. I would add also that L10 never reached critical mass in terms of production numbers.
By: chornedsnorkack - 19th December 2009 at 13:29
I guess per seat fuel, because all else is non-sense. The heaviest B767 is 190t MTOW,
No, 204.
the B787 is 30t heavier from the start.
The B787 offers to put 9-abreast in economy and many airlines will do that.
Like they do on DC-10, Tristar and 777. But 787 is narrower.
I think KLM and Finnair are the last operators of Pax MD-11, while Pax DC-10 are no more
Pax DC-10 are alive and well, and planned to continue for several years. Which is why one of the Biman frames is being cannibalized to support the other four:
http://www.biman-airlines.com/aboutus/fleet_info.asp
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Biman-Bangladesh/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10-30/1621587/L/
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Biman-Bangladesh/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10-30/1161393/L/
By: Schorsch - 19th December 2009 at 13:15
Also, I always feel it is important to point out block fuel versus per seat fuel. My understanding is that the 20% figure was versus a BLOCK 763 long range mission.
Most A380 fanboys want to talk about it’s low per seat fuel consumption and don’t want to discuss block fuel. Most Boeing 767/777/787 fanboys want to talk about their low block fuel and don’t talk as much about per seat fuel burn, since they have relatively fewer seats.
I guess per seat fuel, because all else is non-sense. The heaviest B767 is 190t MTOW, the B787 is 30t heavier from the start.
The B787 offers to put 9-abreast in economy and many airlines will do that.
How many percent compared to DC-10 or Tristar ;-)?
I think KLM and Finnair are the last operators of Pax MD-11, while Pax DC-10 are no more, and Tristars are mostly phased out (especially as the L1011 never had a conversion program).
By the way: the L1011 was technically a great aircraft, having many unique features. Just: civil aircraft don’t sell by being advanced but by being competitive in pricing and operational costs. Boeing never really pushed technology that far, but always created very competitve packages.
By: chornedsnorkack - 19th December 2009 at 13:00
The A380 also has lots of advancements. In case of the B787 (and the A350) I think they jumped on the “advanced materials” band waggon a bit too quick, sometimes I see no specific reason to use CFRP.
Only a fraction of the quoted “20%” (which is actually versus a B767-300 on a long range mission, versus A330 or B777 the difference is single digit percentage, mission dependent of course)
How many percent compared to DC-10 or Tristar ;-)?
787-800 is actually a close competitor to A330-200. B777, even B777-200, is considerably bigger, while all 767, even 767-400, is rather smaller. But Tristar and DC-10 are comparable….
is due to savings in structural weight. The B787 (and the A350) have annoyingly long range and suffer from that (on shorter missions). The B787-8 could fly from London to NY, turn around over Manhatten and fly back, and still have reserves left.
Let´s see how much range it has in view of being overweight and having too high fuel burn.
By: Ship 741 - 19th December 2009 at 12:55
Only a fraction of the quoted “20%” (which is actually versus a B767-300 on a long range mission, versus A330 or B777 the difference is single digit percentage, mission dependent of course) is due to savings in structural weight.
Remember we are in an era where some passenger airlines are removing pillows from planes to save weight. Please tell us how much of the 20% comes from the structural weight savings and what that percentage equates to in fuel savings over a 25 year/60,000 flight hour service life. At what point in your opinion does a structural weight savings become significant enough to pursue? I can imagine a lot of people would say: “any”
Also, I always feel it is important to point out block fuel versus per seat fuel. My understanding is that the 20% figure was versus a BLOCK 763 long range mission.
Most A380 fanboys want to talk about it’s low per seat fuel consumption and don’t want to discuss block fuel. Most Boeing 767/777/787 fanboys want to talk about their low block fuel and don’t talk as much about per seat fuel burn, since they have relatively fewer seats.
Sign In
December 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm