Boeing reveals final 787 design

Vortex – how are Boeing planning to pressurise the aircraft without bleeds? Ram air? Separate compressors? If so, driven by what?

I don’t quite remember how, but their HVAC is going to be all electric. This is claimed possible by using the currently available power electronic components with high efficiency and light weight. He also said that the 7E7 name was supposed to be interim and for some minor reasons they used it insteadof the typical 7×7, but it stayed because it resonated with the clients. They don’t know why, but people start to put all sort of names for the “E”, efficiency, enhanced, economy,…..i forgot what the original E stand for but it wasn’t an exciting word and Boeing didn’t insist it to retain that meaning according to this guy (at least when they are selling the aircraft). Another thing, the cabin will be pressurized to a higher pressure than today’s aircraft.

Ah, Matthew!

They’re all yours for the rest of the evening, my boy! :D:D:D

Vortex – how are Boeing planning to pressurise the aircraft without bleeds? Ram air? Separate compressors? If so, driven by what?

Some more interesting things about the 787. Because it is designed with the nth degree of effort to make it super light ( extreme effort to reduce the use of metal when ever possible in components, and eliminate the use of rivets as much as possible ) …. all kinds of things to reduce weight, combined with other things already mentioned so fuel burn/range is really good….. because of all of this super efficiency in a new design… Boeing engineers have come out and said it can never be a military tanker. The engineers have pushed the envelope so much that it has no hope of seeing that mission.

Another advantage claimed by the engineers: The skin for the most part will tolerate scratches and dings from ground equipment abusing it, that would normally stop or delay a conventional design while maintenance comes out to patch up the aircraft.

That has been known for some time 😉

Some more interesting things about the 787. Because it is designed with the nth degree of effort to make it super light ( extreme effort to reduce the use of metal when ever possible in components, and eliminate the use of rivets as much as possible ) …. all kinds of things to reduce weight, combined with other things already mentioned so fuel burn/range is really good….. because of all of this super efficiency in a new design… Boeing engineers have come out and said it can never be a military tanker. The engineers have pushed the envelope so much that it has no hope of seeing that mission.

Another advantage claimed by the engineers: The skin for the most part will tolerate scratches and dings from ground equipment abusing it, that would normally stop or delay a conventional design while maintenance comes out to patch up the aircraft.

last summer, i was in a talk given by a Boeing VP on the 7E7, most of the emphasis was on efficiency and interior cabin passenger comfort, not the looks. For example, they did an extensive study to show that its the humidity that’s keeping the passenger “sick”, not the “freshness” of the air. So, they decided to increase the humidity. In fact, they claim a small percentage difference in humidity is considerable to our senses and claims that the all composite fuselage is what allows the change in humidity. He also claims that they will be asking for the FAA to allow cell phone usage when the plane is in the air…saying, as we all suspect, that the flight avionics have no issues what so ever with cell phones. During that time it was not given a go ahead by the board yet. Another claim is that the carryon space will be considerable. Interestingly, instead of the tail fin, the important aerodynamic aspect is the dihedral of the wing. It was claimed that this is made possible by the considerable directional control (material) of composites. It is claimed that a higher dihedral makes the aircraft more efficient during cruise….most likely by allowing a decrease in the size of the vertical tail and reducing aerodynamic twist of the wing. Thus the rather small vertical tail. Of course, a slight change now probably is NOT due to the vertical tail but the degree of dihedral the main wing structure allows. Ironic isn’t it? People fighting over the fins where the real issue is most likely the main wing structure (i believe). However, keep in mind that the significant aerodyanmic performance gains comes from the bleedless engines (that was talked about) and the overall efficiency of the wing (not some minor details that requires a slightly larger wetted area of the fin…in effect the shark fin reduces the anchor area). Another thing is that the AC is going to be distributed so a better climate control is possible. oh, one major saving for airline is actually the fuselage maintanence. This was claimed to be considerable and an all composite fuselage means no major overhalls for the entire life span of the aircraft claimed by Boeing).
Overall, i agree…i am sick and tired of the dry conditions in today’s airlines.

My opinion is that all the earlier 787 drawings were just marketing to get everybody exited about the futuristic design. When I was at the Avalon trade show the big image on the wall of the fuselage cross section was all distorted so that it was wider than it was tall making it seem huge inside. I remember wondering if anybody actually fell for it. I’m sure most big companies do this to some degree or other.
When I first saw the new image my instant thought was 767ng ala 737ng with new wing and engines as well as cosmetics to the rest of the aircraft. But they are using all kinds of advanced manufacturing techniques so I imagine they’d go with a totally new fuselage cross section as well as everything else.

The huge dihedral was the first thing I noticed, I cant imagine a civil airliner needing that much to be honest. The second thing I noticed was the high aspect ratio wing. I guess that’s doable, the trend is for high aspect ratio wings these days… all the boeing ones have around 8 to 8.5 so far, airbus alsop have around 8 to 8.5 for their early aircraft but the A330/340 have an aspect ratio of around 10. As materials technology progresses, aspect ratios are allowed to go up.

As for the “boring airliners” issue… airliner manufacturers stick with tried and tested concepts… its less risky… and costs less money.

The huge dihedral was the first thing I noticed, I cant imagine a civil airliner needing that much to be honest. The second thing I noticed was the high aspect ratio wing. I guess that’s doable, the trend is for high aspect ratio wings these days… all the boeing ones have around 8 to 8.5 so far, airbus alsop have around 8 to 8.5 for their early aircraft but the A330/340 have an aspect ratio of around 10. As materials technology progresses, aspect ratios are allowed to go up.

As for the “boring airliners” issue… airliner manufacturers stick with tried and tested concepts… its less risky… and costs less money.

Sound advice, there.

Thanks, J Boyle. 🙂

Sound advice, there.

Thanks, J Boyle. 🙂

It’s a real bright future for Airbus and Boeing. Two different types of aircraft around the same time, aviation is looking good at the moment.

I agree…there’s room for both the A380 and the 787 in the market (obviously because they don’t directly compete) and they demonstrate that neither side has a monopoly in talent and drive.
So during this week where the A380 first flew and Boeing scored some impressive sales, lets give a hearty “well done’ to both and enjoy a minute of peace before one or the other (and I know which one) or partisans (you know who you are) start harping about something.

It’s a real bright future for Airbus and Boeing. Two different types of aircraft around the same time, aviation is looking good at the moment.

I agree…there’s room for both the A380 and the 787 in the market (obviously because they don’t directly compete) and they demonstrate that neither side has a monopoly in talent and drive.
So during this week where the A380 first flew and Boeing scored some impressive sales, lets give a hearty “well done’ to both and enjoy a minute of peace before one or the other (and I know which one) or partisans (you know who you are) start harping about something.

…inherently subject to change because it hasn’t worked.

Face it, the entire programme is going to die a miserable unloved death. They can’t get the tail right. They can’t get the nose right. The wings have gone all bendy, it doesn’t have a billiards table and there probably isn’t even space for a petting zoo. This is Boeing’s last gasp, last failed design from a morally and technically bankrupt company doomed to obscurity.

…inherently subject to change because it hasn’t worked.

Face it, the entire programme is going to die a miserable unloved death. They can’t get the tail right. They can’t get the nose right. The wings have gone all bendy, it doesn’t have a billiards table and there probably isn’t even space for a petting zoo. This is Boeing’s last gasp, last failed design from a morally and technically bankrupt company doomed to obscurity.

It’s a real bright future for Airbus and Boeing. Two different types of aircraft around the same time, aviation is looking good at the moment.

It’s a real bright future for Airbus and Boeing. Two different types of aircraft around the same time, aviation is looking good at the moment.

Well boring yes because the technological strength is being concentrated on making them efficient.

Well boring yes because the technological strength is being concentrated on making them efficient.

Geez, you guys keep pointing out how much it looks like a “757 on ‘roids” or a “767 warmed over”. What do you think [u]ALL[/u] these new planes coming out look like? Have you seen a new medium to long range wide (even some narrow) body NOT use the dual podded under wing layout? Besides the A’s 340, 380 & B747. And what about like, EVERY SINGLE regional jet? Why do they ALL look like the original DC-9 (in varying degrees)? I mean, thinking on it – commercial aircraft design seems pretty boring of late.