The 787 is looking good there cant wait to see it fly.Are there any RR engines on the 787 yet or order?

James

Pardon?

I thought the Trent was going to be the main engine for the 787 – I’d been told its 3 shaft config is a major advantage in a bleedless design. (Mind you, that was the head of Rolls Royce R&D saying that, so he may have a biased view :diablo: )

edit: The trent is the launch engine, and will definitely fly with the launch customer ANA – http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40302

The B787 is neither revolutionary, nor does it mark the onset of a new aviation age.

I disagree.

Its the first commerical aircraft to use all composite wings – with major improvements in the viable t/c ratios as a result – this is what results in alot of its much improved aerodynamic efficiency.

The use of composites for the fuselage is largely a non-issue – it doesn’t add to much to the party in comparison to the wings.

BTW, Rolls-Royce have stated bleedless engines are the future – they reduce fuel consumption on descent/stacking/approach by something stupid like 50%! [all as a result of not needing to keep the engines spooled up so high to provide air for the cabin and systems]

That has been raised for so many years , and there are comprehensive answers available to the strenght , integrity and repairability of composites . The repairing regime for the dreamliner is very extensive and many procedures are very much available over the internet . Do look them up or i can post the links for you . The repairs are much the same ranging from normal dings and scratches to major repair which puts airlines out of service for days or weeks . There are heat packs , patching etc and the procedures have been designed to AIRLINE SATISFACTION and has been designed with the input of maintaince folks and to there satisfaction .

But the problem is not so much making the repair… as knowing what repair needs made.

Composites are notorious for hiding internal damage, and usually NDT is needed to ensure that no major delaminations are hidden. Unfortunately for every little ding – that means an ultrasound inspection.

Unless Boeing have discovered a new approach to NDT, and to ensuring composite structural integrity.

If you could post those links I’d be grateful. 🙂

Has anyone any information on what FAA/JAA cycle/load tests the 787 has already been subjected to, how it fared, and which tests are still to be performed?

Thanks 🙂

I think unfortunately this will be lost on the majority of the general public who will also consider it to be “just another plane.”

It might be an idea for the airlines to put (at say the check-in desks) a list of what the estimated air fare prices would be (today) if they were using… say:

A DC-3
A 707
A 727
A 767
A 787

Just to outline to the passengers how the airlines (and the manufacturers) continual investment in technology is improving things for the customer, and how the 787 is more than ‘just another plane’.

🙂

Obviously the same thing can be done with Airbus families (I’d recommend they don’t start directly comparing modern products from both companies though – as that will undoubtedly cause some friction).

*BTW, I’m amazed at how small the wings are.

Great news if it happens.

With that, and Aer Lingus maybe going to Aldergrove – the job prospects are potentially pretty decent.

This degree might be worth something after all :diablo:

Hmm, has Bombardier’s best line lately not been the Dash-8s? :confused:

I know they have been investing in composites lately, so I’d expect them to start down a similar route to Boeing and Airbus with the 787/350 respectively.

Biggest problem of the SC would be transonic drag rise and control at those speeds, additionally engine efficiency, high-lift devices on a highly swept wing, structural arrangement for high dynamic pressures. Nothing to do with a plastic barrel. Actually the fuselage was the only thing you can make quite conventional.

Absolutely 100% correct – while design tools etc have improved alot since the Concorde – the laws of physics and aerodynamics have not.

A well designed airliner cruising at Mach 0.85 will always be more efficient than one of similar age cruising at Mach 0.95.

And I think if Boeing and Airbus can agree on one thing, then that they don’t really need a third man in the arena of the 100+ seaters. Embrear knows that and is always busy saying they don’t want to enter the market. Bombardier scrapped its CSeries despite reasonable market outlook. China hasn’t produced anything yet and Sukhoi will lose Boeing support if the extend the “SuperJet” (what a bl00dy name) beyond 95 seats.

I don’t think the CSeries is totally scrapped yet – I know design work is still ongoing, and I know a decision is due to be made this summer (it was actually scheduled to be made end of March – but slipped back).

I also know Bombardier have recently announced investments here in one of the plants, that deal with composite structures – so its possible they are going to go ahead with it.

Interestingly, I have been told the problem with the CSeries is one of pilot unions – Bombardier want the CSeries defined as an RJ, that will result in lower wages (or more work hours or something along those lines) for the pilots, but the unions are trying to draw the line at 100 seats.