MSN is Manufacturers Serial Number and is unique to that airframe and will stay with that airframe. Airbus uses sequential MSNs for all of its aircraft.

Is it not ready for revenue service then? 🙂

The systems in the Stratocruiser would be much smaller and need a lot less power than those in the 787. The 787 must be 3 or 4 times heavier than a Startocruiser so using electrically powered brakes and providing sufficient air conditioning for nearly 300 people from bleedless engines is reasonably innovative in this day and age. The technology involved in the power generation systems on the 787 has indeed moved a long way since the 1940s. Even going back to electric start for such large engines is something which I think surprised many. Whether it works remains to be seen.:) Even the A350 isn’t going to follow Boeing’s lead in using largely electric systems.

As far as I know Air France has 13xB747-400 ,27xB777-200 and 34xB777-300. I have no idea why Air France bought so many Boeing 777s. Maybe they bought the aircraft that suited their requirements?

I would suggest what must be more worrying for Boeing is the number of Airbus aircraft in service with US airlines, with even American looking at the A320.
The 737 upgrade is going to end up being little more than a new engine and seems to me to be an opportunity lost to bring the 737 into the 21st century.

The 787 has pretty much a captive market in Japan. The Japanese don’t seem to like Airbus much.

Sorry I even spoke, Arthur

Please see my post #36
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1794068&postcount=36

Engines Trent 1000 – training, maintenance and probably in many customers’s cases in the first instance are being very ably managed by Rolls Royce, until the GE engine reaches certification stage. This isn’t a show stopper in problems IMO.

The process for constructing the 787 fuselage and wings is a complete all new method and no other civil aircraft of this capacity and range at present has this high a percentage of composite in it. e.g. They aren’t rivets they are fasteners holding sections together.See post #36

That is why ramps, loading platforms, and ground service are being managed a ‘tad’ differently and so will repairs to any external fabric damage be different at customer locations or back at Boeing.

Apart from that as a pilot since you know everything, I shall say no more apart from saying Boeing have pioneered another phase (since the word era is causing so much displeasure) of unique civil aviation and the rest will be followers.

Having been employed by Cray Research a unique world leader (certainly in my day and to an extent still today) and the Boeing 787 has had 800,000 hrs design time on a Cray Supercomputer (see my post #34) – IMO the 787 will be a global leader for some years.:D

Go Seattle;)

You seem to have problems with those who don’t agree with you. If you are not keen on posting items on which some may hold a different view, you should perhaps not post at all. That would certainly get my vote. 😉

How come you answer my post with sarcasm and yet agree with Flightmech who said the same as I did? :confused:

The 787 is not a new era in civil aviation. 99% of passengers don’t care what they are flying in as long as it gets them there along with their luggage.

Whether the 787 becomes a great aircraft, well, we’ll see… in about 25 years time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased the 787 has finally made it into service. The much vaunted and ridiculed at 9 month flight test programme turned into 2 years as many predicted but they got there in the end. Safely and without too much drama.

By the way, most of the recent innovations in air travel have come from Airbus – not Boeing. When Boeing have tried something new the product is over 3 years late.
Now the Sonic Cruiser, that was truly different, shame they didn’t have the nerve to go through with it.

“Chav” airlines eh?

I’m afraid such phrases only reinforce the snobbery that seems to pervade the public perception of BA.

I wonder what airline this is based on. 🙂

Great British Air