OK, it's a cool plane with cool features and it's very efficient. It is *not* a new era in travel. It is still a tube with wings in which you sit cramped in a Y-class seat for hours on end, unless your company is picking up the tab, and then you get a better seat. If it were supersonic, then it would be a new era in travel. I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was.

DocLightning -- Certified Mad Doctor

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1): I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was. Hardly, that has been done before. Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1): I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was. The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners

Stand Up and Be Counted Visit Site Related to Voice your opinion

Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter): About the same size as a 767-200. Closer in length to the -300. Just a few feet bigger. And wing span and height is more than any 767. It is not a 762 sized plane. Perhaps the bigger windows give the illusion of being smaller than it really is?

PM me about what my signature used to say. *censored*

Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter): I was just at the Boeing Factory in Everett the other day and was able to see the Dreamliner When you compare the pictures of LN1 (which you can see on the links below) with what you saw at Everett, where there any notable difference? Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly, Part Three Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly, Part Two Dreamliners Come Out to Play...Briefly

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1): It is *not* a new era in travel. It is still a tube with wings in which you sit cramped in a Y-class seat for hours on end, unless your company is picking up the tab, and then you get a better seat. If it were supersonic, then it would be a new era in travel. I'm excited about it, too. But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was. Hey, don't knock it until you try it. All airplanes will be tubes with wings, unless you want to fly in a blended wing airplane with NO windows. Boeing had the opportunity to revolutionize air travel once again with its Sonic Cruiser, but couldn't make it a supersonic airplane. I believe if the Sonic Cruiser was able to supercruise at around Mach 1.5 with good fuel efficiency, it would have sold fairly well. But of course, that was back then...what about the fuel cost environment now???

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3): Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter): About the same size as a 767-200. Closer in length to the -300. Just a few feet bigger. And wing span and height is more than any 767. It is not a 762 sized plane. Perhaps the bigger windows give the illusion of being smaller than it really is? 787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.)

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6): 787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.) And because of the increase in proportions all around including the windows, and the wingspan growing more than the fuse, it would look like a 762, proportionally. It makes sense. it's all relative to the viewer. When put next to a 762, it will obviously look larger in every way. But then again, when a 762 is parked wingtip over wingtip with an M80, like they are at LAX at night in the hangar area, the 762 looks pretty damn big.

Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.

Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter): Not terribly big though. About the same size as a 767-200. Fooled by the windows again...

Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1): But it is no more revolutionary than the 767 was Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic. Regards, Mark in MKE

I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning

Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 9): Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic. There are several technological advances on the Dreamliner that is NOT on a 767-200. First of all, the fuselage is primarily carbon-fiber composites that is mostly filament-wound. In other words, the fuselage sections are wound up like a large pressure bottle. There is some metal in the fuselage, mainly Titanium...because Aluminum is considered a dissimilar material to graphite (I'm not saying that there's no aluminum). You will notice on the Dreamliner that there are very few seams, except where the individual fuselage joints are located. That provides fewer parts and better aerodynamics. The passenger windows will be capable of darkening and lightening at the passengers request...doing away with window shades...although I'll believe it when I see it. The fuselage will be pressurized to lower pressure altitude (higher pressure) than traditional airplanes for better comfort. The avionics package is said to be state-of-the-art, not just simply a glass cockpit. I'm sure there's more that I missed. Also, for those Airbus folks, I would expect the technology to be as good or better than the 787 considering when it's planned to fly and lessons learned from Boeing.

I took the factory tour on May 6. It was really cool to see the 787 for real in person. I noticed that the rudder on the 3rd frame in the line seemed to have ANA colors painted on it. It had the 2 shades of blue seen on all other ANA aircraft. Quoting Vulindlela744 (Thread starter): Sorry no pictures as Boeing does not allow photography on it's tours. That really sucked. There was a 773ER for my company, the 41st 777 for JAL, at the end of the line and would have loved to get a picture of it.

I took the Boeing tour back in Feb. They are extremely strict about bringing cameras in. They ask for all phones and cameras at least 3 times before you go into the assembly line and man they were pissed wen no one coughed anything up

Viva la Vida

Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2): The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners neither is the 787, I have seen the materials it uses before on other planes, it just uses them more. Fred

Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 9): Are you smoking crack?? Carbon fiber technology and you say it is no more revoultionary that the 767?? I would disagree with your comment. We need a technical junkie in here to help me on this one as I am not an expert just a fanatic. I said it was no more revolutionary than the 76. I didn't say it wasn't better than 76. The 76 was a revolutionary aircraft. It brought an entire new size of plane into an old market and set a new standard for efficiency. The 744 was based off 767 technology. However, it did not completely transform the industry. Similarly, the 787 is a new size of plane in a new market. However, it is not a complete game-changer. It's simply a new-and-improved bird. When they make it fly faster than a speeding bullet and make it available to all of us, that will be a game changer.

DocLightning -- Certified Mad Doctor

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): When they make it fly faster than a speeding bullet and make it available to all of us, that will be a game changer. LOL on that one. I could just see myself flying a 787 to work and trying to land in our company parking lot. Wether or not we ever see a sonic cruiser in the next 25 years or so I doubt it. Regards, Mark

I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning

Quoting Legacytravel (Reply 15): LOL on that one. I could just see myself flying a 787 to work and trying to land in our company parking lot. Wether or not we ever see a sonic cruiser in the next 25 years or so I doubt it. Sonic cruiser my left buttcheek. 10 hours instead of 12 on a given route? Bah. Make it six and then we'll talk.

DocLightning -- Certified Mad Doctor

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 10): First of all, the fuselage is primarily carbon-fiber composites that is mostly filament-wound. I'm pretty sure the fuselage is tape layup, not filament wind. I.e. prepreg vs. resin infusion during placement. The end result is pretty similar, but you can get a higher fiber fraction with prepreg. Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): The 76 was a revolutionary aircraft. It brought an entire new size of plane into an old market I'm not sure they can claim revolutionary when the A300 did pretty much the same thing. Tom.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3): It is not a 762 sized plane Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6): 787-8 is 6 feet longer than the 767-300 (186 vs. 180 ft.), wingspan is 40 ft. greater (197 vs. 156 ft), interior cabin with is over 3 ft. greater (18 ft. 10 in. vs. 15 ft. 6 in.) and gross takeoff weight is almost 20% higher (484,000 vs. 410,000 lb.) In fact, it's an A330-200 sized plane - almost exactly.... It could almost be a copy, in fact....       Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2): The 767 wasn't the first made out of a completely new material for Airliners Caution is needed when making somewhat sweeping comments like this......   Rgds

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 5): Boeing had the opportunity to revolutionize air travel once again with its Sonic Cruiser, but couldn't make it a supersonic airplane. I believe if the Sonic Cruiser was able to supercruise at around Mach 1.5 with good fuel efficiency, it would have sold fairly well. But of course, that was back then...what about the fuel cost environment now??? Wasn't the sonic cruiser designed to cruise at around 0.95 Mach? IIRC the whole point that was it doesn't break the sounds barrier and I distinctly remember thinking that there isn't much point to it. Gary

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): 10 hours instead of 12 on a given route? Bah. Make it six and then we'll talk. Once us humans can master magnetic propulsion then maybe but until then aint gonna happen. Mark in MKE

I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning

Quoting Astuteman