LocostBuilders - powered by XMB

Dreamliner

Jon Ison - 1/1/13 at 10:13 PM

Just booked this years winter holiday, both out and return flights are on Dreamliner, be interesting to see if it lives up to the hype, flight times are slightly shorter to.

coozer - 1/1/13 at 10:15 PM

Where you going like??

designer - 1/1/13 at 10:18 PM

Dreamliner is the future

wylliezx9r - 1/1/13 at 10:59 PM

quote:
Originally posted by designer
Dreamliner is the future

Only time will tell.

The Venom Project - 1/1/13 at 11:23 PM

We are also booked in first class on the Dreamliner to Florida return in June :-) Can't wait

splitrivet - 1/1/13 at 11:25 PM

Thought was just an airyplane with a posh name.
Cheers,
Bob

sdh2903 - 2/1/13 at 08:00 AM

I work for Thomson as an engineer and you wouldn't believe the amount of work ongoing behind the scenes to bring the 787 into service. The sheer leap in technology used on this aircraft compared to the current fleet is massive. To relate to the automotive industry it's like going from an 80's Sierra to a Nissan GTR.

With regards to the Op' s winter holiday, we will have 4 aircraft flying all summer so any 'teething' problems will hopefully be ironed out by then.

GeoffT - 2/1/13 at 10:10 AM

TV companies often screen some really good documentaries when landmark aircraft come into service but I haven't seen one as yet for the 787.

Have any passed me by? I find it's easy to miss the good stuff nowadays with so much junk TV available.....

designer - 2/1/13 at 11:11 AM

As said, the Dreamliner is the next generation of airplane.
I worked in aerospace and when meeting with Boeing about the design brief, this plane was, at the time, impossible, never been done before. But they thought it had to be done, and they did it.

britishtrident - 2/1/13 at 01:26 PM

Boeing are to aircraft as Ford are to cars they know their market and fix faults in a new product pretty quickly. I remember when I worked for BAA chewing the fat with BA's engineers about the then new 757 & 767 which 20 years back were a quantum step in technology. Going back nearly 20 years further I can remember a flight a trip to Cape Town the Jo'berg to Cape town leg in the then new A300 which really impressed me compared to the Trident and 747 that I had flown in on the preceding legs of the trip.
The 787 looks as if it will be a better experience for the passenger compared to the A380

[Edited on 2/1/13 by britishtrident]

wylliezx9r - 2/1/13 at 01:32 PM

quote:
Originally posted by The Venom Project
We are also booked in first class on the Dreamliner to Florida return in June :-) Can't wait

Didnt think there was a first class on the 787, which airline are you flying with ?

atm92484 - 2/1/13 at 02:49 PM

Its a shame that passengers cannot see the construction of the plane behind all of the interior linings and what not. Anyone geeky enough to enjoy such things (such as anyone building a Locost ) would have their mind blown away by it. I would dub it a modern work of industrial art.

Enjoy your flight.

wylliezx9r - 2/1/13 at 03:00 PM

It wasnt such a work of art when they were bonding the nose to the main fuselage and found out that they were different sizes, knocked them back about 15 months. I've worked with Boeing on this project and there have been numerous problems, I personally think that they have tried to introduce too much at the same time.

bobinspain - 2/1/13 at 06:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF_P77VEPKA

This link has been much imitated but never bettered. It's the one about Hitler's delayed Dreamliner order.

marco - 2/1/13 at 07:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Boeing are to aircraft as Ford are to cars

[Edited on 2/1/13 by britishtrident]

I wouldn't call Ford cars as technology breaking tbh.....

sdh2903 - 2/1/13 at 08:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by wylliezx9r
I personally think that they have tried to introduce too much at the same time.

I kind of agree, however they kind of brought it on themselves, they had been very conservative for years with regards to introducing new technology so had to do something to keep up with Airbus.

If its the Thomson 787's you're talking about the 'First class' is more like a premium economy, bigger/wider seats, bigger Telly, more legroom and free booze.

The experience on board should be a pretty nice one with much more cabin space, cabin pressure is closer to being at sea level so you should feel better the other end, decent In flight entertainment on demand to keep the sprogs happy. Certainly a better experience on a whole, probably better than any other UK Charter airline has to offer.

Takes Thomson hat off and returns to fridge for more beer...........

britishtrident - 2/1/13 at 10:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by marco

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Boeing are to aircraft as Ford are to cars

[Edited on 2/1/13 by britishtrident]

I wouldn't call Ford cars as technology breaking tbh.....

Airliners are Fords not Porches Ford have production engineering down to fine art

strange as it may seem in 1925 Ford were the worlds leading airliner manufacturer

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor

[Edited on 2/1/13 by britishtrident]

blakep82 - 2/1/13 at 11:05 PM

Is there a particular length of time that airlines have to keep Boeing's configuration, before jamming more and smaller seats in 'the extra cabin space' ? :-P

morcus - 3/1/13 at 01:13 AM

Is it not that the airports can't handle the number of passengers that would fit on these planes if they had the same sort of seat density as a regular plane? I'm sort of on the periphery of the industry myself and I'm sure people from Airbus and Rolls Royce have both said this about all the new really big planes.

britishtrident - 3/1/13 at 09:02 AM

Larger capacity aircraft mean a lot of headaches for airports, number of check-in desks, baggage handling, distance between gates, length of airbridges, runway, taxiway and apron width and strength, number and size of fire appliances the list goes on..............

Even a small change can lead to headaches at one of the major UK airports refurbished a gate area to accommodate a new customer airline flying Boeing 737's . About a year later the blocked paved apron surface at the gate started to break up, the cause was the airline had replaced 737-200 with 737-400 which have a significantly higher take off weight.

sdh2903 - 3/1/13 at 09:42 AM

quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
Is there a particular length of time that airlines have to keep Boeing's configuration, before jamming more and smaller seats in 'the extra cabin space' ? :-P

the interiors are fitted out to the customer's spec nothing to do with Boeing. Customer selects seat type, seat pitch, IFE etc, Boeing just fits it.

[Edited on 3/1/13 by sdh2903]

sdh2903 - 3/1/13 at 09:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by morcus
Is it not that the airports can't handle the number of passengers that would fit on these planes if they had the same sort of seat density as a regular plane? I'm sort of on the periphery of the industry myself and I'm sure people from Airbus and Rolls Royce have both said this about all the new really big planes.

The 787 isn't really a big aircraft, it's not that different to a 767 size wise which fits at most UK airports. As far as I know there are no special requirements to handle one.

bobinspain - 3/1/13 at 11:10 AM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Larger capacity aircraft mean a lot of headaches for airports, number of check-in desks, baggage handling, distance between gates, length of airbridges, runway, taxiway and apron width and strength, number and size of fire appliances the list goes on..............

Even a small change can lead to headaches at one of the major UK airports refurbished a gate area to accommodate a new customer airline flying Boeing 737's . About a year later the blocked paved apron surface at the gate started to break up, the cause was the airline had replaced 737-200 with 737-400 which have a significantly higher take off weight.

You just jogged a memory.

38 years ago (july 6th 1974 my logbook states), I was the navigator of an RAF VC10 we took on a cargo delivery run to Australia. First stop was Darwin en-route to Woomera, (an outpost for weapons testing in the heart of the GAFA--Great Australian Fuc£ All), which was little more than a third rate tarmac strip. Facilities were non-existent. No air-traffic control, no fueling facilities, one fire-engine which had to be pre-arranged (ATC tower never manned), and the runway load-capacity was way below that required for safe operation of the VC10, a fact I discovered only when on the ground in Darwin. Normally, those sorts of issues were resolved by 'Operations' before we were tasked. This was a 'one-off.'

On checking the ODM (Operating Data Manual), I hit on a wheeze which allowed us to operate safely and within limits. Everything was VFR, (visual flight rules) We literally circled the strip as low as we dare an had a good shufti to content ourselves that there were no boulders of dead kangaroos littering the place). We'd been in R/T contact with Alice Springs Air Traffic who gave us permission to crack on in the knowledge that once we were below 500ft or so, radio contact would be lost (VHF-line of sight).

There's a figure we used called ESWL (equivalent single wheel loading), which is the determinant as to what force per given footprint the undercarriage (supporting the total weight of the aircraft when taxiing or parked) exerts on the tarmac/concrete. At 'normal' operating tyre pressures for the VC10, we were way over the top, but doing the sums and using the ODM graphs, we got the ground-engineer to reduce tyre pressure to a level whereby we were safe to land, taxi and park.

We successfully completed our unloading, and flew back to Darwin for a couple of nights in the Travelodge Hotel. Lots of very cold beer. Taking off en-route to Singapore the next day, we suffered a low-oil-pressure-warning light and had to abort whilst accelerating through about 120kts. But that's another story.

Happy days. Happy memories.

britishtrident - 3/1/13 at 02:36 PM

Near me there used to live a squadie who was a driver in the army, one summer's day he was passing his mums house so he popped in for a cup of tea and parked his wagon outside his mums house, the wagon was a Mighty Antar complete with a semi-trailler complete with a Chieftain on the the back, naturally his visit made some very deep impressions in the street in more ways than one ------ it was like something straight out of "Garry Tank Commander".

wylliezx9r - 3/1/13 at 03:00 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903

quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
Is there a particular length of time that airlines have to keep Boeing's configuration, before jamming more and smaller seats in 'the extra cabin space' ? :-P

the interiors are fitted out to the customer's spec nothing to do with Boeing. Customer selects seat type, seat pitch, IFE etc, Boeing just fits it.

[Edited on 3/1/13 by sdh2903]

Yes but the seat configurations still have to fit into the Boeing architecture and be approved by them its not an open book.

britishtrident - 3/1/13 at 04:01 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903

quote:
Originally posted by morcus
Is it not that the airports can't handle the number of passengers that would fit on these planes if they had the same sort of seat density as a regular plane? I'm sort of on the periphery of the industry myself and I'm sure people from Airbus and Rolls Royce have both said this about all the new really big planes.

The 787 isn't really a big aircraft, it's not that different to a 767 size wise which fits at most UK airports. As far as I know there are no special requirements to handle one.

But the current version is just the intial version just about any reasonably successful transport aircraft I can't think of from the DC1 onwards has been stretched in both length and span.

sdh2903 - 3/1/13 at 04:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident

quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903

quote:
Originally posted by morcus
Is it not that the airports can't handle the number of passengers that would fit on these planes if they had the same sort of seat density as a regular plane? I'm sort of on the periphery of the industry myself and I'm sure people from Airbus and Rolls Royce have both said this about all the new really big planes.

The 787 isn't really a big aircraft, it's not that different to a 767 size wise which fits at most UK airports. As far as I know there are no special requirements to handle one.

But the current version is just the intial version just about any reasonably successful transport aircraft I can't think of from the DC1 onwards has been stretched in both length and span.

True, however the big problems are with wingspan. The wingspan on the -9 and proposed -10 dreamliner is the same as the -8 (current model being built). The A380 causes big issues due to its monster winspan, double decks for the Airbridges and also the catering trucks reaching the upper deck.

morcus - 3/1/13 at 05:13 PM

You seem to have missed what I was saying any way, it's not so much the size of the plane, more the space and staff you'd need to move around the extra passengers, I mean just think about the last time you were at a majoy airport and imagine twice as many people.

sdh2903 - 3/1/13 at 05:25 PM

Yes but the 787 only carries 280-300 max at present so wouldn't cause these issues, those statements were made when the A380 was brought in suggesting it could carry 800+ in all economy configuration, which i may be wrong but no-one flies an all economy A380 (yet).

Most airports can cope with Large aircraft now, Glasgow (a small airport) copes with a 777-300 daily (400+pax), Virgin 747's, Airbus 330/340etc etc.

morcus - 3/1/13 at 06:04 PM

I don't want to start an arguement, but thats exactly what I was saying, that they don't pack it full of seats which is what someone else asked.