• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

If it's not BOEING, I'm not going ... ???

787 First Flight Video

It's a short one of the takeoff, but she's a pretty bird, for sure. You also get a good view of one of the T-33 chase planes, too.

 
Can anyone shed light as to why they left the gear down so long? I was hoping they'd clean her up, she's got pretty lines. Talk about wing flex, too...is that a function of being light and not needing as much gas in the tanks?
 
scoolbubba said:
Talk about wing flex, too...is that a function of being light and not needing as much gas in the tanks?
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing, some of the video seems a little distorted, maybe a side effect from being posted online or maybe shot with an anamorphic lens?
 
I think the wings are a little more flexible due to the composite construction.

wingflex-diagram-thumb-476x237.jpg


http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/05/a-closer-look-at-787-wingflex.html


There was some sort of techie rumor going around that it was so flexible that the wings could bend over the cabin and touch. Doubt it.


scoolbubba said:
Can anyone shed light as to why they left the gear down so long? I was hoping they'd clean her up, she's got pretty lines. Talk about wing flex, too...is that a function of being light and not needing as much gas in the tanks?
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty much standard to leave the landing gear down on a first test flight. They cycled the gear, out of sight of the field, though.

k64825-03-660x439.jpg


http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/12/boeing-test-pilots-discuss-historic-first-flight-of-787/

The chief test pilot is a former Naval Aviator. I'm surprised he flared on the landing... maybe he let the former-AF FO take it...
 
I wouldn't want to be the 1st 787 pilot to get caught in a thunder-bumper & have to watch those [Italian-made?] plastic wings sway 26' up & down. Man, I hope Boeing is as good as its history on this a/c.
 
“I thought the landing was pretty good,” Carriker said. “It doesn’t count how well you fly the airplane up and down Straits of San Juan, it only counts how well you land it.”


Yep...definitely a Naval Aviator.
 
I'll be interested to see the passenger's reactions when the wings bend to 26 ft for the first time on a revenue flight. :eek:
 
Manufacturing Experience

Fog said:
I wouldn't want to be the 1st 787 pilot to get caught in a thunder-bumper & have to watch those [Italian-made?] plastic wings sway 26' up & down. Man, I hope Boeing is as good as its history on this a/c.
Click to expand...

Jap-anese made wings. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is the subcontractor. Seems like they have some experience with other commercial airliners, including the A380.


...as well as some other aircraft with lightweight structure
wwii-plane-jp3-hnm.jpg
 
One quick question, but is it true that Boeing purposelly mis-led Airbus into thinking that it's (Boeing's) next aircraft was going to be this super ultra-large monster-sized aircraft in order to trick Airbus into developing a plane that is too large, so then Boeing could beat them in the market with a new plane that was smaller?

Also, and maybe this is too limited a comparison, but are the Europeans to building aircraft what we Americans are to building automobiles (i.e. quality oftentimes not where it should be, companies subsidized, etc...)?
 
Jap-anese made wings. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is the subcontractor. Seems like they have some experience with other commercial airliners, including the A380.


...as well as some other aircraft with lightweight structure

OK, Japanese wings, but the wing roots were made in Italy & that's what's been fubared for 2 years & has held up this project. I just hope everything stays stuck together when the wings flap like a goose getting airborne.

wwii-plane-jp3-hnm.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
Random8145 said:
One quick question, but is it true that Boeing purposelly mis-led Airbus into thinking that it's (Boeing's) next aircraft was going to be this super ultra-large monster-sized aircraft in order to trick Airbus into developing a plane that is too large, so then Boeing could beat them in the market with a new plane that was smaller?

Also, and maybe this is too limited a comparison, but are the Europeans to building aircraft what we Americans are to building automobiles (i.e. quality oftentimes not where it should be, companies subsidized, etc...)?
Click to expand...

Doubtful, as they were originally intending to build this:

Boeing_sonic.jpg


the Sonic Cruiser, which was planned to seat 200-250, roughly equivalent to the 787. Boeing was actually sort of the reactionary in this situation, when they offered to build a stretched 747 to compete with Airbus' A3XX, which would take the form of the A380, but it was shelved for lack of airline interest.

As far as the car company analogy, I think Airbus make a pretty quality product, but it's also been a gov-run business since its inception, unlike GM
 
Fog said:
I wouldn't want to be the 1st 787 pilot to get caught in a thunder-bumper & have to watch those [Italian-made?] plastic wings sway 26' up & down. Man, I hope Boeing is as good as its history on this a/c.
Click to expand...

I'd rather watch them sway up and down than watch them snap off!

Composites are amazing things...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top