B787

[Glom]

It looks like some kind of large aquatic animal. (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html)

It's weird, but I like it. I've seen some of the pictures of the interior, and I'm a little bit in disbelief. Those seats don't look like they have TVs in the back on them, which is insane. And that potted plant obviously won't be there when it flies. However, I do like the Jetsons look to it. My kind of aircraft. Can't wait to see it for real.

There is always a question about whether A or B has it right about the future. A believes the future lies in Hub 'n' Spoke, which will be well served by the A380 to carry large numbers of passengers between these hubs, while there short range A300/310 series can transport passengers between these spokes. B believes the future lies in point to point, which will be served by the B787, offering smaller more efficient long range travel.

Who is right? Maybe the future is a combination of the two. The fact that A have done some blinking of late seems to indicate such a thing. They have launched their new A350, which would directly rival the B787. The A350 is an adaptation of the A330.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Cool

From the website:
"Incorporating the 8 at the time of the China order is also significant because in many Asian cultures the number 8 represents good luck and prosperity," said Mulally.

What does 7 represent in many Asian cultures?

[tlbs101]

A fellow (former) co-worker and friend just left my company last month to go back to work for Boeing. He is a system electrical engineer working on the 787. He will be working on the instrumentation for testing the prototypes, just as he did years ago on the B777.

I will be anxious to get any non-confidential "insider" updates in the months to come.

[01101001]

Cool
What does 7 represent in many Asian cultures?
Feng shui and Chinese numerology (http://www.feng-shui-architects.com/articles-fengshuinumerology.htm)

Seven has the same sound as “certainty” or “for sure” (chut) so it goes well with 2 and 8, 72 and 78 sound the same as “certainly easy” and “prosperous for sure” respectively in Cantonese. Again, try to avoid putting a 7 next to unlucky numbers like 4, 74 sounds the same as “dead for sure” and is considered unlucky.

[Glom]

Come on. You all have more to say on it than that. There was a big discussion about the A380.

[Candy]

Come on. You all have more to say on it than that. There was a big discussion about the A380.
Wait until Nicolas gets wind of this... 8-[

[Nicolas]

can't-post-must-see-A380-first-flight

I'm not extremely informed on the 787. I'm not fully aware of what new technologies it will incorporate. I know about the full computer design (which has no reflection on the plane itself of course), the large use of composites, the fuel efficiency, the modular build up (handy for repairs) and some other details.

I'll look into it when I have more time or the occasion presents itself.

The memory of a rather arrogant presentation by Boeing's commercial director which I attended doesn't help things along a lot :). Though it should, I should look behind the "let's get on Airbus" commercial talks, and sort out the technical details for myself. When I have time :).

One more remark: the plane looks very "different and new" on those renderings. I sometimes try to imagine that fancy line away. Suddenly it looks a lot more normal. A bit different nose and wings. I have to give the vertical tailplane credit for being b-e-a-utiful. Overal a pretty plane. I hadn't put the line onto it to make it look even more fancy. Reminds me of the stripes they paint on helicopters "to make them go faster" you know...

In about 6 weeks I'll probably have more time (though it could turn out to be the opposite), I'll dig myself into it then. Hopefully the A380 has had its first flight by then.

[publiusr]

Even smaller jets from Embraer will usurp its market. Thnink Jet Blue.

[Nicolas]

Even smaller jets from Embraer will usurp its market. Thnink Jet Blue.

How did you come to this conclusion?

[Ilya]

It looks like some kind of large aquatic animal. (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html)

It's weird, but I like it. I've seen some of the pictures of the interior, and I'm a little bit in disbelief. Those seats don't look like they have TVs in the back on them, which is insane. And that potted plant obviously won't be there when it flies. However, I do like the Jetsons look to it. My kind of aircraft. Can't wait to see it for real.

Few weeks ago I watched an interview with a Boeing executive about 787. He said: "People like to fly, they just do not like to admit it. It is 'sophisticated' to complain how awful air travel is, but deep inside most passengers love to be in the air. Interior if 787 is designed to make you aware that you are flying, rather than disguise it the way most airliners do. We want passengers to KNOW they are in a flying machine, not a faux hotel corridor."

[Nicolas]

787 renders (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/photos.html)

I find the Vietnam Airlines render interesting, as it is a more realistic livery. No misleading lines and colours. I like the plane more in this rendering than in the first Boeing renders, because here it honestly shows that it is a very beautiful airliner. Its form is a bit more organic, due to the shape of the nose, wings and tailplanes. The "real" livery I like the most in combination with the 787 however, is the one from Primaris. I love that livery on "normal" planes as well, but on the 787 it really looks like an elegant bird flying =D>

Hard to compare, but I like the looks of the A380 as well. A behemoth, but one with his own kind of elegance. I'd love to see the stretched version of the A380 coming, as it might make the thing more elegant (less stumpy). It would barely fit in the 80*80 lot lengthwise however :o . (79.4m vs 73 for the current version)

[Nicolas]

Those interior pics have a high star trek factor, but I spotted no in-seat television Glom. I think it is just a patch of textile in rectangular form on the back of the seat? I saw separate televisions.

[Trebuchet]

It looks like some kind of large aquatic animal. (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html)



Have you seen how they're going to get the big pieces to the final assembly site? Click on the "Large Cargo Freighter Development" item in the link. There's a good sized airplane for you.

[Nicolas]

Concerning the 747's that will be modified to carry the 787 parts for assembly (like the Airbus Belugas)

Two 747-400s that will be converted to the new configuration were purchased by Boeing last year. Boeing continues looking for a third airplane that will enter service later.

Ironic, Boeing purchasing and looking for a...Boeing. :)

[Glom]

Those interior pics have a high star trek factor, but I spotted no in-seat television Glom. I think it is just a patch of textile in rectangular form on the back of the seat? I saw separate televisions.

Obviously, what goes in the back of the seats is up to the airline. No airliner is sold with seat back TVs as standard. It depends on what is ordered. That's partly why I think we need to take the interiors with a pinch of salt. The airlines will have the say on how they look. Especially that potted plant, which I doubt would really be practical. Still, I like the idea. It's very Jetsons-esque.

[Nicolas]

Those interior pics have a high star trek factor, but I spotted no in-seat television Glom. I think it is just a patch of textile in rectangular form on the back of the seat? I saw separate televisions.

Obviously, what goes in the back of the seats is up to the airline. No airliner is sold with seat back TVs as standard. It depends on what is ordered. That's partly why I think we need to take the interiors with a pinch of salt. The airlines will have the say on how they look. Especially that potted plant, which I doubt would really be practical. Still, I like the idea. It's very Jetsons-esque.

Yes that plant will be thrown out :). What you say about cabin layout is true, that is determined by the customer to a very large extent. What was it that makes you think there is a possiblility for TVs in the seats?

[Glom]

Presumably the major carriers would order them for their long hauls.

[Nicolas]

Presumably the major carriers would order them for their long hauls.

OK misunderstanding :) .

I agree with your comments, but I wanted to know

what did you see or read that made you believe the possibility of in-seat TVs exists on that plane?

[Glom]

It's an aircraft capable of long haul flights. It incorporates some of the most advanced technology. It is advertised as being a great advance in passenger comfort. Why would they not make it possible? For crying out loud, the thing gives passengers a constant internet connection in flight. A TV is the simplest of luxuries.

I mean, larger windows, higher cabin pressure and humidity, architecture for more airiness, more spacious, Boeing Connexion, yet no seat back TVs. Why should they choose to regress on this more fundamental passenger comfort?

Okay, maybe they won't put them in on the 783. Maybe First Choice won't order them for theirs, but I would be very surprised if the plane couldn't accomodate them.

[Nicolas]

OK things are getting clearer now.

I wouldn't be surprised by in-seat TV's (though it would drain quite some energy!). I just wondered if I had overlooked an article or photo pointing out the TV's :).

[publiusr]

Even smaller jets from Embraer will usurp its market. Thnink Jet Blue.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Point to point travel with smaller planes is becoming the rage. The long haul 777 and A-380 will have uses in the Asia Pacific market.

The 787 just rubs me the wrong way.

We have enough ho-hum twin-jets.

[Nicolas]

The 777 and A380 are Hub&Spoke planes indeed, which have uses far beyond the Asia Pacific market. (long haul continental USA, intercontiental Euope-USA, long haul Europe, and many other routes).

About point2point networks, their market share is increasing indeed.

But p2p needs many aircraft classes, small ones upto rather large ones.
The 787 can serve both the large p2p routes and the smaller h&s routes, which seems a smart market share to aim at. Many of the twinjets we have now are getting old, and the 787 aims at replacing these as well. So in fact, the fact that we have many twin-jets already is a good thing for the 787. Of course that doesn't count for the newer Airbus twinjets, which could be a concurrent. But an aircraft type that aims at 2 market places and can act as a replacement type, seems a good idea to me. It will need to distinct itself from the other twin-jets however, or it won't be noticed between the concurrents, like those from airbus which already established a market share in the replacement branche, and can take advantage of their family concept as argument of choosing Airbus.

By the way, I wouldn't use "rage" in the commercial airliner market. The market is far too money-intensive and development and use of planes takes far too long to have a rage effect. It more are slowly changing trends.

According to Boeing, the trend is a shift towards p2p in various sizes, with a stagnating h&s plane size. (this is not a 100% shift). According to Boeing, there will be demand for very large planes to serve the h&s trunk routes, while there will be need for rather small planes (other companies) up to medium sized planes on the p2p routes, plus the smaller h&s routes Airbus' A350 aims at those segments, like the 787 does.

[publiusr]

If free flight and very small jets 'take off" like the Eclipse people want, we might end up with very big planes to cross the oceans, and a lot of very small planes. Jet Blue uses Embraer's planes and don't seem to need the 787 to make money.

[Nicolas]

If free flight and very small jets 'take off" like the Eclipse people want, we might end up with very big planes to cross the oceans, and a lot of very small planes. Jet Blue uses Embraer's planes and don't seem to need the 787 to make money.

No, they don't need the 787 to make money as they are aiming at another part of the market. To give an extreme example of the mistake in that reasoning: Raytheon Missile Systems does not need the 787 to make money. They are aiming at the military jet market, which is another part of the airplane market. Less clear, the same counts for the personal and regional aircraft. They are aiming at other market parts than the 787, which aims at the longer and busier p2p routes, and adjacent to that the shorter h&s routes.

If I'd go on a 3000 km trip, I don't want to do it in a small plane. There is a very important market segment between regional travel and intercontinental travel.

[Waarthog]

On the matter of the 787, I am hoping that this bird will provide me with employment in a year or two.

[Nicolas]

On the matter of the 787, I am hoping that this bird will provide me with employment in a year or two.

In what sense?

[Trebuchet]

On the matter of the 787, I am hoping that this bird will provide me with employment in a year or two.

I'm hoping it will be done providing me with employment in a year or two!
:D

[Nicolas]

You're working on the design of it, Trebuchet?

[The Rat]

The 787 just rubs me the wrong way.

We have enough ho-hum twin-jets.

Darn right. Bring back the Sonic Cruiser. Now there's a sexy bit of work, better than Viagra to someone like me.

Presuming of course that there is anyone like me. 8)

[Trebuchet]

You're working on the design of it, Trebuchet?

Yes, in a secondary sort of way. I'm actually working on the LCF (747 Large Cargo Freighter) as well as some consultation with the outside supplier who is doing the work I should be doing on the 787. You may notice I feel a tad bitter about that.

3 years to retirement.

[tmosher]

The 787 just rubs me the wrong way.

We have enough ho-hum twin-jets.

Darn right. Bring back the Sonic Cruiser. Now there's a sexy bit of work, better than Viagra to someone like me.

Presuming of course that there is anyone like me. 8)

Unfortunately, unconventional aircraft like the Sonic Cruiser just don't fit in (yet). Anyone remember the Blended Wing Body design by Boeing? Another non-starter in aviation.

[Nicolas]

The 787 just rubs me the wrong way.

We have enough ho-hum twin-jets.

Darn right. Bring back the Sonic Cruiser. Now there's a sexy bit of work, better than Viagra to someone like me.

Presuming of course that there is anyone like me. 8)

The SC did look nice, but the problem was that it had to deal with all the cons of supersonic flight without making real use of the advantages.

About the BLended Wing body design, that one is frozen now, but it was much more experimental than the SC and might be used for future designs.

[Glom]

The big problem is that airports are currently equipped to accept conventional aircraft designs. I remember that an original concept for the A3XX was, rather than a double decker, an ultra-wide body jet that was the size of two wide body fuselages. It would have double tails and look like a massively overgrown F/A-22. The problem was that this design could not possibly be accomodated by the airports without massive redesigns to the gates.

A parameter for the A380 design was it had to fit into a heavy slot so that an airport capable of handling the 744 could handle the A380 functionally. The upgrades are really just to ensure more efficient utilisation such as the second level to the pier to allow loading of the upper deck at the same time as the lower deck. The A380 can be handled, just not to its optimum without upgrades to major airports.

The crazy revolutionary designs suffer from this problem. Somehow, I don't think that introduction of blended wing aircraft will happen in a sudden form like a massive huge airliners project. It will begin more slowly in niche markets and be more gradually accomodated until either A or B see that the time has come that such a design is possible.

[Waarthog]

In what sense?

What I do for a living is as a Systems and Test Engineer for Flight Managemement systems. I am not certain of the timeline, but I think that when my current contract ends in December of this year, the 787 FMS program will be ready for system level testing and I hope to sign on to the program.

[Nicolas]

In what sense?

What I do for a living is as a Systems and Test Engineer for Flight Managemement systems. I am not certain of the timeline, but I think that when my current contract ends in December of this year, the 787 FMS program will be ready for system level testing and I hope to sign on to the program.

8)

[Glom]

Heard an opinion on the motive behind the A350. This may or may not be valid but here goes.

Airbus's recent success has been due to a good quality product being offered in a wide range, but recent development in Boeing have been undermining it.

The A320 series has covered short haul narrowbody aircraft. The market share was taken from the 737. However, the recent developments of 737NG have caused Boeing to make progress in recapturing market share.

The A330 series dominated medium range mid-sized aircraft. The 767 was defeated by it. The 787 stands to be a talisman for Boeing to forcibly retake the market share, which they had previously been lacking in.

The A340 series covered long range fairly large aircraft. The 777 is slowly but surely taking away market share. Generally, operators don't want a quad when they can get a twin to do the job.

Before the 787, Boeing was attacking Airbus's dominance on two fronts. They were a reasonable threat on the short haul narrowbody front and a very effective threat on the long haul widebody front. But Airbus remained unchallenged on their strongest border, the medium range mid-size front. Then Boeing brings out the 787, which launches a blitzkrieg attack on the third, final and most heavily defended front.

This is a front that Airbus cannot afford to lose since it is their best. So they come up with the A350. Without it, the 787 will take the middle market share, while the 777 gradually overwhelms the long range market share and the 737NG weakens the short haul market share. The A350 is needed to keep Airbus in the game. It's an act of desperation.

[Nicolas]

I agree with large parts of the opinion, but not the last sentence.
While the A350 indeed clearly is Airbus' counterattack against the 787, a much heard "opinion" of sorts is that if Boeing fails to make the 787 a success, they might as well quit the commercial airliners market.

I think both opinions are too strong. The 787 is Boeing aim at regaining market share, the A350 is Airbus' answer to prevent that. Just commercial attitude, but on a very large scale. My opinion.

[Nicolas]

I've got a side remark to make to that quoted people who "never let their families fly airbus again, because the composites failed on the rudder of one, and all airbusses are made with composites" etc.

There have been accidents with Boeings in the past, many of which (logically) had to do with aluminum failing. Do these people refuse to let their families fly Boeing because they use aluminum (btw Airbusses are made mainly out of aluminum as well)?

I mean: if you refuse to come near any airbus again after a rudder fell off -and a safe landing was made-, why do you still fly 747 then? In 1986 (I think), a cargo door failed in cruise, blew open, tore open the fuselage, sucked out 9 people, of which 2 got subsequently sucked into the inboard engine. (United Airlines, but that's irrelevant here).

I'm not saying a rudder detaching is a banality at all. But I think these reactions are unrealistic panicking and/or patriotistic; certainly before any investigation into the accident has taken place.

My opinion: both airbus and Boeing build extremely safe planes. We've discussed this somewhere else, and there are no data showing one of the companies having (normalized to flying hours and flights) a worse safety record. There is a lot of air traffic, and just as with everything else in this world, things sometimes go wrong. And when they do, you can be sure that the aircraft industry will look into it very seriously. Whether they find the cause and can solve the problem is another issue of course. I see no design flaws in any model of both companies justifying a decision to stop flying a type. And apart from the type, the company taking care of the plane during its operational lilfe (maintenance and use) has a very large influence as well.

[Candy]

(United Airlines, but that's irrelevant here).
Thanks for the publicity. :o

[kucharek]

Wasn't there in the 1980's a Japanese Jumbo who lost his rudder and crashed into a mountain?
Or how about the DC-10 series of loosing engines etc?
Bad accidents will continue to happen, and as long there isn't a clear series and as long as corrective action is taken, there is no point in avoiding some type of plane. When big planes crash, the guys who try hardest to find out what happened and what can be done against a repeat are usually the engineers of the company that built the plane. I have full trust into both Boeing and Airbus - but I've doubts about some airlines if they stick to all maintenace rules for their planes. And then we have the problem of the market with used or even faked spare parts. Such stuff is of much bigger concern to me than what Airbus or Boeing are doing.


Harald

[Nicolas]

DC-10's have had numerous problems, but they also contributed (due to the accidents) to some advances in flight safety, like quick release pressure valves between teh cargo area and the passenger cabin.

About airplanes safety: Fokker is getting some of their planes back from the disposal dessert (!), refurbishing them and selling them again. They know the planes inside-out, and check them more thoroughly than any maintenance company would do if the planes had been used upto today. I'm not mistrusting maintenance companies, but Fokker does tests on the planes that aren't required by maintenance, not even in a D-check which checks pretty much everything. Fokker does a D+ check on the planes before reselling them.

[tmosher]

Wasn't there in the 1980's a Japanese Jumbo who lost his rudder and crashed into a mountain?
Or how about the DC-10 series of loosing engines etc?
Bad accidents will continue to happen, and as long there isn't a clear series and as long as corrective action is taken, there is no point in avoiding some type of plane. When big planes crash, the guys who try hardest to find out what happened and what can be done against a repeat are usually the engineers of the company that built the plane. I have full trust into both Boeing and Airbus - but I've doubts about some airlines if they stick to all maintenace rules for their planes. And then we have the problem of the market with used or even faked spare parts. Such stuff is of much bigger concern to me than what Airbus or Boeing are doing.


Harald

The 747 lost it's vertical because of a bad repair to the aft bulkhead. DC-10 lost it's engine at O'Hare because of bad maintenance practices.

As for bogus parts, it's not as big a problem as the press makes out.

[publiusr]

Even so--it was bad enough that DC-10s are called MD-11s and such today.

[Nicolas]

Even so--it was bad enough that DC-10s are called MD-11s and such today.

It doesn't matter too much to me. Companies change name, so do the planes. I call the planes made under DC flag DC's, and planes made under MD flag MD's. I won't call a 1989 DC-10 suddenly an MD-11. Just a personal principle, funded in, well, pretty much nothing :) .

[Donnie B.]

Are there any significant differences in the safety records of various aircraft, per mile flown or per cycle? I've never seen anything that would scream, "Don't fly on a (model number here)!"

[Nicolas]

Are there any significant differences in the safety records of various aircraft, per mile flown or per cycle? I've never seen anything that would scream, "Don't fly on a (model number here)!"

Not really. The Concorde used to be one of the safest planes flying around before the Paris crash, as it never had had a single deadly accident before.

I thought the A340 didn't have deadly accidents (I'm really not sure).
Overall, the planes all are very safe. When something goes wrong and is found to be a design error, the type is grounded untill the design is adapted. The end result is that all planes are very safe, and have similar safety records (when normalized for flight hours/cycles and things like terrorism/external causes) I'm not saying this to indoctrinate you. They really are very safe. When things go wrong, you have little chances of course. And it makes front page news, where 1000 worldwide deaths in one week's car accidents won't.

But I've never heard of an airplane design that was signifficantly less safe than others, without something being done. I mean the Comet clearly had problems, but they were aknowledged and solved.

[mopc]

Even smaller jets from Embraer will usurp its market. Thnink Jet Blue.

Embraer's largest airplane, the 195, is still much smaller - another market.

http://www.embraer.com/

[jt-3d]

DC-10s are not the same as MD-11s. Carry on.

[Maksutov]

About the only planes I'm concerned about today are members of the DC-9/MD-80/Boeing 717 family of T-tails. These planes all use a jackscrew to trim their horizontal stabilizers. Lack of proper design and good maintenance caused the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 (an MD-83) in January, 2000. Here's the NTSB report. (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.pdf)

While maintenance procedures have been improved, the horizontal stabilizer trim control system design remains the same. In the case of another failure of the acme nut/torque tube assembly, the system still has no positive stop to prevent the horizontal stabilizer leading edge from moving upward well beyond what is permitted by a normally operating jackscrew assembly. In the case of Flight 261, the resulting upward movement of the horizontal stabilizer leading edge created an excessive upward aerodynamic tail load, which caused an uncontrollable downward pitching of the airplane from which recovery was not possible.

Although the improved maintenance procedures were required, the design change to the horizontal stabilizer trim control system was only a recommendation, and one that, to the best of my knowledge, the airlines and/or Boeing have not yet acted upon. Therefore in the event of another acme nut/torque tube failure, there is nothing to prevent the horizontal stabilizer from suddenly defaulting to a mode that causes a downward pitch that cannot be controlled.

For these reasons, those are the only airplanes I don't fly on.

[tmosher]

About the only planes I'm concerned about today are members of the DC-9/MD-80/Boeing 717 family of T-tails. These planes all use a jackscrew to trim their horizontal stabilizers. Lack of proper design and good maintenance caused the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 (an MD-83) in January, 2000. Here's the NTSB report. (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.pdf)

While maintenance procedures have been improved, the horizontal stabilizer trim control system design remains the same. In the case of another failure of the acme nut/torque tube assembly, the system still has no positive stop to prevent the horizontal stabilizer leading edge from moving upward well beyond what is permitted by a normally operating jackscrew assembly. In the case of Flight 261, the resulting upward movement of the horizontal stabilizer leading edge created an excessive upward aerodynamic tail load, which caused an uncontrollable downward pitching of the airplane from which recovery was not possible.

Although the improved maintenance procedures were required, the design change to the horizontal stabilizer trim control system was only a recommendation, and one that, to the best of my knowledge, the airlines and/or Boeing have not yet acted upon. Therefore in the event of another acme nut/torque tube failure, there is nothing to prevent the horizontal stabilizer from suddenly defaulting to a mode that causes a downward pitch that cannot be controlled.

For these reasons, those are the only airplanes I don't fly on.

The DC-9 has been in existence for forty years (first flight 1965) and out of the 1,800 aircraft (DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717) only once has that kind of accident occured.

BTW, the 727 also uses a jackscrew to position the horizontal stabilizer.

I have no problem flying on DC-9's/MD-80's, in fact I like them. I probably have at least 100,000 miles flying on them as a passenger.

[Nicolas]

DC-10s are not the same as MD-11s. Carry on.

What exactly are the differences? They were always told to me as being essentially the same airplane.

It even went this far that an old version of lecture notes compared a craft as being "roughly the size of a DC-10", while the new version says "roughly the size of an MD-11".

Can you please explain or link to the differences? I'really interested to learn them, as I always thought they were essentially the same.

Edit: found it!

DC-10/MD-11 (http://www.flybernhard.de/ueb_eng.htm?http://www.flybernhard.de/md11_e.htm)

The MD-11 are the follow up of the DC-10, which were built instead of updating the DC-10 design within that series.

we learn every day!

[Trebuchet]

I tend to think of the MD-11 in relation to the DC-10 as comparable to the relation between the 747-200/300 and 747-400. Same basic airframe, increased gross weight & payload, upgraded systems, and winglets.

Similarly, the DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, and MD-95/717. The "old" Boeing would have just called them new dash-numbers, which is why the 737 is up to -900.

[Nicolas]

I tend to think of the MD-11 in relation to the DC-10 as comparable to the relation between the 747-200/300 and 747-400. Same basic airframe, increased gross weight & payload, upgraded systems, and winglets.

Similarly, the DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, and MD-95/717. The "old" Boeing would have just called them new dash-numbers, which is why the 737 is up to -900.

Although being different planes (not ONLY a name change) the difference between the DC-10 and MD-11 series isn't that big indeed. The changes fit better within the DC-10 series than as a separate model. But I erronously thought it was only the name that was different (that DC-10 produced under MD suddenly were called MD-11).

[Trebuchet]

I tend to think of the MD-11 in relation to the DC-10 as comparable to the relation between the 747-200/300 and 747-400. Same basic airframe, increased gross weight & payload, upgraded systems, and winglets.

Similarly, the DC-9, MD-80, MD-90, and MD-95/717. The "old" Boeing would have just called them new dash-numbers, which is why the 737 is up to -900.

Although being different planes (not ONLY a name change) the difference between the DC-10 and MD-11 series isn't that big indeed. The changes fit better within the DC-10 series than as a separate model. But I erronously thought it was only the name that was different (that DC-10 produced under MD suddenly were called MD-11).

The other significant change I forgot was going from a 3-crew to a 2-crew cockpit. (On both the 747-400 and MD-11) Some DC-10's are now being converted to 2-crew with a new glass cockpit and called MD-10's.

[Nicolas]

By the time the MD-11 came on the market, 2 crew cockpits were the way to go indeed, so that makes total sense. I don't know if the cost of converting a DC-10 from 3 crew to 2 crew still pays off for the remaining life of the planes, but apparently it does.

[tmosher]

By the time the MD-11 came on the market, 2 crew cockpits were the way to go indeed, so that makes total sense. I don't know if the cost of converting a DC-10 from 3 crew to 2 crew still pays off for the remaining life of the planes, but apparently it does.

It probably pays off for FedEx (they're the only ones that I know are flying the MD-10 - approximately 35 aircraft). Figure three flight engireers for each DC-10 (remember, duty time limitations). So that's 105 FE's. Figure each one is earning around $90 per flight hour and doing around 80 hours per month.

105 x 90 x 80 x 12 = $9,072,000 per year in saved salaries. If they keep the aircraft for another ten years - over $90 million saved.

(FedEx FE hourly wage ranges between $50 and $125 per flight hour).

[Nicolas]

By the time the MD-11 came on the market, 2 crew cockpits were the way to go indeed, so that makes total sense. I don't know if the cost of converting a DC-10 from 3 crew to 2 crew still pays off for the remaining life of the planes, but apparently it does.

It probably pays off for FedEx (they're the only ones that I know are flying the MD-10 - approximately 35 aircraft). Figure three flight engireers for each DC-10 (remember, duty time limitations). So that's 105 FE's. Figure each one is earning around $90 per flight hour and doing around 80 hours per month.

105 x 90 x 80 x 12 = $9,072,000 per year in saved salaries. If they keep the aircraft for another ten years - over $90 million saved.

(FedEx FE hourly wage ranges between $50 and $125 per flight hour).

If the cockpit adaptations of the 35 craft come in under $90 million, that's a good choice indeed.

[tmosher]

By the time the MD-11 came on the market, 2 crew cockpits were the way to go indeed, so that makes total sense. I don't know if the cost of converting a DC-10 from 3 crew to 2 crew still pays off for the remaining life of the planes, but apparently it does.

It probably pays off for FedEx (they're the only ones that I know are flying the MD-10 - approximately 35 aircraft). Figure three flight engireers for each DC-10 (remember, duty time limitations). So that's 105 FE's. Figure each one is earning around $90 per flight hour and doing around 80 hours per month.

105 x 90 x 80 x 12 = $9,072,000 per year in saved salaries. If they keep the aircraft for another ten years - over $90 million saved.

(FedEx FE hourly wage ranges between $50 and $125 per flight hour).

If the cockpit adaptations of the 35 craft come in under $90 million, that's a good choice indeed.

I haven't been able to find a conversion cost for the MD-10. However, FedEx originally ordered 79 MD-10 conversions from Boeing with an additional 40 options. Supposedly, the conversion also gives the aircraft a 20-year economic lifespan.

As of 2001, FedEx incurred $93 million in costs to scale back the conversion program (2001 FedEx annual report).

Also, there is another cost savings with the MD-10 - you don't need separate crews for the MD-10 and MD-11 fleets - same type rating (with a little conversion training).

Still digging for what the conversion costs.

[Nicolas]

This is a little bit off topic, but very interesting. I always like to know the final cost/profit numbers of such conversions. Thanks for looking things up! =D>

[tmosher]

This is a little bit off topic, but very interesting. I always like to know the final cost/profit numbers of such conversions. Thanks for looking things up! =D>

A rough number I'm coming up with is $1.4 million USD per conversion for the Advanced Common Flightdeck. I'm basing this number on a contract that Boeing signed with Aeronavali in February 2002. However, I'm not certain that the conversion cost includes the hardware needed for the conversion. I believe it is just the labor costs for both the ACF conversion and a maintenance check for the aircraft.

Aeronavali to Modify DC-10F Cockpit for Boeing (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=8726&session=dae.11368091.111250804 4.Qk@GjMOa9dUAABwmzwQ&modele=jdc_1)

The number sounds awfully low to me.

[Waarthog]

Of all the flight controls/Computer programs I have worked on, MD-11 was the most difficult since halfway thorough it we had to switch fom the MD "way" to the Boeing "way" of record keeping and test philosophy. I do NOT want to go trough that again.

[Nicolas]

Link to a 787/A380 post of mine (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=448001&#448001)

[Glom]

They're getting rid of the shark tail. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XD2S54K1HXW3CCRBAEKSF EY?type=topNews&storyID=8095905) :(

[Nicolas]

No shark tail, no sweeping nose but still "very distinct looking".

What other elements (except for the lines on the rendered paintjob :)) were distinct looking? :).

Except for the larger windows and the higher cabin pressure, the passenger side of the design (the nice looks) is lost now. Passengers aren't that interested in how cheap the plane is for the airliner (unless they feel it in the ticket price, which won't be the case in an industry that hardly makes money now).

I hope that the 787 still will be a success; Airbus needs a sreious competitor to "stay sharp". And Boeing will need it.

[Trebuchet]

The "shark tail" and other swoopy features were created by stylists at an outside industrial design firm for advertising purposes. I suspect there's been a real struggle going on for a couple of years between the marketing folks who wanted the look and the aerodynamicists and manufacturing people who knew how impractical it was. In the end, reality won out. This is something that would never have happened at the old (pre-McDonnell-Douglas merger) Boeing -- the engineers would have been in charge from the beginning.

[Nicolas]

I think it is a very bad step from marketing to do such things if engineers know from the start how improbable it is that the shape will ever become (close to) reality. it gives you an impression of "what other promises won't they keep?"

Some of you've probably seen the cartoons of how every engineer wants a plane to look like (aerodynamic: very slender wing, "no" fuselage etc, construction: square boxes, etcetc). But these engineers don't use their personal dream as communication to the outside world.

[Trebuchet]

I think it is a very bad step from marketing to do such things if engineers know from the start how improbable it is that the shape will ever become (close to) reality. it gives you an impression of "what other promises won't they keep?"

You just said what I've been thinking ever since I saw the first pictures.

I should probably offer a disclaimer here: Although I work for Boeing, I'm not on the 7E7 program and have little or no personal knowledge of its direction -- I just read the same news sources you do.

[sarongsong]

April 12, 2005 (http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/12/news/)
"This photo...shows a [200 pound] thrust reverser nozzle that fell Saturday off a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Honolulu. The part fell off near Minneapolis. The flight crew did not notice that the cone-shaped engine part was missing until the DC-10 had landed. No one was injured..."
(left column, last item)

[Candy]

April 12, 2005 (http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/12/news/)
"This photo...shows a [200 pound] thrust reverser nozzle that fell Saturday off a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Honolulu. The part fell off near Minneapolis. The flight crew did not notice that the cone-shaped engine part was missing until the DC-10 had landed. No one was injured..."
(left column, last item)
All I see are cute little girls. Is there something you want to confess, sarongsong? :lol:

[tmosher]

April 12, 2005 (http://starbulletin.com/2005/04/12/news/)
"This photo...shows a [200 pound] thrust reverser nozzle that fell Saturday off a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Honolulu. The part fell off near Minneapolis. The flight crew did not notice that the cone-shaped engine part was missing until the DC-10 had landed. No one was injured..."
(left column, last item)


Thrust reverser nozzle my butt. It was the No. 2 (center) engine tail cone.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: NWA97 Make/Model: DC10 Description: DC-10 (KC-10 Extender, KDC-10)
Date: 04/09/2005 Time: 2030

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: HONOLULU State: HI Country: US

DESCRIPTION
NORTHWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT 97, A BOEING MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10 ACFT,
DISCOVERED, AFTER LANDING, IT WAS MISSING THE NUMBER TWO ENGINE TAIL CONE,
HONOLULU, HI

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: UNK

OTHER DATA

Departed: MINNEAPOLIS, MN Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: HONOLULU, HI Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: HONOLULU, HI (WP13) Entry date: 04/11/2005

Tom

[sarongsong]

Thrust reverser nozzle my butt. It was the No. 2 (center) engine tail cone...
Cool---is that report you cite available to the public on the Web?

[Nicolas]

I already thought it was strange that it was a thrust reverser, because I thought those looked -on commercial airliners- like a part of the nacelle (hence painted) which slides backwards, opens ports this way, and redirects the flow with "valves" on the front of the thrust reverser nacelle (not a clear explanation; I'm just saying that it should look quite different).

Other thrust reversers I've seen are quite rudimentary "plates" which are put into the flow, but not a lot that look that much like a nozzle cone :wink: .

[tmosher]

Thrust reverser nozzle my butt. It was the No. 2 (center) engine tail cone...
Cool---is that report you cite available to the public on the Web?

Ten working days of FAA accident reports are available at:

Preliminary Accident and Incident Data (http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm)

After that, the data usually shifts over to the NTSB's site.

[tmosher]

I already thought it was strange that it was a thrust reverser, because I thought those looked -on commercial airliners- like a part of the nacelle (hence painted) which slides backwards, opens ports this way, and redirects the flow with "valves" on the front of the thrust reverser nacelle (not a clear explanation; I'm just saying that it should look quite different).

Other thrust reversers I've seen are quite rudimentary "plates" which are put into the flow, but not a lot that look that much like a nozzle cone :wink: .

Yep, there's basically two different types - cascade and target.

Cascade-type TRs usually involve a translating cowl that slides backward to reveal the cascades. At the same time blocker doors deploy to redirect fan thrust through the cascades (you'll find these on the DC-10, MD-11, 747, 737-300 thru -800, etc).

Target-type which deploy into the exhaust stream (i.e., doors). These are found on the 737-100/-200, DC-9, and most corporate aircraft.

There's a variation of the target type which has the blocker doors forming part of the exhaust nozzle. These are usually called planar thrust reversers. The Gulfstream G450 and a couple of other aircraft have these.

[Nicolas]

It's the planar target type I meant with the last part of my explanation. If I Recall correctly the Panavia tornado jet uses a very crude form of these (which induce the black smoked tails typical for that plane by the way).

[Glom]

Orders have topped 200. The aircraft has nearly sold enough to break even and the design hasn't even been finalised yet.

[Nicolas]

Are those final orders or options?

[Glom]

After the Korean Air order, they said 203 "orders and commitments" whatever that means, but I presume it includes the options.

Apparently, they have contracted a company based at Southend to provide flight deck seats. Very cool. I went there in an AA-5 earlier this week.

[Nicolas]

Commitments are options indeed. I don't know the details, but I thought those were not really orders. It costs you quite some money to step out of an option however.

Let's hope the A380 reaches break even as well. I think A380 orders will stall a bit untill more enveloppe data is known, and more airports are adapted. Ah well, as long as the A380 itself doesn't stall :D.

[Glom]

An Airbus stall? Over the FMS's dead body!

I'm pretty sure the A380 will reach breakeven. The real question is whether it will the resounding success Airbus say it will. This market is hitherto untapped.

[Nicolas]

[puts away the dictionary]

And the edge of the market is even coming free with 747 retirements (though the competitions of things like the 777 is big there).

I really hope both plaens (787/A380) will become a success, and I hope for the A380-900 if it was for the 8) factor alone.

(what an industry we have: hoping for break-even as the ultimate goal :)...)

[Glom]

I saw a renderings of an A389 which looked really good. The stretched fuselage was in proportion to the rest of it. However, that photoshop job was a bit over done because it had been stretched too much. I think it added something like 300 seats.

[Glom]

The shark tail is gone but the wings and upswept nose are staying.

[Nicolas]

Do you have url of renderings of both planes?

[Glom]

The 203 are apparently firm orders. Options are not includes. The number has gone up to 217 with the 14 firm Air Canada orders, which includes -9.

[Nicolas]

203 confirmed orders is a LOT. Let's hope the final design is according to the promised features and performance (minus the shark tail and nose :))

I'm looking up total orders/options on the A380 now. It should be noted that the price per plane for an A380 is higher of course; so is the break even cost :).

20 january 2005:
149 confirmed A380 orders and commitments.
Adding options: "close to" 250, considered the A380's break even point.

Both planes Doing great!

(for the too easily offended: these numbers are facts, this is not a AB war :) :roll:)

[Glom]

I think the A380 order book is up to 156. Do you know what the breakeven is for the 787?

The shark tail is gone but the shark nose is still there I believe.

[Nicolas]

Dunno, but 250 sounds reasonable for the 787 as well, unless they would suffer major cost overruns.

[Glom]

237. Air India just decided to go for the widebody duo. It looks like the 777 has become all the stronger from the expected arrival of its little sister.

[Nicolas]

Did Air India order 34 787's or what are you saying? That's "a lot", to say the least :).

If Airbus continues with their plan to fly the A380 tomorrow, I think it's a nice way to celebrate my "set of arms" her birthday! 8)

[sarongsong]

April 26 (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=Boeing%20Cong ress)
"...The meeting came as Air India announced plans Tuesday to order 50 new Boeing jetliners, a deal worth $6.8 billion...Air Canada said it had made firm orders for 32 Boeing jets at a list price of $6 billion..."

[Glom]

Did Air India order 34 787's or what are you saying? That's "a lot", to say the least :).

No. AI ordered 20 and AC ordered 14 in the last couple of days.

[Nicolas]

oh ok. Well, that's still a lot anyway :).

(it's the 27th here already, and I'm going to take some hours of sleep now :))

[tmosher]

The order from Air India, the nation's biggest overseas carrier, includes 27 of the 787s and 23 Boeing 777s. Approval of the purchase from the Indian government is required, the state-owned airline said.


Air India orders 50 Boeing jets for up to $6.9 billion (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/posting.php?mode=reply&t=19580&)

[publiusr]

Looks like the fuel spike is really selling them now.

[Nicolas]

I don't think (at least I hope so) that big airliners like Air India act that impulsively: ordering 50 new craft because the oil prices raised. THey must have been thinking about this for a LONG time, and they have long term market analysises, including oil prices.

So I think it is very unlikely that the oil price rasing in the US of the last months has triggered the ordering of that many new planes.

[Trebuchet]

Here's the latest look (also posted in the A380 thread):

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q2/nr_050426g.html

Note the upright winglets on the short-range version and raked tips on the longer range one.

The nose now looks significantly shorter to me.

[publiusr]

I don't think (at least I hope so) that big airliners like Air India act that impulsively: ordering 50 new craft because the oil prices raised. THey must have been thinking about this for a LONG time, and they have long term market analysises, including oil prices.

So I think it is very unlikely that the oil price rasing in the US of the last months has triggered the ordering of that many new planes.

If they were waffling--it might. China's use of fossil fuels isn't slowing.

The straw that broke Airbus's back perhaps.

But A-380 is already flying.

[Candy]

http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/Boeing.gif

[Candy]

Northwest Airlines Orders Boeing 787 (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050505/cgth076.html?.v=4)
Northwest Airlines announced today that it has ordered 18 Boeing 787 twinjet airliners to support the carrier's long-term fleet renewal program.

Initial deliveries of the 787 will begin in August 2008. Northwest also holds options and purchase rights for an additional 50 aircraft.

Northwest will be the first North American carrier to put the 787 "Dreamliner" into revenue service.
That's a lot of money.

[Trebuchet]

I don't see a dollar figure in the story but you do need to take those with a grain of salt when they appear. They're pretty much always based on list price (which is never the real price) and include all the options, which may or may not ever turn into orders.

It's interesting that Boeing is doing so well on orders now, especially among former Airbus customers. It would appear they've change the policies which led to many losses on the basis of price. Perhaps the PTB's have realized that 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing.....

[Candy]

I don't see a dollar figure in the story but you do need to take those with a grain of salt when they appear. They're pretty much always based on list price (which is never the real price) and include all the options, which may or may not ever turn into orders.

It's interesting that Boeing is doing so well on orders now, especially among former Airbus customers. It would appear they've change the policies which led to many losses on the basis of price. Perhaps the PTB's have realized that 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing.....
From the local news, I either heard the Northwest deal was worth 1/2 billion or a billion and a half. I should've been listening better. #-o

[Nicolas]

I don't see a dollar figure in the story but you do need to take those with a grain of salt when they appear. They're pretty much always based on list price (which is never the real price) and include all the options, which may or may not ever turn into orders.

It's interesting that Boeing is doing so well on orders now, especially among former Airbus customers. It would appear they've change the policies which led to many losses on the basis of price. Perhaps the PTB's have realized that 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing.....
From the local news, I either heard the Northwest deal was worth 1/2 billion or a billion and a half. I should've been listening better. #-o

For 18 planes, I think 1,5 billion. The smaller 737 costs about 0,1 billion per plane, so that would already make 1,8 billion for 18. (we're talking 1 billion = 1000 million here, right?). I thought the 787 was about 0,12 billion per plane. That's the list price. In reality (not full option planes), and with large orders, the price normally is less.

[tmosher]

I don't see a dollar figure in the story but you do need to take those with a grain of salt when they appear. They're pretty much always based on list price (which is never the real price) and include all the options, which may or may not ever turn into orders.

It's interesting that Boeing is doing so well on orders now, especially among former Airbus customers. It would appear they've change the policies which led to many losses on the basis of price. Perhaps the PTB's have realized that 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing.....
From the local news, I either heard the Northwest deal was worth 1/2 billion or a billion and a half. I should've been listening better. #-o

For 18 planes, I think 1,5 billion. The smaller 737 costs about 0,1 billion per plane, so that would already make 1,8 billion for 18. (we're talking 1 billion = 1000 million here, right?). I thought the 787 was about 0,12 billion per plane. That's the list price. In reality (not full option planes), and with large orders, the price normally is less.

List price on a 737 is $44 to 74 million USD depending on model.

[Nicolas]

I don't see a dollar figure in the story but you do need to take those with a grain of salt when they appear. They're pretty much always based on list price (which is never the real price) and include all the options, which may or may not ever turn into orders.

It's interesting that Boeing is doing so well on orders now, especially among former Airbus customers. It would appear they've change the policies which led to many losses on the basis of price. Perhaps the PTB's have realized that 5% of something is better than 20% of nothing.....
From the local news, I either heard the Northwest deal was worth 1/2 billion or a billion and a half. I should've been listening better. #-o

For 18 planes, I think 1,5 billion. The smaller 737 costs about 0,1 billion per plane, so that would already make 1,8 billion for 18. (we're talking 1 billion = 1000 million here, right?). I thought the 787 was about 0,12 billion per plane. That's the list price. In reality (not full option planes), and with large orders, the price normally is less.

List price on a 737 is $44 to 74 million USD depending on model.

Indeed. I realised I was wrong this morning. That 100,000,000 dollar was an estimate we used for a totally different type of craft, but of 737 size. Going through some data this morning, I saw my mistake. I didn't have time to post about it yet though :) .

[jamestox]

List price on a 737 is $44 to 74 million USD depending on model.
How much does a CD/MP3-player option add? Oh, and I think I want the tinted windows and floor mats, too...... :-?

[Candy]

List price on a 737 is $44 to 74 million USD depending on model.
How much does a CD/MP3-player option add? Oh, and I think I want the tinted windows and floor mats, too...... :-?
Probaby 0 if advertising/marketing has anything to do with it. :D

[Nicolas]

List price on a 737 is $44 to 74 million USD depending on model.
How much does a CD/MP3-player option add? Oh, and I think I want the tinted windows and floor mats, too...... :-?
Probaby 0 if advertising/marketing has anything to do with it. :D

ANd if it doesn't:

an extra (comms) speaker in the cockpit of a commercial airplane costs you 4000-5000$!!! :o

[publiusr]

OT

Airbus is thinking about buiding its Tanker plant in Mobile, Alabama--and LockMart looks to put its Atlas V line in Decatur as well. Our state was voted number one in economic development. There is a new cruise ship dock here, and several new auto plants. Boeing was thinking about an airplane plant here--but no dice.

[jamestox]

OT

Airbus is thinking about buiding its Tanker plant in Mobile, Alabama--and LockMart looks to put its Atlas V line in Decatur as well. Our state was voted number one in economic development. There is a new cruise ship dock here, and several new auto plants. Boeing was thinking about an airplane plant here--but no dice.

True. The dice are in Mississippi (at the casinos).

[sarongsong]

July 29, 2005 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-07-29-china-boeing_x.htm?POE=MONISVA)
"China confirmed the bulk of a large order for Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner on Friday, but company officials were trying to determine why the 50-plane sale was 10 short of what the Chinese announced earlier this year..."

[Glom]

but company officials were trying to determine why the 50-plane sale was 10 short of what the Chinese announced earlier this year..."

Because the 60 aircraft order was spread among four airlines and not everything has been firmed up yet.

Besides, Royal Air Maroc will take their place as well as Avianca, possibly TAP, LOT, Qantas and maybe even Aer Lingus although that could just be a baseless rumour.

[Launch window]

Boeing, Aeroflot Finalize Order For 22 787 Dreamliners
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200709051155DOWJONESDJONLINE000788_FORTUNE5.htm
Boeing 787 fuselage does well in test
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20070907/BIZ/109070040/1005