What is exciting about the 787?

[Mictheslik]

For me what is so exciting about the 787 is that first, it is made of composites. 2nd, it is a beautiful design. 3rd, it was delayed two years. It finally flew. It also uses the latest technology.

I've only just noticed this thread but I'm sorry....a plane is exciting because it's delayed by two years??  .....weren't saying that about the A380 were they

.mic

[expat]

As a Mechanic I find the 787 to be very interesting, amazing even. Especially the fact that the airframe is mostly composite, I love working with composites, it's my "thing" if you will. That being said, I'm a GA guy all the way. Other than the technology I don't see anything interesting about commercial jets. Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to pay me to work on them then that's one thing, but I'll never be caught dead having one of those Boeing Vs Airbus discussions.

Erm, Boeing 787 IS a GA plane. Remember, Boeing wrote off all six prototypes. First three can never be sold. But ZA004 to ZA006 are GA planes.

As is the last A340-300.

Would you rather own the last A340-300 or the first 787-800 sold?

Prototypes are never sold they are development aircraft and often remain so during the production life of an aircraft type. Each time a major mod is introduced it is these aircraft that are used. As for writing off six aircraft it has more to do with destructive testing than anything else. Even the aircraft that have the wing box problems will still be used for testing and would have never been sold.

As for comparing the first 787 with the last A340, with this statement you are going to write off the first 100 production aircraft as they will all be the same. Seems that the first A380 is doing well?

Matt

[chornedsnorkack]

As a Mechanic I find the 787 to be very interesting, amazing even. Especially the fact that the airframe is mostly composite, I love working with composites, it's my "thing" if you will. That being said, I'm a GA guy all the way. Other than the technology I don't see anything interesting about commercial jets. Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to pay me to work on them then that's one thing, but I'll never be caught dead having one of those Boeing Vs Airbus discussions.

Erm, Boeing 787 IS a GA plane. Remember, Boeing wrote off all six prototypes. First three can never be sold. But ZA004 to ZA006 are GA planes.

As is the last A340-300.

Would you rather own the last A340-300 or the first 787-800 sold?

Prototypes are never sold they are development aircraft and often remain so during the production life of an aircraft type. Each time a major mod is introduced it is these aircraft that are used. As for writing off six aircraft it has more to do with destructive testing than anything else. Even the aircraft that have the wing box problems will still be used for testing and would have never been sold.

No.

Airworthy prototypes are not deliberately tested to destruction. The assemblies which are broken in testing are never completed to airworthiness, it is just a tested part.

Airbus planned to test A380 on 5 frames, keeping 1 (MSN001) permanently and selling the other 4 to airlines (009 to Emirates, 002, 004 and 007 to Etihad). This plan fell through - Emirates took up both 007 and 009, 002 was sold as GA plane and 004 was left to Airbus as whitetail.

Boeing planned to test 787 on 6 frames, selling many of them (how many?).

This fell through with accumulated fixes. Boeing now has to test 787 on 8 frames. 6 prototypes were all written off: 3 first can never be sold at all, 3 next can only be sold as GA planes, and Boeing has to test ZA100 and ZA101 to prove that the tests on prototypes have any applicability on service frames.

As for comparing the first 787 with the last A340, with this statement you are going to write off the first 100 production aircraft as they will all be the same. Seems that the first A380 is doing well?

Matt

If it is prototype vs. prototype, would you rather own A380 MSN002 or B787 ZA004 (first planes of either to be sold)?

[expat]

It would depend of your definition of airworthy. Airworthy can cover any part that if placed in an aircraft could in it's present state fly up to and including a completed airframe that has not been fitted out yet. What is the point of testing parts that are not airworthy? Firstly that part would never gain certification if it was shown that the tested parts were not of the same standard and fitting as the parts that will be fitted to the finished aircraft. Secondly, at least two airframes will be tested to destruction. One in a wing flex test and one in a cabin pressurisation test.

Matt

[chornedsnorkack]

It would depend of your definition of airworthy. Airworthy can cover any part that if placed in an aircraft could in it's present state fly up to and including a completed airframe that has not been fitted out yet. What is the point of testing parts that are not airworthy? Firstly that part would never gain certification if it was shown that the tested parts were not of the same standard and fitting as the parts that will be fitted to the finished aircraft. Secondly, at least two airframes will be tested to destruction. One in a wing flex test and one in a cabin pressurisation test.

My definition of airworthy in this context was incorporated in an airframe assembly complete enough to be flown.

I understand that the wings destroyed by flex tests (one static, another fatigue) are never attached to any nose and tail.

How many fuselages are destroyed by pressure?

[expat]

It would depend of your definition of airworthy. Airworthy can cover any part that if placed in an aircraft could in it's present state fly up to and including a completed airframe that has not been fitted out yet. What is the point of testing parts that are not airworthy? Firstly that part would never gain certification if it was shown that the tested parts were not of the same standard and fitting as the parts that will be fitted to the finished aircraft. Secondly, at least two airframes will be tested to destruction. One in a wing flex test and one in a cabin pressurisation test.

My definition of airworthy in this context was incorporated in an airframe assembly complete enough to be flown.

I understand that the wings destroyed by flex tests (one static, another fatigue) are never attached to any nose and tail.

Wing test

Matt