For starters... the aircraft is not made of "plastic" it is made of "composite materials" - yes, there is a rather substantial difference.

Composite materials are a mixture of various materials put together so that each of their unique characteristics are maintained while forming one main shape or structure.

Plastic is a combination of chemicals that while near their molten state can be formed into a shape - once cooled, the plastic will retain the shape it is molded into.

The big deal about the 787 is that it is one of those aviation "firsts", it is the first airliner to use composite materials for the majority of its construction.

the airliner production industry is about a decade behind the general aviation industry in composite construction.

The advantage to use of composite materials is simple.

most modern composite materials retain a tensile strength comparable to steel, however they are many times lighter in weight.

The concept of the 787 dream liner is that it will incorporate more fuel efficient engines, increased aerodynamic efficiencies and use mostly composite materials in its construction. This will - in theory - provide the aircraft with a superb thrust to weight ratio, and allow for particularly low fuel consumption for the given load carried into the air.

exactly what the fuel economy is... we will see.

however... airline executives and departments in charge of acquisitions of new orders would quite readily spend $165,000,000 on an aircraft if... in the service life of the aircraft - the company would save hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps even Billions of dollars) in fuel expenses.

specter177 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 1:33am:


20% is what i wanted to put in my post but i wasnt sure.

20% over the lifespan of the aircraft... thats not huge

thats colossal LOL

think of it... assuming the airframe only has a mere 15 year service life.

cost of acquisition being about $170M

in fuel costs alone (all other variables aside) you could potentially save Billions of dollars per airplane.

RitterKreuz wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 1:40am:



Then add that saving across a fleet of these aircraft

Matt

I'm with Snippy.. 

It's absolutely a technologically significant airplane... but as an aviation enthusiast... I find it as "exciting", as a driving enthusiast would find a composite, hybrid, flex-fuel, computerized bus 

Hagar wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:23am:

Bit like the vulcan you mean??

Here is a good website outlining all the features behind the 787:

http://www.newairplane.com/

Basically, the biggest changes are:
Advanced aerodynamics and FBW.
Nearly all composite structure.
All electric.
Big windows.
New engine technology.
Higher cabin pressure
Higher cabin humidity
Great avionics.
New construction techniques.
Huge amounts of outsourcing.
Very intense flight test program

Which all translate into...:
High risk program.
Huge maintenance savings compared to existing aircraft.
Huge fuel savings compared to existing aircraft.
Perhaps safer (e.g. Heads Up Displays as standard) compared to existing aircraft.
Much quieter compared to existing aircraft.
Higher passenger comfort.
New routes.
Lower ticket prices?

Personally, I think it is one of the best looking aircraft out there. IMO, it was plain obvious the original 7E7 design would be changed, it was merely concept art IMO - and I'm glad... it looks much better now.


Also, much of the hype is due to the new technologies involved, the 2 and a half year delays caused by problems like the wings breaking too easily, MASSIVE cost overruns (cost as much to develop as the A380, despite the aircraft being physically half the size), and the fact that it had over 840 orders before it even flew. If you count options, that's about as much as all the 767 aircraft that have ever been built, or about the same as every A330 and A340 combined in existence. A HUGE amount of people / entities depend on the success of this aircraft. I've heard it compared with the 707 in terms of risk and ingenuity.

I don't see it like a bus at all. Buses do not fly 10 kilometers high at a thousand kilometers per hour. They do not have over a hundred thousand horse power at their disposal. They do not sound amazing. Nor are they the pinnacle of technology. i.e. there is nothing cool about a bus. A jet, is damned cool IMO. Ever touched the fan blades of the GE90-115B on the 777-300ER? My jaw just about dropped to the floor. Hell, maybe I'll be flying a 787 some day...

That's like saying fighter aircraft or warbirds are not cool because they are weapons of death, that end life, permanently. Or that Formula 1 cars are not cool because they have no practical use, and instead drive in circles all day pumping out crap into the atmosphere, breaking about every two minutes, perhaps killing someone in the process.


The 787 has a similar use as a bus. But that's where the similarities end. You must simply have a different perspective on technology, so I respectfully disagree.


And yes, given I catch public transport at least once a day, and have traveled over 4500 kilometers in buses during the period of 14 days, I would be very excited if some company came up with a way to reduce ticket cost (from >$1500), and increase reliability and comfort on these trips. 40C days with no air conditioning (to name the least) are NOT fun. (nor is breaking down in the middle of the desert). Would this new bus be cool? Well.... probably not, maybe if it had the qualities of a jet... like getting me to my destination in a couple of hours, instead of days, flew, had beautiful technology... etc...