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... 

Quote:


Of course a jet is  "cool"  ... anything that flies is cool 

But in that regard of "coolness", it's no more "exciting", than any other jet.. and in many ways (to me), the technology, as wonderful as it is, makes it more sterile, and less exciting.

I'd get a much larger thrill out of seeing (or flying in)(or piloting) a 707 

I appreciate the technology.. it just doesn't excite me.

All airliners are basically the same: flying tubes with engines. It will be a long time before they decide to make one different.

specter177 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 1:01pm:



They should start watching old episodes of Thunderbirds 





Matt

expat wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 2:12pm:


He's obviously never experienced a VC10!


As for the 787, apart from the engine location, it's nice to see the aerodynamics of the VC10's still-born predecessor (Vickers' V1000) being approved over 50 years later!

Quote:



Only time will tell

Matt

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.

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.

chornedsnorkack wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 5:13am:


Nice try, I still don't want either.

Yes I know what GA means, I should have said that I'm only interested in light aircraft.

chornedsnorkack wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 5:13am:



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

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 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 3:02pm:


Wing test

Matt