f13.net

If anyone is interested in watching on the 'net, check it out here (http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html). Should be taking off (hopefully!) in about 30 minutes.

Wait, wait, we're putting metal in the sky these days? Holy shit.

It is actually mostly composite/plastic  :grin:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1

Hm. Definitely looks like a plane.

This cant be the first flight. I assume it is the first public flight, yes?

If not.... This can go one of two ways.

First test flight, so yeah- anything could happen. Especially doing shit like this-



Test pilots are fucking nuts.

Its not a test without a barrel roll.  :awesome_for_real:

Woohoo, might as well call all of them Boing Will Induce severe legkramps as you're stuck in a seat fit for a short midget. Our new economy-class is named Boing Yoga, because having your feet behind your head is the only space left for them anyway.

Can you try that again in English?

Have you seen the interior shots?

Have you ever flown any new planes?  All 747's and equivalent Airbus's (oh god the Airbus's) are far more cramped than current planes.  Boeing 777's are awesomely awesome though.  From all I've seen this one will continue the trend.

Doesn't each airline determine the internal configuration for the most part?  I mean, just because the model might be spacious doesn't mean that the airline won't reconfigure the hell out of it.  Right?

Also, did it crash?

So far, so good (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE1)

Yeah, thats the other thing, its up to the airline.  But having said that, I'm not sure how customizable older aircraft are.  All I know is that every aircraft I've ever been on that hasn't been a 777 or A340 feels horribly cramped (usually worst with the older Airbus models).
Looks like a cover up for an attack on Victoria.

Maybe they've got one of those big anti-missile lasers installed in the cargo hold...

Who will save all the old people and students!?

One of my high school friends is a commercial airline pilot and I asked her about this new plane. Frankly, as a rare passenger, I look at it and am a bit disappointed. Looks like a plane, nothing eye grabbing from the rest of the fleet. My friend says that the plane's real appeal is inside, especially cockpit orientation and instrument design. I'll take her word for it.

Damn auto designs spoiled me into thinking all industries come up with insane designs.  :awesome_for_real:

Very, provided we're okay with 'older aircraft' being any jet airliner. I don't think that any - dH Comet, Vickers VC10, DC9, Boeing 707 included, all of which I have flown on - have been built for commercial service without the ability to trivially refit the interior to the operator's requirements. Earlier airliners were much narrower than the huge multi-aisle ones that are common today and air travel was less affordable when they were originally designed. Those that are still flying alongside today's more economic wide bodied jets tend to be cramped because the operators are forced to carry as many people as they can in order to keep them economically viable.

Dreamliner isn't something I want to fly on any time soon. Same theory I had when Airbus started pioneering fly-by-wire technology - I don't want to fly on something that is using heaps of bleeding edge technology. Once they're on the third of fourth revision it'll be fine. I'm not as concerned with wings falling off (although maybe that's a possibility since the 787 uses entirely new materials technology) as I am with some minor fault being found that grounds the plane and forces many hours of delays on those supposed to be flying on it.

Flight was cut short due to increasingly shitty weather (shocking for a December day in Seattle  :oh_i_see: ). Just touched down a few minutes ago. Success!

Meh, by the time Airbus was putting fly-by-wire into commercial airliners it was a long proven technology.  Same with the Dreamliner, it's a new application, not new technology.

Still, I'd give them a bit of flight time to work out the kinks.

Too bad Tex isn't flying them any more. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE&feature=related)

It's wasn't the fact that the controls were fly-by-wire that was the issue -- it was the fact that the system could override a pilot's inputs which is diametically opposed to Boeing's philosophy of the pilot having absolute control over the aircraft.

And yet, still a long proven methodology that has shown during two decades of use to provide for safer and more reliable flying.

I've sat in an airport terminal for many hours while they've tried to work out where to get an aircraft on which they know what all the blinking lights mean. By first commercial flight the aircraft is certainly safe enough to fly in. However you're only going to fly provided the aircraft checks clean or that the ground staff are trained enough to know what action has to be taken when a sensor warning is thrown. Since I tend to fly cattle class, waiting in the terminal for a plane that the operator knows how to service isn't generally an entertaining experience.

I'm not in a hurry to fly on the 787 because it has less seat room than the 777 it more or less replaces in Boeing's offerings.

It won't be replacing the (larger) 777. It is a replacement for the 757 and 767.

My issue with the plane is... You can see cracks form from metal fatige. When composites fail, they fail spectaculary - and completely. The thought of the gate and service carts running into the plane regularly also fills me with trepidation. But I like to worry.

We'll see, but I like the idea behind the plane.  I think Boeing chose the right path in trying to create a better, much more fuel efficient plane for point to point travel, instead of just a huge one for hub to hub travel like Airbus (speaking of which, has anybody here yet had a chance to fly on a A380?).

Boeing and Airbus are diverging philosphically, Airbus seems to think hub travel is the future, whilst Boeing seems more decentralised air traffic. Considering how planes are currently built, they're exceptionally efficient. Efficiency wise, planes pretty much beat everything else we travel with.

I've had lots of friends fly the Singapore-London route on the A380. None of them have said it's anything special. I think it's more comfortable simply because it's a larger plane.

And the reason they require visual inspection on composite air cylinders is so they can kill as many technicians as possible.

You mean a plane more like the A350, which has similar order numbers and with the 787's delays will probably ramp up to full production around the same time? Comparing the A380 and the 787 makes no sense. Compare the A380 with the 747-8 and the A350 with the 787 because those are how the planes are competing for orders. That's the problem. Boeing has lost the limited market that exists for super jumbos - the A380-800 and A380-900 will satisfy the demand, and Boeing would be idiots if they tried to design such a plane today. Comparing 787 to A350 and they are carving up the market fairly evenly - sales are probably slightly stronger for the 787 because it's going to be available a couple of years earlier (maybe), but that doesn't help sales going forward. The planes are similar enough that the politics of trade tariffs and subsidies and how soon you can get your hands on one probably has more influence on the sale than their performance does. I think that Boeing can outperform Airbus as a company and turn the A380 flagship into an albatross, but only if they can manufacture more planes, faster. They're not looking so clever on that end right now.

Anyhow, they're too big to fail so it doesn't matter how crap of late any of these planes are. We'll still pay for them. Because we have to.

Well granted its less of a competition now because of the delays in the 787 put it closer to the A350.  But a few years back the 787 and A380 where suppose to come around at the same time (and the A350 was way off in the distance), and they were being marketed to the same people in competition to each other.  Boeing marketed the plane by stressing point to point and fuel efficiency being better vs. Airbus's hub to hub approach.  So they were in competition (especially since the A380 got delayed significantly) until Boeing dropped the ball and had the 787 delayed significantly themselves.  So your right, I guess its less of a comparison since the A350 is more of a viable competitor now, though it didn't start that way.

I don't think they were ever really competitors. Flagships, that's why people keep comparing them.

Boeing dropped the ball on being able to compete with the A380 directly when it scrapped the 747-X project around the same time Airbus was still calling the A380 the A3XX. A plane that has the same class rating as what all of your current flagships do would have been a big deal. But that was when Phil Condit was in charge, and he made a lot of colossal blunders as CEO.

The A350 will "compete" with the 787 the same way the A330 "competes" with the 777. It will be a similar size with similar performance characteristics, but it will be less comfortable for passengers.

I would put "compare" in quotes if you want to express that point. They are actually competing for the same moolah, so no quotes necessary in the above.