Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Sundog

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 August 2006
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
1,418
...for 10am Dec. 15 (Edited for correct month :) ), although I have no idea which time zone that 10am is for, I'm assuming it's Pacific Time Zone. It will be broadcast live on the web, you can pick it up at www.boeing.com or www.newairplane.com

Of course, I'll have to miss it, because I will be on a B737 otw to Florida at the time! I'
ll have to watch the recap after I get to my destination. ;) Assuming everything for the first flight goes as planned, including good weather.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I suppose you mean 10am Dec. 15...
Click to expand...

Doh! Yeah. I don't know why, I keep writing Oct. this month for the date. I don't know why it's stuck in my head.
 
She's finally ready to fly! December 15 at 10:00 am Pacific Time - Paine Field in Everett, WA to Boeing Field in Seattle, WA; approx 4-5 hours. The nightmare of more than 2 years delay for the first flight of the Dreamliner is nearly over.
 

Attachments

  • 787 high-speed taxi test to rotation speed-small.jpg
    787 high-speed taxi test to rotation speed-small.jpg
    344.7 KB · Views: 504
That's a really nice picture. For a minute there, I thought you were going to say it had just flown, since it's nose wheel is off the ground. ;) I had forgotten high speed taxi tests are just about everything except the main gear lifting off (flight), at least not intentionally.
 
Sundog said:
That's a really nice picture. For a minute there, I thought you were going to say it had just flown, since it's nose wheel is off the ground. ;) I had forgotten high speed taxi tests are just about everything except the main gear lifting off (flight), at least not intentionally.
Click to expand...

Can we say "F-16" :)
 
I wish Boeing the best success, our aviation industry needs it if you ask me.
 
Woo!
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4839

787-6.jpg
 
Did anyone else catch the irony and juxtaposition of the 787 being chased by a 60+ year old design from the dawn of the jet age?
 
That wing dihedral is normal when the 787 is in flight. I've seen artists depictions of in-flight wing dihedral of 10 to 15 degrees.
 
What really seems to be different about the Dreamliner's dihedral is that the wing seems to be limp. It has a curved shaped when in flight, which I find a bit scary personally because we're not used to it!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
What really seems to be different about the Dreamliner's dihedral is that the wing seems to be limp. It has a curved shaped when in flight, which I find a bit scary personally because we're not used to it!
Click to expand...

can you say B-52 ..?

anoiher boeing product with a "limp wing" where the wing lifts off first .. then nothing happens for some while .. and then the fuselage also decides to get airborne
 
Two more.
 

Attachments

  • completing first flight-small.jpg
    completing first flight-small.jpg
    288.4 KB · Views: 249
  • Landing after first flight at north end of Boeing Field-small.jpg
    Landing after first flight at north end of Boeing Field-small.jpg
    697.7 KB · Views: 151
aim9xray said:
Did anyone else catch the irony and juxtaposition of the 787 being chased by a 60+ year old design from the dawn of the jet age?
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed it as well.

Also, it looks like the T-33 fuselage fits into the 787's engine inlets!
 
First flight in-flight photo with landing gear up on 15 December 2009 and two others.
 

Attachments

  • K64825-14-small.jpg
    K64825-14-small.jpg
    80.3 KB · Views: 96
  • K64825-15-small.jpg
    K64825-15-small.jpg
    129.6 KB · Views: 132
  • 787 first flight 12-15-09-small.jpg
    787 first flight 12-15-09-small.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 178
Second 787 flown on 22 December 2009.
 

Attachments

  • 787 No. 2 first flight.jpg
    787 No. 2 first flight.jpg
    434.5 KB · Views: 95
787 No. 1 has flown 15 times - up to 30,000ft and 0.65 Mn - next is 40,000 ft and 0.85 Mn.
 

Attachments

  • K64839-01.jpg
    K64839-01.jpg
    577 KB · Views: 103
Dreamliner 4 flew on 2/24/10. Number 3 will fly next.
 

Attachments

  • 787 No. 4-small.jpg
    787 No. 4-small.jpg
    515.9 KB · Views: 80
This seems like a good thread on which to ask a question which has been nagging me for a long time. Why did curves disappear from airplane design? Most airplanes used to have curved edges on all flight surfaces. After the appearance of the rectilinear P-51 Mustang, designers started straightening the leading, trailing and tip edges. The Lockheed F-90 and Sud-Est Caravelle seem to be the last significant military and commercial aircraft, respectively, with any curves to speak of on their flight surfaces. It's not as if either of these aircraft had performance envelopes that are uncommon today and both were created by pretty competent design teams.
I can think of manufacturing considerations that would argue against curves - was it just the production pressures of WWII that straightened out airplanes? I'd think that CAD/CAM technology would have mitigated this factor.
My understanding of aerodynamics is limited, but my impression is that there can be advantages to nonlinear leading and trailing edges in some situations. Certainly, curves can be useful structurally, since loads don't always change in a linear fashion across an airframe.
My hunch had long been that the demise of curved surfaces was mostly a matter of style - that the world had decided what a modern airplane looked like and that anything with curved surfaces was suspect. This is reinforced by modernized aircraft of the 40's and 50's (Super DC-3, Fisher P-75, Cessna's product line) which emerged from the redesigner with similar performance but straightened planforms. The curvaceous early 7E7/787 illustrations clearly indicate that Boeing thought curves were marketable however. Maybe the perception was that anything different would be perceived as new by everyone except guys who read aviation forums.
Beyond the specific reason cited above for the 787 tail shape evolution, can anyone explain why airplanes lost their curves? I sorta liked them.
 
Trade off between ease of manufacture versus aerodynamic efficiency, I expect. Curves are more difficult to fabricate. I'd suggest that your examples are a little off as well being "the last to..."
 
Mostly is ease of manufacture and design. Once aircraft performance began take off, so to speak, the calculations for stress, strength, minimising weight and other factors became more difficult. Simple shapes and straight lines are easier to calculate for (remember this was well before computers) and now it's mostly economic. The simpler the part the cheaper it is to design and manufacture so curves are the first things to go.
 
I note that the wind tunnel model does not have the curved leading edge of the tail that showed up in the 2004 model a few posts up. That curved leading edge later got eliminated because (I think) it created drag and reduced efficiency.
 

Attachments

  • k62869.jpg
    k62869.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 40
  • 031117g2.jpg
    031117g2.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 31
  • 031117g3.jpg
    031117g3.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 24
  • 031117g1.jpg
    031117g1.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 35
blackstar said:
I note that the wind tunnel model does not have the curved leading edge of the tail that showed up in the 2004 model a few posts up. That curved leading edge later got eliminated because (I think) it created drag and reduced efficiency.
Click to expand...

Explanation regarding the tailfin is a few posts up, on this page.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom