Your chance to see Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner in Australia

[AaronBradford]

If anyone's interested my images from this afternoon's tour are available here: Boeing 787 Dream Tour Sydney - a set on Flickr

 

[kpc]

Thanks Red Roo for the invite. My pictures (selection) at Sydney from this morning [if you have broadband internet, best viewed in slideshow mode in full screen]:
share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0AbsXDNi2buGLyQ

 

[MrJetset]

Thanks to RedRoo, I was able to take a tour of the 787 Dreamliner this morning. You can see my photos at ImageShack Album - 50 images


The experience was a unique 'money can't buy opportunity' (unless you buy a 787, I guess?) and one that I thoroughly enjoyed. That said, clearly is was a Boeing roadshow and I desperately wanted to see more Qantas! There were JQ and QF crew stationed at the bottom and top of the stairs, but once aboard it was over to Boeing reps.


Perhaps I'm spoilt but after experiencing the A380s hard product, I found it difficult to get excited over Boeing's demo Business class. I'm certain when it has QF's hard product, it will be far more impressive. If it does represent JQ's new Business than it'll be a vast improvement.


The striking aspects were the electro-chromatic windows that crew can control which much larger than the A380s and the large overhead lockers. As I wasn't on a flight I can't comment on the cabin pressure or noise in flight. The aircraft did feel like it had a great sense of space, but I dare say it could be due to the way it had been configured.


Overall, it's great to have more, advanced additions to the QF/JQ fleet. Compared to US legacy carriers, or many in Europe we should be absolutely grateful with Qantas group's continued investment in its fleet, in addition to its hard and soft products that continue to be superior.

 

[Robert K]

Great to finally see some of you in real life!

It's hard to say whether I love the plane or not since it's not real yet! It is very pretty tho.

Hopefully the economy seats in the show plane are not final. Bit flimsy and unpadded!

can't wait to try out the electronic blinds in the air. Maybe for their next plane, they can put in scratch resistance/water repellent/condensation free windows so i can take nicer pictures through them.

 

[Simsy85]

Congratulations to those who scored a close up look.
For the rest of us there are currently some good pics here of the 787 in Sydney from yesterday.

newairplane.com/787/dreamtour/#/en/sydney/

According to the GE site the GEnx engine on the 787 is 111 inches (2.82m) in diameter.
The GE9-115B (largest engine on the 777) is 135 inches (3.43m) in diameter.

geaviation.com/engines/commercial/comparison_turbofan.html

Engines probably look larger proportionately on the 787.
(not enough posts to paste links yet.)

For those talking about the size of the GE engine...

The Dreamliner didn't have GE Engines, it has RR engines...

 

[markis10]

For those talking about the size of the GE engine...

The Dreamliner didn't have GE Engines, it has RR engines...

For Bird 003 correct, however the GEnx is an option on the 787 and has been tested on Bird 006 as well as being on Air India's 787 thats close to delivery while JAL are operating 787s with GE already.

 

[Simsy85]

For Bird 003 correct, however the GEnx is an option on the 787 and has been tested on Bird 006 as well as being on Air India's 787 thats close to delivery while JAL are operating 787s with GE already.

Yes but the question was specifically about the Engines on the Bird we saw and why they we're unusually large

 

[markis10]

Yes but the question was specifically about the Engines on the Bird we saw and why they we're unusually large

Makes sense, I have added the quote to your post which will help!

 

[Ewing]

I've uploaded some of the photos that I took on Saturday if anyone is interested:
Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 26 May 2012 - a set on Flickr

 

[Ewing]

Oh, and I'm sure the members here will be pleased to see that NPPPs were being served onboard! (I personally stuck with the mini quiches and the delicious Caspian Coast Matrasa wine from Azerbaijan that they picked up when in that part of the world).

 

[AaronBradford]

I've uploaded some of the photos that I took on Saturday if anyone is interested:
Boeing 787 Dreamliner - 26 May 2012 - a set on Flickr

Awesome stuff, Shaun!

 

[Flying Fox]

Great photos by everyone and thanks for sharing.

Loved the in-flight coughpit pics... it has been so long since that opportunity presented itself for me...

 

[RAM]

The photo showing the lady in front of the engines caused me a little concern given the plane is not fully fueled, carrying next to no cargo and no bags to speak off nor passengers. Given the "flexibility" of the wings (see 787 web site for metres of vertical flex) the approx 80cm ground clearance would seem on the low side (no pun intended).

Given some of the heavy landings I have experienced across many airlines (seeing a B777 wing flexing at Frankfurt with 60+ emergency vehicles next to the runway was the worst) that could be potentially catastrophic if repeated with a B787 with that clearance. I waited and spoke with the pilot as he left the flight. Having some knowledge (funds mgmt aerospace background) saw him changing his story after I caught him out with his explanation. The underside wing plate on my side of the plane was less than 30cm from the tarmac - (both the direct view and its shadow gave me a good gauge of the distance).

If that was the B787 with these engines I am not sure we would not have cart-wheeled.

 

[Mal]

The photo showing the lady in front of the engines caused me a little concern given the plane is not fully fueled, carrying next to no cargo and no bags to speak off nor passengers. Given the "flexibility" of the wings (see 787 web site for metres of vertical flex) the approx 80cm ground clearance would seem on the low side (no pun intended).

Im trying to work out your point. If the faa and other appropriate bodies certify the plane, then that gives me a much greater sense of security than a random post.



Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

 

[RAM]

Im trying to work out your point. If the faa and other appropriate bodies certify the plane, then that gives me a much greater sense of security than a random post.



Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly

Trust in authorities can lead to unpleasant results - in financial markets think the FED and the ECB, Irish regulatory authorities etc. They work until they make a big mistake.

The aeronautical engineering community has posted a lot of detailed discussions about the problems Boeing face with upgrading the engines on the next generation B737 due to the existing low ground clearance from the engines but this has never been raised by the authorities.

The A380-800 was launched approx 20+ tonnes over the designated launch weight and duly certified by the authorities. This was well known within the industry and a colleague of mine who visited the final assembly facility in 2003/4 came back with some great photographs of the weight saving measures that he was shown to ensure us as potential wholesale investors that the program was not destined to fail (achieve broad design parameters and face compensation claims).

To get the weight down further they swapped out heavy gauge aluminium for lower gauge aluminium and some plastic composites (not carbon fibre though as far as I remember) in the wing supports. The seats had the strengthening reduced to a level that arguably may make A380 economy seating the closest to the minimum to meet the safety standards of any seat flying. That alone raises questions given more modern planes are supposed to improve safety standards but that is another thread entirely.

There were other weight saving measures for the fuel tanks and Qantas experienced a significant issue with leaking fuel on that front for the first 15 months or so of acceptance testing and flying. This was notified to their financiers although not necessarily the general public.

The authorities approved the fuel measures as well by the way.

The latest official AEDS communique now acknowledges that the weight reductions had "unforeseen" impacts and that they are confident they will have a permanent solution by the end of 2012. The first completed wing with the still to be identified (let alone certified) measures is expected to be available in Q4 2013 as it takes roughly a 12 month period from start to finish to fabricate a complete wing. The retrofitting cost is expected to exceed 600mn Euro according to the industry publication.

The cracking spars were the subject of exhaustive testing (AEDS earlier communiques) and it was thought that the problem was due to isolated manufacturing issues or airline operation practices. Latest admission bears no resemblance to earlier spin.

So, to say that apparent low ground clearance of a virtually unloaded B787 with Boeing testing showing extreme flexibility of the wing casing is something that you'll accept the authorities certification after both their and EADS major miss with the structural integrity of the A380-800 wings - could be a little short-sighted.

In Boeing's defence they did redesign the wing box assembly due to issues (which could well have been due to the flexibility of the wing) but they did not identify what the cause of the problem was (publicly that is) they did manage the symptom.

 

[SeatBackForward]

If RAM is as said "funds mgmt aerospace background", I'm sure they have access and privy to much more sensitive information than the travelling public does. Afterall QF is not a public transport service to be run at a loss..

 

[HW]

The photo showing the lady in front of the engines caused me a little concern given the plane is not fully fueled, carrying next to no cargo and no bags to speak off nor passengers. Given the "flexibility" of the wings (see 787 web site for metres of vertical flex) the approx 80cm ground clearance would seem on the low side (no pun intended).

Given some of the heavy landings I have experienced across many airlines (seeing a B777 wing flexing at Frankfurt with 60+ emergency vehicles next to the runway was the worst) that could be potentially catastrophic if repeated with a B787 with that clearance. I waited and spoke with the pilot as he left the flight. Having some knowledge (funds mgmt aerospace background) saw him changing his story after I caught him out with his explanation. The underside wing plate on my side of the plane was less than 30cm from the tarmac - (both the direct view and its shadow gave me a good gauge of the distance).

If that was the B787 with these engines I am not sure we would not have cart-wheeled.

I don't quite follow the point you're trying to make. The wings are certainly designed to flex, however in a landing up until the point of the wheels carrying all of the weight of the aircraft the wings are holding the weight, which means they will be flexed upwards if anything. On a heavy landing the sudden 'transfer' of this weight from the wings to the undercarriage doesn't result in the flapping of the wings such that the tips hit the ground. The Boeing website Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Commercial Aviation Services - Flight Operations - Airport Technology - Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning provides dimensional data on things like minimum clearance underneath engines etc for most aircraft models if you're talking about under-engine clearances.

 

[mannej]

RAM - You say your knowledge is funds management.
Just out of curiosity, what technical knowledge/training does that entail with flying a plane and aviation engineering?

Just curious that is all.

 

[RAM]

RAM - You say your knowledge is funds management.
Just out of curiosity, what technical knowledge/training does that entail with flying a plane and aviation engineering?

Just curious that is all.

To invest in a company, any company, you need to think about it as owning the business.

To own a business you want to know about the competitors, suppliers and customers.

Best way to find issues with Boeing is to visit AEDS and ask them what are the problems that Boeing has and vice-versa. Then you visit key component suppliers and ask them what works well with Boeing/AEDS. Then you ask what doesn't. You will nearly always be told many times more about what doesn't work.

First B787 delivered was 9 tonnes overweight. Ground clearance from engine nacelles documented issue with B737 enhancements - just not talked about on TV for some reason.....

On bad landings the wings rebound as entire plane's momentum changes vector. If plane is not hitting with correct centre of gravity (difference in fuel placement, baggage not distributed correctly, or car not balanced {eg: Etihad loaded a hatchback at forward cargo hatch on A330 I travelled on and it was situated right next to the hatch} or due to cross wind/wind shear or any number of other reasons) then the wing flex goes down on impact before rebounding and ground clearance becomes an issue.

On a couple of occasions landings have been so heavy that the landing gear has gone through the top of the wing. In those cases luckily the landings were well centred just too rapid rate of closure.

On B777 into Frankfurt the plane landed heavily and off-centre. Ground clearance on engines becomes an important factor in that case.

Background - Physics, Applied Maths, Pure maths - not pilot, missed out by 1 day with Budget changing period for RAAF from 5 years to 8. Just 1 day!!

 

[oz_mark]

First B787 delivered was 9 tonnes overweight. Ground clearance from engine nacelles documented issue with B737 enhancements - just not talked about on TV for some reason.....

The 737 issues were documented well before the enhancements. Look at the shape of them front on on a 737-800. There's a reason for the profile not being a circle, and that reason is ground clearance.

As for the 787, my understanding is that the ground clearance is the same as some models of 777 (engine dependent, and some 777 have a bit more clearance), and IIRC, the inboard 747 engines are closer to the ground.

(I would have thought that if you did hit the ground hard enough, you'd be more likelt to rip an engine off, rather than cartwheel)