Boeing B-787 Dreamliner Airborne At Last
Ned
RWY 34 at Paine Field
N787BA partially rotated at 130kts - see http://tinyurl.com/y88tz5d
And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMbEh1KQZTQ
First flight planned for 10 a.m. on Dec. 15, weather permitting, the
company announced Saturday.
BradGuth
> Well almost.......On the very last high speed taxi run this afternoon on
> RWY 34 at Paine Field
> N787BA partially rotated at 130kts - seehttp://tinyurl.com/y88tz5d
>
>
> First flight planned for 10 a.m. on Dec. 15, weather permitting, the
> company announced Saturday.
The Boeing 787 at near 6000 lbs overweight, at least it'll look darn
good as it's costing airlines an extra tonne of loot per year and
otherwise producing all that extra CO2. That's 6000 lbs worth of
passengers and cargo that gets permanently bumped from each and every
flight.
~ BG
JB
--
Read the latest aviation news at www.flight.org
BradGuth
That's not the point. Nowadays it's all about applied technology,
efficiency and less pollution per passenger mile or per payload tonne
mile, and that's what the 787 was touted and contracted on. If
anything they should have been slightly below their target mass of
222,000 lbs, because final outfitting can easily add a tonne or more
worth of inert mass.
With fuel coast along with most everything else only going up, and
past due make-up pay and benefits for most everyone involved; how are
these airlines going to manage their fleet of 787s without public
funding?
~ BG
BradGuth
> RWY 34 at Paine Field
> N787BA partially rotated at 130kts - seehttp://tinyurl.com/y88tz5d
>
>
> First flight planned for 10 a.m. on Dec. 15, weather permitting, the
> company announced Saturday.
The 787 ruse of the aviation century, has to lose weight (or else).
The Boeing 787 at near 6000 lbs overweight, at least it'll look darn
good as it's costing airlines an extra tonne of loot per year and
otherwise producing all that extra CO2. That's 6000 lbs worth of
passengers and cargo that gets permanently bumped from each and every
flight.
“Just a month ago, Boeing was 5800 pounds over its target weight of
222000 pounds for the base version 787-8”
767 w/o paint saves 360 lbs and saves $20,000/year(fuel)
“Air Canada's decision to strip the paint off an operating 767 to
save just 360 pounds. It expects to save $20,000 annually in fuel”
The Boeing 787 at near 6000 lbs over its design target weight, and
intended for those extended range applications that should average
more flight hours, could be worth $360,000/year just in added fuel
cost per year. That’s going to be hard to make up with at least 30
fewer passengers and/or 6000 lbs less cargo.
Even though they only recently managed to offload 2500 lbs by using
most every trick, by the time of delivery it’ll likely have that base
inert mass of 228000 lbs, if not a little more.
Those GEnx engines are running so lean that flameouts may become
somewhat more common, and their NOx always higher than necessary
because of the increased energy which the 787 is demanding (including
from its larger APU), especially since the inert mass of that aircraft
has to pack <6000 more pounds.
Any time you move passengers and crew at great velocity and in such
style, there’s going to be a CO2 and NOx price to pay. Even though
the GEnx engine is cutting edge and far better than most at minimizing
CO2 and NOx, it’s still burning up precious carbon based fuel and many
fold more tonnage of our mostly nitrogen atmosphere (a good diesel
engine takes into account a 15:1 compression), like hell is on fire
and thus never freezing over.
~ BG
David Lesher
>Which new aircraft haven't been overweight?
I'm sure the MD-11 wasn't; that was why it was such a big success!
Attn: this is "sarcasm"..you can look the word up if you are confused.
The MD-11 was, to my knowledge, a major failure & embarrasment. It never
reached the promised specs re: load, range, etc. At one point the daily
San Francisco - Far East {was it to Tokyo?} flight stopped in Seatle for
fuel, said stop paid for by M-D.
Not long after, all seemed to slide into cargo service where max volume
("cube") was more important than weight...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Sylvia Else
It's only overweight by comparison with what Boeing had said it would
weigh. The airlines are not doubt unhappy, and will be talking to Boeing
about compensation, but would it have been a better aircraft if Boeing
had said all along that it would be 6000 lbs heavier?
Sylvia.
JB
Yep, it's 3 tonnes over the target weight. All of the contracts would have
had some clause written into them covering this. Airbus are habitually
overweight too. Heck, most Australians are as well.
Yes, it would be nice if it were lighter. Later builds probably will be.
Nevertheless, I'll bet it achieves its contracted performance targets.
Just wait for the A350, and you'll be able to write the same comments
about it.
matt weber
bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZXQ=@aviationusenet.com (JB) wrote:
>Which new aircraft haven't been overweight?
It is pretty common for early articles to be overweight, but usually
they get down to weight guaranteed by the 20th article or so.
All of the A340 models have been overweight (and STILL ARE)
The A380 is overweight
I am sure one of more the Boeing Aircraft have been overweight on
early deliveries, however as far as I know, all got down to
specification weight early in the production run.
The 777-200 was unusual, the first article was actually 1000 pounds
under specification.
I don't now about 777-200LR/300ER, and I doubt anyone cares because
both aircraft significantly exceed the original performance
guarantees.
David Lesher
bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZXQ=@aviationusenet.com (JB) writes:
>Which new aircraft haven't been overweight?
Actually, one of the worse cases was a Grumman un air-craft, the LM.
They went though major grief trying to get it down to something
launchable, such as reducing each solder joint to the minimum needed,
making the skin thinner and thinner, and even so, it was way too
heavy.
It flew because Von Braun had actually hid the Saturn launch vehicle's
true performance from HQ until late in the game; he'd kept a fudge factor
all along.
BradGuth
Dreamliners are officially obese by 9.25 ton(8.4 tonnes). Their 787-7
is on a strict diet (all crew is required to poop and barf before
boarding).
Boeing just posted their need or mandate of having to lose at least 2
tonnes by No.7
It'll be most interesting to see where that much dead/inert mass gets
removed, especially if going for a 4 tonne reduction, and how much
better or worse off the Boeing 787 Dreamliner gets. I doubt they'll
ever get close to their original 98 tonne target.
Apparently without a significant weight loss, the annual fuel savings
and reduced pollution just isn't sufficient to warrant the investments
that owners and operators of such aircraft are faced with, not to
mention saving the environment via one spendy Dreamliner at a time
simply isn't going to happen.
~ BG
matt weber
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 17 2009, 3:26 am,
>bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZ...@aviationusenet.com (JB) wrote:
>Boeing just posted their need or mandate of having to lose 2 tonnes by
>No.7.
>
>It'll be most interesting to see where that much dead/inert mass gets
>removed, and how much better or worse off the Boeing 787 Dreamliner
>gets.
Boeing has a pretty good reputation for getting their aircraft down to
spec weight quite early in the production cycle.
I would add that sometimes it doesn't matter. Occaisonally the
airframe/engine combination does much better than anticipated, in
which case nobody really cares about the weight (777-300ER). The
777-300ER ended up as a far better machine that the early guarantees
called for.
>
>Apparently without weight loss, the annual fuel savings and reduced
>pollution just isn't sufficient.
>
> ~ BG
At least at this stage, the engines aren't making guarantees either,
although both GE and RR expect to make guarantees in the near term.
The good news about the delays is that both the GE and RR engines are
much closer to guarantees now then they were 2 years ago.
ON a large ultra long haul aircraft, a 1% gain SFC is the same as
about a 1500kg decrease in OEW.
Having said that, some engines never make guarantees (The RB211-524G
comes to mind). Most of the upgrades to the G/H-T engine were at large
discounts that reflected a full and final settlement of performance
(and hot section life) claims...
It is also possible that there are some aerodynamic tweaks that will
either Lift or reduce drag.
Fuel Burn is essentially = Weight x Lift/Drag x SFC
So improvements in any of them reduce fuel burn.
JB
The 787 et al are the aircraft on offer. There really aren't any
alternatives in the marketplace.
Rob
So have they improved th A380 in the overweight stakes? this was seven
tonne over.
Stealth Pilot
which all brooks the question on how the theoretical optimum weight
was determined in the first place.
I've always found reality to be pretty damn well honest in how it
comes out.
the difference between reality and theoretical often comes down to
what was left off the theoretical total.
Stealth Pilot
matt weber
>was determined in the first place.\
Required material strength is output of the finite element analysis,
which dictates the materials and how much you need in each piece.
That is then applied by the CAD software, and presto.. A weight
appears.
However the finite element analysis is sometimes not as good as it
might be, and computation fluid dynamics is a very complex subject.
Ultimately you don't know loads, drag, etc until you actually have the
flight test data. So once you have the flight data, you can decide
what components need to be stronger, and which you can remove some
more material from. For example the spar loadings on the A340-500 are
somewhat less than predicted, 1500Kg was taken out of the wing spars
on later deliveries (It is still seriously overweight however).
Manufacturing and machining tolerances are greater than zero. Then
add in Murphy (Murphy was an optimist by the way), and if you end up
within 2-3%, you have done pretty well.
IN short there are virtually unlimited opportunities for things to go
wrong between initial design, and the product that is ultimately
delivered to the customer.
In theory all machining errors should cancel. However Murphy dictates
that all tolerances will uniformly accumulate in the direction where
they will do the most damage.
BradGuth
bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZ...@aviationusenet.com (JB) wrote:
> And your solution to this is? Buy 767s or A330s?
>
Then by all means buy them, no matters how late, how over weight, how
extra spendy to own and operate or how polluting per passenger mile.
Did I mention that they'll likely explode into millions of pieces upon
impact, or upon encountering falling space debris?
~ BG
BradGuth
> BradGuthwrote:
> > On Dec 17 2009, 3:26 am,
> > bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZ...@aviationusenet.com (JB) wrote:
> >> I don't understand your point.
>
> >> Yep, it's 3 tonnes over the target weight. All of the contracts would have
> >> had some clause written into them covering this. Airbus are habitually
> >> overweight too. Heck, most Australians are as well.
>
> >> Yes, it would be nice if it were lighter. Later builds probably will be.
> >> Nevertheless, I'll bet it achieves its contracted performance targets.
> >> Just wait for the A350, and you'll be able to write the same comments
> >> about it.
>
> >> --
> >> Read the latest aviation news atwww.flight.org
>
> > Dreamliners are officially obese by 9.25 ton(8.4 tonnes). Their787-7
> > is on a strict diet (all crew is required to poop and barf before
> > boarding).
>
> > Boeing just posted their need or mandate of having to lose at least 2
> > tonnes by No.7
>
> > It'll be most interesting to see where that much dead/inert mass gets
> > removed, especially if going for a 4 tonne reduction, and how much
> > ever get close to their original 98 tonne target.
>
> > Apparently without a significant weight loss, the annual fuel savings
> > and reduced pollution just isn't sufficient to warrant the investments
> > that owners and operators of such aircraft are faced with, not to
> > mention saving the environment via one spendy Dreamliner at a time
> > simply isn't going to happen.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> So have they improved th A380 in the overweight stakes? this was seven
> tonne over.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner blew it by 8.6%, and usually such commercial
aircraft only get heavier as fixes and upgrades are applied.
Pulling just 4.5 tonnes of inert mass is going to be tough, if not
impossible without introducing unacceptable safety factors of
increased risk.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:25:58 GMT, Stealth Pilot
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:20:04 +1100, Rob <mesam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>BradGuthwrote:
> >>> On Dec 17 2009, 3:26 am,
> >>> bXJkZXV4QGludGVybm9kZS5vbi5uZ...@aviationusenet.com (JB) wrote:
> >>>> I don't understand your point.
>
> >>>> Yep, it's 3 tonnes over the target weight. All of the contracts would have
> >>>> had some clause written into them covering this. Airbus are habitually
> >>>> overweight too. Heck, most Australians are as well.
>
> >>>> Yes, it would be nice if it were lighter. Later builds probably will be.
> >>>> Nevertheless, I'll bet it achieves its contracted performance targets.
> >>>> Just wait for the A350, and you'll be able to write the same comments
> >>>> about it.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Read the latest aviation news atwww.flight.org
>
> >>> Dreamliners are officially obese by 9.25 ton(8.4 tonnes). Their787-7
> >>> is on a strict diet (all crew is required to poop and barf before
> >>> boarding).
>
> >>> Boeing just posted their need or mandate of having to lose at least 2
> >>> tonnes by No.7
>
> >>> It'll be most interesting to see where that much dead/inert mass gets
> >>> removed, especially if going for a 4 tonne reduction, and how much
Boeing needs to go all the way back to square one (composites-101).
Perhaps 787-3-12 will start seeing light at the end of their over-
weight tunnel.
By 787-3-24 they could be on the tracks once again. In other words,
24 prototypes and they'll have that 112 ton Dreamliner that'll perform
similar to their 767s, but look better while doing it.
~ BG
BradGuth
Perhaps instead of spendy carbon fibers, they should have been using
my vastly superior carbonado fibers.
~ BG