Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Boeing 787 makes its maiden flight. A "radical departure" in design, it has two wings, a tail, and legroom   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 88
    More: Cool, Boeing Field, jet, emergency vehicles, North Charleston, FAA, runways, Joe Bierce, Adam Everett  
•       •       •

7234 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Dec 2009 at 10:03 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-15 06:11:18 PM  
I don't get the 'radical' part.
 
2009-12-15 06:24:38 PM  
Two wings and a tail worked for the Wright Brothers and goldurnit, it's good enough for me.
 
2009-12-15 06:48:04 PM  
Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.
 
2009-12-15 06:53:26 PM  
AlwaysRightBoy: CrispFlows: I don't get the 'radical' part.

I half made of balsa wood and uses rubber bands.


something something the whole thing?
 
2009-12-15 07:17:05 PM  
So it doesn't look like a big Tylenol?
 
2009-12-15 07:47:19 PM  
Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a 787 is no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
 
2009-12-15 08:07:12 PM  
in before the tylenol quo.....goddamnitsomuch!
 
2009-12-15 09:07:16 PM  
I like how every time an aircraft is described, the word "sleek" is used. Just once I want to read an article which reads, "that clunky boxy motherfarker won't even make it a foot off the ground."
 
2009-12-15 09:21:16 PM  
House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

I was going to say: I wonder how long that's going to last.
 
2009-12-15 09:29:24 PM  
SphericalTime: House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

I was going to say: I wonder how long that's going to last.


I'm 6'3". Last time I flew I let the computer pick seats for me and ended up over the wing, (even on all the connections) I had all the leg room I needed.

Do people avoid those seats for some reason? Seems to me those are the best seats on the plane.
 
2009-12-15 09:41:54 PM  
lerry: SphericalTime: House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

I was going to say: I wonder how long that's going to last.

I'm 6'3". Last time I flew I let the computer pick seats for me and ended up over the wing, (even on all the connections) I had all the leg room I needed.

Do people avoid those seats for some reason? Seems to me those are the best seats on the plane.


Dunno, I don't. My boyfriend is 6'3" too, and we always keep our fingers crossed that we'll get an upgrade or exit row seats.
 
2009-12-15 09:51:37 PM  
lerry: So it doesn't look like a big Tylenol?

No, it looks like a big suppository. With a pair of wings that bend upward like a Kotex Maxi-pad.

Kind of covered the nether regions there, now didn't I?

Actually, much like Cessna's freaky-fast composite bizjet it kind of looks like a dolphin.
 
2009-12-15 10:08:55 PM  
"Boeing needed to reinforce the area where the wings join the fuselage."

I'm all for this.
 
2009-12-15 10:09:34 PM  
lerry: So it doesn't look like a big Tylenol?

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2009-12-15 10:15:28 PM  
So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?

God DAMN you people are farking stupid.
 
2009-12-15 10:19:54 PM  
Dubai Vol: So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?

God DAMN you people are farking stupid.


/join #care
 
2009-12-15 10:21:16 PM  
Dubai Vol: So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?

God DAMN you people are farking stupid.


STFU, cracker.
 
2009-12-15 10:25:07 PM  
GreenAdder: I like how every time an aircraft is described, the word "sleek" is used. Just once I want to read an article which reads, "that clunky boxy motherfarker won't even make it a foot off the ground."

Sounds like they just need a different ad agency.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2009-12-15 10:25:44 PM  
GreenAdder

I like how every time an aircraft is described, the word "sleek" is used. Just once I want to read an article which reads, "that clunky boxy motherfarker won't even make it a foot off the ground."

upload.wikimedia.org

This isn't sleek, just Short.
 
2009-12-15 10:27:44 PM  
I hear it gets more clouds per gallon than other planes. Now if only they wouldn't throw polar bears out of them, we'd be cool.
 
2009-12-15 10:30:09 PM  
Is Leon still getting larger?
 
2009-12-15 10:30:45 PM  
Wait until one of these crumbles in midair like a brick of wet coal.

www.engr.psu.edu
 
2009-12-15 10:37:11 PM  
Dubai Vol: So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?

God DAMN you people are farking stupid.


Go away!!!! Baitin'!

UR shiats all retarded.
 
2009-12-15 10:38:47 PM  
Hiro Nakamura: Two wings and a tail worked for the Wright Brothers and goldurnit, it's good enough for me.

*snort*

Well played.
 
2009-12-15 10:50:43 PM  
whatitslikeontheinside.com

This? Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl...
 
2009-12-15 10:51:14 PM  
Looks like this plane might be fairly practical, the reduced weight will probably save them enormously on fuel costs which should at the very least keep airline fees from going up too fast on 787 flights.
 
2009-12-15 10:55:23 PM  
GreenAdder: I like how every time an aircraft is described, the word "sleek" is used. Just once I want to read an article which reads, "that clunky boxy motherfarker won't even make it a foot off the ground."


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2009-12-15 11:07:21 PM  
The wings seemed to bend upward quite a bit for an aircraft with only a few people on board.
Revell and Cox build plastic airplanes too!
 
2009-12-15 11:24:08 PM  
come on, airplanes and the word maiden...yet no Bruce Dickinson references? you let me down, internet.
 
2009-12-15 11:26:38 PM  
Torque, there's a video of them stress testing the wings at the Boeing factory. They can take 160% of maximum designed load and before failing (in a very cool way). Boeing is planning to use the same wing designs on a heavier cargo version.
 
2009-12-15 11:51:33 PM  
traylor: torquestripe: The wings seemed to bend upward quite a bit for an aircraft with only a few people on board.
Revell and Cox build plastic airplanes too!

AFAIK Revell will release its kit next year but Zvezda kits are available now. You can has it.


That Revell kit has some special box art. What is up with the port engine and wing?
 
2009-12-15 11:59:25 PM  
GreenAdder: I like how every time an aircraft is described, the word "sleek" is used. Just once I want to read an article which reads, "that clunky boxy motherfarker won't even make it a foot off the ground."

See B-52
 
2009-12-16 12:57:15 AM  
House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

The FAA controls how many seats you can put into any particular model of airliner. This in turn reflects what it's designed to carry. If 240 is all that's possible, even if there's room for 20 more seats, you can't put them in.

Dubai Vol: So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Considering nearly all composite civil aircraft are nothing new, it represents nothing new except in terms of scale. Granted the PR hacks at Boeing will insist otherwise, but so it is.

Larva Lump: This isn't sleek, just Short.

*golf clap*

torquestripe: The wings seemed to bend upward quite a bit for an aircraft with only a few people on board.

Wings that flex are more aerodynamic than stiff wings, the wings on the 787 are designed to flex a lot for this reason.
 
2009-12-16 01:06:46 AM  
Dubai Vol: So really, nobody understands the leap forward in materials technology that the 787 represents?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?

God DAMN you people are farking stupid.

Yes, only because my brother is an engineer for Boeing and explained it to me. But I don't come on to sites and act like I am better than anyone else because my brother works for Boeing and watched its flight in person today. Boeing.

Also, who cares?
 
2009-12-16 01:08:23 AM  
Its an entirely different kind of flying altogether
 
2009-12-16 01:16:37 AM  
"Radical departure in design" sounds like the typical new car ad. 'We redefined the car', 'threw all the rules out the door' and other sales talk.

Really?

Did you get rid of the wheels? Does it hover? Run on methane from when the shiatter is full Clark?
 
2009-12-16 01:18:12 AM  
widebodyaircraft.nl

img.ledsmagazine.com
static.dezeen.com
 
2009-12-16 02:24:41 AM  
Well it does have the electrochromic window.

Yeah, kinda gimmicky, but as an engineer I can safely say that's frickin' cool.
 
2009-12-16 02:27:18 AM  
WhyteRaven74: Wings that flex are more aerodynamic than stiff wings, the wings on the 787 are designed to flex a lot for this reason.

Flexing is also good for getting the ladies.
 
2009-12-16 02:29:37 AM  
ricbach229: Torque, there's a video of them stress testing the wings at the Boeing factory. They can take 160% of maximum designed load and before failing (in a very cool way). Boeing is planning to use the same wing designs on a heavier cargo version.

To put that in perspective for everyone, that safety factor of 1.6 times the max load is a typical number for aerospace, but for general engineering is a razor thin number. Mechanical engineers will design cars typically with a safety factor of 2-4 and civils will design buildings with a rating of 8-10. Weight tends to be less important in those fields, so they can take more precautions in their designs. Aerospace in return, demands much more precision and certainty in the calculations and expected worse-case loads.

/more you know
 
2009-12-16 02:36:15 AM  
Nebulious: ricbach229: Torque, there's a video of them stress testing the wings at the Boeing factory. They can take 160% of maximum designed load and before failing (in a very cool way). Boeing is planning to use the same wing designs on a heavier cargo version.

To put that in perspective for everyone, that safety factor of 1.6 times the max load is a typical number for aerospace, but for general engineering is a razor thin number. Mechanical engineers will design cars typically with a safety factor of 2-4 and civils will design buildings with a rating of 8-10. Weight tends to be less important in those fields, so they can take more precautions in their designs. Aerospace in return, demands much more precision and certainty in the calculations and expected worse-case loads.

/more you know


I am a baby stroller engineer and let me tell you the aviation industry has nothing on us. Because of competition from East Asia, we have been forced down to designs with a FoS of 1.1 to 1.2.

With the increasing weight of babies in the US, I am constantly in fear of a massive lawsuit.
 
2009-12-16 02:49:00 AM  
stinkycatfish: Flexing is also good for getting the ladies.

*snort*
 
2009-12-16 02:58:07 AM  
I was just thinking that a lot of the "new" stuff on the Dreamliner could've been on the 777 which went into service what almost 15 years ago? And if Boeing plowed some money into R&D the Dreamliner could have a wing that does more than just flex, like twist on command, neat thing called an aeroelastic wing. I figure will see it from Boeing about 20 years after Gulfstream and Lear make planes with it.
 
2009-12-16 03:16:25 AM  
stinkycatfish: I am a baby stroller engineer and let me tell you the aviation industry has nothing on us. Because of competition from East Asia, we have been forced down to designs with a FoS of 1.1 to 1.2.

With the increasing weight of babies in the US, I am constantly in fear of a massive lawsuit.


Je-sus. That's terrifying!
 
2009-12-16 04:02:36 AM  
The sound you heard earlier this morning was the thousands of A.net members simultaneously nerdgasming as the 787 took flight.

/One of those A.nuts
 
2009-12-16 04:47:10 AM  
iirc, American Airlines Flight 587 fell on Queens NY due to composite materials failure of the rudder.

But they put the blame on over-stressing of the rudder, not on the fact that the rudder itself should have been made out of stronger materials. I don't think we fully understand how composites degrade over time - especially at high altitude.


/has flown in a restored 1939 open cockpit mail plane & that didn't scare me as much as the 'twanging' of the wings on my last Air-Bus flight
 
2009-12-16 05:05:35 AM  
House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

I have a better idea. They could attach ad-covered plates to the back of each seat, blocking the extra legroom. Passengers who desire better legroom could then pay to have the plates removed.
 
2009-12-16 05:43:28 AM  
Nebulious: To put that in perspective for everyone, that safety factor of 1.6 times the max load is a typical number for aerospace, but for general engineering is a razor thin number. Mechanical engineers will design cars typically with a safety factor of 2-4 and civils will design buildings with a rating of 8-10. Weight tends to be less important in those fields, so they can take more precautions in their designs. Aerospace in return, demands much more precision and certainty in the calculations and expected worse-case loa

Actually... Structural engineers don't usually get up that high. Remember weight is not a significant issue in buildings, but cost sure as hell is, structurals spec their beams by the depth and weight per foot, and steel is not that cheap when you are buying a few thousand tons of it.
 
2009-12-16 06:33:34 AM  
lerry: SphericalTime: House of Tards: Customers will have more seating room out of the factory. Once the airlines get hold of them, they'll find a way to cram another 8 dozen seats into each fuselage.

I was going to say: I wonder how long that's going to last.

I'm 6'3". Last time I flew I let the computer pick seats for me and ended up over the wing, (even on all the connections) I had all the leg room I needed.

Do people avoid those seats for some reason? Seems to me those are the best seats on the plane.


This guy might have the answer for you:

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2009-12-16 08:21:57 AM  
yogaFLAME: Well it does have the electrochromic window.

Yeah, kinda gimmicky, but as an engineer I can safely say that's frickin' cool.


I think they are very practical and a huge improvement over shades. No light leaking around the shade or the partial 'shade partially down but still blindingly bright' problem that shades have.

If just for the one douche that insists on staring out the window while the rest of the passengers have their shades down to sleep, at least he can dim it to 50% without flooding the cabin with retina searing white hot sunlight.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report