What is the largest passenger plane: Spruce Goose,Airbus A380,or 787 Dreamliner?Please Help Assgnment Due Fri.
AIRBUS A380 is the largest passenger airplane.
The Dreamliner will be the best airplane due to its amazing numbers and fuel economy. It is a very good investment for Boeing and the A380 not. They have a lot of problems with thr delivery and many orders have been cancelled.
you can read a lot about it in Wikipedia.
Will the Boeing 797 be a new type of jumbo jet or just another dreamliner?
They haven't even flown the 787 yet, I doubt they have any concrete plans for the next one right now.
However the market may not be able to support two jumbos, so why would they build a third. The 747 is still going strong and can easily be updated without having to make a completely new aircraft.
I think the 797 will be something a bit more revolutionary. I'm still hoping that the sonic cruiser concept will go forward. Airlines are very conservative organizations and don't embrace new technology easily. I think the next new plane will be either a sonic cruiser styly plane, or a blended wing/body design. There's only so far you can go with a standard tube fuselage configuration.
Where can I find detailed financial information about the Boeing 787 dreamliner project?
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Facts
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes- News Releases
(detailed financial information about the Boeing 787 dreamliner project)
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Long-Range, Mid-Size Airliner - Aerospace ...
News and information
successful new commercial airplane, fuel efficiency and a smoother ride.
- Aerospace Technology "Boeing shares work, but guards its secrets"
Boeing 787 Dreamliner financing
The 787 will have 50% of it's structure made of composites. This will be be only one of the reasons this aircraft will differ from all others. The engines are the next generation of power plants from G.E. that will be more quiet, economical in their operation and will be of the non-bleed-air type. In today's airliners air is taken from the engine under pressure to feed the systems that run through out the structure for air conditioning and pressurization. Eliminating this system and going to one that runs off the electricity already being generated by the engines results in further economics. Decreased complexity and reduced weight are the result. The air in the cabin will be of higher pressure and contain more humidity. The cabin itself looks like something from Star Trek N.G. complete with L.E.D. mood lighting that is supposed to reduce stress and jet lag. Go to this web address for Boeing's fine 787 presentation. http://www.newairplane.com/
It is definitely replacing the 767 like said above and it's also around to eat the Airbus A330's lunch. In addition to the deficiencies listed above 767s can't carry 2 standard LD3 cargo containers abreast in the belly because they're too narrow, so airlines can't get as much cargo revenue if they used say a 767 over an A330. The 787 is 1 seat wider and allows use of standard LD3s.
It's designed for long international routes with low-medium yields. The 787 has a very long range and low operating costs which makes it suitable for those types of routes. It can also do shorter flights easily. I could see it replacing 767s, but it's unlikely they're replacing 757s, 737s, or RJs because they're far too big.
The current tentative date for the first flight is in March 2008.
And that actually worries me somewhat.
When Boeing last introduced its last all new design (the 777) there was only 2 months between the rollout and the first flight.
Despite the delays, Airbus rolled out the A380 in December 2004 (and it was unpainted, and some components were not installed yet, see first two links), yet it was still flying in April 2005, 4 months later.
Boeing rolled out the 787 on July 2007 and the airframe was complete and it was even painted (see 3rd link), but it was said that some of those parts were not attached with aerospace fatseners, using non-flight worthy fasteners instead. The first flight was initially targeted for August, then postponed to October, and now delayed again at least 5 months, this does not jibe with an explanation of having issues with the supply chain. Supply chain problems may have an impact on the production of the 2nd and following articles, but usually not the first one. It is not really the timeliness of the supply that may be in quesiton, but the capability of the suppliers to deliver the right product in a state that does work. True, one can encapsulate all of this in a general "supply" issue, but when one mentions "supply chain" it is usually seen as the capability to deliver several similar components in a timely fashion in a quantity that matches that of the final demand, not the lack of acceptable products being offered in the first place.
Boeing took a fairly large gamble with the high % composite in primary structure, and I cannot help but feel that they rushed a bit in there. Having spent 27 years in the areospace industry, I know that senior management's desire are sometime imposed on the technical folks, with irrealistics goals that are knowingly put in the schedule just to please the stock holders.
The result is that the plane is late according to an irrealistic schedule (but right on time if the schedule was made realistically) and the reputation of the company suffers on top of that.
And that is sad...
Is the Boeing Dreamliner 787 going to be flown by Lot Polish Airlines this summer?
the Boeing's launch customer is All Nippon Airways and their deliveries will start in LATE 2009.
and btw, the dreamliner is yet to do its first flight in April. So you surely will not have the 787 dreamliner...So sorry...!!
And enjoy your flight.....!!
So why no comments about the delays to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner?
Interesting point, however Boeing has only delayed the maiden flight. They are still adamant that the first delivery date of May 2008 will be met, so there is no need for the customers to worry. The A380 incident was different, the delays were massive and delivery schedule was affected in terms of years.
----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- -------------- -------------
I'd also add that Airbus' pessimists was partly Airbus' own doing, projecting the A380 as the greatest achievement and all. Such extraordinary claims required substantial progress which Airbus was unable to show. Just the way they hyped up the big bus, the opponents blew up the minor setbacks.
The Dreamliner is a refinement of proven technology, logical and modest. Boeing has the technology and the confidence. For the end user all these means that minor setbacks can be negated and the beauty will fly in Airline's colors as scheduled. That explains the silence.
IMO, this just proves that blow-ups work both ways! Modesty is still a virtue.