The new Boeing 787 has left the building!

[Cannikin]

The aircraft has been assembled and was moved to the paint shop. It is due to be officially rolled out on July 8th at 3:30 Pacific.

[ironflange]

1. It doesn't really look like I thought it would

I expected something a little swooshier.

[Haole Girl]

3. Here's a prettier pic for you...

[ironflange]

6. Yeah, that's it!

Just needed a flashy paint job and a better view of the curvy wings.

[Haole Girl]

8. Didn't you forget something?

:sarcasm:

;-)

[ironflange]

17. ???

Uh. . . I don't know! The shapely ass end, maybe? That pic doesn't do that part justice.

[Haole Girl]

18. Ya know...

Naw...

it's not worth it.

[Tektonik]

2. looks rather underwhelming

tbh

[Elidor]

4. 2 mammoth engines...you won't get me on that deathtrap

After they've flown it for about 30 years I might consider getting on one.

It does look very cute, though. It vaguely reminds me of a DC-10 for some reason.

[ironflange]

7. I'll ride that before I get on the Airbus Flying Hotel

[cobalt1999]

10. why a "deathtrap"?

Is is because it's new and you don't trust new designs?
Is it because it has 2 large engines?

I don't see it. The only plane I ever grumbled about boarding was the long running and popular 737 back in the 90's when a couple nose-dived into the ground and the NTSB couldn't find out why. The "we don't know why" conclusion on that plane bugged me until they found the rudder problem.

[Elidor]

22. Ah, yes, the rudder problem

I was just watching a video about the Colorado Springs crash the other day. (I believe that was the first one to succumb to the rudder thing.)

Yeah, I think new plane designs are like new drugs approved by the FDA: you don't know what you're getting into. And the rudder thing is a great example of that. Those things had been in the air for years when that happened. (I'm not sure how long that particular model with that particular rudder configuration had been flying.)

And those engines just make me uneasy. Maybe it's the fact they're so oversized and barely seem connected to the wing. I can just imagine the fuse pins connecting the engine pylons to the wings fracturing cleanly (as they're designed to do, so the engine will fall away without damaging the control surfaces). Yeah, yeah, they can fly with one engine. That's the civil aviation version of "tastes just like chicken!" I don't care. I've flown dozens and dozens of times, but the older I get, the more it scares me.

People always tell me you're safer in a car. But if you have an accident in a car, you don't have ten minutes or an hour to contemplate your death on the way down. And you're not sitting on top of 10,000 gallons of fuel. And your life isn't dependent on hundreds of different systems all working properly together, as well as the conscientiousness of the airline's maintenance staff (not to mention the manufacturer's!).

I could probably fly again, but ideally I'd fly Quantas (Rain Man was right!), and preferably it'd be an older Airbus, like the A320.

[cobalt1999]

25. Yes, new designs sometimes come with new flaws.

I've been flying over 100 flights per year for over 20 years now, so I'm a little numb to the experience and fears. On the other hand, as a pilot myself, I get the newsletters of all the recent plane crashes, findings, NTSB reports...those can make you a little nervous, ESPECIALLY when the cause is unknown.

Remember though, design flaws can hit older aircraft too. TWA 800 is a good example of that.

[Elidor]

26. So very true!

The heated vapor at flashpoint, ugh! And the current jumping through the badly corroded wires. There's a video of the guy who did the flight that confirmed the hypothesis. They sat on the runway for 2 hours or so with the AC blasting, just like 800 did, then went up to the same altitude. The fuel in the almost-empty tank shot up well past flashpoint and the thing was ready to blow, and the ground crew was probably saying, "Uh, okay, you better come back now. And set her down pretty easy...if you don't mind." I couldn't believe someone deliberately flew under the same exact conditions, just to see if the hypothesis was right. And lived. That fellow earned his freaking money that day.

You surely love flying. It's too stressful for me. 2,000 flights? Eieeeeeeee. I'd be thinking all the time: 2 hours till I have to land...1 hour and 59 minutes until I have to land...1 hour and 58 minutes...

What do you fly? I'd love to hear about it.

[SeattleGirl]

5. I love that Boeing plant. Used to do a lot of worker's comp cases

for Boeing, so was up there a lot. It's amazing to see large planes dwarfed by the size of the plant.

My favorite thing was when I would get to crawl around inside the planes while they were being assembled. I love seeing how things are built and/or put together.

Sigh. Haven't had a Boeing case in years.

[flamingyouth]

19. We went there on a field trip in 8th grade.

It was definitely the best field trip ever. :)

[donheld]

9. I'd be very happy to board that bird

When do we leave?

[pagerbear]

11. Forgive my ignorance--I don't keep up with such things

What sets this apart so strongly from the previous generation?

[kay1864]

12. Per Wikipedia:

Boeing has stated that it will be more fuel-efficient than comparable earlier Boeing airliners. It will also be the first major airliner to use composite material for most of its construction.

(as will Airbus' next model)

[TommyO]

13. The composite construction will allow higher cabin humidity

which will translate to better passenger comfort - I always get extremely dehydrated when I fly, looking forward to my first "Dreamliner" flight.

[ForrestGump]

23. It's a hybrid

The extension cord's got to go, though....


:hide:

[DainBramaged]

14. Cramming more people into a single space to wait as long as everybody else

to take off.:thumbsdown:

[cobalt1999]

16. actually, the dreamliner is designed to allow more point to point travel

bypassing massive hubs. That is the primary strategic difference between Boeing and the mega Airbus plane. The Airbus will only be able to land at a handful of airports worldwide. So it has to go to large overcrowded hub cities. The Dreamliner is planned for smaller numbers delivered efficiently between lots of airports.

I happen to agree with their concept of that the hub & spoke system needs more direct routes.

[DainBramaged]

21. No, they'll make the smaller hubs crowded too

I had written this long essay about my decade of flying in the 90's and then I realized you're trying to sell the concept of a giant airplane on DU.


I just don't buy it.

[cobalt1999]

24. "trying to sell the concept of a giant airplane"???

Odd since I was arguing AGAINST the giant large Airbus and FOR the much smaller Boeing. Also, since almost half of all commercial flights in this country use only about a dozen airports out of over the 400 total commercial destinations, anything that bypasses the megahubs is a good strategy.

[DainBramaged]

27. Back to trains I say, expand the passenger railroads

re-open economic centers across the country. Make trains the central focus of transportation. Why in 50 years, our petroleum waste could easily be replaced by coal, clean low sulfur coal by golly.


In 50 years I hope (I'll probably be takin a dirt nap) our planes are using anything but petroleum fuel. And the super hubs will become cities unto themselves. It is inevitable.

Goodnight

[GirlinContempt]

28. You aren't seriously promoting the mass use of coal, are you?

[DainBramaged]

29. Burn it all wood, coal, synthetic fuels

Smoke and soot everywhere. Trains as long as Manhattan Island. Trains that start on Sunday and end on Tuesday. Make the airports into tennis courts.

[LynneSin]

15. We need to get Xzibit and the guys at Gas to 'Pimp my Ride' on that one

:eyes:

[flamingyouth]

20. It's going to be a big event here on July 8

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003737476_boeing07.html