Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Split the development section

The development section is getting very large; large enough to be worthy of its own article. If we did this, we would of course need to create a summary of the development in this article. Please state your views on this. --Josh (Mephiles602) 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, just need to summarize what's there now. Too much details on minor things, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the same, summarize is better/needed.Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need a new development article; we just need to shorten what's here and remove minor details that nobody cares about. I'll try and summarize that section. Compdude123 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened and summarized the DV section. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, the information in the interior section is incorrect. For example, the A330/A340 interior cabin width is about 208 inches (5.28 metres) and the B787 cabin width is about 216 inches (5.49 metres). This means that the B787 cabin's width is only 8 inches (0.2 metres) more than the A330/A340, not 15 inches. About the rest of it, it needs to be shorter, especially sections like this which are too detailed for this type of thing. 124.169.22.171 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

No. The article text refers to cabin width at armrest level, not the maximum cabin width. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Number built

I think the Number Built figure could be updated. A glance at Paine Field and Boeing Field proves that there are a lot more than 6 right now. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously on this talk page. See Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 3#Number of produced planes and Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 3#Number built for the last couple of times. Boeing lists six 787s as being "completed" on 787flighttest.com. That should be fine, less we want to get into original research. -fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This older talk entry says that an airplane is not considered "built" till it has been flown. Currently, there's only six 787s that have flown. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Boeing delivers its second 787 and jumbo freighter". The Seattle Times. 13 October 2011. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016497365_boeing14.html. Retrieved 14 October 2011. 
Boeing delivered its second 787 Dreamliner to All Nippon Airways (ANA) of Japan Thursday, on the same day as the second delivery of its other new jet, the 747-8 Freighter, to European air freight carrier Cargolux.
Dan Dassow (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Target number of deliveries per year

Does Boeing have a target number of deliveries per year for say 2011, 2012, 2013? If so, I think this would be good to include in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on various statements by Boeing, I think the forecast is roughly 20 planes in 2011, 60 planes in 2012, 100 planes in 2013, and 120 planes in 2014. If we can get this referenced well enough, I think it would be very good info to include in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Interior photos

Could somebody update the interior photos to the current design? The photos in the article are an early mockup, and some changes have been made to the interior since then (for example, the handles on the overhead bins are different on the current 787 interior than they were when that mockup was made). ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe somebody has taken interior images during a recent air show. Otherwise, we'll probably have to wait until after it enters service to get such images. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll probably have to wait till this plane goes into service in order to get a more current interior pic. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Now updated with actual in-service pics. SynergyStar (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Long-delayed 787 wins FAA approval to enter service

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016022340_boeing27.html?prmid=head_main?cmpid=2628

Should this be marked as a current event? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Certification is already mentioned in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ETOPS and Functional and Reliability (F&R) testing currently in Barbados

• Boeing B787 Dreamliner being tested in Barbados
• Barbados Forum: Boeing 787 Dreamliner in BGI
• Buzz over Boeing
• Govt defends departure tax

CaribDigita (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"... HEPA filters remove bacteria, viruses, and fungi. "

Really? Removes viruses? So no catching colds from fellow passengers on a 16 hour flight? Sounds too good to be true. The Boeing presentation (citation 151) mentions it simply as a bullet point. Is that a verifiable source? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a photo book (with lots of text, too) called The Birth of the 787 Dreamliner that mentions this. I'll add the source once I get the chance. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I trimmed/simplified the relevant text to "HEPA filters remove airborne particles" a few weeks ago. So add/adjust that as your reference supports. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The book I have said that other aircraft had these HEPA filters already, but that the 787 took it a step further with a filtration system that also removed bacteria, viruses and allergens from the cabin. I have corrected this info and added a reference to the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that you have a reference which is more than an overhead from a Boeing sales presentation, I'll leave this go and wander elsewhere. Thank you both. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on this article

Extremely comprehensive, well done all. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

787 gear issue

The fact that it happened to the 787, a groundbreaking airplane, barely starting it's in service life does seem to make it notable. Not to mention that several reputable news sources reported it: Reuters(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/uk-boeing-dreamliner-glitch-idUSLNE7A603L20111108), MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45192955/ns/local_news-yakima_wa/t/problem-boeing-landing-gear-japan/#.TsVuuz0r2nA).Msan (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like just a minor incident at this point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. That's what Wikinews and others are for. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement: "... fastest-selling wide-body airliner in history with [number] orders ..." seems false

OK, as this claim is going by the total number sold, let's look at some other numbers. Airbus have sold over 1100 A330s, Boeing have sold and delivered over 1000 767s, and sold 1500 747s. So, in amongst these much higher figures, how can the 787 possibly be the "fastest selling wide-body"?

Or, on the other hand, is it going by the RATE at which they have been sold? Then yes, there is the one great year of 2007 with 350+ orders, much greater than any one year for any other wide-body above. If so, then maybe it should say that instead. But then you'd still have to justify why that one great year justifies the claim. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the number of aircraft sold before the aircraft made its first flight. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. OK. Fair enough. But having said that, and given that large airliners typically have a "sales life" of decades, is that really a meaningful figure? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to make sense to the comment, to see whether it really is true. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that part but getting some 800 orders built up before it entered service is huge. That's really all the statement is saying. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly none of the other similar widebodies have had that kind of pre-delivery sales success. However, not totally comfortable with that being described as "fastest selling", which to me means something vastly different. But I"m going to let it go. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I thought it was somewhat vague, but could not think of a better way of saying it. I just reworded it some more to make it more clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

marketing talk?

A number of sentences appear to be from Boeing marketing in the "Interior" section, some appear to be false, can someone provide citations of why these are firsts, or why they are better;

• "Standard for the first time on a jetliner, cabin lighting uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs)"

If we check the A380 article we find that also uses LED (light-emitting diodes) in the cabin, so that doesn't seem so first time to me,

• "An advanced cabin air-conditioning system provides better air quality"

The question is how is it an advanced system, and what qualities does it provide that are better?

• "The higher cabin pressure is also possible with the use of composite materials"

I'm really not sure about that, the A380 has a cabin pressure of 5000ft (slightly better than the 787), but it has limited use of composites.*

Scotth1 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statements have been modified with added refs, removing several claims and correcting others. SynergyStar (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Who are you? The wikipedia police?

"Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner"?

Could someone who owns the book check the source on this? I thought Boeing only claimed it was the most fuel efficient airliner in its size class. Is it really more fuel efficient, on a per passenger mile basis, than larger airliners like the a380 and the latest 747? Warren Dew (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)