Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

"Stretched"?

The use of this word here and here is unclear and non-encyclopedic at best. The use of buzzwords (perhaps an aviation buzzword in this case?) that are unintelligible to the general public should be avoided. --AVM (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It just means the fuselage has been lengthened, and is easily clarified while still informing the user of the meaning of a fairly common term aviation. Generally, its meaning is clear from the context, but it wasn't in this case. Btw, a {{clarifyme}} inline tag is preferable to a {{incoherent}} section header in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been clarified. If you'd give others a minute or two you would not have to post this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true on heavily-edited articles, like this one. Anyway, the last sentence in the 787-10 paragraph is a quote from a Boeing official. It won't be as easy to clarify that without breaking up the quote, so I'm open to suggestions on making that more clear. - BillCJ (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I added longer to the first sentence of the -10 section. That and earlier mentions should make it clear enough, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear now, thank you to all above. It's just that it gave me the creeps to think of ever boarding a "stretched" aircraft, without knowing what that really was.  ;-) --AVM (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Future aircraft template

From Template: Future Aircraft:

1. This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way, such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly; an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic; articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is a future event/product; etc.
2. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely is about a future even/product; if it were, tens of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. In most cases, the status of an event/product should be obvious from the article itself.

There is going to be redesign work done, and a lot of it for the weight issue, but that does not make future information an issue; going by the examples, information will not change rapidly, there probably won't be a sudden burst of traffic outside of maybe the first flight (at which point it would be hard to argue it's a future product,) and the article is pretty clear that it is a future product.

More significantly onto the second item. The lead in states it's in development. The infobox states development/early production. The entire article speaks in the proper tense. It is very clear throughout that it is a future product.

It's pretty clear that with the first full production aircraft on the assembly line, two test aircraft out of the paint booth, and engines on achieved, it's arguable that it's even a future aircraft, much less qualifies for the future aircraft tag. Marimvibe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me. I think the design is solid enough not to warrant the template. Even if some weight saving changes are made, the changes will have much effect on the aircraft overall. I've been working of some wording that sets some simple criteria at Category:Upcoming aircraft, which this future templates adds. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No first flight

I think it is critical to indicate in the introduction that two years after roll-out the aircraft has yet to fly. The delays for its maiden flight and the absence of commitment on schedule for the first flight are very significant.(76.176.19.140 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I think that would be belaboring the obvious, as the delay between rollout and first flight is self-evident, and the reasons for the delays are well covered in the article. Any note of their significance would be commetnary and OR, unless citing such comments from a reliable source (not a commentary). - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its looks like you are the only one thinking that way 76.176.19.140 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Everything that has been added since your edits has either been sourced or removed. Those edits have only added a few details to what was already there. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why it is not possible to have a brief detail why the maiden flight is postponed in the opening, then eleborate further in the article? If duplication is an issue then why is it permissable to duplicate the information about the redesign in the introduction and the following text? 81.100.167.0 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It mentions the delay to the first flight in the intro it doesnt need anymore as it is only a summary and the delays are dealt with in detail in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so regarding the redesign mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, why is this permissable when it is almost the same as the 3rd paragraph in the design phase segment? I wan't the first to think that an additional 5 words in the opening was important. 81.100.167.0 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway around this such as rewording? 81.100.167.0 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the redesign has to do with the first flight delay. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, however I'm trying to make the point that in this article it is mentioned what the redesign was in the introduction, with almost the same information repeated in the main text. I presume this is to give an overview. This is my point of briefly mentioning reinforcing a section of the aircraft in the introduction too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.167.0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2009

I have tweaked the design sentence slightly to remove some of the detail and be more of a summary. The main point is that the first flight had been delayed four or five times and only once for re-enforcing, the lead should just mention that they have been a number of delays. To mention every reason for delay in the lead could add considerably to it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The first flight is the acid test and Boeing is flunking it. It is not enough to bury this information in the main text. FYI this was front page news in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times... and now on Wikipedia. You lose. 76.176.19.140 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See above and WP:Civility -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the first flight will be near December 22, 2009 http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200911190219dowjonesdjonline000323&title=boeing-787-likely-to-make-first-flight-around-dec-22--source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.21.52 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's airborne right now, so... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.70.41 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Supply chain model revisited

For those who think it's not important: I have added again the critical information about the Vought Aircraft acquisition. Boeing is essentially abandoning its much touted supply chain model... at a cost of $1 billion. 76.176.19.140 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your previous entry was removed as premature, with a edit summary note to add it once the deal was concluded. However, your claims that "Boeing is essentially abandoning its much touted supply chain model" are not supported by the freely-available portion of source you've cited, and that is Original Research, and not permitted in WP articles. I've removed those claims, as the supply chain is much larger than just this one operation. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aviation media outlets are saying this purchase could be related to the opening of a second 787 assembly line as well.[1][2] But adding that to the article would be premature at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We should probably replace the WSJ cite with the one from AVWEEK, as it is entirely free, and thus instantly verifiable online (not a requirement per WP:RS, but better). ALos, the FG source makes it clear the main problems are with the Vought facility, not with the other supply chain memebers such as Sprint or the Japanese suppliers. I'm not sure how ore where to work this in, but it might be needed to stop more POV OR insertions on the "failure of the supply-chain concept". - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is now clear to me that this article is controlled by Boeing stakeholders 76.176.19.140 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, because we actually know how to read sources with comprehension? (Hey Boeing, I need a $500. advance on my next check so I can replace this 11-year-old laptop with a 2-year old model. Send quickly! I'm disabled/unemployed!) That sort of accusation is not condusive to good collaborative editing, and only shows your own biases for all to see. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I just remind users that this article is controlled by stakeholders, that is all the editors involved through consensus and agreement. The statement that Boeing is abandoning its supply chain model is not supported by the references given about the Vought purchase. You really need a reliable reference that the supply chain model is being abandoned, that can come from a Boeing or Airbus employee as long as it meets the notability and referencing requirements. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that someone wants to add a "successful" taxi test in the introduction. This is bordering on the ridiculous, may be Boeing should take over General Motors76.176.19.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Taxi tests are the first steps toward first flight. The first one should noted be in the article, especially since it occured almost two years to the day after rollout! That's quite a long time, isn't it? Why did you simply delete it? Fnlayson moved into an appropriate section of the body, where it should be. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Variants, fuel capacity

Referring to the 787-3, the "Variants" section says though it will have the same fuel tank capacity as the 787-8. Yet the "Specifications" table just below that section shows they have vastly different maximum fuel capacities. Something's clearly amiss with one or both of those sections. (The "MTOW" discussion is also as clear as mud and could be cleaned up considerably.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.102.130 (talk • contribs)

The conflicting wording has been removed. Maybe that was old information and the fuel capacity was reduced on the -3. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Headings - Technical Concerns

I propose rearranging the section headings. 'Design' will be a level 2 section heading (as is). 'Technical Concerns' will be moved from a level 3 heading to a level 2 heading. That is, it's a large enough section on its own, without being underneath other headings. Hope that made sense.--Lester 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All the Technical concerns are design related though. There are a similar section (Integration in the infrastructure) in the Airbus A380 article (a relatively new airliner). I don't think promoting the Technical concerns section 1 level really helps. Some of these sections can be shortened by removing repeated or unneeded text. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The 787 is different to other airliners, and the 'technical concerns' are a much bigger part of the 787 story than for other airliners. That's why 'Technical Concerns' should be a Level 2 heading, rather than Level 3 subheading. The other reason is that the section has many sub-headings, which are currently Level 4 sub-sub-headings. That's why the section should be raised one level in the heading hierarchy.--Lester 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "stronger" claim

I removed the claim that composite materials are stronger, leading to a lighter aircraft (see diff). Two reasons for its removal: The reference provided didn't say this, so a new reference must be found. Second, Boeing says that composite airliners are lighter and stronger, but this doesn't mean it as fact. If the statement is reinserted, it should be qualified as something that Boeing says.--Lester 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice the claim has been reinserted, with a Boeing brochure as reference (diff). That's fine, except that it must be qualified as a Boeing statement or claim. Yes, Boeing claims that composites make the aircraft "lighter and stronger". But Boeing's claims about the 787 being "lighter and stronger" have also been disputed.--Lester 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That's not a brochure. It's a presentation at a AIAA conference. The fact that composites are strong and lightweight is fairly common knowledge. No exceptional claim here at all. Time to move onto of substance. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence being disputed never claimed "that composites make the aircraft lighter and stronger". It stated that the composite materials were lighter and stronger, and that they "help make the 787 a lighter aircraft for its capabilities." I concur that this is not an execptional claim. - BilCat (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we know as fact that the 787 will be lighter than conventional aluminum/aluminium aircraft? The questions grow as to whether the 787 will meet Boeing's weight claims. At the moment, the test aircraft are not lighter than conventional aircraft. We're assuming, as a fact, that Boeing can remove all that extra weight. It's more accurate to begin the sentence with "Boeing says...".--Lester 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making making your own claims here, such as "At the moment, the test aircraft are not lighter than conventional aircraft." Do you have sources that explicitly state these claims? Also, qualifiers like "Boeing says" generally aren't necessary as long as the info is cited properly, which it is now. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For claims that are questioned or disputed, then the article should say who made the claim. The article is currently making two claims: that composite materials are stronger, and that the 787 will be lighter than regular aircraft. Composites can be stronger in some uses, but the strength is linear, along a particular angle (and weaker when force is applied along a different angle), and impact resistance is lower. The article should state that "Boeing says the 787 will be lighter than conventional aircraft". When, in the future, Boeing achieves this with an operational light-weight 787, then we can say it as fact.--Lester 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First Flight Details

Taken from the live ATC feed on http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html First flight was 12/15/09 at 10:27am PST. Boeing 001 Heavy Experimental departed on Runway 34. The 787 climbed to an initial altitude of 1600 MSL, then climbed to 15000 at 10:33am PST, with an intention to head east or south, depending on the what they found weather-wise once they got to 15000. Altimeter was 29.77. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathonbarton (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this also. Does that mean the lead should still read "under development" or should it be re-worded? Beach drifter (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Under development is fine. It just started flight testing. Still have to get everything ironed out before getting certified. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming now that the 787 has flown, we can lis st "1" as the number built. - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, sorry about changing "In development, early production" b ack to "Under delvelopment". I assumed that when you said "Under development is fine", that you meant "Under development" is fine. - BilCat (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to fix it back after some IP edits. Either way covers it, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Air gap"

The article refers to "air gaps" being used to protect the aircraft's control systems from the network accessible to the passengers. (Or at leas that's what I understood from the text; this is not actually clear to me.)

As I understand it, an "air gap" actually means that the two just don't meet--that is, we aren't talking about one network. Otherwise we are talking about one network, in which case it would be difficult to envision it working with air gaps. This seems to be contradictory, considering the article's other claim that the two networks are, in fact, one.

I'm guessing one of these claims is not correct, but I have no way to know which one.

Or is there some other detail I'm missing?

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Whered is the other claim? The only section I've found through a keyword search on "network" or "computer" is Boeing 787#Computer network vulnerability. The linked Air gap (networking) has some explanation on what the term means, so that might help your understanding - it helped mine!. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Change internal pressure info.

The section about internal preasure to be at 6000 feet vs 8000 is wrong. It then goes on to say that the increase in preasure will be better for pasenginers. I think someone meant lower preasure will be better.

The internal pressure will be increased to the equivalent of 6,000 feet (1,800 m) altitude instead of the 8,000 feet (2,400 m) on conventional aircraft. According to Boeing, in a joint study with Oklahoma State University, this will significantly improve passenger comfort.[100][101] A higher cabin pressure is possible in part due to better properties of composite materials.