Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Potemkin village

How long between a full revealed aircraft and maiden flight is reasonable without calling it Potemkin village, not the first time an airframe has been shown off and not flown, last one I can think of is the Dornier-728. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong example. The Fairchild Do-728 was ready to fly, but the company was bankrupted by a secret FSB (ex-KGB) operation. The russkies wanted to get the design for cheap, in fact that plane is flying today as the Sukhoi Superjet 100, after they purchased the assets via a german faux front-end firm. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

would you by any chance have some link for that allegation? UK

John Leahy's ( and most other persons ) critical comments seems to have been valid all along. Only shouted down by astroturfers in the initial design and selling phase. ( And currently the bloated corpses are rising nicely to the surface.) UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.124.30 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• When there's a valid reference for its use. An editor or two calling it that is just opinion/original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised the section on the delivery delays does not mention the originally <POV>highly optimistic</POV> targeted entry into service. I think it is relevant to mention that several Chinese airlines wanted to fly passengers to the Olympic Games (a source for that is easy to find, just google 787 and Olympic games). It might not be directly relevant to the aircraft but it helps the reader to understand what was originally scheduled and what has become of that. 222.154.88.182 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Computer networks connected yet airgapped -- inaccurate?

Directly from the page:

Boeing says that although the networks were connected, various hardware and software solutions were employed to protect the plane systems such as 1) Air gaps for the physical separation of the networks

How can the network be connected yet airgapped? Am I misunderstanding something here or is it wrong..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahrn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seems odd Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... agree that as our article on air gap (computing) currently reads, this isn't logically consistent. But I think the article on air gap may be wrong... the term is also commonly used for a much lower level of isolation, to describe networks which are separated electrically but not logically. See Talk:Air gap (computing). Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Article currently states under the heading 787-3:

Approximately 3.1 billion people live within the range of the 787-3 if used in India or China.

I have no idea what this means. Range as measured from where? Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Variants

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.)

B787-8 performance tool

A lot of people will be interested in a B787-8 analytic tool (not connected to Boeing) that is freely available. It examines performance implications (at any combination of weights, drag and engine sfc). It may be too technical for some, and a godsend for others. Whether or not it's suitable for the main B787 Wikipedia article is up to you. I'm posting this in the discussion page only, you can search for piano.aero to decide. Aircraftanalysis (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Number built

Consensus on the A380, should also be right for the 787:

"

The convention for the "number built" field in the infobox is to state the number of aircraft that have had their first flight, not those that have been delivered. See e.g. the Antonov An-148, the Sukhoi Superjet, and others. Just clarifying this. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct the number-built is normally the number built and flown, delivered or not (prototypes can never be delivered in some case). MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But the number of delivered aircraft may be all the info that's available or that is current. A reference for 19 built would keep the number from getting changed back and forth. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"

Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Edited to show text as quoteCirrocumulus (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing first flight

The Future of Flight Aviation Center will let you watch the Dreamliner's first fight from its deck -- if you donate $250 or more to the museum. Dunlop, Michelle (2009-06-03). "You'll have to pay for prime Boeing 787 view". The Daily Herald. Retrieved 2009-06-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to article ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And don't hold your breath (76.176.19.140 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 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)

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) 14:33, 9 July 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)