Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.200.46.188 (talk) at 12:29, 16 May 2012 (→problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


problems

is this wiki or boeing PR? there are so many things missing. e.g. a problem section

the first 90!!! 787 will be build with to much weight. the first 34 will have 4 to 6 tonnes to much weight. and thats only boeing guessing when they will get the problem solved. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/10/excess-weight-keeps-anas-early.html as it turns out the prototype was 10 tonnes to heavy. way to high fuel consumption. only 1,2% fuel savings from a test route from tokyo to frankfurt as compared to a B767-300ER and not 20% like the article tries to tell us. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2012/01/anas-787-set-to-be-tested-with.html

problems with the composite material causing wrinkles http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.V28OS6F7DM

using the smaler wings of the 787-8 for the 787-9 to loss some weight http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-weights-shrinks-9-wing-336055/

they had to increase the max take of weight in order to compensade for the over weight. twice!! http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-9-weights-again-356477/

structural porblems at the wing connector. not the best source btw. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/08/breaking-structural-flaw-halts.html

just ask me if you need more. there are still plenty of those stories, well enough for a problem section and not only the boeing PR 20% something here, everything is perfect there talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.46.188 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Boeing delivers its second 787 and jumbo freighter". The Seattle Times. 13 October 2011. 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)[reply]

I have changed the number to 14 and removed the reference to Planespotters. Planespotters is a nice site but far from an accurate source. It is 80% based on user input and is mostly incorrect. I changed the reverence to show the FAA typecertificate. On page 2 of this certificate you can see 8 planes listed. This are the planes that have successfully completed type certification flights and are the 7 planes delivered so far + JA806A l/n40 for ANA. In note 4 on page 8 it shows the 6 test planes. This makes a total of 14. In addition to the fully certified frames, L/N 29 and 35 (both Air India) have been flown to Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Tx. I would consider them both build as well which would make the total 16. Finally L/N 37 and 38 have had there engines attached and are sitting on the flight line in Everett. They could also be considered build. I would like some opinions on this. For now I have put the number on 14. --Joost1989 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the FAA keeps that site updated, we could continue to use that as a source. Also, the AI aircraft, line #29 and #35, could also be considered "built" as they have been flown making the total built be 16. Consensus in the Aircraft WikiProject is that an aircraft is considered "built" when it's been flown. —Compdude123 15:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't update it regularly but the last update is 22 mrt. When they don't update it we can always switch to another source again. I will change it to 16. (btw JA806A has been delivered 2 hours ago I will update that as well.)--Joost1989 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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). ANDROS1337TALK 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

"... 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Congrats on this article

Extremely comprehensive, well done all. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

Why was the name changed from "Boeing 787 Dreamliner?"

Last time I checked I thought you had to have consensus to move articles, especially a controversial move like this on a highly visible page. The person who moved it said in their move summary that "Dreamliner" is just a marketing name. But the 787 is often referred to as the Dreamliner. I would like to have an explanation from the user who unilaterally chose to move the page without consensus from other editors. There is nothing wrong with the page being called Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in my opinion. Could Anti I A (talk · contribs) please explain why he/she moved the page? Thanks, Compdude123 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, and I think WP:COMMONNAME probably applies here. I'd take it to WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it back, as it has been challenged it is up to User:Anti I A to gain consensus for the move to Boeing 787. 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a real valid reason for changing the name to remove "Dreamliner". The company model number (787) and name (Dreamliner) are both official with Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Lockheed L-1011 TriStar not a similar example...some call it simply "TriStar" just as some call this plane simply "Dreamliner." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:COMMONNAME. It's usual to refer to it as Dreamliner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I stand corrected. --Anti I A (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_787_Dreamliner&oldid=492855059"