It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing 787 complete

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Flight magazine has obtained some pictures of the first 787, complete but unpainted as it is rolled from the hanger, follow the link to view the images




posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Shiny!


Well, at least this crate's getting to be done. Can't wait to see how they paint it, it, I'm hoping for something impressive. It's a shame we still have to wait for flight tests, but whatever I suppose.

I really can't wait to see some shots of the cockpit of that thing, it's gotta be really nice.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Flight magazine has obtained some pictures of the first 787, complete but unpainted as it is rolled from the hanger, follow the link to view the images


There have been some issues with the final assembly but nothing major. One interesting factiod AWST mentined this week. AParently the Seattle Times published a picture of one of the barrel sections being 1/4 inch off
. now Im not a assemblier of LCA, but thats pretty bad. However, it turns out the fasteners and clips etc. were not in so the barrel can bulge out a bit. I was not aware the structure by itself was that flexable.

At any rate the first set of wings when mated showed the right one to be perfect and the left one was 40/1000 inch off despite being made on the other side of the world and shipped to another location to put together.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
There have been some issues with the final assembly but nothing major. One interesting factiod AWST mentined this week. AParently the Seattle Times published a picture of one of the barrel sections being 1/4 inch off
. now Im not a assemblier of LCA, but thats pretty bad. However, it turns out the fasteners and clips etc. were not in so the barrel can bulge out a bit. I was not aware the structure by itself was that flexable.

At any rate the first set of wings when mated showed the right one to be perfect and the left one was 40/1000 inch off despite being made on the other side of the world and shipped to another location to put together.




If they hadn't used them damn granda units they might have got it right




Only realised today that the metric system was around before the 1800s!!!



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Nice to see her all together...and will be awaiting the pics of her flying.

Also, FredT.....I didn't relize that you were the tree-hugger type...judging by you mpg touting, and avatar, and "carbon neutral" slogan.......I'm going to guess that your a believer of Al Gores movie......right?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:41 AM
link   
New here but this looks like a very large cross of a DC 10 and a 737. Am I right? Pilot, aircraft connoiseur here.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
They are going to paint it Dreamliner colours what else?

That scheme was designed for this plane, but Boeing ended up using it on all it's planes




[edit on 28-6-2007 by carcharodon]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Fuselage looks significantly smaller than in actuality as the windows on the 787 are way bigger than anything in service now.


Looking good.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

I really can't wait to see some shots of the cockpit of that thing, it's gotta be really nice.


demonstrator mock-up:




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Maybe it's just me but the impression that I first got from that picture was the engines. Those things look absolutely huge!



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The whole airframe is bigger than I expected. It was developed and marketed as a high fuel economy, innovative cabin design long haul ship.

I expected a narrow fueselage. It looks to be the same diameter as a 777 to me in those pictures.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The whole airframe is bigger than I expected. It was developed and marketed as a high fuel economy, innovative cabin design long haul ship.


It is supposed to have a much better fuel burn than the aircraft it is notationaly replacing the 767.

Its lighter and the engines are more efficient. It also is supposed to have lower MRO costs which also reduce the cost per seat mile. etc



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT


Its lighter and the engines are more efficient. It also is supposed to have lower MRO costs which also reduce the cost per seat mile. etc


All I know is I can't wait to ride one.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
It does look a little chubby! The interior cabin width is only 5 inches shorter than the 777-200 (if I done my math correctly). Not that anyone will notice because they will be too busy staring at the winglets.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
If they hadn't used them damn granda units they might have got it right




Only realised today that the metric system was around before the 1800s!!!


I remember reading that this was Boeings' first jet designed in metric measurements.

I just wish the rest of America would follow their example and drop that terrible imperial system.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
A beautiful plane indeed. Reminds me of the A380 rollout pictures.



Originally posted by kilcoo316


Only realised today that the metric system was around before the 1800s!!!




Someone educate me. Is the the metric system a synonym for the SI system?
. If so, why isn't USA apart of it?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Someone educate me. Is the the metric system a synonym for the SI system?
. If so, why isn't USA apart of it?



Uhm, not quite. They use alot of the same units.


But, the metric system would use degrees celsius - while the SI derivative is Kelvin.


While 1 degree is the same unit size in both, the reference point for zero is different.



As for why the US don't use it - I think its one of inertia... and also familiarisation. I know alot of the scientific work is done in SI/metric - its far handier. But even here, we'd talk of travelling down the road a few miles, or I'm 6 foot tall etc, but we'd say, buy a kilo of sugar and a pint of milk at the same time


Its kinda whatever is more useful for the purpose. For any kind of calculation work, SI rules.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join