Slashdot Mirror


Boeing's 787 Dreamliner Takes Flight

Bordgious and a number of other readers sent word of the 787 Dreamliner's first flight after two years of delays. The four-hour test kicks off nine months of airborne testing. Aviation Week has video of the test flight and a timeline of the 787's development. Here is the flight path. 840 of the planes are on order now, down from a high of 910, as some customers canceled orders due to the delays.

6 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still marvel at the fact that we can pack a bunch of evolved monkeys into a big steel box, fill it up with stuff that burns, cause thousands of controlled explosions every second to rotate big spin-y things and cause the contraption to soar through the air (and actually land in a controlled fashion).

    Call me old-fashioned.

  2. Re:LOL. by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the A380 was delivered 2 years ahead of the 787

    Yeah. Airbus runs a flawless operation.

    "The first A380 was delivered to Singapore Airlines in October — 18 months behind schedule after billions of dollars in cost overruns for planemaker Airbus."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23689448/

  3. Re:And the wings might not even fall off in flight by Tycho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because a consensus group of scientists cannot simplify a conclusion into terms that you already understand is not a valid reason for you to reject their conclusion. Attacking their methodology as being politically motivated without some concrete statement or evidence, cherry picked e-mails are not evidence. Of course, attacking their methods with ignorant, irrelevant complaints is not valid. If you want to make informed criticism of the evidence they are using, then why aren't you in graduate school right now studying to become a materials engineer or a climatologist?

    --
    Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  4. Re:Did they put a seperate door for the pilots? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah. Because pilots are superhuman and never have to take a piss or eat something.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  5. Re:Yawn. by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought jet engines produced something more like a continuous deflagration rather than periodic explosions.

    Yep, that's right. The really amazing thing about jet engines is just the materials science we had to master before we could make turbines which don't disintegrate every time you turn them on. Try to picture 6 metal wheels splined and bolted to each other with hundreds of small metal vanes on the end of them ... spinning at about 12,000 revolutions per minute while being blasted by a continues blast-furnace of 1,000+ degrees Celsius. It makes me shiver every time I think about it.

  6. Re:ill-informed nonsense by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issues with composite materials are not with their strength or reliability during normal operation. The issues are predominantly with their failure modes. Much effort goes into detecting cracks and flaws before they become catastrophic. In aluminium spars and panels there are several good ways to detect cracks before their size becomes structurally significant: MK 1 eyeball, xrays, ultrasonics etc. The same tools for large composite structures are less developed in commercial circles, but they will get there. Boeing, and Aérospatiale, are acutely aware of these weakness in inspection ability and have done a lot of work to fill the gaps.

    Not getting on an aircraft containing composite structures because of a perceived danger of composites is irrational if you then get in a car and drive home.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button