Newsstand - First Pics of the 787

Boeing's brand new 787 won't be unveiled until next month, but some guy waited for one of the planes to be moved from assembly hangar to the paint shacks to snap some photos -- your first look at the new plane out of assembly.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3478111/

Found on a Seattle Blog (http://206life.blogspot.com/2007/06/first-pictures-of-boeings-new-787.html)

Thanks for posting. At first blush it looks a lot like a 777.

Thanks for posting. At first blush it looks a lot like a 777.

Yeah, doesn't look too special... And it certainly doesn't look anything like the images we saw a few years ago of what it was going to be...

Yeah, I'm kind of bummed. It doesn't look at all like the artists renderings. Maybe the paint job will change that.

Really? Looking at the Cockpit/Cone area, I don't think it looks like a 777 at all.

Who cares what it looks like outside? I'm more concerned about the interior!

No paint job and unflattering camera angle?

Note the engine cowling in the 2nd and 4th photos. The "teeth" are supposed to reduce noise quite significantly (a similar design was tested on a 777 engine).

Note the engine cowling in the 2nd and 4th photos. The "teeth" are supposed to reduce noise quite significantly (a similar design was tested on a 777 engine).

They may reduce noise, the main reason for their selection was fuel economy. For that same reason the engine cowls will all be painted the same color on 787s

can't wait to see it in the air ^^

At least it has simple and clean lines (judging by not-so-great pics).

Front page of today's Seattle PI. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/321458_dreamliner27ww.html)

Thanks for posting. At first blush it looks a lot like a 777.

To my eye it looks a lot like a 767 with 777 engines, not surprisingly.

I think it looks beautiful. To me the tips of the wings remind me of bird wings (sorry for the cheezy analogy :p).

Frankly, it doesn't look much different to me than other aircraft. I'm not good at noticing the subtleties, though.

To me what's really amazing about the 787 are the composite materials, huge weight reduction and substantial fuel efficiency improvement.

I'm in the same boat as most of you.... I was really looking forward to it resembling the early renderings/drawings we had seen.... in particular I was hoping the wings would be more sloped like the pictures... anyways at least the engines have lived up to my expectations as those things are huge!!!!!!!!! In fact a better view and more info is available at

http://www.geaviation.com/engines/commercial/genx/fett.html


Maybe once its painted and we can see her then..we'll have a different opinion^

Yeah, doesn't look too special... And it certainly doesn't look anything like the images we saw a few years ago of what it was going to be...

I would call a plane "special" when it can get me from LA to London in 3 hours, using the same or less fuel than is currently used.

From a "getting me there faster" point of view, what real advances have there actually been in the last 15 years? If we could all get where we wanted to be 3 times quicker, the airlines wouldn't have to spend so much effort providing all that expensive "first class" service etc ...

Good point. Nothing will be "special" until they make another Concorde (if it ever happens).

The alternative would be returning the existing frames to flight and commercial service which seems near to impossible.

We may see one of them flying again at air shows but that's about it. :(



I would call a plane "special" when it can get me from LA to London in 3 hours, using the same or less fuel than is currently used.
...

There were some experiments around 2000 by NASA related to a potential new supersonic jet, but they concluded that it would still cost too much. Japan is conducting some research, but the earliest new jet would be in the 2020s.

Boeing looked the Sonic Cruiser, a near-sonic jet, but also concluded it would cost too much for the modest speed increase.

Fuel isn't getting any cheaper, and Concorde burned as much as a 747 but only carried 100 passengers and no cargo.

Yeah, doesn't look too special...

Blasphemer! :p

Am I remembering wrong, or was the vertical stabilizer supposed to be sculpted, like a shark's fin?

There were some experiments around 2000 by NASA related to a potential new supersonic jet, but they concluded that it would still cost too much. Japan is conducting some research, but the earliest new jet would be in the 2020s.

Boeing looked the Sonic Cruiser, a near-sonic jet, but also concluded it would cost too much for the modest speed increase.

Fuel isn't getting any cheaper, and Concorde burned as much as a 747 but only carried 100 passengers and no cargo.


Good points. Maybe they can make an SST that runs on all the old congealed McDonalds fat from the airport terminals :)

I would think there would be a demand for saving significant time on longhaul routes, but obviously the investment is huge and for now, people put up with 12-18 hour flights ...

Blasphemer! :p

Am I remembering wrong, or was the vertical stabilizer supposed to be sculpted, like a shark's fin?

Was supposed to, but the designers found out there was too much drag in wind tunnel tests, hence the tail is more like a 777's.

Am I remembering wrong, or was the vertical stabilizer supposed to be sculpted, like a shark's fin?Yes, here's the original design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ANA-7E7.jpg). The final design looks a lot more conventional.

A supersonic trans-Pacific flight would have had appeal, but Concorde just didn't have the range due to its high fuel consumption. I'm not sure what the range on the Tu-144 (the Soviet Union's "Concordski") was, but I don't think it was much more. Its brief service was between Almaty and Moscow.

The problem has really been an economic one, rather than a technical one. Simply due to the energy involved in traveling supersonically, I'm not sure if the fuel consumption can be cut to a point where it's economical.

There were some experiments around 2000 by NASA related to a potential new supersonic jet, but they concluded that it would still cost too much. Japan is conducting some research, but the earliest new jet would be in the 2020s.


Still at it
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Scientists-launch-scramjet-in-Australian-Outback/2007/06/16/1181414574880.html

The trouble is that you need to get the engine to quite a speed for the engine to supersonically compress air (instead of having a turbine do it). To get an engine that transitions efficiently from sub-sonic speeds to transsonic, supersonic then hypersonic (> Mach 5) is the devilish problem.

Still at it
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Scientists-launch-scramjet-in-Australian-Outback/2007/06/16/1181414574880.html

The trouble is that you need to get the engine to quite a speed for the engine to supersonically compress air (instead of having a turbine do it). To get an engine that transitions efficiently from sub-sonic speeds to transsonic, supersonic then hypersonic (> Mach 5) is the devilish problem and then ludicrous speed.

Still at it
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/Scientists-launch-scramjet-in-Australian-Outback/2007/06/16/1181414574880.html

The trouble is that you need to get the engine to quite a speed for the engine to supersonically compress air (instead of having a turbine do it). To get an engine that transitions efficiently from sub-sonic speeds to transsonic, supersonic then hypersonic (> Mach 5) is the devilish problem.

Well now that's pretty cool! (The ScramJet, that is.) I've always wondered, though, what the average human thinks/feels about leaving and entering Earth's atmosphere. Do all the risks associated with doing such things outweigh the benefits of flying from London to Sydney in 2 hrs? What about issues with satellites orbiting the earth? Could they potentially drift out of orbit and cause problems for the new flight paths?

Well now that's pretty cool! (The ScramJet, that is.) What about issues with satellites orbiting the earth? Could they potentially drift out of orbit and cause problems for the new flight paths?


Satellites are at an altitude several magnitudes greater than what a sub-orbital high speed aircraft would travel at.

Don't forget that the new 787 will be unveiled Sunday in Everett.

07.08.07.

The event will be hosted by Tom Brokaw.

What time is the unveiling? Will it be on TV? This kind of thing may actually get me to turn on the TV!

What time is the unveiling? Will it be on TV? This kind of thing may actually get me to turn on the TV!
No need to turn on the TV (but you can if you want). :)

SEATTLE, June 28, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] will broadcast the Premiere of its newest technologically advanced passenger jet - the 787 Dreamliner - to viewers around the world.

The 787 Premiere will be carried live and in nine different languages on Sunday, July 8, at 3:30 p.m. PDT or 10:30 p.m. GMT via satellite and Webcast. To view the Webcast, viewers may log on to www.boeing.com or www.newairplane.com.

Boeing will broadcast the Premiere to more than 45 countries using 35 satellite TV networks. Satellite television subscribers may tune in the following channels, depending on their satellite service provider: Specific channel or frequency information can be found on the Premiere Web site.

U.S. and Canada
DIRECTV satellite 4S/8, Channel 576
Dish Network satellite EchoStar #8, Channel 9601
IntelSat Galaxy 11 K15 Analog
IntelSat Galaxy 11 K20 Digital

Mexico and South America
Satmex 5 K19, Digital 9Mhz
IntelSat Galaxy 11, K20 Digital

Europe and the Middle East
Eutelsat, W2 Digital
Eutelsat Atlantic Bird, AB1F5BE Digital

Asia
AsiaSat Direct-to-Home (DTH) Service
AsiaSat 2 XP 2B, Channel 3 and 4, Digital

South Pacific
Optus, B3 Digital (Eastern Australia and New Zealand)
Intelsat 12 (Western Australia)

The 787 Premiere will be broadcast in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish.

Leading up to the 787 Premiere, Boeing will debut a special series of videos to celebrate its 7-Series family of airplanes - the Boeing 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and 787. The videos, along with fact sheets on each airplane, are historical perspectives of the 7-Series of commercial airplanes, showcasing the wonder and glamour of flight since the 707's debut in 1958.

Matching airplane model numbers to the dates, Boeing will launch one video per day leading up to the 787 rollout - beginning June 30 with the 707 and continuing through July 8 with the 787. The videos will be available on the 787 Premiere Web site, which can be accessed via Boeing's Internet home page at www.boeing.com.

Who cares what it looks like outside? I'm more concerned about the interior!

I'm with you on that - I hope NW does some kind of really classy red & grey color scheme inside their new birds. From what I've seen in the Boeing videos, the inside should be quite open and "feel" bigger than it is...

Hi

I think it looks quite different than either a 767 or 777. The wings are changed and the engines too. The nose also is quite a bit different than before. I think it looks great and am certainly excited to experience one in the air.

st

With QF's increased order of 20 a/c today, the 787 order book went from 642 (as per Boeing's 7/5/07 press release re a CIT order) to 662.

Now, baseless speculation is always out of place here on FT (:D), but it seems to me that the math of needing exactly 125 orders to roll out the aircraft with 787 orders in place is a marketer's dream.

[Cue the folks in Fort Worth]

Wouldn't it be a marketing masterstroke if Boeing chooses Sunday, 7/8/7, to have AA in Seattle for the rollout and announce an order of 125 planes?

It wouldn't have to be all firm orders...maybe even a couple of new models (say the 787-100, with range of up to 3500nm and capacity up to 200, to replace the 767-200, and the 787-200, with similar range and more cargo lift capability, as a plane that can both be the replacement for AA's A300-600 series and be a US-domestic freighter).

But the marketing types would drool over that kind of thing!

Hmm... still not getting a feed here? Anyone getting it?

http://787premiere.newairplane.com/

Okay, I seem to be getting it now.

Saw a segment on CNN and what a gorgeous plane!! Cannot wait for Air Canada to take delivery of their 787s!!

Here these pictures was came onto the entire a.net. It is first new 787 onto a.net database. Here it is:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1233546/L/

Thanks all! :)

Hmm... still not getting a feed here? Anyone getting it?
Okay, I seem to be getting it now.

Glad you caught at least part of it. I had a little trouble with the audio early on but overall it was an impressive first look.

Looks simply fantastic all dressed up. Not as cool as it would have looked with a shark fin tail or more "slopey" nose, but still a clean looking 2 holer. Can't wait to see it take to the skies.

Looks simply fantastic all dressed up. Not as cool as it would have looked with a shark fin tail or more "slopey" nose, but still a clean looking 2 holer. Can't wait to see it take to the skies.

Yeah, me too. I can't wait when she will be flying onto the skies. I am looking forward nice brand new 787-8. It would be first launch customer is NH. Boeing will deliveries first 787-8 to NH around May 2008. I'm pretty sure if Boeing will continuation built more new 787. I'm sure DL or AA will even put on orders sometimes few couple months ahead. It would be largest orders 787 for DL.

CNN headline entitled "Boeing unveils world's largest commercial plane'.

Somehow I think they need to have a more strict oversight of what their writers put out :) Largest? Not quite.

CNN headline entitled "Boeing unveils world's largest commercial plane'.

Somehow I think they need to have a more strict oversight of what their writers put out :) Largest? Not quite.

Could be worse. On the on local news here in San Diego (Fox 6), as the reporter read the story about the unveiling of the 787 they showed file footage of a 747-200 as if that was the new plane.

CNN headline entitled "Boeing unveils world's largest commercial plane'.

Somehow I think they need to have a more strict oversight of what their writers put out :) Largest? Not quite.

Well, they are SORT of right, they just left out the whole "composite" thing. No big deal ;) You know, it's not like it's revolutionary or anything. :p

Boeing did a "Parade of 7s" on Saturday (definitely the coolest celebration of 07/07/07).

The Planes (707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777) flew from Paine Field (Everett) to Boeing Field (south of Seattle) landing at 7:07p, 7:17, 7:27, 7:37, 7:47, 7:57, 8:07, and 8:17.

Anyways, check out the Rolls Royce 747 (#9, 10, & 15), they have 1 787 Dreamliner engine on it... :cool:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/popup.asp?gtitle=Boeing%20parade%20of%207-series%20planes&SubID=2701&page=0&css=gtitle.css&pubdate=7/7/2007

Who cares what it looks like outside? I'm more concerned about the interior!Me too, but since that is decided by the purchaser the current release cannot tell us much. If the past is any guide the actual interiors will be much less appealling than any mockups, especially in coach.