User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:30:05 PM EDT
[#1]
That is badass. I doubt Boeing has to put up with that shit. They just build them in-house and have their own airfield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:33:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Not exactly, the new 787 has its wings built in Japan, nose section in Kansas, and is assembled in WA, lots of flying parts around. In fact they are building two special 747 variants just to haul the wings from Japan (maybe the fuselage too, can't remember). Here is the first nose section, all one piece of carbon fiber, continuously wound.   The 787 is so far beyond the A380 in technology its amazing, airbus went with only tried and true garbage, just scaled it up. The 787 will be 100% electric (no bleed air), and the fuselage is entirely carbon fiber, allowing higher pressures and a 6000' cabin altitude. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:49:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Shit. I stand corrected. That is gonna be one badass plane. I'll have to get a ticket to somewhere just to fly on the thing when it comes out...
I assume you meant 60,000' altitude? That would be a hell of a cruising altitude. Damn near in orbit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:50:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Tagged for the guys at work who helped design the Trent 900 engines (on the A380)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:52:57 PM EDT
[#5]
No, cabin pressure, normally at 8000' to reduce stress on the airframe, will be pumped up to a higher pressure (lower equivalent altitude) of 6000'. If you take off from Denver or Colo Springs, your ears will never even pop. There are a ton of innovative features on both planes, but the 787 is really something special. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:58:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Are you sure there will be no bleed air? That does not seem possible. No ACM's? It would take an immense amount of electric to pressurize and heat. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:59:18 PM EDT
[#7]
The 787 is cool and all, but there is enough new shit on it that I think I'll wait a while before I fly on one, for the bugs to get worked out. You know how the first year of a new car model always sucks? Well, I'll wait for the first 2 or 3 787's to crater before I get on one.
Call me a luddite, but bleed air gives me a warm fuzzy. 100% electric does not. Funny, in small GA planes I prefer all electric over a vacuum system. I have stopped trying to rationalize my paranoia and anxiety over flying commercially anymore. Whenever I do fly the airlines, the TSA first thoroughly pisses me off, then I get on a plane I'm not flying, and am confined in a tiny ass seat. Looking around, I contemplate that the FAA standard weight for an adult is 170lbs, and God only knows what the calculate for carry-ons. Besides, if my Piper shits the bed in flight, I can probably put it down in a corn field. Usually when airliners try that, the result is a fireball. Like I said, the fear isn't rational. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:01:04 PM EDT
[#8]
You gotta admire the guys that put that monster together, did you see the guy torquing the bolts on the engines, the tools are supersized. Airbus cheats though, they are .gov subsidized as if they were on a wartime economy footing, Boeing might get a tax break or two but even with a war going on if they don't sell enough airplanes they might go in the shitter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:05:32 PM EDT
[#9]
I agree Airbus would go broke quick without the EU holding it up to make europe appear valid on the world stage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:05:44 PM EDT
[#10]
Oh, I gotcha. Cabin pressure equivalent to atmospheric at an altitude of 8000'. So the new plane has a higher cabin pressure. Cool. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:08:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Yup, it has two huge (250kw IIRC) generators per engine, and the only bleed air on the entire aircraft will be engine nacelle heat. You can read up on it at here if you want: www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/dreamliner/
ETA: It also has a new power distribution scheme, 270 VDC IIRC to go along with the normal 3 phase 115VAC 400hz and 28VDC. The higher current/voltage DC is for the AC packs and other high current draws (engine starting, also all electric). Electric motors have much better failure prediction and monitoring than bleed air. Air motors tend to just fail with no warning, and fail catastrophically when they do. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:26:14 PM EDT
[#12]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:52:51 PM EDT
[#13]
That's funny. US submarines use 270 VDC and 115 (120) VAC 400 Hz systems. Maybe I should try to get a job with Boeing when I gradumatate...  But then again, they probably don't use FUCKING MOTOR-GENERATORS! Damn I hated those things. Look like a coal miner after cleaning them...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:54:53 PM EDT
[#14]
Actually those 250kw generators on the motors are also..........yeah you guessed it, starter motors. So it's starter/generators.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 10:57:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Yeah, but they're using brushless motors right? That's where all the carbon dust comes from, the brushes. No brushes, no black lung from cleaning them. They also use static inverters to convert DC to AC right? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 11:03:58 PM EDT
[#16]
It's all being built by top notch Aerospace companies like Honeywell, Goodrich, and the like. I'm sure they will be brushless and probably very maintenance friendly. I doubt they will have any mechanical phase converters/invertors, thats so old school.
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2006 11:30:50 PM EDT
[#17]
cool stuff, Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 12:07:28 AM EDT
[#18]
"The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%." Hardly being subsidised as if they were on a war footing. They get cheap government loans. Boeing receives tax breaks, support from local and state government and fat defence contracts. Both companies are subsidised. Both companies whine about it like petulant children while ripping off the tax payers of the EU and US. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 12:10:53 AM EDT
[#19]
I don't see how fat government contracts are subsidizing, unless the government is ordering or overpaying just to keep the company in business. I think the Navy does this for shipyards, like ordering new subs to keep Newport News and General Dynamics Electric Boat in business.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 12:36:26 AM EDT
[#20]
The military contracts are rarely open to real competition. "The Pentagon characterizes 60% of Boeing's military contracts between 1998 and 2003 as "not full and open."" During that time they received $82b in contracts. "The Export-Import Bank of the United States is a government agency that loans money or guarantees private loans to foreign buyers of U.S. goods. Between 1998 and 2004, it issued loans and long-term guarantees for US$53-billion of U.S. exports. Just under US$28-billion of those deals were Boeing sales. Ex-Im exists not just primarily, but mostly, to subsidize Boeing's overseas aircraft sales." "These low-interest Ex-Im loans or Ex-Im guaranteed loans shift part of the cost of the purchase from the foreign buyer to the U.S. taxpayer." Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidised companies on the planet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 12:41:38 AM EDT
[#21]
Ah goddammit!! Isn't it enough just to build fucking planes anymore? There's only like three companies making airliners in the whole world. Why the hell would they need subsidies? They build the motherfuckers, then the mil and airlines buy the motherfuckers. Ah fuckit. I'm going to bed... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 4:00:48 AM EDT
[#22]
One of my comapny's products is bleed air overheat detection, and I can guarantee there is no bleed air on the 787. (Also make starter generators :-) )
No pneumatic starters either. It is one excellent machine. It is being built differently than any other Boeing to date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 4:08:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Actually, Honeywell doen't have as much content on the 787 as other aircraft. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 4:12:31 AM EDT
[#24]
cool
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2006 7:08:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Slogger78 wrote
"Hardly being subsidised as if they were on a war footing. They get cheap government loans. Boeing receives tax breaks, support from local and state government and fat defence contracts. Both companies are subsidised. Both companies whine about it like petulant children while ripping off the tax payers of the EU and US." I'll have to point out that EADS is 33% (round figures) owned by the French .gov. Their is no comparable government ownership stake in Boeing. I'll be the first to admit that Boeing is one of the most spoiled/subsidized companies in the US. But to compare tax incentives (of which EADS receives from both the US and EU) and import-export loans (from which both Boeing and EADS recieve from both the US and EU) to direct government ownership stake and the unusual loan practices is streching the case. I'd say personally say they aren't in the same ballpark, or even the same sport. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
