Nickname: Anthony

Review: I honestly don't think there is any bias in this article at all. The 787 is a unique way of building a commercial airliner and as a result there are going to be issues the first time round. Remember, most pioneering efforts suffer from these problems. It is up to Boeing to handle them in a way that does not detract from what is actually being achieved.

Date reviewed: Aug 3, 2006 11:31 PM

Nickname: BJK

Review: Is the 787 fuselage built from the same material system as the B-2? Is it graphite and epoxy?

Date reviewed: Jun 19, 2006 5:34 PM

Nickname: fedup2

Review: How much did Airbus pay this columnist? Just a wild and crazy thought.

Date reviewed: Jun 14, 2006 4:16 PM

Nickname: cocococo

Review: I think Boeing is on the right track, and I hope they aren't being too lax on their suppliers as they pressure them to meet difficult high standards. I'm confident the engineers at Boeing will get it right, whether it's on schedule or 11 months late. I just hope Boeing doesn't let Airbus learn from its efforts while they develop their own composite craft.

Date reviewed: Jun 14, 2006 4:00 AM

Nickname: canute

Review: continued.....where fasteners are only used to bolt major components together. Thus we come to the crux of the matter: The fuselage of the 787 is designed poorly and prematurely. A mature composite fuselage should have a double shell, and should not be constrained by the standard tube and wing fuselage configuration. However, a lot of research and testing remains to be done. Composite researchers are working on combining infusion and microwave technologies, an area which holds out the prospect of enormous savings in energy and dramatically shorter cycle times. Furthermore, the strength of carbon materials can be improved by 50 to 60 percent and its rigidity and impact resistance should be virtually doubled through the introduction of nanoparticles. Now, as for a composite "spaceplane"; I would not at all be surprised, if you're not aware of the fact that an intelligently designed reusable launch vehicle would have far fewer cutouts than a civilian sub-sonic aircraft.

Date reviewed: Jun 12, 2006 2:31 PM

Nickname: canute

Review: Niccolo, the 787 is a tube and wing airliner with a conventional fuselage configuration which, btw, is not an optimal constructiuon from the point of view of structural mechanics, due to all the pits and cutouts in load-carrying structure. Therefore, the fuselage of the 787 contains rather big cutouts such as pits for the nose and main landing gears, wing/fuselage juncture as well as the cargo hatches. The CFRP carbon materials used on the 787 have significantly lower shear and contortion properties than Al-alloys, as well as a much higher sensitivity to the presence of cutouts. Additionally, carbon fibres are highly sensitive to impact loads. The 787 looks like it must employ a relatively high number of extra rivets to attach frames to the fuselage (just in case the attachment of the frames turn out to be not strong enough). This, of course, means more drilling of holes in the fuselage. On the other hand, future all-composite airbuses will most certainly fly around with a fuselage....

Date reviewed: Jun 12, 2006 2:31 PM

Nickname: cloud9 dot typepad

Review: Cloud9.typepad.com A few years back, Airbus projected April 2006 for the A380 launch, but today, the earliest date the A380 will enter service is probably December 2006. The freight version will probably only be ready in 2009. It seems like airlines are aware of such over-optimistic projections, but seems like no one ever steps out and tell the truth. Probably the quirky nature of the Airbus-Boeing duopoly (not to mention the nationalistic sentiments tied to them).

Date reviewed: Jun 11, 2006 2:30 AM

Nickname: Dalesman

Review: Read all inputs . I wish Boeing all the best; it would be churlish to say anything other. However marketing seems to have led the way in the rush for this too hasty engineering philosophy .

Date reviewed: Jun 10, 2006 5:14 PM

Nickname: Niccolo

Review: Hey kiddies - try to get some of the Grayheads back in. Some of the Incredibles, who did the first iteration of the 747. Or some of the folks who did the digitized 747. Talk to the folks out at Janickie. They built the molds the 787 comes from, and they understand composites better than anybody inside Boeing does. Cast a wide net, get technical knowledge anywhere you can get it. Don't just depend on internal knowledge. Whatever else, this has to happen. Next step, a composite spaceplane. We have to get off this mudball. The bureaucrats won't do it, it's up to outfits like Boeing to make the next big step forward. Folks like the Rutan brothers can crack the ice, but commercialization depends on juggernauts like Boeing Commercial Airplane. Get it done and move on. The 787 is just another step along the road

Date reviewed: Jun 10, 2006 8:56 AM

Nickname: Steve

Review: Continued... He rejected the statement that Boeing deemed "unacceptable" the first two 787 nose-and-cockpit sections. He said the first Wichita-built section "turned out far better than we thought it would. "While Bair admitted the 787 is still about 2.5 percent over its target weight, he said that target includes an extra safety margin beyond what's needed to meet the fuel-efficiency promises made to airlines. "We will meet all the commitments we made to our customers, even if [the weight] doesn't get any better," Bair said. "All the moving pieces on the schedule are not exactly where we'd hoped they'd be, but when we look at the whole program, there's nothing there that says we won't deliver the airplane when we're supposed to."

Date reviewed: Jun 9, 2006 7:01 PM