From what I know about it the 787 is as good as it looks. Cleaned up new aerodynamics, slippery surfaces, modern systems,etc. I don't like the name " Dream...whatever" either. Stratoliner, Stratocruiser, were good.
reading this thread is very interesting, and Bob and others first hands insights are facinating, thank you Bob, your comment below reminds me of an article i read, comparing the '90's cadillac production to new comer lexus....how lexus had incorporated quality inspection at each station, and fixed issues at that point, in comparison to cadillac, which inspected at end of line, and had to do fixes after the vehicle was completed......the result was faster production (per unit), virtually no completion rejects, and so time/cost of repairs also, going back to this threads early posts, about training people in the south without this specific manufacturing experience vs. pacific NW workforce with years of experience.....do you know if there has been as a result, a large exodus of people from the PNW to south carolina, in order to find jobs in thier field....in which case, that whole exercise would be a doubley-waste-of-move IMO
Continental/United is scheduled to get the first US carrier plane in 2012 sometime. ANA has the first and will get 4 more in 11, I read.
While the 787 is a nice aircraft, I'm still a bit disappointed that the Sonic Cruiser never came to fruition.
I have been seeing the United 787's on a regular route from Chicago to Houston. This one came in yesterday and went directly to the hanger so I had to take a few pictures. I would have done a walk around but the engines were running quietly. Good looking bird. Tom Tanner/Ferrari Expo 2013-Chicago March 2013 Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I still don't like United's new livery, which is basically Continental's with new titles. (In fact, when I first saw it, I assumed that it was an interim scheme on ex-Continental aircraft!) I wish they'd find a way to add some red; all of the classic United logos I can remember featured both red and blue.
I agree with you. The best large US airline c/s now is Southwest I think. Delta is pretty boring as are the very old AA colors(1968 when still based in NYC).
I still like the old AA colors and logo on the Curtiss Condors then the second best was the same on the DC-2's and 3's.
My favorite U.S. airline color scheme was the old Eastern "Golden Falcon" colors that they used in the early '60s, before they went to the dreaded "hockey stick". The first aircraft I ever flew in was an Eastern DC-8-21 painted exactly like this. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Appears as though they have redone the nose for the 737 MAX: http://www.nycaviation.com/2012/11/boeing-737-max-reaches-new-design-milestone/#.UKUJfeOe_El "New renderings published Thursday showed one highly visible change from earlier renderings of the aircraft is the absence of a bump protruding from the lower nose of the plane which covered the nose landing gear. Through wind tunnel testing, designers reshaped the entire nose to improve the planes aerodynamic profile. Removal of the bump demonstrates how far our design work has progressed, said Michael Teal, chief project engineer, 737 MAX, in a statement."
I would have thought there would be some advantage to using flush gear doors (well any gear doors for that matter) on the main landing gear also... Yes/No????
I think that the original design for the 737 all those years ago was for "shorter" haul. Adding the complexity and weight of covered main gear wheels probably wasn't worth the reduction in drag. I think the longer the range, the more aero drag plays a factor in total cost of operating the aircraft. I looked at the photo of the 73 Max, the windows look the same as the original....flat panes. I do hope they curve the windows, as that would drop the noise down considerably in the cockpit. I think curving the windows might require a different type rating, but not sure....so that may be a factor in leaving the windows as is. Dogdish
They tried gear doors on the original design and did not realize any drag reduction benefit from what I was told, so they left them off.
Reconfiguring the cab design will require re-certification. Bean-counters say no way, too costly. They should bite the bullet and put a new nose on that bird, like the 787 nose. It will pay off in the long run
They would Have to re-certify it but not at the same level as new design. There are abbreviated levels of certification for variants which is what this would be closer to than and "all-new". The company is too hung up on the short sighted aspects of the "bean-count", (as usual).
So even though the 757 nose is certified, and the 737 is certified as-is, you'd have to recertify the new assembly? Seems like that would be relatively easy. Shoot, this is the most successful aircraft in history, the VW beetle of aircraft... you'd think they could just do it. (Would all 737 pilots, like Southwest, have to recertify also, unless they had already certified in 757/767 planes? - Is that part of the problem?)
Not 100% sure as I'm away from my desk (and all the data), but I believe the 41/43 section break is not the same for the 737 and 757. This would mean significant re-design and the expense of the resulting manufacturing issues.
Looking forward to the Denver to Tokyo route. That would be a great way to go. Hopefully I can fly on it one day. -F
