1969912 0 #26 December 16, 2009 Oh, yeah. The report on the radio this morning said that one of the test pilots was the pilot of the just-restored WWII bomber that was deadsticked into a lake near Seattle a few years ago. Dry tanks. Can't remember what plane it was. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #27 December 16, 2009 I am curious: Since the interior of the test 787 is not yet kitted out with seats, is it possible to install a zipline, with some sort of one-way rachet attachment, from the cockpit area to the rear right door, that they can travel along even while a malfunctioning plane is doing acrobatics in an emergency? Either way, I'm glad it went well! Boeing employees are probably breathing a sigh of relief! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #28 December 16, 2009 QuoteOh, yeah. The report on the radio this morning said that one of the test pilots was the pilot of the just-restored WWII bomber that was deadsticked into a lake near Seattle a few years ago. Dry tanks. Can't remember what plane it was. Looks like it was a Boeing 307, not a bomber, and the 787 pilot was not piloting the 307 in 2002, but was onboard: http://www.bobqat.com/AeroBob/307/Recovery.html http://www.seattlepi.com/local/64484_main29.shtml "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #29 December 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteOh, yeah. The report on the radio this morning said that one of the test pilots was the pilot of the just-restored WWII bomber that was deadsticked into a lake near Seattle a few years ago. Dry tanks. Can't remember what plane it was. Looks like it was a Boeing 307, not a bomber, and the 787 pilot was not piloting the 307 in 2002, but was onboard: http://www.bobqat.com/AeroBob/307/Recovery.html http://www.seattlepi.com/local/64484_main29.shtml The 307 is a very cool plane.. especially for the era it was built.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVLLWgUSsYI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #30 December 16, 2009 sweet plane, but are the wings meant to be THAT flexed ? scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #31 December 16, 2009 Do we have a method of measuring stress fractures in composites? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 December 16, 2009 Quote sweet plane, but are the wings meant to be THAT flexed ? Yup.. when you stand in front of them or behind them they have this really interesting"sweep" to them...most wings do not have that look to them when you go into the 777 or 747 bays and look at the wings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #33 December 16, 2009 Quote sweet plane, but are the wings meant to be THAT flexed ? That's exactly what I was thinking! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #35 December 17, 2009 Seems like a lot considering it was prolly empty and a light fuel load.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 December 17, 2009 Quote Seems like a lot considering it was prolly empty and a light fuel load.... You know what, I think you're on to something. I hope to God the design engineers are reading this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 December 17, 2009 Quote Seems like a lot considering it was prolly empty and a light fuel load.... Nope..they have the damn thing stuffed with all kinds of monitoring gear. for a wide body its kind of amazing how mych crap can get bolted in not to mention the sensors all over everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #38 December 17, 2009 They were planning on a flight of 5 hours or so. I wouldn't be surprised if they had fuel on board for at least 7 hours or more.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bfilarsky 0 #39 December 17, 2009 Quote Quote Seems like a lot considering it was prolly empty and a light fuel load.... You know what, I think you're on to something. I hope to God the design engineers are reading this thread. The wings are made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, and are absolutely designed to flex substantially in flight. Here's a artist's rendition from before the first flight - notice how much the wings bend? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q4/051213h_Quantas02_787-8.jpg I'm taking an aircraft stability and control class right now, and this was one of the things we talked about. From an aerodynamic perspective, its a huge design challenge to build such a flexible wing because of the significant changes in the wing geometry as it flexes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #40 December 17, 2009 Quote Quote Seems like a lot considering it was prolly empty and a light fuel load.... You know what, I think you're on to something. I hope to God the design engineers are reading this thread. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #41 December 17, 2009 Quote They were planning on a flight of 5 hours or so. I wouldn't be surprised if they had fuel on board for at least 7 hours or more. You are right. But also full tanks should be good for what, like 17 hours? Amazon is right too, but I'm sure they didn't want a max gross takeoff for the first flight.....right?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
