Recent Topics
weber auto youtube talking about ATF
by bionictony. 10/19/18 02:30 PM
Acura MDX Key Problem- Urgent request please!
by methusaleh. 10/19/18 02:11 PM
Beef failures,,,yep
by CourierDriver. 10/19/18 01:07 PM
Rear brakes wearing faster than fronts?
by Ddub. 10/19/18 12:52 PM
Change filter each time?
by BTLew81. 10/19/18 12:18 PM
Tire Pressure
by tojo7089. 10/19/18 11:01 AM
Long line at the air pump
by mclasser. 10/19/18 10:09 AM
Small engine - oil additive?
by Errtt. 10/19/18 08:48 AM
Can't align text
by Spetz. 10/19/18 08:48 AM
Difference between GL4 and GL4+ ??
by FordCapriDriver. 10/19/18 07:29 AM
Something Funny Going On w/ New Electric Meter
by LoneRanger. 10/19/18 07:22 AM
TGMO 0W-20, 10,300 mi, 282,000 on 2012 Elantra
by schuylkill. 10/19/18 05:14 AM
Lowest W grade oil
by OilUzer. 10/19/18 04:50 AM
ST Conventional SN Plus
by motorguy222. 10/19/18 02:42 AM
schaefferoil or Amsoil
by s2krunner. 10/19/18 02:29 AM
Pennzoil conventional oil meets api sn plus
by chris_84. 10/18/18 11:45 PM
Newest Members
Werdage, Frank_C, Whyssosseriouss, TNflash, The74impala
66246 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
90 registered members (anndel, Astro14, Abax25, 53' Stude, bdcardinal, Bear, 6 invisible), 1,814 guests, and 34 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics292,180
Posts4,875,599
Members66,246
Most Online2,494
Oct 17th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
London - Perth Boeing 787 #4705257
03/24/18 01:19 PM
03/24/18 01:19 PM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,256
WA (USA)
Y_K Offline OP
Y_K  Offline OP
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,256
WA (USA)


"This forum talking about 4wd systems is like when other forums talk about oil."
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4705266
03/24/18 01:23 PM
03/24/18 01:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 788
Cincinnati, OH USA
CincyDavid Offline
CincyDavid  Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 788
Cincinnati, OH USA
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.


06 Kia Sportage EX greenish gold(ugliest color ever)
11 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited HEMI Mineral Gray
14 Honda Accord LX metallic black
17 VW Jetta SE black
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: CincyDavid] #4705270
03/24/18 01:34 PM
03/24/18 01:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,749
...
PimTac Offline
PimTac  Offline
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,749
...
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.



Alway true but the budget does dictate how we fly. Having been on numerous 787 transpacific flights including the 789, I find economy to be not too shabby. The air system does help. In the end it ultimately comes down to which airline you fly with. Some do tend to cram more seats in at the expense of legroom.


2017 Mazda CX-5 GT.

Valvoline Modern Engine 0w20
Mobil 1 EP 108A
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4705303
03/24/18 02:01 PM
03/24/18 02:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,503
SE British Columbia, Canada
Snagglefoot Offline
Snagglefoot  Offline
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,503
SE British Columbia, Canada
Qantas has never crashed Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.


If you want the job done right......do it yourself.
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4705395
03/24/18 03:06 PM
03/24/18 03:06 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 21,729
Orlando, FL
Mr Nice Offline
Mr Nice  Offline
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 21,729
Orlando, FL
Both the 787 and the new 777X are amazing aircraft with their technology and engineering.

Too bad I cant fly one for a living. frown

Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: CincyDavid] #4705763
03/24/18 08:11 PM
03/24/18 08:11 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 188
Canadia
fsdork Offline
fsdork  Offline
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 188
Canadia
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Amazing, as long as you're not jammed in an economy-class seat.


Agreed. 13.5 hours from Vancouver to Hong Kong was painful enough. I'll never take that flight in scum class again unless I can get an aisle seat so I can walk around much more often.


2011 Ford F-150 Lariat S/C 6.2L 4x4 - 76K km
2003 Ford Explorer Limited 4.6L 4x4 - 202K km
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4706052
03/25/18 07:26 AM
03/25/18 07:26 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,113
OH
fdcg27 Offline
fdcg27  Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,113
OH
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.


18 Accord Hybrid FF
17 Forester 18K VME 0W-20
12 Accord LX 96K SSO 0W-20
09 Forester 95K M1HM 10W-30
01 Focus ZX3 118K PP 5W-20
96 Accord LX 104K T5 10W-30
95 318i
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: fdcg27] #4706135
03/25/18 08:54 AM
03/25/18 08:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
Astro14 Online content
Astro14  Online Content
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.


But this was exactly the mission profile that the 787 was built to fulfill.

Very long range, medium size airplane with exceptional fuel efficiency.

In 1998, Boeing looked at the future in a major market study. What they saw was a market in which airlines served medium sized markets (e.g. Chengdu, China) from large hubs (e.g. SFO). The first airplane design crafted for that market was the "Sonic Cruiser" - a long-range (high fuel fraction), composite, canard design with wing mounted engines and the wings set well aft. Design speed was 0.95 IMN to make those ultra long range flights up to two hours shorter.

But in about 2002, as the airlines struggled economically, and fuel prices soared, they pressured Boeing to build that ultra long range airplane to be as fuel-efficient as possible. Speed was secondary.

The "7E7" was born...composite structure, new winge design, normal cruise speed, and ancillary systems completely redesigned from conventional hydraulic/electric/bleed architecture to an all-electric architecture that allowed for reduced engine auxiliary drag and better fuel efficiency.

When the design was finalized, the "7E7" was labeled the 787.

And it serves those ultra long range routes very well. Its outstanding fuel efficiency, and lightweight structure, allow it to carry a normal passenger and cargo load for an airplane of its size. It's basically a 767-size airplane, but those structural (lighter weight = more fuel) and efficiency (go farther on a lb of fuel) advantages allow nearly double the range of the 767, while keeping the same cabin and cargo capacity.

So, fly SFO-Chengdu? Yep. 16 hours. But a competing airline would have to connect you through Tokyo and it would take 24 hours with connections, etc.

Saves the passenger considerable time. Gives the airline an economic advantage, because it's one airplane, one flight, one crew on a 16-18 hour flight. Ground time imposed by hub connections, or technical stops, costs $$, as personnel service the airplane and re-load passengers, cargo, fuel, and catering. Climb/descent costs fuel and time. Two legs for the same distance requires two crews, and they're both augmented when over 8 hours.

The 787 will continue to re-shape the future of air travel. That's why Boeing has sold the next 15 years of production on the 787...it has thousands of orders/options.

Incidentally, at the same time, Airbus thought the future of air travel was increasingly large airplanes moving greater volumes of passengers from hub to hub...and they built the A-380. But they are struggling to reach 250 orders for that beast...as only the Middle East carriers have bought any large numbers of them...and many carriers have canceled their -380 orders while others (like QANTAS) have turned them back in when the lease was up. The -380 is the past of air travel...

Last edited by Astro14; 03/25/18 08:56 AM.

32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Astro14] #4706156
03/25/18 09:11 AM
03/25/18 09:11 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,080
Texas
4WD Offline
4WD  Offline
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,080
Texas
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Nonstop flights from the UK to Australia have long been the holy grail, although the usually talked of city pair was London to Sydney.
The primary problem with any ultra-long nonstop is that so much of the aircraft's useful load is taken up by fuel, which limits both passenger and freight capacity and that an expensive aircraft ends up tied up doing nothing else for a couple of days. There is also the added cost of having to carry a reserve cockpit crew.
To make this flight work economically fares will have to be pretty high as compared to a service involving a tech (fuel) stop and maybe a connection to another outbound flight.


But this was exactly the mission profile that the 787 was built to fulfill.

Very long range, medium size airplane with exceptional fuel efficiency.

In 1998, Boeing looked at the future in a major market study. What they saw was a market in which airlines served medium sized markets (e.g. Chengdu, China) from large hubs (e.g. SFO). The first airplane design crafted for that market was the "Sonic Cruiser" - a long-range (high fuel fraction), composite, canard design with wing mounted engines and the wings set well aft. Design speed was 0.95 IMN to make those ultra long range flights up to two hours shorter.

But in about 2002, as the airlines struggled economically, and fuel prices soared, they pressured Boeing to build that ultra long range airplane to be as fuel-efficient as possible. Speed was secondary.

The "7E7" was born...composite structure, new winge design, normal cruise speed, and ancillary systems completely redesigned from conventional hydraulic/electric/bleed architecture to an all-electric architecture that allowed for reduced engine auxiliary drag and better fuel efficiency.

When the design was finalized, the "7E7" was labeled the 787.

And it serves those ultra long range routes very well. Its outstanding fuel efficiency, and lightweight structure, allow it to carry a normal passenger and cargo load for an airplane of its size. It's basically a 767-size airplane, but those structural (lighter weight = more fuel) and efficiency (go farther on a lb of fuel) advantages allow nearly double the range of the 767, while keeping the same cabin and cargo capacity.

So, fly SFO-Chengdu? Yep. 16 hours. But a competing airline would have to connect you through Tokyo and it would take 24 hours with connections, etc.

Saves the passenger considerable time. Gives the airline an economic advantage, because it's one airplane, one flight, one crew on a 16-18 hour flight. Ground time imposed by hub connections, or technical stops, costs $$, as personnel service the airplane and re-load passengers, cargo, fuel, and catering. Climb/descent costs fuel and time. Two legs for the same distance requires two crews, and they're both augmented when over 8 hours.

The 787 will continue to re-shape the future of air travel. That's why Boeing has sold the next 15 years of production on the 787...it has thousands of orders/options.

Incidentally, at the same time, Airbus thought the future of air travel was increasingly large airplanes moving greater volumes of passengers from hub to hub...and they built the A-380. But they are struggling to reach 250 orders for that beast...as only the Middle East carriers have bought any large numbers of them...and many carriers have canceled their -380 orders while others (like QANTAS) have turned them back in when the lease was up. The -380 is the past of air travel...


Exactly ~ I have taken B789 direct flights a number of times enjoying the flight. I do not like the ME hub trips (been there done that too) Emirates carried the A380 and some infused money carried Emirates
When you look at how many international carriers updated fleets with few to no A380s the other boardrooms smell of testosterone Further, A350 and B778/B779 will bring serious direct route pressure on the A380 and B748i. For example skip the airframe for a second and look at travel policies. Im allowed to choose the most direct route in international business class with domestic connections in first class. Why would I look for a two legged hub trip?

Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4706311
03/25/18 12:01 PM
03/25/18 12:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 3,876
New England
madRiver Offline
madRiver  Offline
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 3,876
New England
How many pilots to fly 17 hrs? I doubt two can do that with regulations in place and likely ban on "pilot go".

Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4706319
03/25/18 12:23 PM
03/25/18 12:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 436
TN USA
Crispysea Offline
Crispysea  Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 436
TN USA
Long haul planes like that have sleeping quarters for pilots. They rotate between flying and sleeping every few hours. There are usually 3 or 4 pilots on a flight, and thats not counting the rest of the cockpit crew.

Last edited by Crispysea; 03/25/18 12:24 PM.
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Crispysea] #4706432
03/25/18 02:29 PM
03/25/18 02:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
Astro14 Online content
Astro14  Online Content
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: Crispysea
Long haul planes like that have sleeping quarters for pilots. They rotate between flying and sleeping every few hours. There are usually 3 or 4 pilots on a flight, and thats not counting the rest of the cockpit crew.


The 787 has a crew rest area overhead the first class galley. You climb a small set of stairs/ladder to get up into it and it has two bunks and a comfortable seat.

Lots of empty space above those luggage bins...

For a two person airplane like the 787:
Flights over 8 hours require one augment pilot.
Flights over 12 hours require two augment pilots.
Flights over 16 hours require three augment pilots.

Composition of those augments (Captain/FO) varies by airline, contract.

Last edited by Astro14; 03/25/18 02:30 PM.

32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Astro14] #4706439
03/25/18 02:36 PM
03/25/18 02:36 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,113
OH
fdcg27 Offline
fdcg27  Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,113
OH
When did you switch jobs and leave United to go to work for Boeing?
LOL!
While the 787 has notched up plenty of orders, it remains an unprofitable program and is likely to end as such since it will probably never be able to earn back its development costs, particularly since it's squeezed from below by the A330neo and from above by the A350, a program which also puts pressure on the new 777 developments.
These are the Airbus aircraft that challenge the 787, not the A380.
That Boeing ended up incurring more than six times the deferred costs in constant dollars on the 787 program that it did in bringing the first 777 to service is obviously not helpful for Boeing's bottom line.
Like the 787, the A380 also appears to be a not for profit operation and the 787 at least has orders from many first tier airlines who probably will order more over time while the A380 is now effectively a one carrier program.
While the A380 may be a failed program, the same must be said of the 747-8.
Boeing and Airbus both had studies that showed a much larger VLA market than what has actually materialized.
Having written all of the above, the 787 does seem to be a very efficient airliner in operation. It has made possible some low cost intercontinental flights offered by newly emerging carriers and after the long grounding appears to have had good dispatch reliability.
Had the program gone as optimistically planned and bearing in mind that hindsight is twenty X twenty, the 787 would have been a huge money maker for Boeing. As things have actually turned out, Boeing may break even on this program and may even earn a few dollars. What Boeing learned with the 787 program will certainly pay dividends on future developments and may be doing so even now with the 777X program.


18 Accord Hybrid FF
17 Forester 18K VME 0W-20
12 Accord LX 96K SSO 0W-20
09 Forester 95K M1HM 10W-30
01 Focus ZX3 118K PP 5W-20
96 Accord LX 104K T5 10W-30
95 318i
Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4706469
03/25/18 03:22 PM
03/25/18 03:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 233
KS
red7404 Offline
red7404  Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 233
KS
i was at Boeing Wichita when they started the 777 program. they told us the that the panels and other parts on the 777 was going to be 1/3 bigger than anything we have done be for. BUT headquarters in Seattle would not give us any new buildings to work with the bigger parts. and we had a hard time doing our work with over loaded crains, fork lifts , ect

Re: London - Perth Boeing 787 [Re: Y_K] #4706494
03/25/18 03:39 PM
03/25/18 03:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
Astro14 Online content
Astro14  Online Content
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,913
Virginia Beach
I think I've been pretty fair in my aircraft assessments on BITOG...

I've been harsh on the 737 and the A-380.

I've praised the A-320, including its FBW FCS, and the 747, and now the 787.

I've flown both Boeing and Airbus airplanes in line operations...

It's just that I know a dog when I see one...

The 787 wasn't without teething issues, and it was years late to market, but it's enabled new routes that were impossible until it came out. Airlines are only beginning to explore the market potential of that airplane.

I'm excited to see United take delivery of the A-350, an excellent airplane by all accounts. Don't give Airbus Industrie all the credit on that one, however, ILFC forced a design parameter change a decade ago (the A-350XWB as it was known at the time). Some credit for the airplane's current success belongs, properly, to Steven Udvar-Hazy.


32 Packard 15W40
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 5W30 Pennzoil Ultra
Page 1 of 2 1 2

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™