B787-9

WestIndian425 said:
I'm beginning to see, from this discussion between @typhoonpilot and @AAPalmTree, why a lot of people have said Embraer has taken the best of both and combined them into their E-jets. I digress. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I'm not positive of that, either. The E-Jet autothrottles can still get you into trouble, and if you disconnect them, then you (obviously) get zero protections. Is it hard to stall an E-Jet? Yup. Is it impossible to get yourself into trouble? Not in the least.
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
Your understanding of disabling alpha floor is incorrect and of the incident overall. All they did was fly below 100 feet. They were utilizing manual thrust, so the thrust levers were moving. Given the spool time, they were obviously well behind the curve in their hot dogging. The protection of alpha floor is nearly identical in design to autothrottle wakeup. They flew too low and too slow, waited too late and literally pulled back into the equivalent of a stick pusher.

I've got lots of hours in both. Boeing builds great airplanes. Airbus builds great airplanes. You can "turn it all off" and be a pilot in either. You can become a slave to automation in either.

The rest is as asinine as a Ford/Chevy argument.

Oh, and that 789 demo was freaking fantastic!
Click to expand...


The part in quotes are not my words. It is from an excerpt on the accident.

I do not believe you have processed what I have been trying to say. The major difference is that you have a lot more feel for the energy state in a Boeing than you do in an Airbus. There is no way you can argue against that fact. Because of that additional feel and awareness an incident like AF296 happening in a Boeing would be very very unlikely. Asiana obviously being the one exception.

The difference in design philosophy is not an asinine argument. One could go so far as to say that Airbus design philosophy was a major cause of the Asiana accident. How you ask, well the captain was coming off of an Airbus and had lost the ability to fly. Clearly not all Airbus's fault as it happens in modern Boeings as well, but to a lesser extent overall. The differences in feel and protections between the two manufacturer's aircraft led to confusion and mistakes by the transitioning captain. Had he been coming off a B737NG the accident would almost certainly not have happened.

In college I had one professor who used to make the comment about "airplane drivers" and "pilots". He had a real disdain for "airplane drivers", much the same as I have a disdain for Airbus design philosophy. When somebody makes a comment about how nice it is to have a table in the flight deck to eat on, I just roll my eyes and think to myself, "airplane driver". :D


Typhoonpilot
 
BobDDuck said:
I bet he likes FRENCH fries with his AMERICAN burger too.

Crazy guy.
Click to expand...
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Actually hamburgers are German. Hamburg. Duh! ;)

But then you knew that! :)
Click to expand...
BobDDuck said:
Not if it's got American Beef!
BeefUSAlogo.jpg
Click to expand...

Does that go for potatoes as well?

united_potato_growers_of_america.jpg


You knew this was coming!
 
typhoonpilot said:
One could go so far as to say that Airbus design philosophy was a major cause of the Asiana accident. How you ask, well the captain was coming off of an Airbus and had lost the ability to fly. Clearly not all Airbus's fault as it happens in modern Boeings as well, but to a lesser extent overall. The differences in feel and protections between the two manufacturer's aircraft led to confusion and mistakes by the transitioning captain. Had he been coming off a B737NG the accident would almost certainly not have happened.



Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

You citing the Asiana accident is a very poor example. That crash would not have happened in an airbus.

Let's agree to disagree.. But you're really reaching here.
 
typhoonpilot said:
The part in quotes are not my words. It is from an excerpt on the accident.

I do not believe you have processed what I have been trying to say. The major difference is that you have a lot more feel for the energy state in a Boeing than you do in an Airbus. There is no way you can argue against that fact. Because of that additional feel and awareness an incident like AF296 happening in a Boeing would be very very unlikely. Asiana obviously being the one exception.

The difference in design philosophy is not an asinine argument. One could go so far as to say that Airbus design philosophy was a major cause of the Asiana accident. How you ask, well the captain was coming off of an Airbus and had lost the ability to fly. Clearly not all Airbus's fault as it happens in modern Boeings as well, but to a lesser extent overall. The differences in feel and protections between the two manufacturer's aircraft led to confusion and mistakes by the transitioning captain. Had he been coming off a B737NG the accident would almost certainly not have happened.

In college I had one professor who used to make the comment about "airplane drivers" and "pilots". He had a real disdain for "airplane drivers", much the same as I have a disdain for Airbus design philosophy. When somebody makes a comment about how nice it is to have a table in the flight deck to eat on, I just roll my eyes and think to myself, "airplane driver". :D


Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

Your preconceived notions on the Airbus are clouding your judgement. I have extensive experience in both and can confirm that my stick skills and feel and awareness are fantastic in fifi. Part of it I'm sure is that I've got about as many landings as hours in it, haha... and 98% of my landings are AT off. The 320's feel and pitch and power are very very similar to the 757. It was like going back to an old friend, but in more comfort. :)

It should be said on the flipside that guys that I've flown with coming off the 777 say their stick skills have never been worse. Trying to say asiana wouldn't have happened had he not have transitioned off the bus (I thought he was coming off the 744) is reaching at best.

Ford or Chevy, I'm telling ya!
 
FARNBOROUGH: Boeing asked to rein in 787-9 display
By: Max Kingsley-Jones
Farnborough

Airbus and Boeing widebody rivals took to the skies above Farnborough this week for the first time in more than 30 years, but the US participant was forced to curtail its display by show organisers.

The A350 flew Airbus’s usual impressive aerial display, which included some tight turns and slow flypasts. Boeing’s 787-9’s routine was similar to previous Dreamliner air-show displays, and initially included an impressive touch-and-go followed by a steep, climbing turn.

But Boeing had to remove this manoeuvre from the routine following Monday’s show after Farnborough’s flying control committee deemed it inappropriate for the display.

Boeing is at a loss to explain why this request came despite the manoeuvre having initially been approved during two display-validation flights flown at Farnborough shortly before the show began.
 
FARNBOROUGH: Aero secrets of Boeing’s new Dreamliner
By: Max Kingsley-Jones
Farnborough

The Farnborough debut of Boeing’s latest 787 derivative has enabled details of the aircraft’s aerodynamic advances to be examined close up.

The 787-9 is the first Boeing airliner to be equipped with hybrid laminar-flow control (HLFC), which is a feature of its fin and tailplane. This drag-reducing aerodynamic technology looks set to become standard on all future Boeing products, as it will also equip the 787-10 and 777X family.

Boeing is reluctant to talk much about the system and will not disclose how much benefit it delivers, saying only that it is “significant”. The manufacturer does, however, confirm that the system uses suction to delay the transition of the airflow boundary layer from laminar flow into turbulent flow.

“Both Airbus and Boeing have been working on that for decades and I think Boeing has finally found the ingredients to the ‘secret sauce’ to make that work,” 787 deputy chief project engineer on 787 derivative development, Ed Petkus told Flightglobal earlier this year.

getasset.aspx


While HLFC is incorporated into the 787-10, there is “no firm plan” to introduce it on the -8, according to Mark Jenks, vice-president of 787 development. “We certainly could. There’s a business case we have to run - it’s a function of how many more -8s are we going to build and the detail cost to put it on.”

As these images comparing the 787-8 and -9 show, the only discernible pieces of the HLFC system are the small doors inboard on the underside of each tailplane and either side of the fin. Flightglobal understands that these panels have two sets of hinges allowing them to tilt both ways like saloon bar doors. The system then generates suction to maintain the laminar flow.
getasset.aspx


Another interesting feature of the 787-9 is its high-lift system, which has been adapted from the 787-8 to cater for higher operating weights. Although the wing’s planform and flaps are identical to the -8, the -9 is offered with three additional flap settings (10, 17 and 18), meaning that there are a total of nine positions (excluding “up”), compared with six on the 787-8 (see image below).

getasset.aspx
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Why is Airbii so opposed to moving authothrust levers? Besides the whole cool factor, I'd think it's a great situational awareness tool.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the thrust levers not moving as much as I did before. It actually shortens your scan between the E/WD and the PFD.

Just because the auto throttles moved doesn't necessarily mean the engine is going to respond — thing I saw flying the mad dog a few times.
 
Derg said:
I don't mind the thrust levers not moving as much as I did before. It actually shortens your scan between the E/WD and the PFD.

Just because the auto throttles moved doesn't necessarily mean the engine is going to respond — thing I saw flying the mad dog a few times.
Click to expand...


Yes, it helps to start the engines prior to pushing thrust up for taxi after pushback :D


TP
 
Derg said:
I don't mind the thrust levers not moving as much as I did before. It actually shortens your scan between the E/WD and the PFD.

Just because the auto throttles moved doesn't necessarily mean the engine is going to respond — thing I saw flying the mad dog a few times.
Click to expand...
I think that whatever an airplane does needs to be cool, #1 priority. THEN, we can get to functionality
 
typhoonpilot said:
FARNBOROUGH: Boeing asked to rein in 787-9 display
By: Max Kingsley-Jones
Farnborough

Airbus and Boeing widebody rivals took to the skies above Farnborough this week for the first time in more than 30 years, but the US participant was forced to curtail its display by show organisers.

The A350 flew Airbus’s usual impressive aerial display, which included some tight turns and slow flypasts. Boeing’s 787-9’s routine was similar to previous Dreamliner air-show displays, and initially included an impressive touch-and-go followed by a steep, climbing turn.

But Boeing had to remove this manoeuvre from the routine following Monday’s show after Farnborough’s flying control committee deemed it inappropriate for the display.

Boeing is at a loss to explain why this request came despite the manoeuvre having initially been approved during two display-validation flights flown at Farnborough shortly before the show began.
Click to expand...

Not to say he's a lying liar.... but:



And I see they are going for a 737 amount of flaps setting on the 787. Wow!

That HLFC is pretty dang slick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top