Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"$10B - $12B" development cost estimate for 777, not 787

The article currently reads, in part:

Since its inception in 2004, the 787 has had research and development costs ranging from more than $10-12 billion^[1].

But the cited article gives $10B - $12B as the cost of developing the 777, years go. It doesn't say anything about 787 development costs. Between its factual wrongness and its bad style ("ranging from more than"?), this sentence clamors for deletion. The cited article is http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003813795_777threat31.html

The 787 is still being developed too. If someone can find a reference for the 787's program cost so far, then update sentence & reference. Otherwise it should be removed as you suggest. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Compete

Can someone tell me why you guys mention the A350 competes with 787 when it does not? The 787 comes in 223 seater and 253 seater according to Boeing.com. According to Airbus the A350 comes in 270, 314 and 350 seater. It seams to me the A350 takes over from where the 787 leaves off.

Boeing and Airbus have for the longest time not competed head to head because its suicide. They always plug holes where the other one leaves off. Now if and when Boeing launches the 787-10 then it would compete with the A350-800.

Boeing and Airbus variants do compete with eachother if there is an overlap but the families typically dont. A variant of a family does but not the whole family. Since a family has 2-4 variants some eventually do overlap but we cant say this is tic for tac like being mentioned in both this article and the A350 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An IP user added that and I moved to the bottom of the paragraph. The avaition press have been saying the A350 is to supposed compete with the larger 787 variants and smaller 777 variants. The 787-9 seats up to 290 in a probably typical 2-class configuration. Looks like some seating overlap at least. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

What is special about the 787, at least to the general public? Should we place in the introduction the answer to that question?

How about the use of lighting in the aircraft interior, being a long range/smaller widebodied aircraft, and less noise? I agree that the use of composites is the most pertinent innovation that should be placed in the introduction. These others may or may not be notable, certainly not as notable.

There is space for another introductory paragraph. If there is something to say (not expanded for the sake of expansion), this is an opportunity. In fact, 4 paragraphs are permitted. Archtransit (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Summarize the Design features info. It lists lighter weight construction, larger windows, better LED lighting, higher cabin pressure and humdity for passenger confort and long range as improvements. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
To the industry, if not the general public, the most remarkable thing about the 787 is that so many have been sold so quickly - in fact it's the fastest selling commercial plane in history. This is mentioned in the article, but I think it deserves a place in the Lead --JCG33 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. That'd fit in after the more fuel efficient and composites sentence, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Done. I tied it in with roll-out as I think it sits better there. --JCG33 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

photo explanation?

The photo with the interior of the 787 that is half green should have an explanation. Why is half of it green? Comparison on potential lighting changes? Archtransit (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A lighting comparion is what I understood it was for. Looks to be a photoshop combination of a green image with a orange one. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have a serious security vulnerability in its onboard computer networks that could allow passengers to access the plane's control systems, according to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.--HDP (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

787-3

The section on the 787-3 sounds like it was written by someone from Boeing's marketing department. Bissimo2000 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It has some market analysis that is related to that variant. Which sentences are biased? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He must mean the sentences that don't state that all Boeing products are inferior to those produced by the superior Airbus. In my experience, that is what is usually meant by "sounds like it was written by someone from Boeing's marketing department". Note that we usually don't get statements on Airbus pages that it sounds like it was written by someone from Airbus's marketing department! These criticisms generally go one way. Of course, I could be wrong! As you said, specifics would help alot here. - BillCJ (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to judge. My comment was not based on bias. (I’m actually biased toward Boeing and the 787. I can’t wait to fly in one) Still, I think the section reads like a sales pitch. For every modification in this variant, there seems to be a well thought-out explanation of a researched sales niche. For example:

“It also believes legacy carriers that want to battle with low-cost airlines can use this plane with twice the capacity of a single-aisle craft but less than twice its operating cost.”

and

“Regions such as India and East Asia, where large population centers are in close proximity, can make good use of the 787-3.”

If marketing analysis was used to create the article, that is obviously justified, but it should be clear that these are Boeing’s thoughts, not those of an unbiased author.

Phrases like, “Boeing’s marketing research shows that,” or “Boeing expects that,” would go a long way in adding credibility to the neutrality of this section.

A counterpoint explaining the downside of flying an airplane such as this might also be helpful. I’m not sure what the downside might be, but if the airplane is as revolutionary as it seems, there is bound to be a downside.Bissimo2000 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I like to say that it's important to err on the side of neutrality when dealing with articles that have to do with subjects that polarize. Had I not made the comment, an Airbus fan would have.Bissimo2000 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The next to last paragraph already has "Boeing believes" type wording. Looks like the last paragraph is the only one that could use more of it. The info before the last couple of paragraphs is generic and fine as is, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a sentence saying something like "vehement opposition from the ILFC will likely lead to cancellation of this model", with no footnote. While ILFC seems to dislike the model, I don't think there's any evidence yet that it will be cancelled. Statements like that should be backed up by a footnoted source. Remember that information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Warren Dew (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill, you mean like Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 4#Too many compares to Boeing 747 (see last comment by Father Goose)? Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 787-9 Competitors

I believe the 787-9 is meant to compete with the A330-200/A340-200 not the A330-300. The latter will likely see competition from a -10 model later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.50.245 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent 787 main page/latest version

When I search for b787 I get directed to the seemingly current main page for Boeing 787. I can clic on history on that page and clic on last version and get a page which says it is the latest version. That latest version includes following paragraph:

On April 9, 2008, Boeing officially announced a fourth delay, shifting the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2008, and the initial deliveries to the third quarter of 2009. The announcement indicated the new schedule included extra time in the testing schedule to accommodate future unforseen delays.[62][1] In order to keep Boeing's latest schedule, the 787 must complete flight testing over three quarters, in line with the 9 month flight test campaign originally stated. In September 2007, after announcing delays, Mike Bair said that Boeing would keep the Certification Date using six flight-test 787s at a rate of 120 FT hours per month, higher than the 70-80 FT hours per month used in previous planes.[63] Boeing's previous major aircraft, the 777, took 11 months with nine aircraft flying 7000 FT Hours, partly to demonstrate 180 min-ETOPS, one of its main features.[64] According to the latest re-schedule, the maiden flight will take place more than a year after the original 787's rollout on July 8, 2007.

Why doesn't I get a page with this paragraph included when I search for Boeing 787, get a link to the 787 main page and clic on that link? It looks like the main page isn't the same page as the current or last version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.252.57.27 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of search; internet or using wikipedia's search box? Wikipedia's search capability is not that good. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I use wikipedia search. I go into "History" of the page I get up (lets call it page "X")and hit latest version. How can it be that the latest version of page "X" isn't the same version as page "X" itself?85.252.57.27 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The above paragraph is visible today in the main page, but it wasn't yesterday. Dont understand this...... Maybe it's a small bug here causing an older revision sometimes popping up as the apparent main page?85.252.57.27 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably takes some time for the search database to catch up. It'd be better to use an internet search engine with en.wikipedia.org as the search domain. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First flight August 27 2007

In Development problems and delays it says that the 787's first flight was originally planned for 27 August 2007. However, the reference supplied does not mention this date (in fact it talks about late September), and I can't find any other reliable source for it. Does anyone have a source? If not I think we should we remove the statement.--JCG33 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't check that close enough. Both dates seem familiar, but September more so. I guess change the first flight date to late September and keep the reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Done --JCG33 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

False

> An Active Gust Alleviation system, similar to the system that Boeing built for the B-2 bomber <

Except that B-2 Spirit was made by american Northrop Inc. based on german Gotha-Horten patents. Boeing didn't even know of the B-2 until it rolled out to general public in 1988. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The B-2 Spirit article lists Boeing as a sub-contractor to Northrop, and Boeing explicitly lists the B-2 subsystems they worked on here. However, no mention is made of an active gust alleviation system. This possibly needs further fact checking. McNeight (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hacker Attack section is confusing

The section currently reads:

2.2.4 Computer network vulnerability

In January 2008, Federal Aviation Administration expressed concerns about insufficient
protection of the Airplane network from possible intentional or unintentional passenger
access.[88][89] The computer network in the passenger compartment, designed to give 
passengers in-flight internet access, is connected to the plane's control, navigation 
and communication systems.

Boeing says that although the networks were connected, various hardware and software 
solutions were employed to protect the plane systems such as:

    * Air gaps for the physical separation of the networks,
    * Firewalls, for their software separation.

However, they still have to demonstrate to FAA that they have tackled the issue.

The first paragraph suggests the passenger network is connected to the plane's control network. Then the counterpoint of Boeing, says, to paraphrase, "Although the networks are connected, they've got air gaps between them." This sounds contradictory, and it's definitely confusing. Are the networks physically connected, or not?

Is anyone with more knowledge and I able to explain more clearly? Thanks, —Fudoreaper (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are both. The networks are connected at points and have firewalls there. There are air gaps elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. Two networks can either be physically connected or have an air gap. They cannot be both. If they are connected even at a single point they do not have an air gap.Causantin (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's what was meant. There is at least 3 systems/networks involved: passenger, flight and maintenance/diagnostic. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Boeing Shifts Schedule for 787 First Flight

First delivery now expected in early 2009--HDP (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wing assemblies sighted?

Today near Seattle (on the ramp from I-90 W to I-405 S) I saw what appeared to be three large aircraft wings, each being transported on its own wide-load tractor-trailer. (There may well have been a fourth that I did not see.) The article implies 787 wings are airlifted from Japan directly to Everett. Has something changed in that plan? Whatever these were, their shapes were similar to 787 wings, with that characteristic "designed by computational-fluid-dynamics software" look. (Wish I had a camera with me at the time!) (sdsds - talk) 04:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer networks connected yet airgapped -- inaccurate?

Directly from the page:

Boeing says that although the networks were connected, various hardware and software solutions were employed to protect the plane systems such as 1) Air gaps for the physical separation of the networks

How can the network be connected yet airgapped? Am I misunderstanding something here or is it wrong..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahrn (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it seems odd Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... agree that as our article on air gap (computing) currently reads, this isn't logically consistent. But I think the article on air gap may be wrong... the term is also commonly used for a much lower level of isolation, to describe networks which are separated electrically but not logically. See Talk:Air gap (computing). Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity

Article currently states under the heading 787-3:

Approximately 3.1 billion people live within the range of the 787-3 if used in India or China.

I have no idea what this means. Range as measured from where? Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Potemkin village

How long between a full revealed aircraft and maiden flight is reasonable without calling it Potemkin village, not the first time an airframe has been shown off and not flown, last one I can think of is the Dornier-728. RGDS Alexmcfire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong example. The Fairchild Do-728 was ready to fly, but the company was bankrupted by a secret FSB (ex-KGB) operation. The russkies wanted to get the design for cheap, in fact that plane is flying today as the Sukhoi Superjet 100, after they purchased the assets via a german faux front-end firm. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

would you by any chance have some link for that allegation? UK

John Leahy's ( and most other persons ) critical comments seems to have been valid all along. Only shouted down by astroturfers in the initial design and selling phase. ( And currently the bloated corpses are rising nicely to the surface.) UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.124.30 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

When there's a valid reference for its use. An editor or two calling it that is just opinion/original research. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised the section on the delivery delays does not mention the originally <POV>highly optimistic</POV> targeted entry into service. I think it is relevant to mention that several Chinese airlines wanted to fly passengers to the Olympic Games (a source for that is easy to find, just google 787 and Olympic games). It might not be directly relevant to the aircraft but it helps the reader to understand what was originally scheduled and what has become of that. 222.154.88.182 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

B787-8 performance tool

A lot of people will be interested in a B787-8 analytic tool (not connected to Boeing) that is freely available. It examines performance implications (at any combination of weights, drag and engine sfc). It may be too technical for some, and a godsend for others. Whether or not it's suitable for the main B787 Wikipedia article is up to you. I'm posting this in the discussion page only, you can search for piano.aero to decide. Aircraftanalysis (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Number built

Consensus on the A380, should also be right for the 787:

"

The convention for the "number built" field in the infobox is to state the number of aircraft that have had their first flight, not those that have been delivered. See e.g. the Antonov An-148, the Sukhoi Superjet, and others. Just clarifying this. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct the number-built is normally the number built and flown, delivered or not (prototypes can never be delivered in some case). MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But the number of delivered aircraft may be all the info that's available or that is current. A reference for 19 built would keep the number from getting changed back and forth. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"

Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Edited to show text as quoteCirrocumulus (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Viewing first flight

The Future of Flight Aviation Center will let you watch the Dreamliner's first fight from its deck -- if you donate $250 or more to the museum. Dunlop, Michelle (2009-06-03). "You'll have to pay for prime Boeing 787 view". The Daily Herald. Retrieved 2009-06-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to article ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And don't hold your breath (76.176.19.140 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

"Stretched"?

The use of this word here and here is unclear and non-encyclopedic at best. The use of buzzwords (perhaps an aviation buzzword in this case?) that are unintelligible to the general public should be avoided. --AVM (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It just means the fuselage has been lengthened, and is easily clarified while still informing the user of the meaning of a fairly common term aviation. Generally, its meaning is clear from the context, but it wasn't in this case. Btw, a {{clarifyme}} inline tag is preferable to a {{incoherent}} section header in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been clarified. If you'd give others a minute or two you would not have to post this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true on heavily-edited articles, like this one. Anyway, the last sentence in the 787-10 paragraph is a quote from a Boeing official. It won't be as easy to clarify that without breaking up the quote, so I'm open to suggestions on making that more clear. - BillCJ (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added longer to the first sentence of the -10 section. That and earlier mentions should make it clear enough, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear now, thank you to all above. It's just that it gave me the creeps to think of ever boarding a "stretched" aircraft, without knowing what that really was. ;-) --AVM (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Future aircraft template

From Template: Future Aircraft:

This template should only be used on articles where future information is an issue in some way, such as information about an event/product that will change rapidly; an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic; articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is a future event/product; etc.
It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely is about a future even/product; if it were, tens of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. In most cases, the status of an event/product should be obvious from the article itself.

There is going to be redesign work done, and a lot of it for the weight issue, but that does not make future information an issue; going by the examples, information will not change rapidly, there probably won't be a sudden burst of traffic outside of maybe the first flight (at which point it would be hard to argue it's a future product,) and the article is pretty clear that it is a future product.

More significantly onto the second item. The lead in states it's in development. The infobox states development/early production. The entire article speaks in the proper tense. It is very clear throughout that it is a future product.

It's pretty clear that with the first full production aircraft on the assembly line, two test aircraft out of the paint booth, and engines on achieved, it's arguable that it's even a future aircraft, much less qualifies for the future aircraft tag. Marimvibe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No argument from me. I think the design is solid enough not to warrant the template. Even if some weight saving changes are made, the changes will have much effect on the aircraft overall. I've been working of some wording that sets some simple criteria at Category:Upcoming aircraft, which this future templates adds. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Supply chain model revisited

For those who think it's not important: I have added again the critical information about the Vought Aircraft acquisition. Boeing is essentially abandoning its much touted supply chain model... at a cost of $1 billion. 76.176.19.140 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your previous entry was removed as premature, with a edit summary note to add it once the deal was concluded. However, your claims that "Boeing is essentially abandoning its much touted supply chain model" are not supported by the freely-available portion of source you've cited, and that is Original Research, and not permitted in WP articles. I've removed those claims, as the supply chain is much larger than just this one operation. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Aviation media outlets are saying this purchase could be related to the opening of a second 787 assembly line as well.[1][2] But adding that to the article would be premature at this point. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We should probably replace the WSJ cite with the one from AVWEEK, as it is entirely free, and thus instantly verifiable online (not a requirement per WP:RS, but better). ALos, the FG source makes it clear the main problems are with the Vought facility, not with the other supply chain memebers such as Sprint or the Japanese suppliers. I'm not sure how ore where to work this in, but it might be needed to stop more POV OR insertions on the "failure of the supply-chain concept". - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is now clear to me that this article is controlled by Boeing stakeholders 76.176.19.140 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, because we actually know how to read sources with comprehension? (Hey Boeing, I need a $500. advance on my next check so I can replace this 11-year-old laptop with a 2-year old model. Send quickly! I'm disabled/unemployed!) That sort of accusation is not condusive to good collaborative editing, and only shows your own biases for all to see. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I just remind users that this article is controlled by stakeholders, that is all the editors involved through consensus and agreement. The statement that Boeing is abandoning its supply chain model is not supported by the references given about the Vought purchase. You really need a reliable reference that the supply chain model is being abandoned, that can come from a Boeing or Airbus employee as long as it meets the notability and referencing requirements. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I now see that someone wants to add a "successful" taxi test in the introduction. This is bordering on the ridiculous, may be Boeing should take over General Motors76.176.19.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Taxi tests are the first steps toward first flight. The first one should noted be in the article, especially since it occured almost two years to the day after rollout! That's quite a long time, isn't it? Why did you simply delete it? Fnlayson moved into an appropriate section of the body, where it should be. - BilCat (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Variants, fuel capacity

Referring to the 787-3, the "Variants" section says though it will have the same fuel tank capacity as the 787-8. Yet the "Specifications" table just below that section shows they have vastly different maximum fuel capacities. Something's clearly amiss with one or both of those sections. (The "MTOW" discussion is also as clear as mud and could be cleaned up considerably.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.102.130 (talk • contribs)

The conflicting wording has been removed. Maybe that was old information and the fuel capacity was reduced on the -3. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Headings - Technical Concerns

I propose rearranging the section headings. 'Design' will be a level 2 section heading (as is). 'Technical Concerns' will be moved from a level 3 heading to a level 2 heading. That is, it's a large enough section on its own, without being underneath other headings. Hope that made sense.--Lester 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

All the Technical concerns are design related though. There are a similar section (Integration in the infrastructure) in the Airbus A380 article (a relatively new airliner). I don't think promoting the Technical concerns section 1 level really helps. Some of these sections can be shortened by removing repeated or unneeded text. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The 787 is different to other airliners, and the 'technical concerns' are a much bigger part of the 787 story than for other airliners. That's why 'Technical Concerns' should be a Level 2 heading, rather than Level 3 subheading. The other reason is that the section has many sub-headings, which are currently Level 4 sub-sub-headings. That's why the section should be raised one level in the heading hierarchy.--Lester 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "stronger" claim

I removed the claim that composite materials are stronger, leading to a lighter aircraft (see diff). Two reasons for its removal: The reference provided didn't say this, so a new reference must be found. Second, Boeing says that composite airliners are lighter and stronger, but this doesn't mean it as fact. If the statement is reinserted, it should be qualified as something that Boeing says.--Lester 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice the claim has been reinserted, with a Boeing brochure as reference (diff). That's fine, except that it must be qualified as a Boeing statement or claim. Yes, Boeing claims that composites make the aircraft "lighter and stronger". But Boeing's claims about the 787 being "lighter and stronger" have also been disputed.--Lester 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That's not a brochure. It's a presentation at a AIAA conference. The fact that composites are strong and lightweight is fairly common knowledge. No exceptional claim here at all. Time to move onto of substance. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence being disputed never claimed "that composites make the aircraft lighter and stronger". It stated that the composite materials were lighter and stronger, and that they "help make the 787 a lighter aircraft for its capabilities." I concur that this is not an execptional claim. - BilCat (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we know as fact that the 787 will be lighter than conventional aluminum/aluminium aircraft? The questions grow as to whether the 787 will meet Boeing's weight claims. At the moment, the test aircraft are not lighter than conventional aircraft. We're assuming, as a fact, that Boeing can remove all that extra weight. It's more accurate to begin the sentence with "Boeing says...".--Lester 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're making making your own claims here, such as "At the moment, the test aircraft are not lighter than conventional aircraft." Do you have sources that explicitly state these claims? Also, qualifiers like "Boeing says" generally aren't necessary as long as the info is cited properly, which it is now. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For claims that are questioned or disputed, then the article should say who made the claim. The article is currently making two claims: that composite materials are stronger, and that the 787 will be lighter than regular aircraft. Composites can be stronger in some uses, but the strength is linear, along a particular angle (and weaker when force is applied along a different angle), and impact resistance is lower. The article should state that "Boeing says the 787 will be lighter than conventional aircraft". When, in the future, Boeing achieves this with an operational light-weight 787, then we can say it as fact.--Lester 00:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to enter this discussion as an engineer dealing with composites. I think the proper expression which the people involved in this discussion are looking for, is "typically CFRP composites have better strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratio compared to aluminium alloys". Metals and composites have different densities, as well as different elastic moduli and specific strength. Furthermore, both alu alloys and CFRP composites come in countless variants, with great variations in both stiffness and strength. That's why it is not an easy task to determine which material is simply "stronger" - because, for the same design constraints, solutions with different choices of materials will produce different dimensions of the designed part. What counts in the end is if a given part is able to perform its structural role (so it has sufficient stiffness and sufficient strength) - and the stiffness and strength requirements are not determined by the material, but by the expected loads on the structure. Then simply enough material has to be added in order to support these loads. And it turns out that in many cases the part made of composites is lighter than its metal-made counterpart. Nikolay, 23:22, 16 December 2009

No first flight

I think it is critical to indicate in the introduction that two years after roll-out the aircraft has yet to fly. The delays for its maiden flight and the absence of commitment on schedule for the first flight are very significant.(76.176.19.140 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I think that would be belaboring the obvious, as the delay between rollout and first flight is self-evident, and the reasons for the delays are well covered in the article. Any note of their significance would be commetnary and OR, unless citing such comments from a reliable source (not a commentary). - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its looks like you are the only one thinking that way 76.176.19.140 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Everything that has been added since your edits has either been sourced or removed. Those edits have only added a few details to what was already there. - BillCJ (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why it is not possible to have a brief detail why the maiden flight is postponed in the opening, then eleborate further in the article? If duplication is an issue then why is it permissable to duplicate the information about the redesign in the introduction and the following text? 81.100.167.0 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It mentions the delay to the first flight in the intro it doesnt need anymore as it is only a summary and the delays are dealt with in detail in the article body. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so regarding the redesign mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, why is this permissable when it is almost the same as the 3rd paragraph in the design phase segment? I wan't the first to think that an additional 5 words in the opening was important. 81.100.167.0 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway around this such as rewording? 81.100.167.0 (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the redesign has to do with the first flight delay. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, however I'm trying to make the point that in this article it is mentioned what the redesign was in the introduction, with almost the same information repeated in the main text. I presume this is to give an overview. This is my point of briefly mentioning reinforcing a section of the aircraft in the introduction too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.167.0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2009

I have tweaked the design sentence slightly to remove some of the detail and be more of a summary. The main point is that the first flight had been delayed four or five times and only once for re-enforcing, the lead should just mention that they have been a number of delays. To mention every reason for delay in the lead could add considerably to it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The first flight is the acid test and Boeing is flunking it. It is not enough to bury this information in the main text. FYI this was front page news in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times... and now on Wikipedia. You lose. 76.176.19.140 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See above and WP:Civility -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the first flight will be near December 22, 2009 http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200911190219dowjonesdjonline000323&title=boeing-787-likely-to-make-first-flight-around-dec-22--source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.21.52 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's airborne right now, so... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.70.41 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's still not certified, so... 76.176.111.49 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

First Flight Details

Taken from the live ATC feed on http://787firstflight.newairplane.com/ffindex.html First flight was 12/15/09 at 10:27am PST. Boeing 001 Heavy Experimental departed on Runway 34. The 787 climbed to an initial altitude of 1600 MSL, then climbed to 15000 at 10:33am PST, with an intention to head east or south, depending on the what they found weather-wise once they got to 15000. Altimeter was 29.77. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathonbarton (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this also. Does that mean the lead should still read "under development" or should it be re-worded? Beach drifter (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Under development is fine. It just started flight testing. Still have to get everything ironed out before getting certified. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming now that the 787 has flown, we can lis st "1" as the number built. - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeff, sorry about changing "In development, early production" b ack to "Under delvelopment". I assumed that when you said "Under development is fine", that you meant "Under development" is fine. - BilCat (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to fix it back after some IP edits. Either way covers it, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Change internal pressure info.

The section about internal preasure to be at 6000 feet vs 8000 is wrong. It then goes on to say that the increase in preasure will be better for pasenginers. I think someone meant lower preasure will be better.

The internal pressure will be increased to the equivalent of 6,000 feet (1,800 m) altitude instead of the 8,000 feet (2,400 m) on conventional aircraft. According to Boeing, in a joint study with Oklahoma State University, this will significantly improve passenger comfort.[100][101] A higher cabin pressure is possible in part due to better properties of composite materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.155.200 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that's more like pressure at ground level. Read the references (ref. 100, 101) there. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference 101 clearly says that an increase in pressure (from 8000' equivalent to 6000' equivalent) makes passengers more comfortable, and that's what the article says. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Current tag

The {{current}} tag is not needed on this article at this time. The point of the template is to be a warning to readers, during the first few hours after a big news story has broken, that facts are still coming in. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gone now. - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Air gap"

The article refers to "air gaps" being used to protect the aircraft's control systems from the network accessible to the passengers. (Or at leas that's what I understood from the text; this is not actually clear to me.)

As I understand it, an "air gap" actually means that the two just don't meet--that is, we aren't talking about one network. Otherwise we are talking about one network, in which case it would be difficult to envision it working with air gaps. This seems to be contradictory, considering the article's other claim that the two networks are, in fact, one.

I'm guessing one of these claims is not correct, but I have no way to know which one.

Or is there some other detail I'm missing?

J.M. Archer (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Whered is the other claim? The only section I've found through a keyword search on "network" or "computer" is Boeing 787#Computer network vulnerability. The linked Air gap (networking) has some explanation on what the term means, so that might help your understanding - it helped mine!. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned earlier in the section. It says "The computer network in the passenger compartment, designed to give passengers in-flight internet access, is connected to the airplane's control, navigation and communication systems". That implies that there is no physical separation (is connected). Physical separation is what "air gap" means. The two statements just don't fit together. Lime in the Coconut 15:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

but I would add that Boeing added the second claim to clarify the first... so there probably are air gaps or something similar being used. They aren't exactly conflicting, just one attempting to clarify the other. Lime in the Coconut 15:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that if the two networks are not connected, they are just that: two unconnected networks. One of the passages in this article implies that there is only one network. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Of course I do realize that Boeing might have failed to be clear in an early statement and clarified later on, which would create viable sources for contradictory material in the article here... My only interest is that the article be somewhat less confusing on this point, and preferably accurate to boot. J.M. Archer (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

I just read the Wired article cited as a source for the network claims and can come to no more reasonable conclusion than that the Boeing spokesperson who initially made these comments has no [censored] idea what she was talking about, and therefore any section of this article based on anything she said must necessarily seem contradictory.

/cry

J.M. Archer (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MJ/ASK

Is there any source for a benchmark of efficiency that the claims of 20 or 30% more efficient come from?PB666 ^yap 01:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The 20% more efficient statements are properly cited. See the reference(s) following them. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of produced planes

There are at least six B787s produced by now, one of them is already in All Nippon Airlines livery. Look here for more information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Flying is used as a measure of them being fully complete. Only 1 has flown now, but that will change. Boeing to finish side of body modifications to other completed 787s as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, check flights are done on aircraft in full production before they are delivered to a customer, i.e. completed. The previous consensus on this is at Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 3#Number built. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So by your messed up definition of built, the number ordered should be 0 as none have been delivered. There are plenty of airplanes that have been built and scrapped before ever flying, I supposed according to you those plane have had 0 built as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.113.158.242 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my definition. I stated aircraft in full production as an example. The 787 is not in full production. The post in the archive page is the standing convention. Deliveries are used for the A380 article and many other aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. Perhaps a straw poll to sort this out? –xeno^talk 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Fnlayson is quoting current consensus that has also been applied to the A380. I would suggest that as it possibly a matter for all types in production then it should be discussed at project level or at Template:Infobox Aircraft. Also note that it is difficult to determine when an aircraft is "built" which is why for production aircraft it is counted as built when it is first flown. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflit) I'm going to ask other admins to review the full protection. There are other parts of the article that need updating as new information comes to light today. There is already a clear consensus on the issue for airliner pages and that consensus is made clear in the infovbox where the non-productive edits were being made. A simple block of the offending IPs, or at least a semi-protect, will enable other editing to occur. The estasblished users are cabale of respecting the status quo in the infobox, whatever version is there, even if it is not the consensus version. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to this consensus/guideline?

You can use the {{edit protected}} template to request other edits be made while this isunder discussion. –xeno^talk 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is in the A380 archives - I'll have to look for it, but I can't right now. I now you're just trying to stop what you percive is a major edit war, but full protection of an article with a few hudred productive edits in the past 2 days is too harsh. I have a hard timme getting any page full protected, even in the middle of larger edit wars than this one, such as it was. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne above that it is probably best to codify this at the WikiProject level. –xeno^talk 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting I've reduced it to semi in lieu of the above. –xeno^talk 21:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can't behave, then ging back to full potection would be warranted. And I do plan on dicussing the "number built" issue at WT:AIR later today. - BilCat (talk)

Why is was this entire article fully protected over a quibble about the definition of a single term? You're all joking, right? Why not put up one or the other number and put a 'disputed - see talk page' superscript tag next to it, and unprotect the article? Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is" changed to "was", as it was unprotected while I was typing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I saw an edit-war in full swing and protected the m:Wrong version, then came to the talk page to see what was what, then took advice from tenured editors and lowered the protection so other work on the article could continue - given that it is an unfolding event. –xeno^talk 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for helping. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the A380 consensus (well, it's not original for the A380) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Airbus_A380/Archive_5

The convention for the "number built" field in the infobox is to state the number of aircraft that have had their first flight, not those that have been delivered. See e.g. the Antonov An-148, the Sukhoi Superjet, and others. Just clarifying this. Causantin (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct the number-built is normally the number built and flown, delivered or not (prototypes can never be delivered in some case). MilborneOne (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But the number of delivered aircraft may be all the info that's available or that is current. A reference for 19 built would keep the number from getting changed back and forth. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Block quote

I'm with this definition too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirrocumulus (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Somehow my sign was gone Cirrocumulus (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the number built is to indicate the number flown, then it should be called number flown, not number built. This is simple accuracy people, not rocket science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.113.158.242 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The point here is when is a plane really complete, i.e. ready to fly. And that has to be handled in verifiable way to follow policies (WP:V, WP:OR). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As there is a clear consensus both here, and at WT:AIR, as requested, I've changed the "Number built" to "2", since the second 787 was flown today. Any furthe changes contrary to the established consensus should be treated as disruptive edits. There no reason to wait forever on one or two persons to change their mind, which is not required for a consensus to be formed. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These seem pretty built to me.

LN1 ZA001 N787BA Boeing c/s - located at BFI

LN2 ZA002 N787EX ANA c/s - located at BFI

LN3 ZA003 N787BX Boeing Light c/s - located on the flightline at PAE

LN4 ZA004 N7874 unpainted (assumed Boeing Light c/s) - located in hangar receiving wingfix

LN5 ZA005 N787FT Boeing Light c/s - located on the flightline at PAE

LN6 ZA006 N787ZA Boeing Light c/s - located in hangar receiving wingfix

LN7 ZA100 JA801A ANA tail and white fuselage - located on the flightline at PAE

LN8 ZA101 JA804A ANA c/s - located on the flightline at PAE

LN9 ZA102 N6066Z ANA tail and white fuselage - located on the flightline at PAE

LN10 ZA103 Soon to leave 40-26 (if not already)

LN11 ZA104 In 40-26

LN12 ZA105 In 40-26

LN13 ZA115 In 40-26

LN14 ZA116 Soon to enter final assembly (if not already) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.137.25 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 2 January 2010

Only the first two have flown so at the moment the infobox is correct others will being flying soon so it is really not worth worrying about it is not a race to get the biggest total in the box. Also note that the type of list relies on unreferenced information and this been discussed which is why the project has agreed on flown. seem pretty built to me is not a supportable state that can be reliably referenced and when production is in full swing it would be hard enough to keep up with aircraft flown without counting big bits in the factory. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boeing buys Global Aeronautica

I realize this is a behemoth of an article as it is, but since it is so detailed I thought this information could be useful. Here is a link to the news story: http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/1081472.html as you can see from the url it might not stay linked for very long. It was originally from a seattle paper i believe, so it may be easier to find info there. cheers Lime in the Coconut 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe add a few words on that to the sentence where Boeing bought Vought's half a few months ago. It'll be reported in the Aviation press and Boeing probably has a press release for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Boing has a report here. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

787-9 fuel capacity?

The article states that the -9 will have a higher MTOW, range, and fuel capacity, but the spec sheet, and the corresponding reference have a slightly lower number. What is the real one? Mgw89 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Flight test website

Boeing launched http://787flighttest.com/ today. I've added cumulative flights time and numbers of flights for ZA001 and ZA002. As more 787s join the flight test program, it may be better to change what is shown to a total number of flight hours and flights for all aircraft. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, just list total flight hours for the test aircraft later on. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that adding the total hours and flights every day is really encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The flight totals are being updating more frequently than I would do. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter how often it's updated? If someone wants to put in the effort to track and edit it daily, I don't see the issue with letting them. --Resplendent (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia not a news service or fan boy site. The daily totals are not notable, in fact the totals are not really notable. Just because the information is available does not mean we have to report it, perhaps we should ask the question in a years time what part of the information would be notable then. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Including an objective fact about the flight test program doesn't seem to me to suddenly cause the article to fall under either category. Is there some WP policy which forbids including statistics that are constantly changing? --Resplendent (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and the related Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is probably a good start apart from all the guidelines on notability. I dont have a problem with information like the test aircraft have flown more than 50 flights and 1000 hours as a statement but sorry we dont need a daily update about each airframe. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Separating by frame is probably too much, but I don't see the issue with frequent updates on cumulative program flights/hours totals. --Resplendent (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The "war against Airbus" angle early in development

I don't have the reference at hand, but I read one newspaper article, probably in the Wall Street Journal, after the 7E7 was announced, in which Gordon Bethune, president of Continental Airlines at the time, and an ex-Boeing executive himself, called Boeing a bunch of geniuses because, he said, they had intentionally delayed the announcement of the 7E7 until Airbus had irreversibly committed to production of the A380. Boeing had internally decided that the A380 and 747X were going in the wrong direction from what airlines really wanted, and by continuing to shop the 747X around as an ostensible alternative to the A380, Boeing seemed to validate Airbus's executives' strategy of moving ahead with the A380, which presumably lent support to the A380 continuing to move along internally over at Airbus. Once the A380 was not cancellable, Boeing dropped the 747X at once and announced the 7E7, leaving Airbus with a lumbering behemoth that relatively few customers wanted (by comparison). All of this is speculation, but the business strategy behind the origin of the 7E7 is really important and needs more treatment in this article; and since this line of thinking was put forth by Bethune and not a random person like myself on the Internet, I need (or someone else needs) to try to find it and add it to the article. Along with any counterarguments, of course. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Boeing had also studied improved 747 versions before 747X without getting sufficient interest to move ahead on them. Also, the Sonic Cruiser was studied for a couple years in between 747X work and starting on the 7E7. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got a comprhensive book about the rivalry between Boeing and Airbus which might mention that. username 1 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a strong arguement to me. Not least because less than five years down the like they started up a very similar project to update and stretch the 747, the 747-8, which is almost certainly going into production at this point. Why would they press on a new and enlarged 747 design so quickly after dropping previous plans to build one? Perhaps, although this is my own instinct on the matter only, Boeing announced they were dropping the project to rattle both Airbus's A380 programme by showing the market that even the number 1 manufacturer saw no point in anything bigger, thus Airbus's efforts were useless and their customers fools. Then when the A380 did manage to make it out, the modernised 747 project had not only miraculously reappeared, but is now close to completion; suggesting that they had been working on the update the whole time, and that the 'drop' was simply a marketing gimmick to scare the market, and they could then use the resurgent 747 design as a more mundane and safer bet to counterbalance Airbus's brand new toy as being the decade's be-all-end-all Large Jumbo. I wouldn't put this level of complexity beyond Boeing's strategic foresight; a double-bluff and a reemergence despite previous cancellations of the exact same concept. Of course, events like the Twin Towers putting a major crimp on the aviation industry (especially for larger aircraft) are likely to have played more of a role than a conspiracy theory. Kyteto (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely Airbus have market researchers and wouldn't go along with a project just because Boeing seemed to be 'validating it'. It also seems a little dubious as the A380 has enjoyed quite a lot of orders. The 787 to be viable needs many orders, because it is a smaller aircraft with a lower unit price (the success of the 737 and A320 aircraft is the fact that they sell thousands of them at low unit prices). Further to this, Airbus has also began the A350 which has 530 orders from airlines like Ethiad, Aer Lingus, US Airways, United Airlines, Aeroflot, Emirites and Finnair. I think it more likely that given the huge development costs (which put MacDonnell Douglas off in the 1990s), Boeing deemed it unsustainable to have two super-jumbos on the market, given the fact Airbus were much further down the line and already had orders for it, Boeing would be entering too late, when customers would have already committed to the A380. Just a thought, but I don't think Airbus are naive enough to think 'if Boeing are doing it, it must be good' and commit nothing towards their own research. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Subcontractors

Aircraft development can be tracked a bit easier by detailing subcontractors - most modern aircraft factories are assembly halls rather than basic production lines, as many parts come from subcontractors outside. A list of components can be seen at http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=B787 It should make for easier referencing, for example Hamilton Sundstrand's APU in section Development/Major components, currently missing reference. TGCP (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont not think the website adds any value to the article per WP:EL and I am not sure that it a reliable source. If any sub-contractors are that notable then we should be able to find a reliable source to establish that notability. Appears also you need to subscribe to get any detailed information. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The main partners are listed in the text. Non-major subcontractors are generally not that notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lighting

The statement "interior lighting is able to produce 128 different colors" is wrong. The colors are controlled in the CIE-1976 Lu'v' color space within a well defined gamut with a resolution of 12 bit in both u' and v'. Therefore it is possible to produce 840.360.323 different colors at L = 100%. This is about 50 times of a 24-bit VGA monitor (16.777.216). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.44.238.22 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source? - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

External image

I have reverted the reversion of the deletion of external image box. While I agree with User:Denniss that is is unnecessary, there is another reason it should not be used: The current link is just to the image, with not copyright info about the image linked to here or on the image's page. As the photo is from FlightGlobal, is is most likely copyrighted, and I sincerly doubt the site has permission from FlightGlobal to reuse it. Please don't r-eadd that link again. We could link to the direct image on FlightGlobal's site, but that should be discussed first. - BilCat (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seat spacing

I just went on a factory tour at Boeing and was told that the seat spacing will be set in the sales agreement to avoid having airliners 'cram' a maximum amount of passengers in at the cost of legroom (ie, guaranteed legroom on the 787). I've been looking for a WP:RS reliable source for this and have had no luck so far, does anyone else know where to validate this for inclusion? If accurate, it's a fascinating piece of data. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was someone's bright idea to give the airlines the option of doing 3-3-3 seating and, let me tell you, its quite crammy. I'm really upset about it too. Katanada (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nose shape

The shape of the nose resembles the De Havilland Comet quite a bit, especially where it has no dip or break at the cockpit windows. Anyone have straight on side views of both to compare? Bizzybody (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Net orders per year

Hallo, It has been changed a couple of times, from "Net in year of cancel (adjusted for current year cancellations/conversions)" to "Net in year of order (cancellations/conversions in year of order)" (both in Boeings Website http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=displaystandardreport.cfm&RequestTimeout=500&optReportType=AnnOrd&pageid=m15521) It may look not so good, but I think the net orders (cumulative by year) should be counted as they were at the end of the year. If you don't do so, the "new" numbers don't reflect the history. Were then 677 orders at roll-out or not? Were 59 net cancellations last year or not? I think it is only right to show how the orders had changed over time, there were years with more orders, then were cancellations on the overhand. What are the arguments for using "net in year of order"? Cirrocumulus (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the official Boeing website, the part of orders and deliveries (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm?content=userdefinedselection.cfm&pageid=m15527), seems the logical source for the orders. All the orders and deliveries are stated there, adjusted to cancellations. The most realistic view is to use those numbers and not mention cancellations separately; why make alterations to the source? According to wiki rules, it is not even allowed to alter information obtained from a certain source. So to comply with the wiki rules and if the orders and delivery page of Boeing is used as (one of the) source(s), then only net in year of order (cancellations/conversions in year of order) numbers can be used. If people opt of the other option, this source has to be removed. Schalkcity (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course it should be Boeing's data, but Boeing list this data in the same page the two ways. You fails to see that. It's in no way altering the data.

The question is why to use the (always changing) data as adjusted for new cancellations, and no to take the year end data (again: "Net in year of cancel (adjusted for current year cancellations/conversions)"). This is set at the end of each year and remains unchanged forever. If you take the second option "Net in year of order (cancellations/conversions in year of order)" as you like, you never have a firm net order until the aircraft is delivered. ::So you have to change the orders at "roll-out" etc..

And it fails to reflect the real history of the orders, there were p.e. more than 900 orders... Cirrocumulus (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me. But for a more accurate historical picture of the orders, it is better to list the new orders in the year they are canceled. -fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with the 767

Given the similarities between the Boeing 767 and 787, is there any plans to phase out the Boeing 767 after deliveries have begun of the 787. I don't know of any announcement, although it does seem likely that the 787 is the successor to the 767 given the similarities. If anyone knows of any confirmation or reliable sugestions that this is the case it should be reflected in the article. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way the 767 will be phased out will be when airlines/freighters stop ordering them. UPS just took delivery of a few. I know this doesn't help -- but even if the 787 is SUPPOSED to overlap ... I don't even think the appropriate people at Boeing would know until the businesses stop asking for the airplane. Katanada (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of the 787 was to respond to the A330-200 killing the 767-300ER in the late 1990s. The 20% fuel burn improvements Boeing quotes are over the 767-300ER, and the capacities are similar, but the 767 keeps selling as a freighter because there is currently no 787 freighter in the works. Mgw89 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention they're hoping for the biggest tanker order in three decades to be coming to them shortly, and considering they're an American firm it's practically a done deal that they'll get the order. They wouldn't be dismantling the line until it is clear that contract, and any sub-sections onto that program, are completed; it is currently planned for the same aircraft as the tanker's base model to be used in several other minor programs to lower the cost of logistics, much like how the current tankers/AWACS/ELINT/passenger-cargo craft are all the same base Boeing model. The 767 is going to stay on the production line for several long years. Kyteto (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

The 787-9 is shown as larger and heavier than the 787-8, with fuel capacity 100 gallons less, and range 500-600km higher. So, either their ranges or the fuel capacities are incorrect. Q43 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checks the sources, that's what is listed there. The -9 is to add a laminar flow hardware on its tail to reduce drag. -fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Composites

"Boeing has stated that the 787's lightning protection will meet FAA requirements,[140] and FAA management is planning to change some requirements, which will help the 787.""

What does that man? What requirements are changed? How does that help an airplane? Help it do what? --70.142.34.215 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the references after that text (ref. 140, 148). Help it show compliance. -fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Information on break-even point

Seeing as this was made into a considerable issue over on the Airbus A380 article, it might be justifiable to develop some content on the same topic upon the 787. This article states that aviation analyst Scott Hamilton places the break-even point as over a thousand units. Naturally other, earlier perspectives, and other important people's views on this would be worthwhile placing side by side for a range of opinion and to show how estimates have moved. Kyteto (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Name Change - why?

I noticed that someone recently changed the name of the article from "Boeing 787" to "Boeing 787 Dreamliner." Is there a reason for this? Were people frequently searching "Dreamliner" to get to this article? Please tell me why it was deemed neccessary to change this article's name. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Dreamliner is actually part of the 787's name, like Lockheed's L-1011 TriStar. -fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest this to not be uncontroversial, and as such should really have gone via WP:RM. It is altogether possible that an RM can be instigated to move it back, if deemed necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Number built?

There definitely are more than 7 787s built - this production list lists line numbers 1 to 56 (although several are omitted:) http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/787/index.php --Quadunit404 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look three sections up (and in the archives) this question has been asked and answered many times. Ravendrop 01:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look sometime. --Quadunit404 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Partial revert on Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Fnlayson, why did you revert everything I did regarding 7E7 and the aircraft roll-out ceremony? Your edit summary suggests you don't feel the mention of 7E7 needs to be that prominent, but you also reverted my correcting the name of Boeing's factory, fixing capitalization, and rewording sentences to make them less choppy! In other words, your so called "partial revert" was a bit heavy handed. I'm sorry if you were the one to write these sentences, but that doesn't excuse you trolling the article! I think you should reconsider allowing my edits, and here's why:

7E7 was formerly the proper name of the topic of the article; it needs to be boldface, not italicized, regardless of which paragraph it first appears in. Yes Boeing changed the name, but that doesn't change how we format it according to MOS:BOLDTITLE.
The defined term and common synonyms or abbreviations thereof that are boldface upon their first use should be placed as early as possible in the introduction. This is also stated in MOS:BOLDTITLE. That's why I moved the sentence up a paragraph. I heard of the Boeing 7E7 several years ago, but didn't bother to look it up until the other day. The Boeing 7E7 redirect threw me to the 787 page, but it took me several seconds too long to figure out why I landed on a different aircraft's article. You can't assume every Wikipedian is as knowledgeable as you on the topic. Contrary to your revert summary statement about "7E7" only being used 3 or 4 times in the article, it is used 13 times. If you choose to revert my good-faith work, at least provide a truthful reason!
When you demoted the 7E7 sentence back to the second paragraph, you should have left my new phraseology alone. I feel I improved the sentence voice (made it less robotic). Ditto on the roll-out ceremony sentence, which had the date too far from the phrase "by which time".
I fixed the name of the Boeing Everett Factory to use the correct name of the plant and to be consistent with that article. In fact, the capitalization was wrong for the way it was being treated like a proper noun in "Boeing's Everett assembly factory", which is redundant anyway.

Those are four independent issues, by my count, that I really improved in my edits. I don't understand why you reverted a single one, much less all four. Are you trolling this article, or can you enlighten me as to why I can't improve it without going through you? —voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to my edit summary, the 2nd paragraph reads better chronologically with the 7E7 there. This is an article issues; use the article's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the article's talk page per WP:BRD; my mistake.

You're correct in that the second paragraph is a chronological narration, but synonyms of the article topic must be boldface. They should therefore be as high as possible in the introduction. Did you read MOS:BOLDTITLE? "Reads better chronologically" is your opinion on issue #2—hardly a reason to revert the rest of my work. Both your edit summary and above reply are arguments for having the 7E7 sentence remain in the second paragraph; you fail to acknowledge issues #1, #3, and #4. So why revert them?! —voidxor (talk | contrib) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes to the Lead and left the other changes alone. 7E7 does not seem all that common some 6 years after renaming, and did not feel bolding was needed. 7E7 could have been added in paratheses to the first line without moving the sentence. I thought "Boeing's Everett assembly factory" read better, but either way works OK. Don't make a mountain out of this. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to bold all the former names. Makes it easier to understand why you were redirected by making it more noticeable. Otherwise you might think it was a variant, derivative or something. Just my 2 cents. Marcus Qwertyus 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Engines

Maybe word choice of 'Chevrons' is not appropriate in reference to the engine cowling shape. There's another word which eludes me at the moment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.87.53 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Chevron is term used for these engine features. But there may be other terms used as well.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

B787 Announced Routes

Would it be relevant to have an announced routes section? The announced non stop BOS-NRT by JAL is big news for Boston as it presently has no non-stop flights between BOS and Asia. I think this is the first route announced for the B787 but I'm not sure. http://airlineroute.net/2011/05/27/jl-787/ Mikedz (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Target number of deliveries per year

Does Boeing have a target number of deliveries per year for say 2011, 2012, 2013? If so, I think this would be good to include in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on various statements by Boeing, I think the forecast is roughly 20 planes in 2011, 60 planes in 2012, 100 planes in 2013, and 120 planes in 2014. If we can get this referenced well enough, I think it would be very good info to include in the article. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Long-delayed 787 wins FAA approval to enter service

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016022340_boeing27.html?prmid=head_main?cmpid=2628

Should this be marked as a current event? -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 01:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Certification is already mentioned in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Split the development section

The development section is getting very large; large enough to be worthy of its own article. If we did this, we would of course need to create a summary of the development in this article. Please state your views on this. --Josh (Mephiles602) 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, just need to summarize what's there now. Too much details on minor things, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the same, summarize is better/needed.Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need a new development article; we just need to shorten what's here and remove minor details that nobody cares about. I'll try and summarize that section. Compdude123 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've shortened and summarized the DV section. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interior comment

Anyways, the information in the interior section is incorrect. For example, the A330/A340 interior cabin width is about 208 inches^[2] (5.28 metres) and the B787 cabin width is about 216 inches (5.49 metres)^[3]. This means that the B787 cabin's width is only 8 inches (0.2 metres) more than the A330/A340, not 15 inches. About the rest of it, it needs to be shorter, especially sections like this which are too detailed for this type of thing. 124.169.22.171 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

^ Gates, Dominic (July 31, 2007). "Airbus A350 muscles in on the 777". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/specifications/
^ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7878.pdf

No. The article text refers to cabin width at armrest level, not the maximum cabin width. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Interior photos

Could somebody update the interior photos to the current design? The photos in the article are an early mockup, and some changes have been made to the interior since then (for example, the handles on the overhead bins are different on the current 787 interior than they were when that mockup was made). ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe somebody has taken interior images during a recent air show. Otherwise, we'll probably have to wait until after it enters service to get such images. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll probably have to wait till this plane goes into service in order to get a more current interior pic. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Now updated with actual in-service pics. SynergyStar (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ETOPS and Functional and Reliability (F&R) testing currently in Barbados

CaribDigita (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"... HEPA filters remove bacteria, viruses, and fungi. "

Really? Removes viruses? So no catching colds from fellow passengers on a 16 hour flight? Sounds too good to be true. The Boeing presentation (citation 151) mentions it simply as a bullet point. Is that a verifiable source? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a photo book (with lots of text, too) called The Birth of the 787 Dreamliner that mentions this. I'll add the source once I get the chance. —Compdude123 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed/simplified the relevant text to "HEPA filters remove airborne particles" a few weeks ago. So add/adjust that as your reference supports. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The book I have said that other aircraft had these HEPA filters already, but that the 787 took it a step further with a filtration system that also removed bacteria, viruses and allergens from the cabin. I have corrected this info and added a reference to the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that you have a reference which is more than an overhead from a Boeing sales presentation, I'll leave this go and wander elsewhere. Thank you both. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on this article

Extremely comprehensive, well done all. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

787 gear issue

The fact that it happened to the 787, a groundbreaking airplane, barely starting it's in service life does seem to make it notable. Not to mention that several reputable news sources reported it: Reuters(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/uk-boeing-dreamliner-glitch-idUSLNE7A603L20111108), MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45192955/ns/local_news-yakima_wa/t/problem-boeing-landing-gear-japan/#.TsVuuz0r2nA).Msan (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like just a minor incident at this point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. That's what Wikinews and others are for. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement: "... fastest-selling wide-body airliner in history with [number] orders ..." seems false

OK, as this claim is going by the total number sold, let's look at some other numbers. Airbus have sold over 1100 A330s, Boeing have sold and delivered over 1000 767s, and sold 1500 747s. So, in amongst these much higher figures, how can the 787 possibly be the "fastest selling wide-body"?

Or, on the other hand, is it going by the RATE at which they have been sold? Then yes, there is the one great year of 2007 with 350+ orders, much greater than any one year for any other wide-body above. If so, then maybe it should say that instead. But then you'd still have to justify why that one great year justifies the claim. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the number of aircraft sold before the aircraft made its first flight. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh. OK. Fair enough. But having said that, and given that large airliners typically have a "sales life" of decades, is that really a meaningful figure? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm trying to make sense to the comment, to see whether it really is true. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that part but getting some 800 orders built up before it entered service is huge. That's really all the statement is saying. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly none of the other similar widebodies have had that kind of pre-delivery sales success. However, not totally comfortable with that being described as "fastest selling", which to me means something vastly different. But I"m going to let it go. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I thought it was somewhat vague, but could not think of a better way of saying it. I just reworded it some more to make it more clear. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner"?

Could someone who owns the book check the source on this? I thought Boeing only claimed it was the most fuel efficient airliner in its size class. Is it really more fuel efficient, on a per passenger mile basis, than larger airliners like the a380 and the latest 747? Warren Dew (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

marketing talk?

A number of sentences appear to be from Boeing marketing in the "Interior" section, some appear to be false, can someone provide citations of why these are firsts, or why they are better;

"Standard for the first time on a jetliner, cabin lighting uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs)"

If we check the A380 article we find that also uses LED (light-emitting diodes) in the cabin, so that doesn't seem so first time to me,

"An advanced cabin air-conditioning system provides better air quality"

The question is how is it an advanced system, and what qualities does it provide that are better?

"The higher cabin pressure is also possible with the use of composite materials"

I'm really not sure about that, the A380 has a cabin pressure of 5000ft (slightly better than the 787), but it has limited use of composites.*

Scotth1 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statements have been modified with added refs, removing several claims and correcting others. SynergyStar (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? The wikipedia police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.8.48 (talk • contribs) 20:20, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Number built

I think the Number Built figure could be updated. A glance at Paine Field and Boeing Field proves that there are a lot more than 6 right now. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously on this talk page. See Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 3#Number of produced planes and Talk:Boeing 787/Archive 3#Number built for the last couple of times. Boeing lists six 787s as being "completed" on 787flighttest.com. That should be fine, less we want to get into original research. -fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This older talk entry says that an airplane is not considered "built" till it has been flown. Currently, there's only six 787s that have flown. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Boeing delivers its second 787 and jumbo freighter". The Seattle Times. 13 October 2011. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
Boeing delivered its second 787 Dreamliner to All Nippon Airways (ANA) of Japan Thursday, on the same day as the second delivery of its other new jet, the 747-8 Freighter, to European air freight carrier Cargolux.
Dan Dassow (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the number to 14 and removed the reference to Planespotters. Planespotters is a nice site but far from an accurate source. It is 80% based on user input and is mostly incorrect. I changed the reverence to show the FAA typecertificate. On page 2 of this certificate you can see 8 planes listed. This are the planes that have successfully completed type certification flights and are the 7 planes delivered so far + JA806A l/n40 for ANA. In note 4 on page 8 it shows the 6 test planes. This makes a total of 14. In addition to the fully certified frames, L/N 29 and 35 (both Air India) have been flown to Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Tx. I would consider them both build as well which would make the total 16. Finally L/N 37 and 38 have had there engines attached and are sitting on the flight line in Everett. They could also be considered build. I would like some opinions on this. For now I have put the number on 14. --Joost1989 (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the FAA keeps that site updated, we could continue to use that as a source. Also, the AI aircraft, line #29 and #35, could also be considered "built" as they have been flown making the total built be 16. Consensus in the Aircraft WikiProject is that an aircraft is considered "built" when it's been flown. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't update it regularly but the last update is 22 mrt. When they don't update it we can always switch to another source again. I will change it to 16. (btw JA806A has been delivered 2 hours ago I will update that as well.)--Joost1989 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was the name changed from "Boeing 787 Dreamliner?"

Last time I checked I thought you had to have consensus to move articles, especially a controversial move like this on a highly visible page. The person who moved it said in their move summary that "Dreamliner" is just a marketing name. But the 787 is often referred to as the Dreamliner. I would like to have an explanation from the user who unilaterally chose to move the page without consensus from other editors. There is nothing wrong with the page being called Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in my opinion. Could Anti I A (talk · contribs) please explain why he/she moved the page? Thanks, Comp dude¹²³ 17:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I think WP:COMMONNAME probably applies here. I'd take it to WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it back, as it has been challenged it is up to User:Anti I A to gain consensus for the move to Boeing 787. 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a real valid reason for changing the name to remove "Dreamliner". The company model number (787) and name (Dreamliner) are both official with Boeing. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Lockheed L-1011 TriStar not a similar example...some call it simply "TriStar" just as some call this plane simply "Dreamliner." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. It's usual to refer to it as Dreamliner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I stand corrected. --Anti I A (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

problems

is this wiki or boeing PR? there are so many things missing. e.g. a problem section

the first 90!!! 787 will be build with to much weight. the first 34 will have 4 to 6 tonnes to much weight. and thats only boeing guessing when they will get the problem solved. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/10/excess-weight-keeps-anas-early.html as it turns out the prototype was 10 tonnes to heavy.

way to high fuel consumption. only 1,2% fuel savings from a test route from tokyo to frankfurt as compared to a B767-300ER and not 20% like the article tries to tell us. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2012/01/anas-787-set-to-be-tested-with.html

problems with the composite material causing wrinkles http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.V28OS6F7DM

using the smaler wings of the 787-8 for the 787-9 to loss some weight http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-weights-shrinks-9-wing-336055/

they had to increase the max take of weight in order to compensade for the over weight. twice!! http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-ups-787-9-weights-again-356477/

structural porblems at the wing connector. not the best source btw. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/08/breaking-structural-flaw-halts.html

just ask me if you need more. there are still plenty of those stories, well enough for a problem section and not only the boeing PR 20% something here, everything is perfect there talking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.46.188 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Though the article may claim higher fuel savings than reality, keep in mind that with a new plane (or any product, for that matter) it takes a while for it to get perfected. With every new Boeing plane, the first few are always overweight or have other issues that soon get resolved. Though the 787 has had many problems and delays, every new plane encounters problems of some sort. No plane is perfect from the start! —Comp dude¹²³ 21:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Most of those are old news. The weight and wing-to-fuselage joint issues have been in this article for a while. The wingspan on the 787-9 changed a couple times before the design was set/frozen. No big deal, just part of the design process. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

and therefor it should be in wiki. look up other planes and other languages. designe changes and problems even solved ones are written down usally. oh and "no plane is perfect from the start" no. some are and 8-10 years into production isn't "a while". its an untrue claim from boeing that the aircraft is this and that when it actually isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.46.188 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

United States or International?

Is the 787 categorized under Category:United States airliners 2000–2009 solely because Boeing is based in the U.S.? Major components are produced in a number of different countries with final assembly in the U.S. It would not be any more "manufactured by the United States" than an Airbus is "manufactured by France" or Germany, yet all Airbus aircraft have been categorized under the Category:International airliners rubric. I ask mainly to get some insights in how to address the "nationality" issue for road vehicles, which are assembled in many countries from parts made in other countries by companies from still other countries. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, for comparison, is included in both Category:International fighter aircraft 2000–2009 and Category:United States fighter aircraft 2000–2009.- choster (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Qantas cancels firm order for 35 Dreamliners 787-9.

Full story here at the OFFICIAL QANTAS PRESS RELEASE (ie, from the corporation itself, not some silly chat site): http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/media-releases/aug-2012/5440/global/en

For those not familiar with the airline, Jetstar is a budget (low-cost) arm of Qantas. From that release (bold paragraph is my emphasis):

"The Qantas Group today announced it would restructure its Boeing 787 aircraft delivery schedule as part of the five-year Qantas International turnaround plan.

There is no change to the Group’s plans for the B787-8 aircraft. Deliveries of 15 B787-8s to Jetstar will continue as planned, with the first aircraft to arrive in the second half of 2013. This will enable the transfer of Airbus A330 aircraft from Jetstar to Qantas Domestic, and the eventual retirement of Qantas’ Boeing 767 fleet.

Fifty B787-9 options and purchase rights will be retained and brought forward by almost two years, available for delivery from 2016. However, firm commitments for 35 B787-9s will be cancelled. The restructure means a two-year delay in the Group’s first B787-9 delivery.

The changes will result in a reduction in capital expenditure commitments that would equal US$8.5 billion at list prices." 58.164.60.238 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to read between the lines of this press blurb - they intend to cancel the order but have not yet done it. I'm sure they are currently negotiating with Boeing regarding the conditions but the order is not officially cancelled yet (not firm, like orders it has to be confirmed by Boeing). --Denniss (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed 787-9 orders

I changed the 787-9 order number from 335 to 300 since Qantas cancelled their 35 orders for the type.72.89.35.142 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And did not cite your change. At least explain the change with an edit summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Qantas never actually ordered it; they just had a firm commitment. Thats not an order, so it was fine how it was. —Comp dude¹²³ 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Boeing listed them as firm order so it wasn't just a commitment. --Denniss (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Fnlayson, did you actually read all of this post? I put in the official Qantas announcement where they cancelled these firm orders. That was Alan Joyce's (Qantas CEO) actual words. 121.216.232.99 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but nothing was added to the article where it really matters. -Fnlayson (talk)

[Seattletimes_2007_0731-1] Gates, Dominic (July 31, 2007). "Airbus A350 muscles in on the 777". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-07-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] ttp://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/specifications/

[3] ttp://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7878.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

"$10B - $12B" development cost estimate for 777, not 787

Related content

Compete

Introduction

photo explanation?

FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

787-3

Re: 787-9 Competitors

Inconsistent 787 main page/latest version

First flight August 27 2007

False

Hacker Attack section is confusing

Boeing Shifts Schedule for 787 First Flight

Wing assemblies sighted?

Computer networks connected yet airgapped -- inaccurate?

Clarity

Potemkin village

B787-8 performance tool

Number built

Viewing first flight

"Stretched"?

Future aircraft template

Supply chain model revisited

Variants, fuel capacity

Headings - Technical Concerns

Removal of "stronger" claim

No first flight

First Flight Details

Change internal pressure info.

Current tag

"Air gap"

MJ/ASK

Number of produced planes

Boeing buys Global Aeronautica

787-9 fuel capacity?

Flight test website

The "war against Airbus" angle early in development

Subcontractors

Lighting

External image

Seat spacing

Nose shape

Net orders per year

Comparisons with the 767

Specifications

Composites

Information on break-even point

Name Change - why?

Number built?

Partial revert on Boeing 787 Dreamliner

Engines

B787 Announced Routes

Target number of deliveries per year

Long-delayed 787 wins FAA approval to enter service

Split the development section

Interior comment

Interior photos

ETOPS and Functional and Reliability (F&R) testing currently in Barbados

"... HEPA filters remove bacteria, viruses, and fungi. "

Congrats on this article

787 gear issue

The statement: "... fastest-selling wide-body airliner in history with [number] orders ..." seems false

"Boeing states that it is the company's most fuel-efficient airliner"?

marketing talk?

Number built

Why was the name changed from "Boeing 787 Dreamliner?"

problems

United States or International?

Qantas cancels firm order for 35 Dreamliners 787-9.

I changed 787-9 orders