# First glimpse of the Boeing 787



## evangilder (Jun 28, 2007)

Captured by an astute photographer:
First 787 Dreamliner @ seattlepi.com


----------



## Bf109_g (Jun 28, 2007)

Awesome pic!


----------



## Heinz (Jun 28, 2007)

very nice


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 28, 2007)

Nice pics.


----------



## bomber (Jun 28, 2007)

Hope the engines work


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2007)

bomber said:


> Hope the engines work



And why wouldn't they?


----------



## timshatz (Jun 28, 2007)

The engines on these things just keep getting bigger and bigger. Look at the pods on a 727, they look like gas tanks in comparison.


----------



## twoeagles (Jun 28, 2007)

Most factory fresh airframes are silver alumimun - is this thing using a 
composite fuselage? I am pretty far out of the airline loop, as you can
summize...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

Good pic, starting to look good. 

And bomber why would the engines not work? Because its not a European aircraft.......?


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 28, 2007)

Technology works in a circular evolution.

I remember long ago painting scale plastic model airplanes.

Now they're painting full size plastic airplanes!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 28, 2007)

hehe yep, it takes a big bottle of Testor's paint for that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And bomber why would the engines not work? Because its not a European aircraft.......?


Maybe he's referring to the RB-211 Trents which are offered as a customer option.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

Interesting thing is the 787 is the only aircraft in the world where 2 engines have a single interface. Thereby allowing the aircraft to be fitted with either the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 or the General Electric GEnx engines at any given time.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Interesting thing is the 787 is the only aircraft in the world where 2 engines have a single interface. Thereby allowing the aircraft to be fitted with either the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 or the General Electric GEnx engines at any given time.



I did not know that . . . I know you can order most of the newer airliners with your choice of engines (Rolls-Royce, P&W, GE, etc.), especially the 57, 67 77, but I just assumed it wasn't a big deal which engine you chose. Wrong!

And, yes, the fuselage is of all-composite construction, so that's why it looks like it's plastic - because it is!


----------



## trackend (Jun 28, 2007)

I'll be very surprised if its not successful


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> I did not know that . . . I know you can order most of the newer airliners with your choice of engines (Rolls-Royce, P&W, GE, etc.), especially the 57, 67 77, but I just assumed it wasn't a big deal which engine you chose. Wrong!
> 
> And, yes, the fuselage is of all-composite construction, so that's why it looks like it's plastic - because it is!



You can order aircraft with different engines that have been rated for certified that aircraft but the 787 is the first aircraft where you can just interchange the two engines. I am sure though that each engine has to be the same type of engine as well.


----------



## bomber (Jun 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good pic, starting to look good.
> 
> And bomber why would the engines not work? Because its not a European aircraft.......?



What's the "Because its not a European aircraft.......?" got to with owt ?

The engines on that particular plane are Trent 1000's and I hope they work...
Even if as yet they aren't certificated...

Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2007)

Chill out man....


----------



## Mariano (Jul 3, 2007)

What do you mean with interchange engines? Is what I understand that you can have a plane with for example a GE in one side and a RR in the other?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 3, 2007)

Mariano said:


> What do you mean with interchange engines? Is what I understand that you can have a plane with for example a GE in one side and a RR in the other?



No, it means you can have either type of engine, but installed in pairs.

I dont think its possible to mix and match engines from different manufactorers as each engine puts out different levels of thrust per throttle setting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2007)

That is correct syscom. You can not have a RR on one side and a GE on the other.


----------



## bomber (Jul 4, 2007)

Disregarding the difficulties in flying.... it is possible to have a GE on one wing and a RR on the other... 

It wouldn't be a simple case of swaping the engine, you'd also have to swap the strut as there are some differences in wiring within the strut, fire extinguishers and such.... So you're interchanging back to the strut disconnect point.

Even with that said there is a different set of drawings for the wiring up to this strut disconnet point for an RR engine and GE... so as always it's not a simple case of offering one up or the other.

As posted in an earlier thread this is RR T1000 engine on RR's flying test bed...a 747


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/boeing-dream-lifter-747-lcf-6494-2.html


So it is possible to have different engine, physical sizes of engine on different wings, I suppose as long as the pilot compensates for it ?



regards

Simon


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2007)

bomber said:


> Disregarding the difficulties in flying.... it is possible to have a GE on one wing and a RR on the other...
> 
> It wouldn't be a simple case of swaping the engine, you'd also have to swap the strut as there are some differences in wiring within the strut, fire extinguishers and such.... So you're interchanging back to the strut disconnect point.
> 
> ...



Aircraft used for testing engines are not a run of the mill military or civil aircraft, and are generally on eof akind test platforms.

Boeing used a single common strut to handle both engines as a way to save money.


----------



## Jugulator (Jul 4, 2007)

That is one ugly plane, but I bet it flies like a beaut.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

Conceivably its possible to co mingle engines on an aircraft such as the 787. The fuel management system, if set up to do so will take care of any differences in power settings the pilot may have to deal with.

Possible but not probable.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Conceivably its possible to co mingle engines on an aircraft such as the 787. The fuel management system, if set up to do so will take care of any differences in power settings the pilot may have to deal with.
> 
> Possible but not probable.



How about "uneconomical"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> How about "uneconomical"



In what terms? Operationally this shouldn't pose a problem and maintenance wise it would be a benefit. The FMS would ensure that each engine operated to its top efficiency. Unless there's something aerodynamically which would degrade performance, I can't see why this couldn't be done.

Personally as a pilot, I would rather have "two of the same."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2007)

bomber said:


> Disregarding the difficulties in flying.... it is possible to have a GE on one wing and a RR on the other...
> 
> It wouldn't be a simple case of swaping the engine, you'd also have to swap the strut as there are some differences in wiring within the strut, fire extinguishers and such.... So you're interchanging back to the strut disconnect point.
> 
> ...



No the 787 is the first aircraft that will allow you to just replace the engines. It has a common electrical interface for both engines.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 4, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In what terms? Operationally this shouldn't pose a problem and maintenance wise it would be a benefit. The FMS would ensure that each engine operated to its top efficiency. Unless there's something aerodynamically which would degrade performance, I can't see why this couldn't be done.
> 
> Personally as a pilot, I would rather have "two of the same."



For one, different weights of the engine mean unbalanced wing loads, requiring less than optimum flight control settings. That cuts down on fuel efficency.

I dont suppose the drag ratio's of either engine is all that different.

And finally, logistics....... cheaper to have one set of spare parts than two.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> For one, different weights of the engine mean unbalanced wing loads, requiring less than optimum flight control settings. That cuts down on fuel efficency.
> 
> I dont suppose the drag ratio's of either engine is all that different.
> 
> And finally, logistics....... cheaper to have one set of spare parts than two.


The weight is negligible between the two engines and the trim system (which is computer controlled) will take care of any "unbalance" (if any).

As far as logistics - most airlines lease their aircraft and engines. banks usually own them. There is a lot of "swapping" between airlines. Having the ability to interchange engines is actually a plus in this situation and it avoids "placing your eggs in one basket" as happened to Lockheed on the L-1011 many years ago. 

As far as spare parts - again limited as most airlines no longer overhaul their engines, they send them out so only line maintenance parts will be stocked. I do know United uses a "dock to stock" system where only what is needed is actually orders. In this scenario only "rotables" (filters, gaskets etc.) might be engine specific. the impact on logistics will be minimal.

The Trent 1000 can also be "de tuned" to match the GE engine (If this was to be done)


----------



## bomber (Jul 5, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the 787 is the first aircraft that will allow you to just replace the engines. It has a common electrical interface for both engines.



Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.

The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2007)

bomber said:


> Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
> 
> The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
> 
> Simon


Engine C of G? Where did you come up with that? If the engine mounts are designed to fit the same point on the pylon, it doesn't make a difference. And its that way on many airliners designed to take on different engines. Once that engine is on that pylon it's part of the airframe and computed into the entire CG.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2007)

bomber said:


> Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
> 
> The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
> 
> Simon



If you dont care to believe me on it, go and check out the Boeing website.


----------



## bomber (Jul 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you dont care to believe me on it, go and check out the Boeing website.



Yeh what would I know.... it's not like I have a 787 engine strut is it now...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2007)

Hey I only state facts from Boeing and its not like its something thats really hard to believe. I might not know everything but being an Aircraft Mechanic I find it easy eneogh to believe what a manufacturer says.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 6, 2007)

bomber said:


> Then I have to wonder if the strut wiring, the wiring between the strut disconnect and the engine disconnect is the same for both engines and whether this is an easy interchange operation.
> 
> The engines CoG are different... T1000 are a lot shorter than the GE engines...
> 
> Simon



Makes sense . . .

To keep the A/C's CoG in the same place, the engines would probably have to mount in a slightly different place if their CoG's are different.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Makes sense . . .
> 
> To keep the A/C's CoG in the same place, the engines would probably have to mount in a slightly different place if their CoG's are different.


Wrong.

The aircraft C of G has nothing to do with the engines C of G. Once attached to the airframe it all becomes one "moment" with the aircraft. Here's some info on weight and balance

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/FAA-H-8083-1A.pdf

I could tell you that during engine installation, the CG is attained while hoisting the engine (I did a few, DC-9, DC-10, B-727 and B-737). I would also guess that both RR and GE engines have a similar C of G but either way once attached to the aircraft it has nothing to do with the over all aircraft C of G.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The aircraft C of G has nothing to do with the engines C of G. Once attached to the airframe it all becomes one "moment" with the aircraft. Here's some info on weight and balance
> 
> ...



God I hated Weight and Balance!!!! When we had an aircraft whos weight and balance was out of tolerance after some work or modifications were done or we added ballistic protection, etc.... sometimes it would take a whole day to figure it out. 9 out 10 times it was a math error!


----------



## bomber (Jul 9, 2007)

Flyboy.... you're doing the maths from the point of the CoG of the plane...

Have you considered that an engine manufacturer would do the maths from a point of it's engine and the stresses applied to it's mounting fixtures ?

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2007)

bomber said:


> Flyboy.... you're doing the maths from the point of the CoG of the plane...


That's right - because once the engine is on the plane then only thing that matters is its weight and "moment."


bomber said:


> Have you considered that an engine manufacturer would do the maths from a point of it's engine and the stresses applied to it's mounting fixtures ?
> 
> Simon





That's calculated in the design of the pylon and that's why the pylon is so robust in its construction. As far as putting different engine types on the aircraft, the only thing a maintainer would have to consider is any change in weight and then calculate that in the aircraft's weight and balance records.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2007)

Here's a site that investigated the infamous DC-10 crash in Chicago in 1979. The pylon failed because AA maintenance folks were installing the engine with a fork lift and they were cracking portions of the pylon.

AirDisaster.Com: Investigation: American 191


----------



## bomber (Jul 9, 2007)

And I was coming to edit my last post.. I'll add it here

I'm pretty much sold on the strut being a standard part mechanically. Being capable of accepting both a GE and RR engine....

My question is whether the small amount of electrical interface within the strut is the same for both engines ?

Normally I understand an engine undergo's testing on a universal pylon, However with the T1000 engine, boeing (maybe the certification auth. ?) stipulated that it will undergo it's ETOPS test (Extended Operations) attached to a 787 strut...

So technically the engine and it's strut gets certification, I hazzard a guess this is the same for GE...

Simon


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2007)

bomber said:


> And I was coming to edit my last post.. I'll add it here
> 
> I'm pretty much sold on the strut being a standard part mechanically. Being capable of accepting both a GE and RR engine....
> 
> My question is whether the small amount of electrical interface within the strut is the same for both engines ?


On aircraft that I worked on where there was an "engine option" there was little difference in the electrical interface and there is usually an installation kit that allows installation and electrical harnesses are usually part of this kit.



bomber said:


> Normally I understand an engine undergo's testing on a universal pylon, However with the T1000 engine, boeing (maybe the certification auth. ?) stipulated that it will undergo it's ETOPS test (Extended Operations) attached to a 787 strut...
> 
> So technically the engine and it's strut gets certification, I hazzard a guess this is the same for GE...
> 
> Simon



It depends on the manufacturer's certification plan when they comply with FAR 25, Airworthiness Standards, Transport Category Aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 9, 2007)

The interface for the 787 was designed for both the GE and the RR engines.


----------

