Boeing has announced that the first delivery of its long-awaited 787 Dreamliner will finally take place in "in the third quarter of this year". The 787 Dreamliner. Pic: Boeing The seventh delay in getting the aircraft to Japan's All Nippon Airways was provoked by a fire last year aboard one of the flight test aircraft. All …
vapourware trails in the sky?
look positively speedy in delivery terms...
New category for scams?
Not so much vapour-ware as dream-ware?
Especially ironic if you remember the 'fun' Boeing executives were having at Airbus' expense when the A380 programme was running behind schedule.
Aha, that's interesting.
Note the scalloped edges around the rear of the engine cowls.
Now I have seen this somewhere before. There's a standard "prop" 747 that crops up on TV regularly, it's a 747. Now this sports two odd features, first being the same scalloped cowls and the second being that all four engines are mounted as siamesed pairs on the inner engine mounts, with the outer ones sporting what look like extended range fuel tanks. I've seen this thing as a prop in a few shows and also sitting in the background when Top Gear are out on their airfield track so, presumably, that's where it lives.
I'm guessing that's a testbed (whose?) and the scalloped cowl edges have proven valuable enough in some regard (noise deadening from their effect on the bypass stream is my guess) to make it to a production plane.
Anyone know any more? Am I right in my guess as to the reason here for the cowl mods and also what's up with the siamesed engines on that 747? I'm intrigued.
You mean the one they have sitting at Dunsfield? (home of Top Gear) - it's just a prop that was built for Casino Royale as far as I know:
Boeing. James Boeing.
The 747 was modified to be used as a gigantic prop in Casino Royale.
What made me laugh in Casino Royale was that to make it different from a 747, they put 2 engines per pylon (like the B52), with the outboard pylons having fuel tanks. I can't imagine any modern aircraft passing certification in that configuration.
Luckily, I tend to keep opinions like that to myself, and unlike a previous house mate of mine, I don't let it spoil the whole film.
Chevrons on the engines
They're there help reduce engine noise.
As mentioned above the 'Top Gear' jumbo was a prop on Casino Royale where its undercarriage and engines were mated to a CGI upper.
There is a 747 fitted out with additional pylons for the transport of spare engines for maintenance replacement on otherwise dead aircraft. Is this what you are looking at?
Scolloped edges, could be paint
or plain old soot. Do you ever see any of the helicopter rescue programmes? Bright yellow aircraft with a dirty topside courtesy of the exhaust.
And this is the best they can do against Airbus, even with the help of Echelon spying on them?!
James Bond might get one
the B747, it was in Casino Royale, just a non-flying prop. It had been the City of Birmingham beforehand according to aeroweb.
"and will not have a meaningful impact on the positive trajectory of this aerospace upcycle."
Why, whilst reading that, does my brain conjur up an image of Mr Stallard standing in front of the Vogon constructor fleet captain, moments before being dragged off to the nearest airlock...
Booing customers spy distant Dreamliner
Yes, I thought it read "booing".
That may be closer to reality than you think.
The 'prop' 747...
...is exactly that from an engine perspective, having seen it upclose and personal at Dunsfold Wheels & Wings, there's nothing real about those engines, except the metal in the cowlings.
The rear of them are even boxed in with black-painted wood.
A case in this instance, of art imitating life, rather than the other way around.
I get the feeling that if it were left to industry and market pressure then the aircraft would be unsafely flying its way around the world as we type... The FAA & its certification process seem to have done an excellent job.
PR words of comfort "the 787 problems are not a show stopper ... impact"
Why should we believe a banking analyst? All his interest is ROI for investors in Boeing.
All companies have 'teething problems' the difference with aircraft is that peoples lives are at risk.
As with any new item, they should be avoided until they have some history of use - let someone else be the guinea pig.
With nearly a two year delay in delivery you have to wonder just how airworthy these aircraft will be - is the FAA going to change the rules for Boeing again? (Prior to the 777 two-engined aircraft had limitations on their distance to the nearest airport).
As a frequent traveller, along with other frequent travellers. my travel agent (a live body) knows my seat preferences, my drop-dead seats (never, ever fly) as well as my aircraft choices (again, a never use decision). (The greatest, most reliable aircraft was the DC3!)
Early version of 737's should be avoided as should some American carriers (AA has a virtual aeronautical fleet of flying rustbuckets) and definitely the American regional carriers.
The youngest fleets are to be found with many LLC's and other airlines in the Far East.
Think this is unnecessary worrying? Think again if you take a South America/European flight (where did that Air France flight go?) or 'over the top' across the vast wastelands of the Arctic.
Were the early 737s that you mention
the ones with the possibly dodgy rudder issues (as in uncommanded rudder hard overs)?