787 First Flight

[RangerStl]

BTW, is the 747-8 getting a similarly designed composite wing? The drawings look similar to the 787 wing design.

No, the -8 is still a conventional metal airplane with a new airfoil for better efficiency at higher mach number and more efficient engines.

Cool to have 2 new airplanes in flight testing at the same time, except for all the money spent in development at the same time... :eyepop:

N

 

[Peartree]

I think that some of what looks like exhaust might be the jet wash blowing rain off of the runway.

 

[RangerStl]

New jet engines usually smoke a little bit when BRAND NEW and started for the first time. This is usually blue-white smoke and is the preservative oil burning off of all the components and being flushed from the fuel lines and burned.

The spray and smoke during takeoff roll was water being removed from the runway by tens of thousands of pounds of thrust per side.

The days of "Cecil the Diesel" type black fuel exhaust are gone.

 

[Boosterdude]

One only needs to watch a loaded B-52 take off from a front or rear view to enjoy wing flex.

The only thing I noticed on the exhaust was the nice thick thermal distortion made more noticeable by the cold wet weather.

BTW, is the 747-8 getting a similarly designed composite wing? The drawings look similar to the 787 wing design.

That's very true. The B-52 wings flex around 15 feet with normal loads. It's amazing to see a B-52 on the ground with the tips drooped down.

Also, a 747 wing can flex up to 26 feet before snapping if I remember correctly.

 

[shreadvector]

New jet engines usually smoke a little bit when BRAND NEW and started for the first time. This is usually blue-white smoke and is the preservative oil burning off of all the components and being flushed from the fuel lines and burned.

The spray and smoke during takeoff roll was water being removed from the runway by tens of thousands of pounds of thrust per side.

The days of "Cecil the Diesel" type black fuel exhaust are gone.

Our C-17 engines put out some smoke (mostly white) when they are started. i can ask my propulsion buddies what the smoke consists of/where it comes from, but from my days of playing with a detroit Deisel Allison 250-C18 turboshaft engine in the lab, it is usually pooled oil and/or fuel burning off as you start up. If your pool is too big, you get a very nasty flame out the exhaust end - not good....

 

[Buckaroo]

I heard that it was a static pressure cone to provide a reliable static pressure reference, since the static pressure ports were not yet calibrated. As for the antenna theory, I would guess that the antennas would not be difficult to run internally, so I wouldn't think it would need any sort of an antenna hanging off the tail.

We used them on the C-17 flight test program. They were a PITA... In order to get them into clean air you had to reel them out about 250 feet or so. We had an automatic system, but when the tubing got cold it wouldn't unroll nicely and so we'd have to go back and "help" it off the reel and through the guides. And of course once it got deployed you had to make sure the pilots didn't do anything "sporty" or you'd just snap it off. We left more than a few of those things in the desert/ocean... Good times!

 

[Buckaroo]

Sometimes a parachute is used for the most dangerous tests (flat spin and stall):

https://www.butlerparachutes.com/spin.htm

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=spin recovery parachute&btnG=Google+Search

The first C-17 test aircraft had a spin chute in the tail, a big mortar canister with 28' (IIRC) chute. With the T-Tail design they were worried about what we called "locked-in deep stall" where the horizontal stab would get masked by the airflow off the stalled wing, robbing you of any control authority.

We deployed the chute once in flight before we started the high-alpha test series. I used to have a picture of that, I'll have to go look for that tonight..

I'm not real familiar with the test requirements for large commercial aircraft, don't know if they would even need a recovery type chute or not. Mounting it would be challenging given all the composite structure in this bad boy.

 

[mach7]

Boeing will NOT be spinning the 787. It's not done on large transport category aircraft. They will full stall it during certification. I also can not imagine that any kind of parachute will be used for any test flights. they are used on smaller aircraft to pull the tail up and help recover from a flat spin during test flights. Nothing as big as the 787 need/use one.

 

[Buckaroo]

Boeing will NOT be spinning the 787. It's not done on large transport category aircraft...

I hope the Navy never wants to buy one, they spin everything...!

You are absolutely correct of course. I'm not sure why we called the system on the C-17 the Spin Recovery Chute (SRC) since that was not its purpose, but I distincly remember the control panel for it...

... They will full stall it during certification. I also can not imagine that any kind of parachute will be used for any test flights...

That makes sense, like I said before, the only reason we had one on the C-17 is that we were afraid of "locked-in deep stall" because of the T-Tail configuration, obviously not an issue with this aircraft. Not to hijack this thread too much, but here is a pic of the C-17 first flight, you can just see some of the "recovery" chute hardware sticking out where the tailcone should be.

 

[mach7]

hey thanks for the photo Buckeroo! Thats the largest aircraft I've ever seen a test chute on! Very cool.

On thing missing on the 787 test flight was the extra long pitot tube. Boeing must be very sure of the aerodynamics on the front of the '87.

 

[cjl]

They (boeing) haven't used that long pitot in a while.

Here are some other test flight pics:

747: https://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/747-06.jpg
757 and 767 (they were tested simultaneously): https://boeingblogs.com/randy/images/757.767-flight-test_ip.jpg
777: https://www.boeing.com/randy/images/777-200LR_takeoff_lg.jpg
And an awesome pic of the 787 test: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1626159/L/

 

[mach7]

Well I guess I'm showing my age!

I thought I saw a photo of the 757 with the big pitot tube, guess not.

thanks

 

[cjl]

They did use a 757 to test the F-22's radar (they grafted an F-22 nose and a wing onto the front) - that was an odd looking aircraft...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Boe...45794/L/&sid=64e4b532ee14b0a2c27e8e3ec1313b43

 

[tbzep]

No, the -8 is still a conventional metal airplane with a new airfoil for better efficiency at higher mach number and more efficient engines.

Cool to have 2 new airplanes in flight testing at the same time, except for all the money spent in development at the same time... :eyepop:

N

I could see from the build pics that the fuse is still metal, I was just wondering if the new wing was composite since it has a similar profile as the 787's, to a casual observer like me anyway. That skinny outer portion looks like it would be better suited for composite than aluminum.

 

[powderburner]

That is called flex?

Second thing that stood out. Scary.

IIRC, one of the driving design criteria for the first generation of jet transports (DC-8, 707, CV 880 & 990, etc) was wing stiffness....so that the motion of the wingtip deflecting to extreme positions would not scare the passengers. Right along the lines of why they divided up the length of the Concorde with curtains at several stations, so that passengers would not be able to sight down the aisle and watch the fuselage wiggle up & down & sideways.

Kind of the same weird sort of criteria that sizes floor panel shear strength. Would you believe... a little bitty lady standing on her high heel shoe is the primary culprit. Seems that even if she weighs only 100 lbs, when she rocks back on her heels and puts that weight on only 0.05 sq in, that is a load that will punch through the face sheets of lightweight sandwich panels.

 

[RoyAtl]

The wing flex is totally normal. Nothing that would concern me at all. The C-5 wings flex 13ft in flight!

yes, but as I recall, they look pretty normal in flight. They droop down when it it on the ground. The 787 looked weird with its wings up like that!

 

[Evo666]

I watched it land at the Boeing field near my house on tv. Then looked outside to see its chase planes making a bunch of noise.

 

[Peartree]

Kind of the same weird sort of criteria that sizes floor panel shear strength. Would you believe... a little bitty lady standing on her high heel shoe is the primary culprit. Seems that even if she weighs only 100 lbs, when she rocks back on her heels and puts that weight on only 0.05 sq in, that is a load that will punch through the face sheets of lightweight sandwich panels.

I'd believe it. I remember my junior high was in an older building and had hardwood floors in the classroom. Every room had little black dots on it but in no particular pattern. One day the janitor told us that during the 1940's (or was it the 1950's?) it was all the rage for the girls to wear stiletto heels. The little black dots were where the girls in stilettos put too much weight on one foot and poked their heels INTO the hardwood.

 

[WillMarchant]

At a previous job we (mostly) built composite aircraft for scientific research. One of the mechanics had a great T-shirt: Friends don't let friends fly plastic aircraft. :y:

 

[cjl]

At a previous job we (mostly) built composite aircraft for scientific research. One of the mechanics had a great T-shirt: Friends don't let friends fly plastic aircraft. :y:

Heh.

Honestly though, I'd have no qualms whatsoever of flying in a CFRP airplane. It's a great material for aerospace.

 

[mjennings]

the 757 / F22 mash up is pretty cool, she looks good with a top mounted canard.

In my statics class we had a couple of "high heel" problems to compute various forces in the leg and shoe, for a woman of given weight and shoe/leg dimensions. There were some pretty substantial forces. I think some of the girls in the class swore off heels, at least for a while.

 

[WillMarchant]

Heh.

Honestly though, I'd have no qualms whatsoever of flying in a CFRP airplane. It's a great material for aerospace.

I'll probably get jumped on but I'll say it anyway. The problem is that we, as a species, don't yet have a lot of experience with composites. We do have a lot of experience with large metal aircraft structures. You have to be extremely careful about fabricating composite structures. Automation probably helps in getting proper orientation of materials and in application of binders. You then have the whole issue of inspection to verify that structures have been properly built. And then I don't think we fully understand how composites wear in use and over time. And in how you inspect for important changes. At least, not to the degree that we understand metal structures. Yes, flying in a composite aircraft is always going to be safer than driving to the airport. But composites are much more complicated than metallic structures and I think that we have to be prepared to have some unpleasant surprises as our understanding matures.

 

[shreadvector]

Bob Bechtol says hello. He sits next to me in our large cubicle. (We get the larger cubicles because of our "level"...)

I hope the Navy never wants to buy one, they spin everything...!

You are absolutely correct of course. I'm not sure why we called the system on the C-17 the Spin Recovery Chute (SRC) since that was not its purpose, but I distincly remember the control panel for it...




That makes sense, like I said before, the only reason we had one on the C-17 is that we were afraid of "locked-in deep stall" because of the T-Tail configuration, obviously not an issue with this aircraft. Not to hijack this thread too much, but here is a pic of the C-17 first flight, you can just see some of the "recovery" chute hardware sticking out where the tailcone should be.

 

[Buckaroo]

Bob Bechtol says hello. He sits next to me in our large cubicle. (We get the larger cubicles because of our "level"...)

Wow FlashBack...! :eyepop: Please tell him Hi and I hope life's been treating him well. Thanks Fred

 

[powderburner]

It's a great material for aerospace.

I doubt that many people remember, but about 10-15 years ago we had one of our nice little Texas thunderstorms pass over DFW airport (which really should be FWD airport, but that's another story) and drop some golf-ball-size hail on the parked aircraft. The metal airliners were back in service as soon as the storm passed.

The airliners with composites were parked for days waiting for replacement parts.

 

[AKPilot]

Once I get formal clearance, I'll have to post some pics of the 787. I've got one with me an another one of my folks in the cockpit (w/huds down - which is now standard cofiguration), the other of the business class seating configuration, and the final one of my Lead being crowd control on landing at Boeing Field.

 

[RangerStl]

I doubt that many people remember, but about 10-15 years ago we had one of our nice little Texas thunderstorms pass over DFW airport (which really should be FWD airport, but that's another story) and drop some golf-ball-size hail on the parked aircraft. The metal airliners were back in service as soon as the storm passed.

The airliners with composites were parked for days waiting for replacement parts.

Well, yeah. It's a great material for aerospace, not hail. I'm sure after the metal airplanes got temporary waivers to fly to the repair facility they also had numerous parts replaced.

N

 

[llickteig1]

I'll probably get jumped on but I'll say it anyway. The problem is that we, as a species, don't yet have a lot of experience with composites. We do have a lot of experience with large metal aircraft structures. You have to be extremely careful about fabricating composite structures. Automation probably helps in getting proper orientation of materials and in application of binders. You then have the whole issue of inspection to verify that structures have been properly built. And then I don't think we fully understand how composites wear in use and over time. And in how you inspect for important changes. At least, not to the degree that we understand metal structures. Yes, flying in a composite aircraft is always going to be safer than driving to the airport. But composites are much more complicated than metallic structures and I think that we have to be prepared to have some unpleasant surprises as our understanding matures.

Will, what would you have told Orville and Wilbur?

You said:

• Automation probably helps in getting proper orientation of materials and in application of binders.
• You then have the whole issue of inspection to verify that structures have been properly built.
• And then I don't think we fully understand how composites wear in use and over time.
• And in how you inspect for important changes.

I wonder if Boeing and the FAA have thought of any of these ... ?

Do you have any idea how long composites have been used in aircraft structures or how long they have been under research at universities and in aerospace and other labs? When I started in the aerospace industry in 1985, there was already research and experimentation going on with composites. There are numerous companies that now have "Centers of Excellence" around the country revolving around composite manufacturing.

Technology marches on.

--Lance.

 

[RangerStl]

Well, shoot. WOOD is a composite material and they started off using that.

We're just now getting back to our roots!