787 Interior

[AKPilot]

I brought my, Training, team here over the weekend to start some work on 787 training materials. I was able to show them our company's Customer Experience Center and show them the new "sky interiors" we're now offering: 787 Interior

Pretty darn cool eh?

Enjoy the rest . . .New Airplane

 

[Peartree]

Very nice. I still suspect that by the time I can afford a ticket, the airlines will have managed to make it look the inside of a Greyhound bus.

 

[user 13]

Is Coach seating 9 across?

One thing that struck me the first time I saw the 787 is how big it is. At least lined up next to the 737's on the Boeing field flightline. She sure is puurddy!

 

[Fred22]

Thanks Troy Almost makes me want to fly
Cheers
Fred

 

[cjl]

Is Coach seating 9 across?

One thing that struck me the first time I saw the 787 is how big it is. At least lined up next to the 737's on the Boeing field flightline. She sure is puurddy!

Coach is either 8 or 9 across. Based on the width, 8 across would be comfortable, 9 would be a bit

though.

As for the size, assuming I'm remembering right, it's only a bit bigger than the 767 (and it's right around A330 sized). The 777 and planned A350XWB are both larger (and can fit 9 across more comfortably).

 

[AKPilot]

The thing to remember is that Boeing does not set up the seating configurations - the airlines, themselves, do.

 

[RangerStl]

If it ain't Boeing... I ain't going. :cyclops:

 

[AKPilot]

If it ain't Boeing... I ain't going. :cyclops:

I like the mantra, but have to admit the vast majority of people choose airfare over the type of aircraft they fly.

Hopefully, we can push out a new standard in airline travel.

 

[mjennings]

well I always fly on good old 737, which isn't hard since I pretty much only fly on southwest and that's the majority of their fleet.

787 is a cool looking plane, glad they finally got her airborne!!

 

[AKPilot]

The new interiors are available on the 737-800s as an option. What's completely cool is with the luggage bins, all the carry-ons now fit sideways to accomodate more.

I was on a brand new 737 last week (<40 hours) that didn't have it though.

 

[shrox]

I always end up on a DeHavilland Twin Otter or something...

 

[AKPilot]

I always end up on a DeHavilland Twin Otter or something...

LOL. I flew on those once, between islands in Japan. They weighed each one of us, and our luggage, before the flight and the first officer opened the sliding door to give us the safety brief.

 

[cjl]

LOL. I flew on those once, between islands in Japan. They weighed each one of us, and our luggage, before the flight and the first officer opened the sliding door to give us the safety brief.

Twin otters are great

I've experienced more than 50 takeoffs in them, but only one landing

 

[shrox]

Regional airlines use them and similar planes. To fly from Arcata, CA I was always on a Dash of some sort.

 

[ScrapDaddy]

ahhhh the trusty 737 There is a reason southwest flys only them though if you get your cert for a 737-200 you can fly any version if you thought the 787 was large wait until you see the airbus 480 theres only one flaw It wasnt made in america well at least it wasnt made in china:roll:

 

[cjl]

ahhhh the trusty 737 There is a reason southwest flys only them though if you get your cert for a 737-200 you can fly any version if you thought the 787 was large wait until you see the airbus 480 theres only one flaw It wasnt made in america well at least it wasnt made in china:roll:

The 380 is impressive, that's for sure. So is the 747-8 (currently in the process of flight testing).

 

[user 13]

I'm sorry, but the A380 is butt UGLY!

ugly ugly ugly.

Sorry for the rant, but it's really ugly.

And this from a guy who flew the Shorts 330.

 

[cjl]

Oh, I didn't say it was beautiful. Just impressive

IMHO, it's too short, and the cockpit is too low (purely from an aesthetic point of view).

 

[stantonjtroy]

If it ain't Boeing... I ain't going. :cyclops:

AMEN BROTHER!!

I always look at the type of aircraft I'll be on. Not a big fan of Airbus. I do like Embraer. They have a solid bird purpose built.

 

[user 13]

AMEN BROTHER!!

I always look at the type of aircraft I'll be on. Not a big fan of Airbus. I do like Embraer. They have a solid bird purpose built.

Sorry, but my First Officer on my last trip flew the Embraer at her last company. The way she described it, It is a disposable airplane. Kind of cheap.

Boeings are nice, I like the 737's I fly now but IMHO Lockheed makes the best. No other company comes close.

Sorry Troy.

 

[cjl]

AMEN BROTHER!!

I always look at the type of aircraft I'll be on. Not a big fan of Airbus. I do like Embraer. They have a solid bird purpose built.

Why don't you like Airbus? They have good aircraft, and they are just as safe and reliable as Boeing. The A330 is quite nice for example, as is the A320. The 350 should be interesting too, though it's not due out for several years. I dislike regional jets though - including Embraer. They're too small, and are often run by separate companies under the name of a larger one (often a "Delta" regional jet will not be run by delta for example).

 

[Peartree]

I'm not a pilot. I used to fly twice a week, two or three weeks a month. I used to be pretty familiar with most equipment used by the airlines. What I remember about Embraer, is that whenever I saw it on the equipment list, I took Dramamine.

 

[AKPilot]

but IMHO Lockheed makes the best.

What commercial aircraft is Lockheed still making and/or flying; L-1011s? I haven't seen a commercial Lockheed aircraft, sitting at the gate, in quite sometime.

 

[user 13]

What commercial aircraft is Lockheed still making and/or flying; L-1011s? I haven't seen a commercial Lockheed aircraft, sitting at the gate, in quite sometime.

None.Your point is well made. They priced themselves out of the market. Boeing figured out a nice balance between value for the bean counters and a pleasant flying experience for the pilot.

But talk to any pilot who spent time flying the C-130,C-141,C-5, or the L-1011 and they will tell you how much they enjoyed them.

Don't get me started on Airbus. The design philosophy of Airbus is different than any other aircraft made. For the first 10 years of it's life the A320 had one of the highest hull loss rates of any commercial airliner. The A330 still can't keep the pitot tubes from freezing at altitude.

 

[stantonjtroy]

I agree Lockheed makes a sweet liner but as has been pointed out, they haven't made one in a LOOONG time. I've worked on the Airbus and wasn't impressed with the overall quality. Looks good outside but I personally wasn't impressed with under the skin. I do like Embraer. I've worked on them and Piloted a 145. I wouldn't call it cheap or disposable. It is definately not a Boeing but it is solid. They're purpose built for a specific task and a specific market. To that end they are a good craft. If Boeing is a Cadillac then Embraer is the Chevy.

 

[shrox]

If it ain't Boeing... I ain't going. :cyclops:

Oh well, I guess I'll have to toss these Soyuz tickets for Mr. Ranger away...

 

[cjl]

None.Your point is well made. They priced themselves out of the market. Boeing figured out a nice balance between value for the bean counters and a pleasant flying experience for the pilot.

But talk to any pilot who spent time flying the C-130,C-141,C-5, or the L-1011 and they will tell you how much they enjoyed them.

Don't get me started on Airbus. The design philosophy of Airbus is different than any other aircraft made. For the first 10 years of it's life the A320 had one of the highest hull loss rates of any commercial airliner. The A330 still can't keep the pitot tubes from freezing at altitude.

What on earth are you talking about. The A320 (the entire family - A318, 319, 320, and 321) has had a total of 16 hull loss incidents, with the earliest several as follows:

June 1988
Feb. 1990
Jan. 1992
Sept. 1993

For the first several years, it was a bit over a rate of 1 per 2 years. Compare this to the 737, which has had 26 hull losses in the Classic series (and I don't know the overall number for the 737-NG):

Jan. 1989
Feb. 1991
Jul. 1993

The NG is worse:

Sept. 2006
May 2007
August 2007
Nov. 2008
Feb. 2009

I'm not trying to say the 737 is a bad or unsafe aircraft here - quite the reverse. It's a great aircraft. The A320 is also a great aircraft though, and was most certainly not involved in any more hull loss incidents than any airliner, especially when you consider the number of A320s that were made (and still are). If you want to see an aircraft with an abnormally high failure rate, look at the MD-11. It has 7 hull loss incidents in 20 years, out of only 200 aircraft built. This is far, far worse than the A320s 16 in 22 years for 4148 aircraft (the number of A320s delivered so far).

As for the A330's pitot tubes freezing? It's true it's had a couple of problems with that - no aircraft is perfect. That doesn't mean the aircraft is a bad design though.

 

[user 13]

While It's nice to look at stuff found on the internet and cite them, the fact is the the A320 had a rough start. I believe it was also involved in a few more runway overruns than just the Lufthansa Warsaw. I remember reviewing them in my airlines recurrent training in the early '90s. Also in the first few years of it's flying there where MUCH fewer 320's flying than the '37. Add to the fact that Airbus Test pilots have crashed Airbus's and a pattern emerges.

I'm not saying the A320 is an unsafe aircraft. It is very safe. I ride on one a few times every month and put my family on them without worry. It's more the pilot/Airline that has an impact on safety than the airframe. I never said that the Airbus is a bad design, I said I don't like the airbus design philosophy

As for the A330/340 pitot tube issue. It's bad. A pitot tube is a simple, basic thing, and there are A LOT more instances of them failing on the Airbus than the public has heard about. I have Spoken to pilots that have had it happen to them, it's not fun and has a high accident potential, more so because of the Airbus computer systems. If you want I'll be happy to talk to you more about why, but this is probably not the time or place. You can PM me.

Mark

 

[cjl]

The list above is incomplete (which I knew, but I didn't have a better reference). Here's a better list:

A320 family: https://aviation-safety.net/databas...pecode&var=022%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

737 family: https://aviation-safety.net/databas...pecode&var=103%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1


I also looked over all the A330 reported incidents, and I do not see any evidence of the magnitude of problem that you are talking about. Sorry, but I won't just take claims without evidence. I do know about AF447, but aside from that, I don't see any significant pitot-related incidents. I did find a couple other cases that did not result in any damage or injury, but I also found reports of similar incidents on 747s, 757s, A340s, 767s, and 777s. Besides, even if the pitot tubes ice over, and there is no indication of airspeed, the plane should be flyable via angle of attack, altitude, and engine throttle settings. It's not ideal, but it is definitely doable.

As for the airbus computer, I am familar with the Airbus control system (and how if it is receiving conflicting reports from various systems, it reverts to "alternate law" mode, in which the automatic protection is significantly reduced). It is not in any way a more dangerous system than Boeing's.

 

[user 13]

Your comparing apples to oranges with those links. They don't tell the whole story. Not to mention that many of those accidents are the older 737-200s and -300s built before Airbus was around.

As for the A330/340 believe it or not, it's true. I have talked to Northwest 330 pilots riding on my jump seat, also Aviation week has had many reports of the problem. It exists, Airbus and FAA have known about it for years. Thats why the they are switching all the pitot tubes to a newer design.

The big problem is with the Airbus design. Once the airspeed drops, the computers think the aircraft has stalled. This starts a chain reaction. First the rudder limiter opens up, This is VERY bad at high speeds. The next thing is the stick pusher pushes the nose down, all while the plane is flying at cruise speed! The rudder needs to have the authority to overcome the yaw from an engine loss at takeoff, but at cruise speed that much authority can overstress the vertical stabilizer. Every large aircraft limits the authority of the rudder at higher speeds. If full rudder authority is applied at cruise speed, the vertical stab will fail.