Attn: Aviation Nerds

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by chummer

Yeah,my favourite airplane to fly on.

I love the 777, but find them much louder to fly on than say the A330/340. It is real quiet in those planes, especially if you are seated up front.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by T@T

I'm still interested in seeing how that fuselage holds up after multiple lightning strikes and possible problems with moisture, Wing parts made with some composite materials is one thing but a fuselage is pressurized and as far as I know the whole fuselage is made from composites.

Think I'll wait awhile before I jump on one of these puppys

They are actually able to increase the cabin pressurization (to 6000 feet MSL from about 8000 MSL on aluminum aircraft) due to the increased structural integrity offered by the composites.

In my opinion, which is very unscientific, the nature of composites is that yes, when they fail, its much more drastic - stuff doesn't bend or tear, it snaps and shatters. However, I think the bigger picture is that well engineered composite stuff is so much stronger, that even if you loose some strength over time or from a single incident, you can still have an enormous margin of safety before you approach a situation where catastrophic failure is a possibility. I would not be surprised at all if the 787 can withstand greater forces exerted on it and safely land than a conventional aluminum aircraft. Take a look at the wing bending tests that they performed - its pretty clear this composite stuff is crazy strong.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by noel

I didn't want to derail the thread myself with a discussion on test pilot stuff but I think it's interesting that you doubt they do simulator training before these live flights.

They must have the means to obtain the information they need to create a fully functioning simulator before a live test flight is made. It's in everyone's best interest that the pilots are prepared fully, and I bet that means countless hours in the simulator. Single engine landings...emergency procedure..etc

I don't know though, that's me speculating and I'm just a measley aviation enthusiast with a PPL !

I dont doubt they do some form of simulator training, but its nothing like the 737 simulators Westjet has. There is no way it can be. That aircraft yesterday would have been filled with water barrels and a boat load of computers to test wing stress, engine performance, hull performance etc.

No other commercial aicraft is built using carbon fibre composite molds and as such they will never know for sure how it handles. If you really think that any pilot could use the current 787 "simulator" and fly the plane - well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I love the 777, but find them much louder to fly on than say the A330/340. It is real quiet in those planes, especially if you are seated up front.

Likely because each engine on the A330/340 is providing about 58% of the thrust of one 777 engine.

I was on a BA to LHR over the summer and I didnt notice it at all.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Likely because each engine on the A330/340 is providing about 58% of the thrust of one 777 engine.

I was on a BA to LHR over the summer and I didnt notice it at all.

BA is back to using the 767 to LHR,too bad because they were the only airline flying the 777 into YYC.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I dont doubt they do some form of simulator training, but its nothing like the 737 simulators Westjet has. There is no way it can be. That aircraft yesterday would have been filled with water barrels and a boat load of computers to test wing stress, engine performance, hull performance etc.

No other commercial aicraft is built using carbon fibre composite molds and as such they will never know for sure how it handles. If you really think that any pilot could use the current 787 "simulator" and fly the plane - well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm sure CAE already has working full motion simulators of the 787 built. It is simply a matter of changing the software as actual flight testing data comes out to make the simulator 100% accurate to the real thing.

Edit: I just checked the CAE website and they do have an order for a 787 simulator for Air New Zealand.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Likely because each engine on the A330/340 is providing about 58% of the thrust of one 777 engine.

I was on a BA to LHR over the summer and I didnt notice it at all.

That is true, but the 777 is labelled with a stigma of being a louder plane in the cabin for passengers. Not saying it is a bad thing, as I prefer the louder drone to cancel out passenger noises (baby cries, snoring, etc), versus being on a A330/340 up front and hearing a lot of the ambient noises in the cabin.

I flew the BA 777 from YYC-LHR back in 2007 on my way to India, it was a great flight. I hope they bring her back on our route eventually.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No other commercial aicraft is built using carbon fibre composite molds and as such they will never know for sure how it handles. If you really think that any pilot could use the current 787 "simulator" and fly the plane - well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

This is a ridiculous assertion - they knew to a very high degree how it was going to perform before it flew. They knew the physical and aerodynamic properties of the airframe, they knew the weight and balance, thrust, they know where the control surfaces are and how much deflection they have, etc, etc. Flight is basically all about fluid dynamics - its well understood, highly modeled, and we have a century of data to draw upon.

In fact, if they took off yesterday and determined that the plane had significant deviations from expected performance and handling, the entire project would have been deemed a failure. You don't sink billions of dollars in R&D, tooling, and manufacture only to discover that the one flying prototype has nowhere near the performance envelope you projected when you started. Particularly when your engineers have a history of developing numerous other airliners.

If you want to talk about real world reliability, fatigue life, damage resistance, etc, then yes, there is significantly more of an unknown element there - accelerated wear testing will never be as accurate as real world operation. But they knew how the thing would fly.