Boeing 787 Dreamliner cockpit layout released

NickDBrennan said:
OK, I think its time I asked. How do the pilots get into those seats?
Click to expand...

They slide back about 8 or 10 inches and outboard about 6 or so. You go between the seat and console.
 
Obviously, the "bendy" wings are a feature. What advantage is offered by wings that take that bend when loaded?
 
Bill Jennings said:
Obviously, the "bendy" wings are a feature. What advantage is offered by wings that take that bend when loaded?
Click to expand...

Bend or snap. Choose one. :D
 
fgcason said:
Bend or snap. Choose one. :D
Click to expand...

Frank has it pretty much right. If they didn't bend, they would break. The wingtips on the 777 are significantly higher than the fuselage at gross weights in flight.

They move something like 17 feet IIRC in flight.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Frank has it pretty much right. If they didn't bend, they would break. The wingtips on the 777 are significantly higher than the fuselage at gross weights in flight.

They move something like 17 feet IIRC in flight.
Click to expand...

I know they must bend, but I'm comparing the latest birds to early birds like 727's, 707's, and it seems the wing tips did not bend up as much in flight (on a percentage basis) as the ones on the newer planes.

If this is true, what is the advantages? Thinner lighter wings carry the loads with improved fuel economy? Improved ride in turb?
 
Bill Jennings said:
I know they must bend, but I'm comparing the latest birds to early birds like 727's, 707's, and it seems the wing tips did not bend up as much in flight (on a percentage basis) as the ones on the newer planes./QUOTE]

It is a function of wingspan, I think. I also think that the fact that the 727/707/737 doesn't look like they bend that much is an illusion created by the fact that the wings are not as long.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Jennings said:
I know they must bend, but I'm comparing the latest birds to early birds like 727's, 707's, and it seems the wing tips did not bend up as much in flight (on a percentage basis) as the ones on the newer planes.

If this is true, what is the advantages? Thinner lighter wings carry the loads with improved fuel economy? Improved ride in turb?
Click to expand...

More bend would give it a smoother ride (think big long shock absorbers). My technical aerodynamics knowledge isn't college degree worthy but I think it's more of a case of longer wings = more total observable bend and the small but significant fact that these monsters are much much heavier than your typical 727. I saw the B777 doing bang and goes at COS when it was doing some of it's late program flights before carrying pax. I didn't see it parked or close up but my impression was that the B777 engines were about the same diameter of the B727 fuselage.

What I find really curious is that the same people that run screaming in terror at the concept of flying with one dinkly little propeller and 35ish ft wings have no problem with seeing the wingtips lifting up above the top of their little portholes in some of these new behemouths before it comes off the ground. Your average terror stricken groundling thinks things that bend are bad so you would think that would doom the behemouth airplane program from the start. (I've had hundreds of conversations with groundlings explaining that flexing is better than snapping and sometimes it takes a while to convince them that bending is good and they're still not convinced sometimes)
 
Also, you can hardly compare 707s or 727s to the max payload of a widebody. I would think amount of wing bending would be a function of max wt as well as the other things already mentioned.
 
Frank makes a good point WRT attempting to explain engineering concepts to the layperson.

Here is a good object lesson: go for a walk across a bridge of some span. Notice the peculiar joints in the surface? Why do you suppose they shaped like that? Stand still at several points along the bridge. Take a firm grip on the rail and close you eyes as vehicular traffic rolls past. Feel that? Now, go stand motionless somewhere mid-span and repeat the exercise. On really long spans, the motion is quite dramatic. It's not the wind.

Observing tall trees in a stiff wind are another example.
 
Richard said:
Also, you can hardly compare 707s or 727s to the max payload of a widebody. I would think amount of wing bending would be a function of max wt as well as the other things already mentioned.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll buy that, but looking at 747's, it doesn't look like the wings bend as much as the 777/787, but the 747 certainly carries a load.
 
Richard said:
Observing tall trees in a stiff wind are another example.
Click to expand...

You'll learn better if you're at the top of a free standing 60ft wooden telephone pole in a 20kt wind and an antenna up there doing the sail routine. Q.E.D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top