|
|
Boeing 748 (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by imitchellg5
It flew because it's so ugly the ground doesn't want it
i would not go as far as to say "ugly". However it does seem to have a very "stubby" look. The Tri-Roller rear mains must be for unimproved landing site capabilities? Can't be payload for such a small frame? Is this accurate? I know very little about the A400.
|
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
The A400 M is supposed to have a payload of up to 37 tons. If necessary, it can carry two Apache helicopters, three military ambulances, etc. As I understand, one of the big features is that it can land and start on pretty much any plain surface that is about a kilometer long.
If it's about beauty, I am also very partial to the initial sketches of the 787. However, the final design is much more conventional. So, fortunately, function is more important than design. I'm sure Boeing and Airbus wouldn't have a problem making a brick-shaped plane if it were more aerodynamical.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by glideslope
i would not go as far as to say "ugly". However it does seem to have a very "stubby" look. The Tri-Roller rear mains must be for unimproved landing site capabilities? Can't be payload for such a small frame? Is this accurate? I know very little about the A400.
Yes, it looks like it should be 10' longer. As far as three pairs of gear in the back, it's probably a combination of both. Also, weight distribution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Dreamliner finally takes to the sky!
WSJ Video
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
So beautiful! Look at the wing flex, you can see the other side of the wing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
That wing! Those engines! Awesome.
And has anybody ever put that much care into the APU exhaust cowling?
It's a bit chubby though. Can't wait to see the 789.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
And has anybody ever put that much care into the APU exhaust cowling? ;
Jungle jet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nice to see the 788 finally off the ground. Let's see what the future holds for it. The wing flex is pretty amazing, considering it's basically empty. I wonder what a fully loaded 788 looks like at takeoff.
At the end of the day, I'm happy.
|
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Question Time
Several of you have commented on the wing or wing flex for this plane. Why is that such a big deal to you/this plane?
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
Question Time
Several of you have commented on the wing or wing flex for this plane. Why is that such a big deal to you/this plane?
Well, it's more of an aesthetic issue. I think it looks sexy. It also (obviously) means that the wing is more flexible, which can help with a smoother ride as well as better lift. I'm sure there are other reasons as well, and someone will correct me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Jungle jet:
That's nice that they've done that, the 135/145 didn't have any cover at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
The wing has a very upswept design to it. It might not be flexing anymore than other wings do.
|
Vandelay Industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Art Vandelay
The wing has a very upswept design to it. It might not be flexing anymore than other wings do.
Indeed, the wing deflection is not that much different than previous aircraft.
787: 18' deflection for a 98.5' wing in the 2C test (~130% limit load) is 2.2 inches/foot (will go higher in the ultimate test).
777: 24' deflection for 100' wing in the ultimate test (hit 154% limit load) is 2.9 inches/foot.
A380: 24.3' deflection for 131' wing in the ultimate test (hit 147% limit load) is 2.2 inches/foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Really? It seemed to me, especially from this video, that it was definitely flexing as the plane picked up speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Absolutely beautiful wings, although it looks a bit `chubbier' than expected. I'm glad the 787 is in the air
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone know the sweep angle of the 787?
The surface area seems very small. The wings seem tiny for such a large aircraft.
Beautiful plane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by msuper69
Anyone know the sweep angle of the 787?
The surface area seems very small. The wings seem tiny for such a large aircraft.
32.2° at the quarter chord.
The wing loading (140 psf) is comparable to the mid-range 777s (B772ER/B773).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
Several of you have commented on the wing or wing flex for this plane. Why is that such a big deal to you/this plane?
It's an aviation geek thing. Because this looks so darn sexy.
The raked wing tips definitely help though.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Simon
It's an aviation geek thing. Because this looks so darn sexy.
The raked wing tips definitely help though.
Sexy is the definitive description for the 788-789 wing, period. I had to grab tissues for the eyes when they loaded on rotation.
|
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|