Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

glideslope · Dec 12, 2009, 08:54 AM

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.

OreoCookie · Dec 12, 2009, 10:48 AM

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.

imitchellg5 · Dec 12, 2009, 12:10 PM

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.

exca1ibur · Dec 14, 2009, 12:00 AM

787 Dreamliner Taxi Tests

Simon · Dec 15, 2009, 03:30 PM

Dreamliner finally takes to the sky!

WSJ Video

mduell · Dec 15, 2009, 04:03 PM

They finally got tired of left turns and started turning right - FlightAware > Boeing Commercial Airplane Group #1 > 15-Dec-2009 > KPAE-KBFI

imitchellg5 · Dec 15, 2009, 04:18 PM

So beautiful! Look at the wing flex, you can see the other side of the wing!

Simon · Dec 15, 2009, 04:24 PM

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.

mduell · Dec 15, 2009, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

And has anybody ever put that much care into the APU exhaust cowling? ;

Jungle jet:

voodoo · Dec 15, 2009, 05:59 PM

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.

dcmacdaddy · Dec 15, 2009, 06:42 PM

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?

imitchellg5 · Dec 15, 2009, 06:56 PM

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.

imitchellg5 · Dec 15, 2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Jungle jet:

That's nice that they've done that, the 135/145 didn't have any cover at all.

Art Vandelay · Dec 15, 2009, 07:03 PM

The wing has a very upswept design to it. It might not be flexing anymore than other wings do.

mduell · Dec 15, 2009, 07:19 PM

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.

imitchellg5 · Dec 15, 2009, 07:26 PM

Really? It seemed to me, especially from this video, that it was definitely flexing as the plane picked up speed.

OreoCookie · Dec 15, 2009, 08:17 PM

Absolutely beautiful wings, although it looks a bit `chubbier' than expected. I'm glad the 787 is in the air

msuper69 · Dec 15, 2009, 08:51 PM

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.

mduell · Dec 15, 2009, 11:43 PM

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).

Simon · Dec 16, 2009, 04:37 AM

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.

glideslope · Dec 19, 2009, 04:00 PM

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.