She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby expat1 on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 12:00 am

Boeing's 787 took to the skies for the first time today at Everett. The flight lasted around 3 hours and ended with a landing at Boeing Field, Seattle. - On with the pictures;

Climbing out of Everett for the first time into leaden skies though luckily not raining (yet)
Image

As she passed us the "bend" in the wings became really apparent.
Image

It was then time to jump in the car and head back down I-5 to Boeing Field to catch the landing

Three hours later and inches from touchdown in Seattle. By now the weather had really deteriorated.
Image

A very gentle application of reverse thrust on the sodden runway saw the 787 use the full length to come to a halt
Image

Once turned around it was back to the VIP reception and celebrations
Image

One big surprise was just how quiet the Rolls Royce engines are. When taxiing they were practically silent when compared to the 737 that landed shortly before.
Image
Congratulation to all at Boeing for a successful - though long awaited first flight - she's a beauty
You don't take a photograph you make it - Ansel Adams.
Canon 6D, Canon 7D, 100-400L, 70-200L, Tamron SP 150-600.
User avatar
expat1

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby agdickie on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 12:14 am

Glad to see you were there Keith and good to see the Dreamliner in the air :clap:

No garage door installation men telling you that photographing planes is illegal? :grin:
Agdickie on Airliners.net
Hey jet pilots! Do a barrell roll!
User avatar
agdickie
UKAR Staff

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby expat1 on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 12:43 am

agdickie wrote:No garage door installation men telling you that photographing planes is illegal?

No just a cheery wave from the Airfield Police :biggrin:
Shame the weather didn't play ball. But I guess you can't expect anything else up here in December
You don't take a photograph you make it - Ansel Adams.
Canon 6D, Canon 7D, 100-400L, 70-200L, Tamron SP 150-600.
User avatar
expat1

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby PMN on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 2:16 am

Nice images, despite the less than ideal weather! I've spent the day glued to the live webcast and although the looks of the 787 haven't struck me so far, I thought she looked absolutely stunning today. She effortlessly and elegantly rotated and the landing was just about as sweet and graceful a landing as I've ever seen anywhere.

Huge congratulations to Boeing and others who have worked over the last 5 years to bring this beautiful machine to life. I can't wait to shoot her for the first time!

Paul
My images on Jetphotos.net

My images on Flickr
PMN

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby chrisward123 on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 8:45 am

Great shots! :clap:
2017 - RIAT, Blackpool & Southport
User avatar
chrisward123

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby Cking on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 3:02 pm

expat1 wrote:One big surprise was just how quiet the Rolls Royce engines are. When taxiing they were practically silent when compared to the 737 that landed shortly before.
Image


I bet they will have trouble with cracks between the chevrons on the trailing edge of the reverser sleeve.
I'm glad that Boeing got the thing into the air at last. It was becoming an embarrasment.

Rgds Cking
Cking

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby timuss on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 3:52 pm

Blimey look at the flex in the wings :shock:
Canon 7Dmk2
Canon 7D
Sigma 18-200
Sigma 10-20
Canon 100-400 L IS II
Icom ICR-2 Scanner
PSN: timuss
timuss

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby hunterxf382 on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 8:25 pm

timuss wrote:Blimey look at the flex in the wings :shock:


Just what I was thinking.... it just doesn't look right flexing to that extreme?

(I'm sure Boeing know what they're doing - but it just seems illogical in the laws of aerodynamics) :question:
Pete Buckingham
Volunteer in Aviation
Former RAF Engineer
http://hunterxf382.weebly.com/
User avatar
hunterxf382

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby AndyBeau on Wed 16 Dec 2009, 11:06 pm

agdickie wrote:Glad to see you were there Keith and good to see the Dreamliner in the air :clap:

No garage door installation men telling you that photographing planes is illegal? :grin:


LOL - just what I was thinking! :grin:

Glad you made it Keith - about time eh!? :wink:

It's a fantastic looking aircraft in my eyes.
User avatar
AndyBeau

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby phreakf4 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 12:44 am

hunterxf382 wrote:
timuss wrote:Blimey look at the flex in the wings :shock:


Just what I was thinking.... it just doesn't look right flexing to that extreme?

(I'm sure Boeing know what they're doing - but it just seems illogical in the laws of aerodynamics) :question:


You are obviously less familiar with the laws of aerodynamics than you think. Take a look at images of sailplanes, or the Rutan Voyager, or the Diamond Twinstar, all designed for maximum efficiency. Compared to those, the flex on the 787 wing is unremarkable and is, in any case, not much more than that on a fully-loaded 747 or 777 wing. I suspect that the angles at which these shots have been taken have over-emphasised the flex. It has long been known that if it was possible to allow this amount of flex in a wing without risking structural failure (which is much easier with a composite structure than one of metal) then allowing it to flex to this degree would permit the construction of a much lighter wing of equal strength. Consider the B-52, whose wing regularly flexes up and down through almost 40 feet in normal flight. Should you doubt my statement concerning the flex on 747 (and A340) wings, take a look a rjlaker's post from Heathrow, to be found at:-

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17163

Particularly the 2nd, 3rd, 4th 6th and 9th images, which all show this flex very well.
We are Borg:.....Resistance is Fruity...
User avatar
phreakf4

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby PMN on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 1:24 am

phreakf4 wrote:You are obviously less familiar with the laws of aerodynamics than you think. Take a look at images of sailplanes, or the Rutan Voyager, or the Diamond Twinstar, all designed for maximum efficiency. Compared to those, the flex on the 787 wing is unremarkable and is, in any case, not much more than that on a fully-loaded 747 or 777 wing. I suspect that the angles at which these shots have been taken have over-emphasised the flex. It has long been known that if it was possible to allow this amount of flex in a wing without risking structural failure (which is much easier with a composite structure than one of metal) then allowing it to flex to this degree would permit the construction of a much lighter wing of equal strength. Consider the B-52, whose wing regularly flexes up and down through almost 40 feet in normal flight.


You're absolutely right but I think what's so striking with the 787 is you're not seeing that kind of wingflex on a 2 passenger light aircraft, you're seeing it on a widebody passenger jet, which to me, regardless of how composites and aerodynamics work really is something quite different. I have to say, I've never seen that kind of wingflex on any of the 747/777's I've either photographed rotating or those I've flown on (seriously heavy 77W's to Japan included!)

Interesting you mention the B-52, though. Forgive my ignorance (or relative youth) but was that an aircraft known for its bendy wings? I never realised they moved quite that much!

Paul
My images on Jetphotos.net

My images on Flickr
PMN

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby phreakf4 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 2:09 am

PMN wrote:
Interesting you mention the B-52, though. Forgive my ignorance (or relative youth) but was that an aircraft known for its bendy wings? I never realised they moved quite that much!

Paul


Indeed it was (and is; it was even more so with the B-47). The degree of flex on a B-52 wing was one of the things that the non-aviation press found quite sensational in the early years of its history. I recall a widely-circulated head-on shot of a B-52 entering a tight (for a "Buff") turn which clearly showed one wing heavily flexed up and the other equally flexed down. Boeing took advantage of the (almost) unique undercarriage configuration of those two aircraft to build a much lighter wing than would have otherwise been the case (using the mass of the engines as anti-flutter "mass dampers" also helped, they did not hang so far forward of the leading edge for aesthetic reasons). If the outrigger wheels had not been there, the wing would have had to be much stiffer, not to prevent it flexing up, but to prevent the wingtips or outer engine pods from hitting the ground when developing no lift. To see some illustrations of this flex, look on Youtube for the coverage of the displays by the pilot who eventually crashed whilst practising for another display. Simply looking at the ground clearance under the outriggers on landing or take-off gives some impression of how easily that wing flexes and finding images of fully loaded "Buffs" lifting from Guam (during the Viet-Nam War) or even Fairford (during Gulf War 1) will illustrate the point even better
We are Borg:.....Resistance is Fruity...
User avatar
phreakf4

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby expat1 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 5:29 am

Re "The Flex"

PMN wrote: I suspect that the angles at which these shots have been taken have over-emphasised the flex.


Yeah - because I was totally able to influence how Boeing carried out the maiden flight and obviously they flexed the wings way more than usual just for me - Are you serious?

I can confirm that there are is no trick photography or special angles involved in any of the pictures posted. She took off, three hours later landed and I was there to photograph both events - that's it.

Having witnessed both the take and landing. I can confirm that the flex is definately way more noticable than on any 747 or 777 that I've ever seen, and as I work for an airline at Seatac, I see both multiple times every day.
On landing, as the lift came off the wings they flapped a couple of times, just like that heavy A380 landing at Oshkosh which can be seen on youtube. The only difference was the 787 landing was very gentle and in no way contributed to the flexing.
You don't take a photograph you make it - Ansel Adams.
Canon 6D, Canon 7D, 100-400L, 70-200L, Tamron SP 150-600.
User avatar
expat1

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby Ruislip Rustler on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 8:17 am

Not bad shots given the conditions, young Keith.

Looks like a 737 on steroids (and just as butt ugly) - just can't figure out the scale of the beast...

As for the wing flex, it is more noticeable and the artists impressions of this, the 747-8 and A350 all have a lot more upward sweep on them due to new wing designs - the 747 in particular.
Insert witty / sarcastic / uncalled for comment (* delete as applicable)

www.leezpics.com
User avatar
Ruislip Rustler

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby PMN on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 12:15 pm

expat1 wrote:Re "The Flex"

PMN wrote: I suspect that the angles at which these shots have been taken have over-emphasised the flex.


Yeah - because I was totally able to influence how Boeing carried out the maiden flight and obviously they flexed the wings way more than usual just for me - Are you serious?

I can confirm that there are is no trick photography or special angles involved in any of the pictures posted. She took off, three hours later landed and I was there to photograph both events - that's it.

Having witnessed both the take and landing. I can confirm that the flex is definately way more noticable than on any 747 or 777 that I've ever seen, and as I work for an airline at Seatac, I see both multiple times every day.
On landing, as the lift came off the wings they flapped a couple of times, just like that heavy A380 landing at Oshkosh which can be seen on youtube. The only difference was the 787 landing was very gentle and in no way contributed to the flexing.


Huh? I never said that, phreakf4 did. I've said nothing here other than I fully agree that the wing flex on the 787 is far more than on any 777 or 747 I've seen.

Paul
Last edited by PMN on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 1:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.
My images on Jetphotos.net

My images on Flickr
PMN

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby hunterxf382 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 12:32 pm

phreakf4 wrote:You are obviously less familiar with the laws of aerodynamics than you think. Take a look at images of sailplanes, or the Rutan Voyager, or the Diamond Twinstar, all designed for maximum efficiency. Compared to those, the flex on the 787 wing is unremarkable and is, in any case, not much more than that on a fully-loaded 747 or 777 wing. I suspect that the angles at which these shots have been taken have over-emphasised the flex. It has long been known that if it was possible to allow this amount of flex in a wing without risking structural failure (which is much easier with a composite structure than one of metal) then allowing it to flex to this degree would permit the construction of a much lighter wing of equal strength. Consider the B-52, whose wing regularly flexes up and down through almost 40 feet in normal flight. Should you doubt my statement concerning the flex on 747 (and A340) wings, take a look a rjlaker's post from Heathrow


Suprisingly, you've mistaken my familiarity with aerodynamics and written about the flexibility of the structure, which is not actually the area I was refering to in this instance. I am fully aware of the use of composite structure and it's degree of flexibility over a similar construction using older methods... :question:

What I was actually remarking on was the rather large dihedral angle shown at this flex - which according to the basic aerodynamic physics will, and I quote "also decrease lift, increase drag, and decreased the axial roll rate". Now couple that with the effiency of the engines, and that this flex will occur during a lot of the average flight cycle - the decrease in lift / increase in drag means that the engines will not be as efficient as they could have been with a conventional wing structure.

For reference, by all means see this page I found online which illustrates the point I'm trying to make clear!

http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/wing_dihedral.htm

Regards

Pete
Pete Buckingham
Volunteer in Aviation
Former RAF Engineer
http://hunterxf382.weebly.com/
User avatar
hunterxf382

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby phreakf4 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 1:34 pm

expat 1, it was indeed I and not PMN who made the observation re; image angle. I did not say and did not intend to imply that the effect was deliberate. I am well aware that one almost always has little or no choice of shooting position in such circumstances. I apologise for any unintentional offence.

I quote two passages from my earlier post which indicate that I do accept that there is more flex on the 787, just not that much more (edited to include bold type).....

Compared to those, the flex on the 787 wing is unremarkable and is, in any case, not much more than that on a fully-loaded 747 or 777 wing.


Should you doubt my statement concerning the flex on 747 (and A340) wings, take a look a rjlaker's post from Heathrow, to be found at:-

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17163

Particularly the 2nd, 3rd, 4th 6th and 9th images, which all show this flex very well.


Did you actually look at those images? If you did, what is your conclusion?

hunterfx382. That page, whilst accurate as far as it goes, is somewhat simplistic. While it is true that dihedral has some effect on roll rate it is far from the most important factor. The most direct effect of dihedral on roll rate is that increased dihedral will also increase roll due to rudder deflection or unintentional yaw.

If dihedral were the only factor, then a Beech Bonanza would have the same roll rate as a P-51 or a Cosmic Wind, since all have similar wing planform and around the same dihedral. As to the comment that fighters have anhedral to improve roll rate, that is wrong. The purpose of anhedral in a swept wing is (put simply) to reduce roll due to deliberate or unintentional yaw.

Aspect ratio also has a profound effect on roll rate, but again different aircraft with the same aspect ratio will have different roll rates due to other factors. A classic example was the early F-18 prototypes which, despite having a low aspect ratio, anhedral wing, were seriously down on the expected (and required) roll rate.
We are Borg:.....Resistance is Fruity...
User avatar
phreakf4

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby Epic Formacion on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 5:23 pm

Can I get that book on Amazon?
Watermarks - yeah, but no, but yeah but.............NO!!
User avatar
Epic Formacion

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby ericbee123 on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 5:26 pm

Wow that last post of phreakf4 was so scary, no matter how many times I re-read it, I cannot get my brain to accept any of the words !

Anyway I always thought 747s wings flexed quite a lot after one particular flight, I was sat in a window seat in the middle of the wing. Not a bad view, I thought, will enjoy looking at Iceburgs and snow over Canada on this flight.

We got halfway down the runway and the wing kind of 'popped up' just before we rotated and I had a faceful of wing all the way to America, only being able to the ground again, once the 747 had landed and the wing drooped back down.

It was kind of wierd when you not expecting it, have noticed this on other 747s when I can see the wing from my seat ( not flown that many though to be honest ).

Thought I would just add to the '747 wings flex' argument.

As you where, explain the dihedral stuff again , on second thoughts, don't bother :)
Disclaimer-I have spell/grammar checked this post, it may still contain mistakes that might cause offence.
User avatar
ericbee123

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby photojet on Thu 17 Dec 2009, 7:54 pm

Great catch love the head on shot the most.tony :clap: :clap: :yahoo:
User avatar
photojet

Re: She flies - 787 aloft for the first time

Postby foxfour on Fri 18 Dec 2009, 10:23 pm

phreakf4 wrote: I recall a widely-circulated head-on shot of a B-52 entering a tight (for a "Buff") turn which clearly showed one wing heavily flexed up and the other equally flexed down.


I would really love to see this photo. Even entering a turn where one wing is producing more lift than the other I can't imagine the wings being flexed the same amount in opposite directions. As soon as the pilot rolls the aircraft he has to pull backwards on the stick to stop the nose from going down which will cause BOTH wings to bend upwards.
phreakf4 wrote:
While it is true that dihedral has some effect on roll rate it is far from the most important factor. The most direct effect of dihedral on roll rate is that increased dihedral will also increase roll due to rudder deflection or unintentional yaw.

If dihedral were the only factor, then a Beech Bonanza would have the same roll rate as a P-51 or a Cosmic Wind, since all have similar wing planform and around the same dihedral. As to the comment that fighters have anhedral to improve roll rate, that is wrong. The purpose of anhedral in a swept wing is (put simply) to reduce roll due to deliberate or unintentional yaw.

Aspect ratio also has a profound effect on roll rate, but again different aircraft with the same aspect ratio will have different roll rates due to other factors. A classic example was the early F-18 prototypes which, despite having a low aspect ratio, anhedral wing, were seriously down on the expected (and required) roll rate.


Increased dihedral makes any aeroplane more stable in roll therfore applying rudder to use the secondaty effect (roll) to roll the aeroplane will be LESS effictive with increasing dihedral and not more as you suggest.

Fighters DO have anhedral to make them more unstable in roll and therfore increase the roll rate!

Aspect ratio is the ratio of the span to the chord of a wing and whilst increasing the aspect ratio does generally speaking decrease the roll rate, other factors like the speed you are flying, the size of the ailerons and the amount you can move them also have a huge impact on the rate of roll.
foxfour


Return to Airline & Commercial Aviation Photos

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests