| Revision as of 03:20, 18 January 2013 editSkrelk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,040 edits →Grounded worldwide status: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:14, 15 June 2024 edit undoNimbus227 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,918 edits →Maximum takeoff weight: Cmt |
| (549 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=B |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
|B-Class-1= yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|
| action1date = July 9, 2013 |
|
|
| action1link = Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/GA1 |
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|
| action1oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = GAN |
|
|
| action2date = 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/GA2 |
|
|
| action2result = listed |
|
|
| action2oldid = 657117766 |
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = GAR |
|
|
| action3date = 09:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Boeing 787 Dreamliner/1 |
|
|
| action3result = delisted |
|
|
| action3oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|
| currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
| itndate = December 15, 2009 |
|
|
| itn2date = October 26, 2011 |
|
|
| itn3date = January 17, 2013 |
|
|
| dykdate = |
|
|
| dykentry = |
|
|
| topic = |
|
|
| small = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Aviation|B-Class-1= yes <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|B-Class-3= yes <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|B-Class-3= yes <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
| Line 8: |
Line 36: |
|
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|Aircraft=yes}} |
|
|Aircraft=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=high|WA=yes|WA-importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid |WA=yes |WA-importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
{{ITN talk|15 December|2009}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk|26 October|2011}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=5 |units = months| dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 110K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(150d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Operators section == |
|
|
I think the Operators section should be removed. Misplaced Pages isnt a travel guide. What do you think? --] (]) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Huh, "Operators" is a standard WP:Aircraft section (see ]) and has been for 4 years or so. Many or most aircraft articles have this section. I don't see why this article should be different. -] (]) 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::sorry about that, i have never noticed them before. :-) --] (]) 14:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Not a problem. The section should be reformatted more like ], ] in a few months after more operators get 787s in service. -] (]) 14:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Emergency landing == |
|
|
CNN just reported on an emergency landing because of dubious engine problem. Any word on that you guys? --<span style="font-family:Times new roman;font-weight:bold; font-size:14px">]</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10px">]</span> 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-787-emergency-landing-inspections-ordered-005248202--sector.html ] (]) 08:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The recent electrical system issue(s) is mentioned ] now. An United Airlines flight made an emergency landing in early Dec 2012 because on . I can't find anything that stated an engine failure was the initial cause for this incident. -] (]) 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 787 Operator List (in information box) == |
|
|
United and Ethiopian each have four 787 delivered aircraft. They should both be listed in info box. This would still make a max of 3 additional carriers and one primary user. If United is out, then using the "logic" of this edit, the "see other operators" should be placed under JAL. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am editing back. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 22:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Hans100 |
|
|
|
|
|
:You're completely right. Even if ET and UA weren't tied, 1 (one) "primary user" and 3 (three) "more users" are what is suposed to be listed. Every other aircraft type on Wikpieda from the A320 series to the B777 series has 1 (one) "primary user" and 3 (three) "more users" - ] (]) 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
DonalDderosa, thanks for the support! One thing I would add is the following which is different than what you said. In this case, since there are several airlines tied at three, if United only had 3 the rule of list a primary then two and "see list of other operators" would be correct. But since United and Ethiopian are tied at four and the next highest number of aircraft is three by a carrier, both United and Ethiopian should be listed. If for some reason we get a bunch of airlines tied at four (taking it beyond three additional carriers, then it would seem ANA, JAL, and then "see list of other operators" would make sense. Otherwise we would be picking a winner among those tied to be listed. As more aircraft are delivered, this issue will not keep coming up. |
|
|
|
|
|
But clearly as of today: ANA, JAL, Ethiopian, and United are the list to use.] (]) 03:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Hans100 |
|
|
|
|
|
THANKS DONALDderosa for keeping on top of this issue and moving United to #3 per flightaware!] (])Hans100 |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just remember that flightaware and similar are not reliable sources. ] (]) 08:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I sorted the main table and sorted table from planespotters.net references 1 and 2 in text box |
|
|
|
|
|
:planespotters is not a reliable source either. ] (]) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::DONALDderosa you really should discuss using these amateur websites before re-adding them again. ] (]) 20:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Clear Writing == |
|
|
I enjoyed reading this article but the following sentence is unclear. It seems to be missing a verb or something. |
|
|
''"Japanese industrial participation was very important to the project, with a 35% work share, the first time Japanese firms had taken a lead role in mass production of Boeing airliner wings, and many of the subcontractors supported and funded by the Japanese government."'' |
|
|
I would fix this if I knew what it was intended to say. Specifically, what is confusing is the phrase "with a 35% work share" and "...many of the subcontractors supported and funded..." I suggest that it ought to be three separate sentences, and possibly more. |
|
|
Can someone fix it? |
|
|
] (]) 21:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed - it's confusing and at least missing a 'were' from the last clause, so I've had a look at the relevant source and I've rewritten this bit as "Japanese industrial participation was very important to the project, with Japanese companies co-designing and building of 35% of the aircraft. This was the first time outside firms had taken a lead role in the design and production of Boeing airliner wings, and the Japanese government provided support by providing them with loans estimated at up to US$2 billion" - which I hope is clearer. ] (]) 06:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protection? == |
|
|
I was thinking, I would like everyone's opinion here whether or not this article should be semi-protected. I am not going to request it yet, however, with the recent reports of issues with the 787, there is the potential risk of edit wars in the article about these issues and whether or not they are normal "teething issues". The tension between Boeing and Airbus fans are getting higher by the moment. ]] 01:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm not one to advocate locking things down in anticipation of edit wars. I advocate locking them down when they begin. They have not begun here, and people are behaving themselves. It does my heart good :) ] (]) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: OK, as if on cue, out come the nitwits. I'd have no issue with semi-protection. ] (]) 07:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I went ahead and requested semi-protection ] (]) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Just FYI, I changed the heading Early operational issues to Operational issues, as the heading is a sub-head of Development and is therefore obviously early. For the record, I can assure you I'm 1. not a nitwit, and 2. uninterested in either Boeing or Airbus (in fact I hate flying). ] (]) 11:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::For the record, was the one made by the "nitwit". - ] (]) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Semi-protection was denied. ] (]) 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::* Thanks for checking and the update. -] (]) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Series of safety incidents in late 2012 / early 2013 == |
|
|
I know these are included in the operations section, but does the recent and subsequent investigations warrant it's own section in the article? It seems that this aircraft is suffering a relatively high number of teething problems even considering that it's brand new. ] (]) 10:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: yes, the article definitely needs one, today there was a SIXTH incident in under a week. ] (]) 01:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't this article covering the current technical failures and incidents with the Dreamliner around the planet? --<span style="font-family:Times new roman;font-weight:bold; font-size:14px">]</span> <span style="font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10px">]</span> 04:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: See the "Service entry and operations" section... at the end ] (]) 05:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think an "Incidents" subheading is justified - will have a look at creating one unless someone else gets there first ... please! ] (]) 07:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I also think a heading of that sort would be a good idea for the sake of ease of navigation. Just FYI, the Airbus A380 has a section called ]. --''']'''<sub>Make ] not ]</sub> 14:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I see the heading "operational issues" has been added to break up the section. This sounds like a fair and neutral heading for the section describing the problems encountered by the aircraft type - many reliable sources use much stronger language than this. I've edited the description of the Takamatsu 787 evacuation because it's description of the passengers being "safely evacuated" to say "evacuated using emergency slides" as "evacuated safely" was not in the reference and in any case it has been reported that there were 5 minor injuries with one taken to hospital for treatment. ] (]) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==='''Bleedless??? ] lets Boeing BLEEDING!=== |
|
|
Probably Airbus was right by using ] for the A350. Could stop the production and ground the fleet of the Dreamliner for months, possible years: |
|
|
*Lithium-ion batteries can rupture, ignite, or explode when exposed to high temperature. |
|
|
*Lithium-ion batteries containing more than 25 grams (0.88 oz) equivalent lithium content (ELC) are exempt from the rule (that passengers on commercial aircraft could carry lithium batteries in their checked baggage) and are forbidden in air travel. |
|
|
I´ve ever questionized the safety of these things. If its true - and the possibility is NOT LOW - its a DISASTER for Boeing. ] (]) 17:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just too early to make a redirect here from ''']'''? (Sorry for the bold. Ah, ok, i love being bold. But here its imho needed!) ] (]) 18:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Why''' are the batteries now catching fire: The ] is getting old: + and - together makes it hot. And: Capacity is getting lower, so the battery has to be charged higher. See ]. (edit-conflict) ] (]) 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
PS: The varying air-pressure stesses the separator, too. ] (]) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it would be more in accordance with the sources, as well as easier for people to find what they're looking for if the header was changed to '''Incidents'''. After all, businessweek is asking: :D .... But seriously, I think it would be better for people looking for this specific information as well as perfectly objective. --''']'''<sub>Make ] not ]</sub> 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is a very short technical analysis based on my engineering knowledge. The future will show who is right. I repeat: Above average probability that on THIS plane '''bleedless causes''' (minimum financial) '''bleed!''' |
|
|
::I propose a section: "Bleedless" listing technology, advantages, disadvantages, related issues. ], Engines and Interior is '''not enough.''' ] (]) 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I '''ANALYZED''' and predicted THIS ! ] (]) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Editors with technical knowledge''' should not waste time to write the ABOVE proposed section Bleedless. I have no time to make it alone. ] (]) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Tagremover, what is going on? You are sounding very much upset and angry. For wikipedia, I feel we should wait for the various inspections and investigations which are happening now to make some statement of findings before we publish any information about the causes of the various problems and incidents so far. It is not for Misplaced Pages to reach conclusions about the safety of various aspects of the 787 like engine design and battery systems. Hope you can stay calm until some more information is available. Cheers. —] (]) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Fudoreaper, its sad but seems that you haven´t understood much. Because you don´t mind and care about anything? Its clearly my original research, and if you would understand a thing, than that guys like me know what they can publish in an article. I am quite proud of this analysis, which in the first part has proven to be correct (I thought FAA will take 2-4 days until they make such a strong and serious decision: But: My respect, they are good!) I chose some bold "headline language" to sum it up: In a few months, there will be a lot more guys who understand what i already know now: Thats what leading engineers are for: To make an analysis based on knowledge deep enough, make the decision and present the results and the consequences in a wide context. It seems science is not your thing, so just ignore the bold language. |
|
|
:::: To others: The consequences including the other design faults will quite surely cause serious damage to Boeing for years (although Boeing will have a healthy production of especially 737 and 777 in the next few years, until the 737MAX could be delayed because the 787 eats up engineering power). ] (]) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Misplaced Pages is not a forum. As per ] "Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information" That includes talk pages. ] (]) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You ignored my proposal of a section summing bleedless. ] (]) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with ] issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== So Which Factory Made All These Mistakes? === |
|
|
I went to this page just knowing it was going to say this was the airplane made at the brand new non-union factory in South Carolina and of course I was RIGHT!!! However it seems the plant in Everette, Washington might have made a few of these planes as well. However I checked everywhere on the front page and it does not say anywhere that all the bad ones were also the non-union planes built down in the Carolinas. Can we clear up this issue with non-union 787's? I also noticed NONE of the news stories made any reference to this issue at all whatsoever. It should appear on the front page of this article IF the affected planes were the ones built in the Carolinas by the non-union amigos. . . or whomever. ] (]) 04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: If as you say no reliable sources are reporting these issues then that would exclude mention here as well. ] (]) 05:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: We certainly state that 787s have been assembled in Everett, and also in South Carolina. But we don't talk about how many were assembled at each, nor any differences between assembled aircraft. You are making a suggestion here that the 787 aircraft experiencing problems have been assembled in South Carolina. Do you have any information that says this is the case? If you do, please tell us, we would all be interested to read about it. If you do not, please end this kind of discussion, ], where we talk without restraint about a topic, but a place to collect information we can demonstrate to be reliable and accurate. Speculating about causes of accidents is not a discussion of facts, and thus not what we will spend time discussing. Cheers, and thanks for giving feedback on the talk page, where we can talk about what should be included in the article. —] (]) 08:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== An artist's impression == |
|
|
|
|
|
These An artist's impression pictures are considered original research, are they not? How can they be allowed in the article?--] (]) 21:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree. I can see no rationale for those images being included in the article. ] (]) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The images are modified versions of the current 787-8 with a lengthened fuselage or other changes based on cited sources. There's not enough changes visually with these to amount to Original Research, in my opinion. The artist illustrations in the article are ], and ], btw. The size comparison image might fall in this same group. -] (]) 23:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I have always considered original research to be a binary yes or no kind of thing and not a matter of degree. But I'll of course go with the consensus and don't really think these images matter that much considering the more pressing issues with this article and aircraft ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: On second thought, either original research is present or it is not. The changes are not from a reliable source and there is nothing otherwise notable about the images. ] (]) 23:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Cockpit Image == |
|
== New incident == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
The source of this image is listed as: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing/Boeing-787-8-Dreamliner/1940205/L/ where there is a CLEAR copyright notice that is not Creative Commons (as the Wikimedia image citation says), and indeed says "This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission." Even the image itself contains a copyright notice that is clearly not CC. This is pushing "fair use" a bit far. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: The notice you quoted from airliners.net says it cannot be used "without proper permission". Proper permission was granted by the owner of the copyright and is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Boeing_787-8_N787BA_cockpit.jpg ] (]) 02:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grounded worldwide status == |
|
== Maximum takeoff weight == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if 'grounded worldwide' is the best description of the aircraft's status. It implies a permanent state, whereas the grounding is temporary and a result of specific concerns about the battery. Anyone have a better idea for status? ] (]) 03:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
Hello. Sorry I'm not much of a wikipedia editor so I thought I'd note down the error I spotted. In the Specification section for the 787-10 the MTOW is listed as "560,000 lb / 250,000 kg". But 560,000 lb would be 254,000 kg. So one of the figures is presumably wrong? ] (]) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|TakeFlight}} The weight in pounds is converted to kilograms using ], which by default returns the converted value with the same number of ] as is used in the initial value. "560,000 lb" has two significant figures, thus the template returns "250,000 kg" which is rounded to include the same number of significant figures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clear explanation but does not solve the issue that the MTOW shown is actually wrong. Is there a way to override the "Template Convert" (that seems to be not fit for purpose) ] (]) 08:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have edited the figure. Before condemning a template as not fit for purpose you could visit the extensive instructions for use that have been carefully produced over time and learn how to edit conversions. The link had already been provided for you (]), the section you need is 4.3, ''Round to a given number of significant figures: |sigfig=''. Values are deliberately rounded in text for readability reasons, in tables the conversions should be closer but not excessive, that is known as ]. ] ] 10:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) |
Hello. Sorry I'm not much of a wikipedia editor so I thought I'd note down the error I spotted. In the Specification section for the 787-10 the MTOW is listed as "560,000 lb / 250,000 kg". But 560,000 lb would be 254,000 kg. So one of the figures is presumably wrong? TakeFlight (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
