Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/Archive 1

message: How much 'new technology' is there exactly on the 787? Apart from the airframe, which we know will mostly be composites, little seems to be known regarding aircraft systems. Details I have heard from industry sources suggest that systems design won't be so much of a step ahead as the change to the airframe. For example, the 787 will use AFDX (an ethernet variation) on a copper medium - not particularly radical since this is also on the A380. The use of bleedless engines though does mean that some systems will need significant changes.
Any details on technical aspects of the aircraft, particularly that which can be classed as 'new technology' would be welcome. As ever, cite sources where possible for validation.
:*Regarding "new technology," the 787 will use an entirely new electric-based architecture.  Every single subsystem is revised to deal with this new architecture.  The concept is a lot like the fuel-efficient "hybrid cars" starting to appear on the road today.  The 787 also has a central computer instead of hundreds of individual boxes to further improve efficiency.  See link: http://seattlepi.com/business/174159_electric20.html --01:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Enviromental Control System (ECS) uses electric motor driven air compressor to pressurize the outside air and mixes the pressurized air with filtered recirculated air and fill the cabin and cargo compartment. The  air becomes hot when compressed and heat exchanger is used to cool down the hot pressurized air. Yasobara 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Technology on the 787 

message: I think at this stage it qualifies as a 'rumor,' but there have been noises about a second 7E7 production line, based upon strong initial demand. We probably won't know the answer to this one for a little while yet, but probably something to keep our ears to the ground for. If Boeing does a second line, it will definitely affect their ability to deliver product, given the sold-out status for 2008/2009. -N328KF 15:31, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
:What strong initial demand?  It has been my impression that most airlines are taking a wait and see attitude to the plane.  The Air New Zealand order is a joke, most likely they had the order forced on them in order to get a good deal on the 777s they were buying -james_anatidae, 2004-07-26, 05:12 EST
::Well, that's why I didn't just go add it to the article. The WSJ says Boeing has 200 orders, but just hasn't made it public. That qualifies as strong initial demand, but since it's not public, we can't say in the article "they have 200 orders." All I was saying was that it was something we should note for future potential inclusion into the article. -Joseph 11:15, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
If there was ever a talk page section that deserves to be preserved for posterity, this is the one. ericg ✈ 05:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7E7 second production line 

message: To the joker who keeps changing "efficiency" to "enabled":
-Joseph 00:24, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
:I am serious I have talked to many people in that company
:it is enabled. Enabled comfort, enabled speed, enabled efficiency,ect. (anonymous)
::Until you come up with something to back up your statement in the face of overwhelming evidence the contrary, leave it alone. We cannot alter the article because you "talked to somebody." -Joseph (Talk) 17:37, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
Ok, go to newairplane.com and notice on most of the pages (LIKE THE ONE ON HOW IT IS EFFICENT) and notive how they say enabled.
And these are not just somebodies they are people that work for the company, just last week there was a Boeing PR rep on the radio saying how the 'E' ultimatly stood for ENABLED. 
OK found it! LOOK HERE please http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/june/i_mv.html
:*Actually, the "E" originally meant "Efficient."  Then Boeing began touting the idea that the airplane was "E-Enabled," which means the airplane is linked digitally to the passengers, the crew, and the airline's operations center.  Then for marketing reasons they came up with all kinds of other things the "E" stood for.  In fact, they made an "E is for..." video, where they listed all the things the "E" was supposed to stand for.
:*It's important not to take these pre-launch letter designations too seriously. The 777 started out as the 767-X, for example, and the 757 was the 7N7.  The 7J7 was another Boeing airplane that was devloped to a great extent and then died.  --Komodon 00:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  E is for Efficient 

message: Are they really going to use ethernet? What about real time considerations?
:What are you talking about? User:Xmnemonic
::Is that really Xmnemonic? You weren't logged in, if so. In any event, Ethernet has latency...even the fastest Ethernet. It does look like the A380 is going to use Ethernet to link the avionics subsystems, so Boeing isn't the only one. -Joseph (Talk) 05:09, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
:::AFDX is time-deterministic.  Although the latency exists, it is of a known duration. See links: http://www.afdx.net/afdx-tutorial.html  http://www.techsat.com/afdx/index_afdx.html --01:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethernet

message: The 7E7-8 variant was priced at a list price of $120 million per copy, shocking the industry. Launch customer ANA is rumored to have received a 50% discount, though that may never be easily confirmed. Why is this shocking? Is it because the price is too high or could it be too low?  Also, Boeing said they will announce most of their customers by September 2004. I can't find any information on this, so maybe we should edit out that phrase from the article. Anyway, i now understand why there is this heated debate between Airbus and Boeing. It is more to do with A350 than A380. The former is bound to affect 7E7 profitability by all means.
I removed 'shocking', which led to someone reverting it but also explaining why it is shocking :). Dan100 16:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
:The initial list price of $120 million for the 787-8 was "shocking" at the time because it was lower than anyone expected. The Boeing 767-300 list for about the same, and a new generation of aircraft will typically cost more than the previous aircraft it replaces (for no other reason than inflation sometimes). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanmac06 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why shocking? 

message: Perhaps a Weight/Mass comparison between the 787 variants and 767-300/767-400 should be added.  The Airbus A330 should also be added to the comparison. Andros 1337 21:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: This may sound silly, but what is an option (with respect to airplane orders)?  If it has to do with price, then what agreement is made about the delivery date? CoolGuy 06:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An option is like a reservation. Aircraft manufacturers often have huge amounts of orders that would otherwise be first-come, first-served. In order to cut in line, if you will, they place options with the manufacturer. If they hadn't done so, when they finally came up with the capital it could take years to have the aircraft built. -eric ✈ 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Options 

message: Any one have a valid reason why the specifications are metric-only? Seems that if we have a single unit system in an article, it should correspond to the nation the article references most. In this case, Boeing is an American manufacturer who (as far as I know) still primarily uses the imperial system. If I'm mistaken, I'd love some direction. -eric ✈ 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  specifications 

message: To the anonymous user who dislikes the related links section: the format I'm replacing the little boeing one with is what we've been using for almost a year now across the rest of the project. It's a standard with the aircraft wikiproject and has been for some time, only now I've created a template from it. If you dislike it, bring it up with the project. -eric ✈ 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: designation sequence format

message: This is also to users Dbinder and Denniss:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content clearly mentions that we're not using infoboxes for aircraft specifications & info anymore; it's been replaced by a bottom-of-the-page list. There's discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and in the archives which covers this as well. I'm leaving the box for now pending discussion at the wp:air talk page, since you're clearly not viewing my previous requests as valid. -eric ✈ 01:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to [[User: 81.178.83.249]], who made claims of vandalism 

message: I think the order analysis for the 787 (just as the analysis for the other models) shows some unclear spots. Many deals are not mentioned on the Boeing webpage (e.g. Air India deal). I would be careful due to the unclear nature of some deals in the past. A good reference for a full annual deal analysis is Speednews.
:Dear anonymous poster,
::The chart portion (which I am almost entirely responsible for) has been taken from three sources:
::*BCA press releases
::*Airline press releases
::*The Wall Street Journal
::All three sources are considered authoritative. The reason the Air India order is not shown on the Boeing web page is that funds have been paid and the order has been announced, but the contract has not yet been signed. I will not vouch for the text portion of the Order analysis.Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:47:18, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Regarding the Air Canada orders, why are they negative? that makes the total count look really weird. I'm changing it to strikethrough, which I hope is okay for now. -ericg ✈ 18:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order analysis

message: Am I the only one who feels having text as well as a table for orders/options seems redundant and sloppy? It's hard to make textual descriptions of eight orders in a row interesting to readers, especially when it's in a table a screen down. Unless there are major objections, I'm going to delete all but the first orders in a few days. ericg ✈ 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  orders & options 

message: I don't see a point in mentioning all the orders some airlines have made for 777s (a.o.) alongside the orders that are for the actual plane 787, which is the topic of this page. I think someone wanted to point out that the airlines are buying large amounts of Boeing planes, what might influence the reader!? Why not focus on the orders that are of importance? FMB 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, I think the textual "orders" section looks unprofessional and serves no real purpose. I'm going to trim it out. ericg ✈ 01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, didn' see that but I do see your point. I think a table is necessary enough. FMB 09:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to mention orders for other planes? 

message: that is not a picture of the boeing 787. that is something else.
*Please sign your posts. To sign just add four tidles (~~~~) after your post.
*What picture are you referring to? Please link to the picture, and if you can, tell us what you think it is. --Akhristov 02:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that Mr. Anonymous User is referring to the Sonic Cruiser picture. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong picture 

message: The list of orders used to reflect the Air Canada order and cancellation. Now that the order has been reinstated, some revisionist history has taken place, making it appear that the order from early 2005 was never cancled and reinstated.
:It was never really cancelled...and besides, that would just add clutter to the table. More detail can be shown in the Air Canada article if desired. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Canada order history 

message: I feel this is unnecessary and makes the table way too wide. Most rows now are two lines high, and the links for most purchases lead to the details anyway. If it wasn't such a pain in the ass to get rid of, I would probably do this now. ericg ✈ 03:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. It makes the sheet too busy. The same thing can be accomplished by going to  and using a user-defined report to show all 787 orders. That'll show the sign dates.] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'contract signed' column 

message: Cleanup actions and thoughts:
* I nixed the 787-10 column, because this table is meant to only reflect what is currently available for sale. Since the 787-10 is not yet officially launched, we should not list it. It also widens the table.
* I nixed the "contract signed" column. My opinion is that this is less important to most people. For the people that care specifically about that, we can direct them to the BCA orders page. Unfortunately, BCA recently removed the ability for us to link to a specific type of report, but users can still generate their own. This column also widened the table.
* We should clearly explain the difference between an "order," an "option," and a "purchase right."
* We need to place a high premium on screen real estate to make sure this table is clear and comprehensible. Otherwise, we wind up with the bloody mess that is List of Boeing 777 operators. Eric's comment (above) about keeping the table entries to one row should be noted, as two-row entries are far less readable than one-row entries.
* The vitrol embedded in table comments needs to be removed.
* Let's think about other ways to express information. I submit the use of color coding to represent a firmed contract as an example.
* While the table was initially created here, you may or may not have noticed that the table has been adapted for use in other English Wikipedia articles, such as Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-8. Furthermore, it has shown up on the 787's corresponding pages in Wikipedia for other languages. We should strive to keep this page nice and clean so that it can continue to set an example.
That's all for now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reversal of recent edits 

message: I'm proposing an infobox. I'll post it here and let you fill it out with information you think might be good to know. Then I'll post it in the article. — Alex 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. We are moving away from infoboxes on aircraft. Why should this be an exception? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's exactly why I posted it here, not in the article itself. — Alex 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, does anyone want to use the fligt deck image I uploaded in the article? — Alex 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, it's copyright Boeing. ericg ✈ 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Is it really the place of an encyclopedia to be speculating on a list of customers? Many of the airlines listed are questionably interested in the 787, and the fact that people randomly add and remove them as they see fit doesn't improve the situation. I propose that we remove the possible customer list and replace it with an updated summary of recent orders. Airline 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who doesn't touch the speculative list — why do we need an updated summary of recent orders, when just above is the full order sheet, which is usually no more than 12 hours out of date? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible customer list

message: Why is the composites content of the 787 quoted in the article at 61% by weight, when Boeing says "as much as 50% of the primary structure" on their official web site?  Is there a better source?  cheers from a wikipedia newbie -- Clem
* The first one is the plane's total weight and the second is the main structure.  Composities could be used more in non-primary structure locations in other words.  -Fnlayson 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composites Fraction 

message: Came here as a user.  I note the introduction states, "With a less rakish nose and a more conventional tail, the final design has superior aerodynamics."  Less rakish than what?  More conventional than what?  Superior to what?  What are we comparing to, here?  A previous design rev of the 787?  Another Boeing plane?  Most commercial aircraft?  Null comparatives are a pet peeve of mine. --DragonHawk 16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Less rakish than previous drawings of the 787 published by Boieng. Duh. As for the superior aerodynamics, that should be left out until the source is established. 82.32.58.194 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Null comparative in intro 

message: Why does the 12/13/2006 Quantas Order include the 10 planes destined for Jetstar? After all, they are ordered planes but left off the totals. Either list the Jetstar order seperately or call this a Quantas/Jetstar order. By the way, the first of these planes will be delivered to Jetstar in 2008.
mnw2000
:Huh? They are listed separately. I'm not sure quite what you're saying. There are two separate lines, one for QF and one for JQ. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  12/13/2006 Quantas Order 

message: We need to nix this list on here and Airbus A350 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has responded, I will give one more week for commentary, and then either begin paring the list down to the major press-attributed contests, or delete the list entirely. This applies to Airbus A350 as well. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these are definately potential customers.  There is also a list on the Boeing 747-8 article. Andros 1337 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some are potential customers, indeed. Some are random speculation. I think the lists really detract from the articles, but if we have to keep it, we should cut it to the most important contests. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These lists are crap, in any article. If it isn't sourced - ie, a quote from a CEO or the company entering a bidding war between Boeing and Airbus - it's 100% speculation. ericg ✈ 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential customers list 

message: I have uploaded a 3-view of the 787-8 at :Image:BCA 787-8 3-View.svg. I placed it within the article; Normally this would go near the specifications, but as we have a wide table, I had to place it somewhere else for now. If anyone has a better idea, feel free to try it. Also, if any sysops want to delete the two older revisions, please do so; it would save a little space on the servers. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  787-8 3-view 

message: Range data needs metrication.--Arado 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: "Cabin interior width at 50" from the floor is 223" (recently increased by 1"), the interior cabin width is a full 15" greater than that of the Airbus A330/A340 and still about a foot wider. "
(Interior cabin width) ... "and still about a foot wider" than what? (expert needed here) - Leonard G. 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled text? 

message: A Boeing document stated that the maximum exterior width of the 787 will be 226.5", just four and a half inches wider than the Airbus A330.  However, at "eye level" (fifty inches above floor level) the interior width of the 787 will be least 14" wider.  Boeing considers "eye level" to be critical in the perception of space.  Originally, the 787 was planned to have 18.5" wide seats (excluding armrests) with 21.5" aisles at eight abreast seating.  For comparison, the 777 accommodates the same width seats and 19.25" aisles at nine abreast.  Recently, the interior width has been widened by about one inch due to the elimination of some insulation.    --71.1.199.139 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some confusion about widths 

message: Can someone explain to me why the specifications section contains information about eight aircraft? Wikiproject standards state that the most common variant (based on preproduction sales data, at this point it's the 787-8 by a huge gap) should be shown; even so, I'm lost as to why we're comparing it to other Boeing aircraft (but, notably, not to Airbus aircraft) in the specifications section. This belongs in another section, or even article (comparison of second-generation widebody twinjets or something like that) and not in this section. ericg ✈ 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. It's probably something somefound on a webpage and transfered here. I'd be fine with moving it to another page and replacing it with the "real" specs. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: ILFC's engine selection isn't as clear cut as it has been for other orderers:
http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20060718.html - ILFC  orders GEnx for 24 firm and optional 787shttp://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40362 - ILFC orders Trent 1000 for 20 firm and optional 787s
Given we are counting the engine totals based on firm orders only, and given the ILFC firm orders will be split, does anyone know the actual breakdown so that we can count them properly.
Until we do, I'm going to mark ILFC with both engines, but not include them in the total count. That will give a total of 121 to GE, and 95 to RR, at this stage. If anyone can provide a source indicating the breakdown for the firm orders, please do... --Nick Moss 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ILFC Engine Selection 

message: I heard that 787 was having its own development issues. Apparently its heavier that the specification they gave to their customers. I was looking on more details about this romours, but it look like the page haven't been updated
* Within the past month or so, Boeing's designers opted to reduce weight on the aircraft by removing its two external power supply systems located in the aft of the aircraft.  The original design called for two external power supplies in the front and two in the rear.  The 787 is still expected to work fine with two one less external power jack. solarpilot 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight issues 

message: What is the current status of the first aircraft?  And is there any more specific information on the date of its first flight? CoolGuy 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wingbox and wing of the first aircraft are being assembled now. I think some of the Goodrich hardware for the first aircraft has also been built. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status and first flight 

message: I found this on the net - http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/817/ - unless this is wrong, the order table needs updating.
*That article's not wrong, it's just old...really old.  Since then Air Canada has recommitted to the orders of the 787 and 777. NcSchu 12:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Canada 787 Cancellation? 

message: If there *HAS* to be a comparison table with the A350, then I am puzzled as to why the 787 is being represented by an as yet non existant variant that has no confirmed specifications or details available. Yes its release may be impending and the guesstimates on it's data may be accurate, but at this point in time the table is useless. It should be based on one of the existing available variants. skyskraper 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted it. I would remove the comparisons from the A350 article as well but I can't be arsed to slog through that much table code. ericg ✈ 04:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with A350 

message: I was wondering what source the specifications of the 787-3, -8, -9, and -10.  Because I am seeing that the ranges listed on Wikipedia are different from that on Boeing.com.  For example, on Wikipedia, it lists the range of the 787-9 as 16299km, wheras Boeing.com lists the range of the -9 as 15900 to 16300km.  I just want to know is this source is from Boeing itself.  Thanks!
Sunset7611 04:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this is a big issue with a lot of the airliner entries, the ranges differ hugely from the manuf specific ranges. Differences that can't be explained by conversion from knots to miles or km's per hour. skyskraper 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source??? 

message: It has been roumoured that Air Canada are planning to covert their 46 options and purchase rights into firm orders in a couple of months. I don't know that for sure, please confirm. Dk16 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this can be posted in the article, since Air Canada is only planning the order. — Alex (T|C|E) 01:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Canada Options and Purchase Rights 

message: I was wondering what happened to the information on the 787-10 variant? Nweinthal 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably pulled since the -10 hasn't been announced yet. Just a guess. ericg ✈ 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Happened to -10?

message: I want everyone to know that about 1 month ago I went to Seattle and did a tour of the Boeing facilities there.
I also visited the 787 display and had a chat with the people there about the 787. All the stuff mentioned in the 787-3 section are from notes I took while I was there. There were about 15 of us that day and we asked questions about the 787. Everyone except me asked general questions with regards to the whole plane and so on. I asked specific questions about the -3 version because I have always been intrigued by the purpose of this plane. I was told by sources there and all this can be confirmed by calling or e-mailing (Scott C. Strode 1-425-717-0571 or Adam Morgan 1-425-294-6103 or adam.k.morgan@boeing.com ) to confirm all my writings. There are no articles on the 787-3 any where on the net. Nobody cares about this variant. Nobody writes about it. The internet is all about the war between Airbus and Boeing and orders and deliveries and general stuff about the 787 program. Even after 2 years of development there is no single comprehensive site on all the details and everything. This is a combination of secrecy for the product and also lack of desire for journalists to get technical. Even while I was asking questions at the tour, the other tourists there looked at me funny as if "whatever dude, move on".
Boeing thinks the 787 is targeting the right market. For long haul it will be efficient and great for point to point flights. For shorthaul it is also a game changer.
I would never make statements that are not true or theoretical. If you look at Boeing 777F, 2 months ago I added that parcel carriers would be intrested in 777F because they can make non-stop trips from U.S. to China without stopping at Anchorage on flights with lighter loads. And just this week, fedex orders 15 of them. Because of my previous employment I used to follow the aviation industry very closely and I had heard rumblings about FedEx negotiating a deal for a long time. Cancelling the A380 however was news to me.
I encourage you to contact the people I mentioned. Adam Morgan is the 787 communications director. He will confirm my 787-3 comments. Nothing is final with regards to specs however, but the general statements about it connecting major hubs and bringing higher capacity to these routes will be confirmed by him. The person at the 787 display is the one that mentioned the whole pendulum swinging too far comment. He said I quote "Thirty years ago flights from New York to LAX were on 747. Then moved down to 767. Then the 757. Now its on the 737. And Jetblue may even put people on Embraer 190 planes. We believe a correction will occur and the equilibrium will settle around the 787-3 size for major cities."
As the 787-3 comes on line in 2010, you will see more orders by large legacy carriers for this variant.
I know wikipedia is concerned about people stating comments not cited and I am the first to agree with that. Just because some website haven't written on this does not make this untrue.
Thanks--Bangabalunga 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments here. I don't propose to remove the information again. Because of the way you have went about discussing this and obviously because of WP:AGF I don't doubt what you're saying - however verifiability is still an issue here. Conversations are hard to verify and I don't know how a Boeing employee would respond to tens or possibly hundreds of phonecalls to confirm facts or data. I would appreciate any other thoughts. Also as I said in my edit summary, any major claim a manufacturer makes about their product needs to be independently verified. Mark83 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  787-3 

message: Do you think we should put an image of the large cargo frieghter or whatever boeing is calling it now that it has had a test flight? 72.83.117.107 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oversize Cargo Transporter

message: Page 7 of the linked document gives a maximum fuel capacity of 11,086 gallons (41,965 liters).  I doubt that the Boeing would install the fuel tanks from the longer range variants and have airlines partially fill them.  Smaller fuel tanks are easier to make, easier to design and perhaps most importantly, they are lighter.  Link - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787brochure.pdf
: If you read the 787-3 it says this model "currently" has the same fuel capacity as the 787-8. you are currect in that why have a huge tank if it will not be used. Center tanks and wing tanks typically cannot be removed because they are designed to conform to the structure. And a tank is only an empty shell not adding much weight normally. Details about the 787-3 are still not available in a comprehensive way. Thats why it says currently. If a firm spec is given by Boeing, it will be changed. The link you provided seems to me as a guideline on how much fuel to fill up a plane with at an airport (airport compatibility)--Bangabalunga 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 787-3 Fuel Capacity