Boeing 787-9 Differences

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Apart from the fuselage stretch, is anyone aware of any other external differences between the 787-8 and 787-9 (and -10 for that matter)?

Cheers,

Andrew

Edited March 14, 2014 by Caution Wake Turbulence

[Mozzy19]

I think it's just the fuselage stretch. They both have the same wings and I think most of the differences are internal apart from the stretch.

Sean

[cuprar]

Found this but not sure if it's right

[Radleigh]

Id imagine more some of this..

and lots of these.

Sorry, i'll grab my coat..

[cuprar]

Lol

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Wingspan is common according the Boeing website, so I'm not sure about that diagram - those -10 engines look huge!

Thanks,

Andrew

[Viking]

Looks like a 777 style triple-axle main gear too.

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Just found this (preliminary) Boeing document (Link to pdf). It seems to suggest a twin axle bogie on all three variants, but with a larger MLG truck on the -9 and -10 (see page 20). I know the A350-1000 is supposedly going to have a triple axle bogie, maybe that diagram is somewhat speculative? Presumably, the finer details of the -10 are still subject to change?

Andrew

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

The only other difference I've noticed looking at the numbers is that, on the -10, the rear cargo door is slightly further forward (~2.5m), relative to the tail of the aircraft. All-in-all, fairly minor really!

Oh, and the fact that there's a window deleted just forward of the no. 3 door (because of an extra galley) on the -9 and -10...

Edited March 15, 2014 by Caution Wake Turbulence

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Hmm, may need to invest in some 40mm waste pipe! I don't think cutting up two kits is going to be all that straightforward (plus you'd need 3 to do a -10, which is a bit OTT) - from what I can see there's just isn't quite enough untapered, cylindrical fuselage to cut out and transplant. I know the Revell/Zvezda kit tapers too soon at the back (not sure about the front) - without that it might just work. Off course, you could just fix it with some filler, but that would rather negate the benefit of using another kit...

Back to the drawing board, I think (or at least off to B&Q)!

Andrew

[garryrussell]

Plus a few extra fire extinguishers

[XV571]

Jennings posted a drawing of the fuselage differences between the -8 and -9 a while back: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41866-787-9-how-to/ but, post-fire, both he and the picture have gone AWOL since then. Maybe somebody saved it for future reference?

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

I found this on Airlinercafe.com, which may be the one. I suspect this method would still result in a slight mismatch in fuselage diameters due to the tapering, which isn't so much of a problem if you're filling the windows.

Plus a few extra fire extinguishers

[XV571]

That's the layout I was thinking of Andrew, although the actual one I remember was a more basic layout. Jennings' intent is to show how to cut up two kits to allow the windows to be kept so most likely any cut should be away from a tapered section - I'm sure it'll be easier than, say, chopping an A319 to stretch it out to an A321 (or shrinking it to an A318).

Jonathan

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

I think part of the problem is that Jennings' diagram shows the profile as it is actually to be found on the real thing rather than as it is represented on the kit, where the tapering of the rear fuselage begins forward of the fuselage join and is more gradual than it should be. Also it still leaves you with the incorrect door and window arrangement at the front.

I think I will use some 40mm pipe and do two stretches, rather than sacrificing the second kit for the stretch. I quite like the idea of doing a -10 as well. Also, since the shortest length of pipe I could buy was 2m, I'll have plenty spare to practice cutting windows in it! Given the shape of the windows, it might not be too hard to do.

Cheers,

Andrew

[Jennings Heilig]

The fuselages are identical except for the length, and everything else is identical as well. The -8, -9, and -10 are all the same but for the length.

My diagrams follow what Boeing did, so the fuselage taper isn't an issue, since the length difference is all contained in the constant diameter fuselage sections.

Those small drawings posted above appear to come from Boeing, and I can tell you that they're nothing remotely close to "accurate". The ones contained in the publicly available Airport Planning Documents, etc are very, very crude and not meant to be used for comparing models to the real thing with a micrometer.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Jennings Heilig

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Welcome back Jennings,

I'm not disputing the accuracy of your diagrams, nor your faithfulness to Boeing's manufacturing processes. I think the fault lies with Zvezda, as you yourself pointed out when the kit came out (I think Hasegawa have done a somewhat better job in capturing the shape). The tapering of the rear fuselage on the kit begins around about at the forward edge of the rear cargo door, not at or after the fuselage join just behind the cargo door. As such the cut on fuselage no.1 on your diagram fall with the range of this taper and there will be a slight mismatch in diameter - admittedly small, but as I'm one of few people on the planet who does not prefer decal windows, it could be an issue. Again this is the fault of the kit. At the front, your method is sound, but I would be left with the issue of transplanting windows - and taking a section from further forward (with appropriate windows) would run into the tapering at the front. So, as I would need to make or transplant window openings anyway, it seems a bit of a waste to use a second kit and more sensible to use some plastic pipe instead (especially since the appropriate diameter is readily available - that way I can make two models from two kits - happy days! Plus I now have 2m of pipe to use up!

As far as the airport planning document is concerned, I certainly agree with your caution w.r.t. diagrams - I have only relied upon the published dimensions therein which indicate larger MLG trucks on the -9 and -10 and also the difference in position of the rear cargo door on the -10. I appreciate that this document is only preliminary. Pictures of the -9 test aircraft show a window missing forward of the number 3 passenger door - obviously airline configurations may differ, but this window appears to be absent, rather than merely blanked off like the one ahead of it.

Cheers,

Andrew

[Jennings Heilig]

The station diagrams haven't been published for the -10 yet, so I'm not sure about the locations of the baggage compartment hatches, etc. I guess the design is frozen, but since the engineering is still going on, they haven't released stuff like station diagrams. But my inside contact at Boeing said his information is that aside from being a little beefier structurally, everything about the -10 is externally identical to the -8 and -9. The MLG is visually identical, as are the engine nacelles, etc.

Yes, unfortunately Zvezda's 787 isn't their best effort. Really looking forward to their Il-62M though!

Edited March 16, 2014 by Jennings Heilig

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Well, that should make things easier!

Any news on Zvezda release dates? The IL-62 should hopefully be good, they seem to have put more effort into their Russian subjects.

[Jennings Heilig]

I thought the Il-62M was imminent, but someone posted on Airliner Cafe recently that they hadn't even started the tooling. They showed CAD images several months ago.