Hacker News Reader

Comment by xemdetia | Hacker News Reader

Would you say as someone who deals with these larger planes that at least the 787 current gen is closer to an older style chassis and body for cars? I have always imagined/assumed that 787's are not unique that they would be the same 'chassis' for a cargo plane or a passenger plane, and it really would have to do with how they fitted the plane for purpose?

This is part of the reason why I agree with you, because I don't see why the 787 would be unique by mixing avionics/mechatronics with the passenger systems but I don't know enough to say it with confidence. They would have designed the passenger systems to be independent and replaceable (especially with the knowledge gained from the legacies and upgrades of other planes like the 737).

Is there any public guides for 787 chassis and maintenance that you could point to as being reasonable things to read about this new style plane?

View on HN

Not sure what you mean, but aircraft stopped being "chassis and body" some time in the 1930's. That was the switch to a monocoque design with stressed skin.

I couldn't find the right words to describe it, the other person who commented was a bit closer. At a certain point I would assume the Boeing 787 design would have interchangeable configurations that would not be dependent on the airframe and avionics. I wasn't sure if cabin, interior, model, or something else would best describe what I meant and chassis and body for a car was the best I could come up with that could describe these two changeable parts unlike the unibody chassis. It looks like configurations is the most appropriate word.

I was hoping that the person I commented to could point us at some fun manuals to describe how these configurations worked at a technical level.

I don't know about the 787, but in my day (757) every airplane that rolled off the assembly line was different. For one thing, there was a lot of customization for each airline, and the airplanes underwent constant technical improvement from field experience.

Doing things, however, that increased the weight or changed aerodynamics of the airplane were a very big deal, causing a ripple effect that would be very expensive.

Freighter versions were commonplace, with the obvious omission of windows (weight savings) and interior fluff.

Doing a stretch, or a re-wing or re-engine is an enormous thing.

They're more like the same airframe (fuselage, wings, undercarriage) with different fit an finish. Like different interior and possibly engines. The entertainment system is basically an add-on, it's separated both because it's not there in every configuration of the plane and also because it's supposed to be separated in order to be 100% sure that any failure there will not impact critical systems (like a short circuit, or an exploit). How exactly Boeing ensures this separation is another topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com