Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Brilliance Of The Boeing 777.  
User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1027 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6613 times:

Hey guys!

Being a true Boeing lover, i thought of dedicating a thread to this Gorgeous bird in the sky.
As another friend of mine dedicated it to A330, i decided to keep one for Boeing fans like you and me  

No one can beat its sheer beauty and its elegance.I bet, no other airliner can come as close at it.
There may be a A380, or even a A340, but the as it goes,
"Four engines for long haul........But Two Engines for a Much Longer haul  "

As i live near the airport, the amazing roar, yes the roar of the GE and RR engines make me run to take a camera and click pictures of it.

The sheer size and power of engines 115000 thrust x2!! Whoa no one can ever come close to the powerhouse this proud bird posses.



The bird is with every major airline in the world. Let me say EK, SQ, BA to name a few....
Airlines are building a full fleet of the 777, be it a 772,77A,773 or my fav 77W  .
The range, unbeatable by any other aircraft in the commercial world, creates a history itself.
The cargo capacity 7,552 ft3 (200 m3) 44 LD3 for the 777-300/ER
and 5,656 ft3 (160.2 m3) 32 LD3 in 777-200 makes it a fantastic aircraft.

The feeling of being pushed back to the seat during takeoff, and the funny sensation in the stomach while climbing makes it a enthralling experience.
People always say they want to fly quiet and complain of noise in the 777.So "maybe" they choose the Airbus or something else.
But i promise, the smile on their faces while hearing the noise of the 777 spooling cannot be bought when you fly a quieter aircraft.


With one of the craziest and state of the art cockpit instruments, its always a new experience every time the pilots fly it.No matter how many hours he has spent flying other aircraft.Every flight is a new experience .



It has a record breaking safety history with no fatalities at all.
And the BA038 was caused due to the heat exchanger of the RR engine.Not at all a problem with the aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38



Though many of you must be flying every week, or say everyday, it must be just another flight/aircraft.
But there are enthusiasts like me for whom flying is not a everyday business.I hardly take 5-6 flights a year.
And for them,its a much much memorable and a exciting experience.And its always pleasant.
Having said this, i think i'll book my first 2010 flight this year in March .Hopefully its a 777  

So finally concluding, all i have is praises and nothing.The aircraft suits the airline who are capable of handling it.And believe me, they have made billions out of it.I hope the 777 lives as long as i live......err i'm just 17 lol.




Thank you Boeing for giving a new era of air travel.Thanks to each and every person who contributed to make 777.

Hoping to be a pilot and fly the 777 one day.   

Looking for an inspiration  
Cheers!
Jayesh  


Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6502 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Thread starter):
No one can beat its sheer beauty and its elegance.I bet, no other airliner can come as close at it. There may be a A380, or even a A340, but the as it goes,

The 777 technical capabilities may be undisputable but it's beauty and elegance are far from it, at least for me  
The Concorde, A345, A333, B744, B757, and probably many more are just some example of aircraft I find a lot more beautiful and elegant than the 777. The 772 in particular, for some reason it reminds me of a big Tuna fish with wings  


User currently offlinelalib From Pakistan, joined Feb 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6368 times:

777's are my favorite aircraft too, especially 300ER

User currently offlinebirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6299 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 1):
The 772 in particular, for some reason it reminds me of a big Tuna fish with wings

I love the 777. Tuna sure is beautiful. High in protein, too.  



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6298 times:

The world's First REAL BIG Twin


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6241 times:

LH, IB, QF and other large airlines don't operate the T7, so your enthusiastic evaluation is a bit off.
Also, IMHO there are far better looking birds out there like the 757-200 or the A332.
No arguing though that it's a great family of aircraft.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6208 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 1):
The 777 technical capabilities may be undisputable but it's beauty and elegance are far from it, at least for me

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder for sure, but personally I think it's an ugly ducky too, really, especially the tail. To me the tail of a 777 looks disproporationally small for instance, as if there's a rudder still waiting to be attatched to it.
And it's wings or landing gear aren't particularly elegant either, IMHO.

Besides, much of the 777's reputation is based on a single model: the 77W.
The others versions are pretty much all outclassed by competing products, so whereas the 777 definitely is still a very fine plane, the only reason why some lift it to almost mythical levels is because it is a Boeing really.... it's definitely above average, but nothing near as overwhelmingly and outright trashing as the A330, both in appearance as in performance.

[Edited 2010-02-11 05:51:46]

User currently offlinelalib From Pakistan, joined Feb 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6193 times:

One more thing, most major airlines in the world operate the 777, except for LH and QF -

User currently onlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4679 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6193 times:

Quoting jayeshrulz (Thread starter):
And the BA038 was caused due to the heat exchanger of the RR engine.Not at all a problem with the aircraft.

Of course the engine is in no way, shape or form part of the aircraft......



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8344 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6163 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 achieved many things at Boeing, First it gave Boeing a 747 wide airplane in a slightly smaller package. It was two engine efficient with 747-400 range(-200ER) and maybe a little more. The 777 did in the Asia-Pacific what the 767 did to Europe.

For regional Asia the 777-300(non-ER) gave Boeing an efficient 450 passenger platform for flight up to 3,000 miles and the domestic Japanesse market..

The second generation 777 family the -200LR & -300ER gave Boeing a platform for nonstops from The USA to India, Dubai and Qatar. The -300ER came to be the early 744 replacement with many Asian airlines, JAL, ANA, Korean, Cathay and Singapore Airlines are operators of the type. The greatest 777-300ER customer is Air France, Air France the first of all Airbus customers, uses it as their main international plane with its GE engines( AF always gets GE's).

The 777 story is far from over, we will see some kind of new 777NG from Boeing soon.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6065 times:

I, too, am a great fan of the 777. To me, appearances are largely irrelevant; what makes a machine beautiful is when it does its assigned task elegantly and efficiently. The 777 certainly does that; I am of the opinion that the 77L/77W are the absolute pinnacle of aircraft design in terms of efficiency today (yes, I know the A380 has a higher CASM, but it is also much larger, which makes it easier to achieve high CASM.) The 787 and A350 may eclipse them when they get into service, but right now the T7 is king in my book. And let's not forget its stellar safety record; which is perhaps unequaled in terms of passenger miles without a fatality and before a hull loss.

[Edited 2010-02-11 06:29:20]


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30918 posts, RR: 87
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-300ER is indeed the star of the show, but the 777-200ER didn't do so bad herself and still pretty much owns her segment of the market pending the arrival of the 787-9 and A350XWB-900.

Personally, I think the 777-200 family is the prettiest (the A330 is too oddly-proportioned for my eyes - it's needs the four engines of the A340 to look good to my eye), though the 747-8F is giving it a run for it's money based on how it looks in flight.

Yes, some major carriers don't fly the 777, but that they don't is more a sign of their needs and/or biases than a sign that the plane "isn't any good". IB is an all-Airbus operator, so they were never going to fly the 777. LH is effectively the same. SA operates out of fields where any twin is at a disadvantage, so they need aircraft with four engines which means the A340. And QF now note they wish they had bought some 777s.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6023 times:

The A330 and 777...


Ohh yawn, here comes another twinjet.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30918 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 12):
The A330 and 777...


Ohh yawn, here comes another twinjet.

Hard to argue with the success of both families, though...


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2609 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5975 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting slz396 (Reply 6):
Besides, much of the 777's reputation is based on a single model: the 77W.

I disagree. Granted the original 772 didn't win too many fans, the 773 became a viable option for airlines seeking a high capacity yet efficient short to medium haul aircraft. I think the 77E is what the 772 should've been from the beginning, a long range, wide body twin that practically killed off the A343. You've already mentioned the 77W, but I'd also like to say that the 77L has proven to be a better choice than the A345 having outsold the A345 in the ultra-long-range market, despite neither having spectacular sales figures.

To my eyes, anyway, the 777 is a beauty - circular fuselage cross section, large wingspan with raked wingtips and huge GE90s hanging off the wings. They sound absolutely beautiful, too.

[Edited 2010-02-11 06:17:36]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
IB is an all-Airbus operator, so they were never going to fly the 777. LH is effectively the same.

You know better than to say that   IIRC, both IB and LH have operated every Boeing jet airplane with the exception of the 777, and LH is so far the only one of 2 748i customers. If they don't operate the 777 today it's because it doesn't fit their needs not because it's a Boeing.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 6):
Besides, much of the 777's reputation is based on a single model: the 77W.
The others versions are pretty much all outclassed by competing products, so whereas the 777 definitely is still a very fine plane, the only reason why some lift it to almost mythical levels is because it is a Boeing really.... it's definitely above average, but nothing near as overwhelmingly and outright trashing as the A330, both in appearance as in performance.

Incorrect, the 777-200LR outclasses the A340-500 in every measurable way.

The 777-200F is also a very good aircraft with no competition in it's payload/range class.

Best case scenario the A340-300 matches the 777-200ER on long haul missions but that is debatable. I'd say the 777-200ER is the clear winner in that match up because of the rest of the 777 family that comes with. The only aircraft that is more efficient is the A330-300, but that is only on shorter haul missions. It can't touch the 777-200ER on the long haul missions.

That really just leaves the 777-200 and -300 as the "under performers" of the family. Boeing sold a bunch of them so I doubt they are too upset.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
I think the 77E is what the 772 should've been from the beginning, a long range, wide body twin that practically killed off the A343.

That's one of the A.net myths really.
What has halted A343 sales is not the 772 in any of its incarnations, it's the ever improving A333! The 77E role in all this is largely irrelevant: originally the 'line of succession' looked a bit like this in this market segment:
A343>772>A333
and over time, it has evolved into something like:
A333>77E>A343


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30918 posts, RR: 87
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 15):
You know better than to say that.   IIRC, both IB and LH have operated every Boeing jet airplane with the exception of the 777, and LH is so far the only one of 2 748i customers. If they don't operate the 777 today it's because it doesn't fit their needs not because it's a Boeing.

The past is the past. IB has made a conscious decision to only operate aircraft from a single manufacturer and they have chosen Airbus as that manufacturer. They even went so far as to use Boeing to negotiate a better price from Airbus for their order by floating an RFP to Boeing they never intended to consummate in order to get Airbus to lower their price.

Same with LH, though I will note that with their existing investment in the A340 family, adding a single model of 777 (the 777-300ER) didn't make as much sense as adding more A340-600s to their existing fleet. But if Airbus offered the A380-700, I think LH would have bought it instead of the 747-8 to stay all-Airbus, because operating a single Boeing model cannot be the most efficient course of action.


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5746 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 17):
What has halted A343 sales is not the 772 in any of its incarnations, it's the ever improving A333! The 77E role in all this is largely irrelevant: originally the 'line of succession' looked a bit like this in this market segment:
A343>772>A333
and over time, it has evolved into something like:
A333>77E>A343

That is very revisionist history. It is true that the A333 has significantly expanded its range over time, and that early A343s are not much more capable than today's A333s. But there is still a very broad swath of missions the A333 can't cover, and on those missions the 77E has outcompeted the A343, although not as dramatically as the 77L/77W outcompeted the A340NG.

The 77E has longer range and better payload capability, all for roughly comparable fuel burn. The A343's only concrete advantage is in hot/high performance (therefore their use by IB and SA).


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5728 times:

I suppose that what I like most about the 777 is that, by airliner standards, it is very much a 'quiet achiever.' It slipped relatively-quietly into airline service, without any of the fanfares that accompany the introduction of new airliners nowadays - and if you asked all but the most knowledgeable air travellers which aeroplanes they can recognise on sight, and which aeroplanes they consider most 'significant,' I doubt that the 777 would rank higher than four or five on the list.

Part of the problem - or alternatively part of its charm - are that it doesn't look awfully spectacular. It looks like what it is - something so well-designed for its purpose that it doesn't need to 'stand out' and command attention, it just quietly 'gets on with its business.' But the fact remains that within a year or two it will have clocked up 1,000 sales. And the sales rate shows no sign of slackening at the moment - in fact, if anything, it appears to be increasing.

Living where I do, what I find astonishing is the way that the 777 (quietly, again) is revolutionising travel in this region, right now, this minute. Hardly a month goes by when someone isn't talking about yet another new 777 service in one part or another of the vast Pacific region.

The other thing that delights me about it is that, at the time of its inception, it was a huge commercial gamble. The idea that four engines were essential for over-ocean travel was very widely-held at first - never mind Airbus management and Sir Richard Branson, it was my own opinion too at the time! It's a tribute to Boeing and the engine manufacturers that they established the 'new wave' so well and so quickly and so efficiently. Even Branson, nowadays, scarcely lets a week go by without shooting his mouth off about the next 777 route he's planning to open up....  

The 777 is also - as far as I know - the first, and probably the last, commercial airliner to figure in the Guinness Book of Records - for flying 11,664nms., Hong Kong to London, a 23-hour trip that will likely for ever remain the longest flight ever achieved by a passenger-carrying aeroplane!

I sincerely hope that it sticks around as long as that other classic, the DC3 Dakota. It's already in the same 'gamechanging' class, in my opinion.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30918 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slz396 (Reply 17):
What has halted A343 sales is not the 772 in any of its incarnations, it's the ever improving A333!

Seems we have a new a.net myth...   



I don't recall this much trash talk in the A330 Appreciation Thread WINGS created, so perhaps the Airbus Aficionados can extend the same courtesy here?


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5703 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
But if Airbus offered the A380-700, I think LH would have bought it instead of the 747-8 to stay all-Airbus, because operating a single Boeing model cannot be the most efficient course of action.

Considering the number of 744's LH has that may not be the case.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 976 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5651 times:

Sorry, I just don't care for them. I pay a big chunk of change to fly from point A to point B. I would like a little bit of comfort in the air. The 3-3-3 seating makes window seating just miserable, and 2-3-2 in most Business classes has to make you wonder just what the middle guy is paying for. Plus noise levels are dramatically better in Airbus aircraft. That a Boeing plane is more robust, will last longer, gets better mileage is fine for the owner, but does nothing for me as a passenger. I avoid them whenever and wherever I can. (And I just don't like the nose, although the screwdriver posterior is really neat).
May they fly long years, far distances, and in safety. I just don't care for the model.



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
I think LH would have bought it instead of the 747-8 to stay all-Airbus

I don't think so. LH has repeatedly said they do not want to be dependand on only Airbus or Boeing (not counting regionals). If they had not ordered the 748 (which, for the record, I don't believe they ordered only because it's not an Airbus, LH is way too smart for that), they would surely have ordered a different Boeing aircraft.

Quoting jayeshrulz (Thread starter):
No one can beat its sheer beauty and its elegance

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm partial to Douglas jets myself, as well as other quads and trijets (best looking remains the DC-10 IMHO). But as mentioned, it's succes and efficiency are not debatable!!

Quoting jayeshrulz (Thread starter):
yes the roar of the GE and RR engines

I love sitting next to the engine on the T7!! The best sounding engines IMHO! Especially the GE, I love sitting next to the whining engine on take-off...

Quoting jayeshrulz (Thread starter):
It has a record breaking safety history with no fatalities at all.

That is indeed fantastic, considering the number of T7's currently in operation. The a340 shares that record, but there are a lot less a340's flying. Kudos!! Let's hope it stays this way.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 16):
Best case scenario the A340-300 matches the 777-200ER on long haul missions but that is debatable

From what I read, the a343 uses less fuel than the 772. But, the 772 is larger and can carry more payload and pax. I guess it's comparable to the 763 vs the a332.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 16):
It can't touch the 777-200ER on the long haul missions.

No of course not, the a333 doesn't have the legs of the 772. In that respect, the 772 is currently in a class of its own.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 20):
a 23-hour trip that will likely for ever remain the longest flight ever achieved by a passenger-carrying aeroplane!

To be honest, I have no doubts the 789ER or a359R will be able to outdo that once built. But right now.... it's the longest range aircraft for sure.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
25 Stitch : I know they've said that, but unless they buy the 787 (and they have said they feel the 787-8 is too small), once they retire their 747-400s, the 747
26 jayeshrulz : Thanks for the positive response guys. I think about the people arguing about IB, LH, QF. They all have 747s in their history.Even 767. I think all ai
27 Post contains images PGNCS : Lufthansa, Qantas, Iberia, etc., etc., etc. Quieter is the preference of the vast majority of paying passengers (and me). Most people are not airline
28 shaq : Oh my GOD ! my favorite aircraft ever... Im not the only one ! Hey thanks for all the pic Jayesrulz! Cheers !
29 Post contains images 9V-SVC : Love the 777s especially the 77W, my 2nd favourite,the A330 is first.
30 jayeshrulz : Thanks alot guys.Long live the 777. I think you should buy a private jet for yourself.It will help you travel much comfortably.
31 Post contains links and images Scooter01 : She has the nicest looking pair of..... MyAviation.net photo: Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt Scooter01
32 Post contains images stratosphere : It's funny..When I had to do my OJT on the 777 for FX when I dropped all the exterior panels all of them were stamped "made in japan" I kid you not..
33 Gemuser : The ugliest Boeing since the Strato Cruiser! Most uncomfortable Boeing since the 247! Sorry these things are VERY subjective. Gemuser
34 stratosphere : Sorry but I think the ugliest thing since the stratocruiser is the A380...That beast from the front is hideous...I have never flown on the T7 but I l
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Interior Of Continental's B 747/777 posted Mon Sep 3 2001 20:11:46 by United Airline
AM's N774AM Vs. All The Other Am Boeing 777-200ER posted Thu Mar 8 2007 23:33:27 by KLAM
Do Think The 747 Classics Are Boeing Classics? posted Sat Apr 14 2007 16:01:24 by 747400sp
What Is The Most Beautiful Jet Boeing Ever Designe posted Fri Mar 2 2007 00:01:11 by 747400sp
Poll: The End Of Boeing And Airbus posted Thu Jun 1 2006 06:46:09 by Remcor
What Are The Chances Of MSP-LSE 12/09 A DC9? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 11:10:57 by Yflyer
Air France Boeing 777-200 Economy posted Fri Mar 27 2009 15:38:15 by ACB777
Airbus 340 Vs. Boeing 777 posted Mon Feb 16 2009 20:13:08 by Braniff747SP
The Boarding Of The Elderly & Small Children posted Tue Nov 25 2008 21:31:13 by DUALRATED
Around The World In The Least # Of Segments posted Mon Jul 7 2008 18:28:42 by Tennis69