Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5689615/

Topic: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-13 12:43:50 and read 50601 times.

Live from #PNAA: Randy Tinseth (vice president marketing at Boeing) quietly shows first public rendering of 777-9X with folding wing.


(picture uploaded by http://twitter.com/jonostrower)

Note: this is only a rendering, no final decision on the 777X design has been made.

[Edited 2013-02-13 13:02:07]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: prost
Posted 2013-02-13 12:54:53 and read 50402 times.

Any idea how much additional weight the folding wingtip would have vs. the benefit a longer wing provides the aircraft?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2013-02-13 13:01:26 and read 50242 times.

I love how they've parked the plane next to the 787-10...
Hopefully, both planes will come into existence, and will both have adequately different mission strengths, so that they can both become viable products in a competitive product portfolio!

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-13 13:11:52 and read 49950 times.

Quoting prost (Reply 1):
Any idea how much additional weight the folding wingtip would have vs. the benefit a longer wing provides the aircraft?

Since the tips do not contain any control surfaces and will be CFRP, I expect they should be relatively light. Whatever it is, the weight penalty will be less than the aerodynamic gain (otherwise Boeing wouldn't bother).

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-13 13:21:24 and read 49759 times.

The folding wingtip should also let the 777X fit into the existing 777 airport gates.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-02-13 13:23:36 and read 49729 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Live from #PNAA: Randy Tinseth (vice president marketing at Boeing) quietly shows first public rendering of 777-9X

Thanks very much. Great rendering.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
with folding wing.

Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option. Now that the wing span will be even higher, I am very curious if we will see the folding wingtips in reality.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Live from #PNAA: Randy Tinseth (vice president marketing at Boeing) quietly shows first public rendering of 777-9X with folding wing.
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
I love how they've parked the plane next to the 787-10

At first, I thought it's a VN 787 but then I realized it's a "10" on the tail fin.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: FriendlySkies
Posted 2013-02-13 13:33:45 and read 49447 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option. Now that the wing span will be even higher, I am very curious if we will see the folding wingtips in reality.

IIRC, the original folding wingtip was a much larger section that included all or part of the aileron. This would have been much heavier than the proposed folding tip for the 777-X, and was intended to allow the 777 to fit into the same gate as a DC-10 or 767.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2013-02-13 13:40:23 and read 49259 times.

Quoting prost (Reply 1):
Any idea how much additional weight the folding wingtip would have vs. the benefit a longer wing provides the aircraft?

Not much since it will be composite, but that's not the point of a folding tip.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
The folding wingtip should also let the 777X fit into the existing 777 airport gates.

Exactly. For every airliner, the 'footprint' it takes up on the ramp slots it into a particular aircraft class, with corresponding fees. Higher the class, the more it costs. Which is one reason you see smaller aircraft use winglets to effectively increase span and efficiency, while larger ones like the 777 use raked wingtips, which are more efficient, and don't have a class impact. For the 777-9X I must conclude that the increased span puts it into the same class as a 380. I believe current projections for the -9X wingspan is 71m or about 247ft. The 380 is a shade under 80m or about 267ft. For the raked wingtips on existing -200LRs and -300ERs, the raked wingtip adds about 3m or 10ft, to 64.8m or about 212.5ft.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2013-02-13 13:41:57 and read 49255 times.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
IIRC, the original folding wingtip was a much larger section that included all or part of the aileron. This would have been much heavier than the proposed folding tip for the 777-X, and was intended to allow the 777 to fit into the same gate as a DC-10 or 767.

What mechanics to move this?

perhaps they can use some of the control surface acutators via a clutch to move the wingtips and save weight?

or maybe just a hydraulic line to both sides of a control piston, one to move up and the other down?

Maybe just a small light electric motor with very high gear ratio?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-02-13 13:50:46 and read 49027 times.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 8):
Maybe just a small light electric motor with very high gear ratio?

Yep, with a lightweight Li-Ion battery to power it! 

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-02-13 14:00:55 and read 48901 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Whatever it is, the weight penalty will be less than the aerodynamic gain

How would you get aerodynamic gain from a folding wingtip, that a fixed wingtip can not produce? That would be an interesting set-up, wonder what angle it will have in-flight . . .  

Off course just having a little fun here. I'm sure you mean that the extra wingspan the folding technique allows, will bring aerodynamic advantages that outweigh the extra weight of the folding mechanism.

The again, one could also argue that the customers just have to live with the extra wingspan, have the airports adapt their gates, and let the airlines enjoy the extra benefit of the wingspan, without the weight penalty of the folding mechanism.

Rgds,
PW100


Edit: typo

[Edited 2013-02-13 14:14:19]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: FriendlySkies
Posted 2013-02-13 15:09:12 and read 48451 times.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 8):
What mechanics to move this?

I would expect an actuator similar to those used for the spoilers. The wingtip is not that heavy.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: wingman
Posted 2013-02-13 16:16:14 and read 47679 times.

Is that the new airport where Boeing parks its delayed delivery jets? If you zoom in on Google Earth you can see what appears to be the Qatar Airways Sheik ranting and raving at the customer service counter, top down view between the 777 and the 787.

Nice looking terminal at least.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: SOBHI51
Posted 2013-02-13 17:52:18 and read 46491 times.

Quoting wingman (Reply 12):
If you zoom in on Google Earth you can see what appears to be the Qatar Airways Sheik ranting and raving at the customer service counter, top down view between the 777 and the 787.

Me think that JAL, NH, UA and others must be ranting as much, after all they have few planes grounded.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: bkircher
Posted 2013-02-13 19:07:19 and read 44002 times.

I still don't see the point in an upgraded 777.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-13 19:23:14 and read 43499 times.

Quoting bkircher (Reply 15):
I still don't see the point in an upgraded 777.

Competition from the A350.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: divemaster08
Posted 2013-02-13 20:59:24 and read 41037 times.

While i can understand the benefits of the folding wingtip, may i play devils advocate here and ask an interesting question perhaps.....

So we understand the reason for the larger wing and raked wingtips, the folding mechanism to allow it to use smaller gate spaces (same as current T7 gates) but what about maintenance costs? It would surely require some strong locking mechanism to support it when inflight and (here is the devil), what effects could it bring forth if said mechanism was to fail in flight?

While there would be increased drag on one side, could it affect the aerodynamic flow enough to cause some serious troubles? Or at least divert the flight?

Ok enough bad thoughts, Go Boeing!

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-02-13 21:53:20 and read 39799 times.

Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 17):
what effects could it bring forth if said mechanism was to fail in flight?

The plane is full of surfaces that are not allowed to fail in flight, this would just be another one. Further if the locking mechanism would fail the tip would fold up, as the ailerons are not affected the frame would still be OK, a bit of aileron trim and that is it. For landing you need to increase the approach speed a bit. Plane has landed without wingtips for decades where even the aileron is gone. Slats, flaps, ailerons, spoiler would all be intact, ask an experienced pilot and he would say there are greater worries.

The folding wingtip being the a dead piece of CFRP with the most active component being the (LED) positioning light is a smart idea solving a lot of problems and causing few.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: PIEAvantiP180
Posted 2013-02-13 23:18:07 and read 37686 times.

Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 17):

Probably none what so ever, we have seen plenty of pictures with 747, and A330-340 missing a single winglet on one side due to ramp damage and still fly its mission till they can put on a replacement.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2013-02-13 23:28:20 and read 37384 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
The plane is full of surfaces that are not allowed to fail in flight, this would just be another one.

I suspect that if it is implemented Boeing will design it such that it is positively locked in flight, and the failure of it on the ground will be a cost issue, not a safety issue. If it fails to fold or unfold it will be safely on the ground where MX can deal with it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-02-13 23:46:59 and read 36921 times.

Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 17):

Remember that Boeing builds F-15's and F-18's, both of which have folding wings to fit beneath the flight deck of aircraft carriers. Equally I have never heard of an instance when a fighters wings being compromised during dog fighting exercises/missions so my guess is that it should be just fine.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-14 00:33:47 and read 35765 times.

Aspire Aviation has an excellent analysis on the 777X.

- 800lbs weight penalty for 777X folding wingtip, compared to 3,200lbs for 777-200 study in 1995
- Folding wingtip contains no moveable parts, to be operated electrically
- 777X has same wing span as 777-300ER on the ground & stay as ‘Code E’ aircraft, ‘Code F’ on runway & in the air
- Folding wingtip to be certified in ‘folded up’ position
- 777X wing boasts ’4th-generation’ CFRP wing, 12% better L/D than -300ER
- No engine decision being made for 777X, originally due in December
- 21% lower block fuel burn per seat and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat over today’s -300ER

Full article: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...87-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/

[Edited 2013-02-14 00:34:12]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-14 00:34:08 and read 35706 times.

Looks like variable-sweep wings...

...wait, this is the Boeing color scheme...


This picture doesn't show the folded wingtips, does it?


David

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: TP313
Posted 2013-02-14 01:31:48 and read 34359 times.

If/when launched, this would be the perfect 744 replacement.

Has anyone here estimated how the CASM numbers of the 388 do against the 779X CASM?
Maybe it is time for Airbus to start seriously working on an A389...

I don't even talk about the 748i, because the minute the 779X is launched the 748i is dead.

OTOH it don't see much of a market for the 778X...

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-02-14 01:52:09 and read 33868 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 21):
Remember that Boeing builds F-15's and F-18's, both of which have folding wings to fit beneath the flight deck of aircraft carriers.

Nitpick:
1) F-15s are not naval fighters and do not need/have folding wings. A version for the navy was proposed but it got nowhere.
2) The reasons for the folding wings of carrier-borne aircraft are multifold; they save space in the tight confines of both the flight deck and the hanger bay, and to better fit in the elevators between the flight deck and hanger. The last is of utmost importance as the lifts' dimensions dictatate what it can physically accomodate.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: RubberJungle
Posted 2013-02-14 02:04:46 and read 34178 times.

No six-wheel bogie on the 787-10 main gear either.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Jack
Posted 2013-02-14 02:11:01 and read 34073 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):
- 21% lower block fuel burn per seat and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat over today’s -300ER

How much of this is due to the increased size/number of passengers that can be carried and how does this compare to the A350-1000?

If, and I guess a big if, Airbus can do a A350-1100 then the 777-9X could turn out to be the next A340-600. A great plane but undone by an even better one.

[Edited 2013-02-14 02:15:04]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-02-14 02:19:10 and read 34645 times.

Quoting Jack (Reply 27):
How much of this is due to the increased size/number of passengers that can be carried and how does this compare to the A350-1000?

I have modeled both, I prefer to compare their fuel burn per 1000nm and m2 to get by the hazzle of seating. In such a case the 350-1000 is at 41.3 kg/knm/m2 and the 779X at 39.5 kg/knm/m2. Pretty damn close. They are both in the 8400nm - 8500nm spec range, one in detailed design and the other in ppt design = your mileage may vary  (for both  Wow! ) .

The attractive part with the 779X is that it seats 50 pax more and more LD3s, ie it will be the true gap filler to the A380 in the market (the 748 is dead then). I think part of McNerneys playing down the availability of the 779X was to give the 748i a second chance to close some sales campaigns, seems to not have worked thus the re-vindication of the 779X availability now. Todays A380 is at 50 kg/knm/m2 so it will feel the heat of the 779X as well come 2020.

[Edited 2013-02-14 02:27:01]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: TP313
Posted 2013-02-14 03:17:31 and read 33144 times.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 23):
Has anyone here estimated how the CASM numbers of the 388 do against the 779X CASM?
Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
Todays A380 is at 50 kg/knm/m2 so it will feel the heat of the 779X as well come 2020.

Well, that addresses my doubt...

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: garpd
Posted 2013-02-14 03:30:24 and read 32772 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 24):
Nitpick:
1) F-15s are not naval fighters and do not need/have folding wings. A version for the navy was proposed but it got nowhere.
2) The reasons for the folding wings of carrier-borne aircraft are multifold; they save space in the tight confines of both the flight deck and the hanger bay, and to better fit in the elevators between the flight deck and hanger. The last is of utmost importance as the lifts' dimensions dictatate what it can physically accomodate.


In this case, it doesn't matter why the wings fold. I think what rotating14 was trying to impress upon is us that Boeing has experience with folding wings which endure far higher G-Forces than a passenger jets wings should ever encounter. Therefore they should know what they are doing.

In fact, I'm willing to bet the mechanism involved will probably be identical to that on the F18 (with a few teaks and extra fail safes.)

[Edited 2013-02-14 03:33:35]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: SASMD82
Posted 2013-02-14 03:39:43 and read 32582 times.

Quoting bkircher (Reply 14):

I still don't see the point in an upgraded 777

Actually me neither. With the 77W still selling as hot cakes and with a backlog of so many frames, is it really feasible to go for a 777NG before 2020? I see a point of restarting the Y projects (or starting to think about a new 150-220 seats air frame).

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: travelavnut
Posted 2013-02-14 03:55:05 and read 32243 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Folding wingtip to be certified in ‘folded up’ position

Does this mean they will actually fly with them folded up? That must look really awesome 

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: something
Posted 2013-02-14 04:11:09 and read 31761 times.

Can someone with greater insight to the intricacies of engineering explain to me why those wingtips would fold up instead of down? I would imagine that the mechanism required to move them would be equal, but that it'd require less reinforcement of the wingarea if the tips folded downwards because their ''hinges'' would prevent them from snapping upwards once airborne. No?

By the by... 2/3 of the rendering are boring aircraft. The other third doesn't sell.  

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 04:22:44 and read 31346 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option.

The original proposal was a far heavier and far more complex version of the one proposed for the 777X. There are no control surfaces in the section that is being folded up.

Quoting bkircher (Reply 14):
I still don't see the point in an upgraded 777.

Isn't it obvious? It's two fold: First, to counter the threat from the A350-1000. Second, to cater to the increasing demand for larger long ranged twin jets than the 777-300ER. The fact that some airlines are beginning to cram as many seats as they can into a 777-300ER is an indication that a bigger plane is needed. As the A350-1000 is roughly the same length as the 777-300ER, and narrower, it doesn't fulfil that demand.

Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 16):
what effects could it bring forth if said mechanism was to fail in flight?

Presumably it will simply stay locked down and not fold up after landing.

Quoting Jack (Reply 26):
If, and I guess a big if, Airbus can do a A350-1100

I think that's as unlikely as a further stretch to the 787 beyond the -10. There are limits to how far an airframe can be stretched before it begins to be compromised by weight.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 30):
is it really feasible to go for a 777NG before 2020?

Why not? The 777-300ER might be selling like hot cakes now, but that could change when the A350XWB enters service. For Boeing to stay competitive in this segment, they need to launch the 777X.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-02-14 04:26:16 and read 31210 times.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 31):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Folding wingtip to be certified in ‘folded up’ position

Does this mean they will actually fly with them folded up? That must look really awesome 

Yup, maybe a new type of anti lift device!

But on a serious note: I can see a lot of airlines that will be hesitant to take them with folding wingtips. This is a serious leap in technology, and one that will be slightly uncomfortable for the less adventurous airline executive. Especially after whats happened with the 787. Not saying that its Boeing's fault or that the problem won't eventually be solved, but it just makes one risk averse. Why take an airplane which is using untested technology on a commercial jetliner when you can take another one which is far less "innovative" and sticks to the basic tried and tested formula, i.e. A350

Case in point, the current 777. As many have mentioned it has already been offered with folding wingtips in order to lower aircraft ICAO class, yet no one opted for it? Boeing needs to make this aircraft competitive with non-folding wingtips, i.e. as a class F aircraft so that those who are hesitant about taking it with the folding wingtip will still see a competitive cost effective aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 04:32:46 and read 31024 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 34):
As many have mentioned it has already been offered with folding wingtips in order to lower aircraft ICAO class, yet no one opted for it?

The two concepts are different. No one opted for folding wingtips on the original 777 because of the weight and fuel capacity penalty. The 777X folding wingtip mechanism weighs less (363kg vs 1,450kg for the original, according to the Aspire Aviation article linked to in Reply 21) and does not carry a fuel capacity penalty.

[Edited 2013-02-14 04:34:21]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-14 04:34:55 and read 31053 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 33):
I think that's as unlikely as a further stretch to the 787 beyond the -10. There are limits to how far an airframe can be stretched before it begins to be compromised by weight.

   John Leahy already stated that there will be no further stretch beyond the -1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-02-14 04:47:52 and read 30710 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Quoting bkircher (Reply 15):
I still don't see the point in an upgraded 777.

Competition from the A350.

Agree that A350 is giving the 777X the push it needs to be done sooner rather than later. A350 will have state of the art engines and the GE90s of the 777W are due for a re-do.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
I think part of McNerneys playing down the availability of the 779X was to give the 748i a second chance to close some sales campaigns, seems to not have worked thus the re-vindication of the 779X availability now.

Keep in mind that Boeing's disappointment with 748 is shared with GE, who isn't shifting as many GEnX's as hoped.

Quoting something (Reply 32):
Can someone with greater insight to the intricacies of engineering explain to me why those wingtips would fold up instead of down?

Would seem to be the best from the point of view of safety of ground handlers and to avoid dings from all the various vehicles scurrying around the ramp.

Also allows one to not worry about taking out runway lights, signage, etc whilst taxiing.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 777sigfan
Posted 2013-02-14 05:49:41 and read 28826 times.

Impressive looking lineup there, sadly as many other have noted the launch of the 9X will render the 8i dead. However do you think the launch of the 787-10 will do the same to the 777W? Or is it aimed at a different market segment?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 05:55:43 and read 28692 times.

Quoting 777sigfan (Reply 38):
Or is it aimed at a different market segment?

It's aimed at a different market. The 777-300ER will have roughly 1000nm more range than the 787-10, not to mention the fact that the 777-300ER is bigger - the fuselage is both longer and wider than the 787-10.

The 787-10 is a medium to long range A330-300 replacement. It is not as big nor as capable as a 777-300ER.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-02-14 05:55:46 and read 28628 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35):
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 34):
As many have mentioned it has already been offered with folding wingtips in order to lower aircraft ICAO class, yet no one opted for it?

The two concepts are different. No one opted for folding wingtips on the original 777 because of the weight and fuel capacity penalty. The 777X folding wingtip mechanism weighs less (363kg vs 1,450kg for the original, according to the Aspire Aviation article linked to in Reply 21) and does not carry a fuel capacity penalty.

OK Thanks for the clarification. But from my vantage point I still feel that there will be companies that are hesitant to take on this new technology regardless of costs, simply because of the risk averse nature of some companies (especially those in ME and Asia). So that's why I feel Boeing needs to ensure that this aircraft is still competitive if it operates in the Class F size category.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
Quoting something (Reply 32):
Can someone with greater insight to the intricacies of engineering explain to me why those wingtips would fold up instead of down?

Would seem to be the best from the point of view of safety of ground handlers and to avoid dings from all the various vehicles scurrying around the ramp.

Also allows one to not worry about taking out runway lights, signage, etc whilst taxiing.

Might also be the case that with the wingtip folding upwards if the system failed it would cause the wing tip to naturally drop into the extended position, or mechanics may be able to release safety latches and lower the wing tip into the extended position which would allow for the continuation of operations, albeit at a slightly higher cost. With the wingtip folding downward there would have to be a system to keep it up, with undesirable consequences if it failed.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 06:04:41 and read 28348 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 40):
Boeing needs to ensure that this aircraft is still competitive if it operates in the Class F size category.

Why wouldn't it be? If Boeing produces a folding wingtip for the 777X so it can fit in Class E airports and gates, then the only penalty is a little weight and a little complexity. If Boeing do not offer a folding wingtip, it will be a little lighter. The difference in weight is almost negligible, thus the difference in performance is also going to be negligible.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-02-14 06:14:54 and read 28040 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 41):
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 40):
Boeing needs to ensure that this aircraft is still competitive if it operates in the Class F size category.

Why wouldn't it be? If Boeing produces a folding wingtip for the 777X so it can fit in Class E airports and gates, then the only penalty is a little weight and a little complexity. If Boeing do not offer a folding wingtip, it will be a little lighter. The difference in weight is almost negligible, thus the difference in performance is also going to be negligible.

True. I think I simply thought that the difference in being able to operate the aircraft in as a class E aircraft within an airport would lower airport charges, but then its based on weight and not size, so it makes no difference. And in any case most major airports today are ready for Class F anyway after the A380s introduction. I guess Airbus better get it right with the 350-1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: something
Posted 2013-02-14 06:17:15 and read 27987 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 40):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
Quoting something (Reply 32):
Can someone with greater insight to the intricacies of engineering explain to me why those wingtips would fold up instead of down?

Would seem to be the best from the point of view of safety of ground handlers and to avoid dings from all the various vehicles scurrying around the ramp.

Also allows one to not worry about taking out runway lights, signage, etc whilst taxiing.

Might also be the case that with the wingtip folding upwards if the system failed it would cause the wing tip to naturally drop into the extended position, or mechanics may be able to release safety latches and lower the wing tip into the extended position which would allow for the continuation of operations, albeit at a slightly higher cost. With the wingtip folding downward there would have to be a system to keep it up, with undesirable consequences if it failed.

My understanding of physics is admittedly not in excess of the bare basics, but if such a wingtip were locked into ''flight'' position - wouldn't it be kept that way once airborne and conversely, be pushed upwards by the lift the wing generates back into somewhere between the ''flight'' and folded-up-resting position? If wings droop downwards, the lift will bend them upwards. If they were to be bent upwards, force would be required to keep them down during flight, no?

I understand the ground clearance argument and considered that possibility myself - it just surprises me that potential negligence of ramp staff is concerned in the design of airliners. If wingspan is only an issue at the stands, the wings could remain extended until entering the parking position.

Again, I have no idea what I am talking about here. I just assume (intuitively) that it'd require incredible force - ie, reinforcements of the wing - to keep that wing-tip from being pushed upwards during the flight. Even more so in heavy turbulence. That ''lock'' would have to be incredible strong (= heavy) if the leverage from the wingtip all the way to the lock inside the wing is considered. If the wingtips were to simply flap down, the force of the lift would be absorbed by the hinges of the wingtips. Those will exist either way.

It would be nice seeing this become a reality. Maybe even on an eventual A380-1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-02-14 06:48:42 and read 26972 times.

Quoting Jack (Reply 26):
If, and I guess a big if, Airbus can do a A350-1100 then the 777-9X could turn out to be the next A340-600. A great plane but undone by an even better one

Why do you assume that a stretched A350-1000 would be so much more efficient than a 777-9X? The A350-1000 is already testing the limits as a stretch, and some airlines have spoken up about their unhappiness with the specs for its performance. If the A3510 is such a great airplane, then why are airlines like EK pleading with Boeing to launch the 779X? Do you really think stretching it again would be that simple, without running into weight and performance problems? Personally, I think the -1100 would be the A346 of the bunch, not the 779X. By trying to cover too much territory, Airbus would have 2 under-performing planes (A358 & A3511), an excellent one (A359) and a very good one (A3510)

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: vzlet
Posted 2013-02-14 06:56:50 and read 26753 times.

I'm always surprised at how simple and small most wing folding/locking mechanisms are. (And, in most cases, they're responsible for much more than just the tip.)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Carlisle

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 07:16:07 and read 26014 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 42):
I think I simply thought that the difference in being able to operate the aircraft in as a class E aircraft within an airport would lower airport charges, but then its based on weight and not size, so it makes no difference.

The reason for folding wingtips is to allow the 777X to fit into the same gates as the 777 family does without airlines or airports needing to adjust the position of adjacent aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-02-14 07:28:38 and read 25631 times.

Will the 777-x sport the new gtf type engines? I've read that the gtf engines are believed to become more efficient as they increase in size - if so, the 777-x would have a tremendous advantage using gtf technology.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 07:32:25 and read 25540 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 47):
Will the 777-x sport the new gtf type engines?

Pratt has stated they will not develop a GTF for the 777X. Rolls appears ready to bid, but I expect Boeing will sole-source with GE using the GE9X (or a derivative thereof).

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 3rdGen
Posted 2013-02-14 07:50:54 and read 24912 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 44):
My understanding of physics is admittedly not in excess of the bare basics, but if such a wingtip were locked into ''flight'' position - wouldn't it be kept that way once airborne and conversely, be pushed upwards by the lift the wing generates back into somewhere between the ''flight'' and folded-up-resting position?

Absolutely, didn't think about that.

Does anyone have any idea about the proposed lengths of the -8X and -9X? I have also read about a proposed Extend rang -8LX, that will have the longest range of any aircraft in service. Just wondering what differences Boeing will incorporate in the -8LX to give it the range advantage over the -8X?

[Edited 2013-02-14 07:52:39]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-02-14 08:00:15 and read 24591 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
I expect Boeing will sole-source with GE using the GE9X (or a derivative thereof).

Seems that GE9X is coming along just fine.

AvWeek: General Electric Moves Forward With Technology Tests For GE9X Engine. By Guy Norris says in part:

Quote:

Although GE also is reluctant to give schedule details, it is expected to run the first version of a new core for the GE9X as early as 2014. A final “Toll Gate 6” decision on freezing the design likely will take place around 2015, with the first engine going to test in 2016. Given this timing, the engine would be tested on GE’s Boeing 747-400 flying testbed in 2017, with certification the following year.

Among several key technology maturation tests leading to the design of the new core is the planned evaluation of a 27:1 pressure ratio, high-pressure compressor design. The initial version of an 11-stage unit will be tested at GE’s Oil and Gas facility in Massa, Italy, in mid-2013, and will be the highest-pressure (HP) ratio compressor of its type yet developed for a GE commercial engine.

...

The overall pressure ratio for the entire GE9X is similarly targeted at an extremely ambitious 60:1, compared with 50:1 for the GEnx and 40:1 for the GE90.

...

As well as improved aerodynamics in the compressor and turbine, the project aims to leverage advances in materials, such as next-generation powder metal alloys and ceramic matrix composites, to help bridge the gap between the GEnx and Boeing’s performance goal for the 777X.

“If we start with a scaled GEnx-1B, we get about half-way to what Boeing is asking us to do for the 777X,” Millhaem says. The 777X is targeting fuel burn that is about 10% lower than that of the current GE90-115B-powered 777, while maintaining existing maintenance costs.

Other work is focused on a fourth-generation fan that will operate at higher speed than the current engine. “We’re also going to thinner blades, which allows us to take weight out,” Millhaem adds.

Sounds like everything an enginista could ever want!

You can even sign up to work on it: http://www.linkedin.com/jobs/jobs-GE9X-High-Pressure-4780567

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 08:00:56 and read 24642 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 49):
Does anyone have any idea about the proposed lengths of the -8X and -9X?

777-8 Length - 69.5m
777-9 Length - 76.5m

For comparison:

777-200LR Length – 63.7m
777-300ER Length – 73.9m

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 08:26:28 and read 23749 times.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 49):
I have also read about a proposed Extend rang -8LX, that will have the longest range of any aircraft in service. Just wondering what differences Boeing will incorporate in the -8LX to give it the range advantage over the -8X?

Higher thrust engines and higher MTOW.

Incidentally, I don't think the base 777-8X will see the light of day considering that it is very closely aligned with the 787-10 which can do most of its missions. However, the 777-8LX is a different story as it will have sufficiently long range for ultra long haul missions and/or the payload/range capability to haul a lot of cargo a long way. The current 777-200LR has an MSP range of approximately 7500nm, so I'd expect the 777-8LX to at least match that level of performance. I suspect that the 777-8LX will also form the basis of a future 777-8F.

[Edited 2013-02-14 08:28:24]

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: SCAT15F
Posted 2013-02-14 08:29:06 and read 23658 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 48):
but I expect Boeing will sole-source with GE using the GE9X (or a derivative thereof).

I hope not, because at this stage, anyway, the RB-3025 concept is looking to have the edge in performance over a GE9X...

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: ckfred
Posted 2013-02-14 09:11:02 and read 22417 times.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option. Now that the wing span will be even higher, I am very curious if we will see the folding wingtips in reality.

IIRC, it was AA that inquired about the possibility of a folding wingtip. Boeing designed it. Then, AA went with the MD-11, because McDonnell Douglas was going to get planes sooner to AA than Boeing could get 777s.

Needless to say, Boeing was more that just a bit peeved. Yet, Boeing got the last laugh, since AA wound up replacing its MD-11 fleet with 772s.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 09:49:14 and read 21234 times.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 54):
IIRC, it was AA that inquired about the possibility of a folding wingtip.

I believe DL was interested, as well:

Model of 777-200 with Folding Wingtips in DL Colors




Quoting ckfred (Reply 54):
Boeing designed it. Then, AA went with the MD-11, because McDonnell Douglas was going to get planes sooner to AA than Boeing could get 777s. Needless to say, Boeing was more that just a bit peeved.

I do not believe it went beyond the concept stage. To my knowledge, they never built a physical model and the idea was dropped while the 777-200 was still in the design phase as the wing was subsequently modified to support higher weights for the 777-200ER model.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-02-14 10:02:20 and read 20793 times.

Quote:
Although GE also is reluctant to give schedule details, it is expected to run the first version of a new core for the GE9X as early as 2014. A final “Toll Gate 6” decision on freezing the design likely will take place around 2015, with the first engine going to test in 2016. Given this timing, the engine would be tested on GE’s Boeing 747-400 flying testbed in 2017, with certification the following year.

If I understand correctly, late 2017 timeframe is provisionally reserved for GE9X cold weather testing in their new Winnipeg icing test facility, which btw is rated to max 150000 lbs of thrust, and 150 in fan diameters. . . .   
(not suggesting though that will be required for GE9X)

http://www.geaviation.com/press/other/other_20121126.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...acility-in-winnipeg-canada-368726/

Rgds,
PW100

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Aerowrench
Posted 2013-02-14 10:48:06 and read 19401 times.

Quoting prost (Reply 1):
Any idea how much additional weight the folding wingtip would have vs. the benefit a longer wing provides the aircraft?

They would be too heavy and negate the purpose for a longer wing.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: N14AZ
Posted 2013-02-14 11:45:07 and read 17830 times.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option. Now that the wing span will be even higher, I am very curious if we will see the folding wingtips in reality.

IIRC, the original folding wingtip was a much larger section that included all or part of the aileron. This would have been much heavier than the proposed folding tip for the 777-X, and was intended to allow the 777 to fit into the same gate as a DC-10 or 767.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 33):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option.

The original proposal was a far heavier and far more complex version of the one proposed for the 777X. There are no control surfaces in the section that is being folded up.
Quoting ckfred (Reply 54):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 5):
Boeing offered the folding wingtips for the current T7 as well but not a single T7-operator implemented this option. Now that the wing span will be even higher, I am very curious if we will see the folding wingtips in reality.

IIRC, it was AA that inquired about the possibility of a folding wingtip. Boeing designed it. Then, AA went with the MD-11, because McDonnell Douglas was going to get planes sooner to AA than Boeing could get 777s.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
Quoting ckfred (Reply 54):
IIRC, it was AA that inquired about the possibility of a folding wingtip.

I believe DL was interested, as well:

I have just been told that Boeing actually did NOT offer the folding wing. It was something they analysed during the design phase but finally it was not offered as an option (and this fits quit well to Ckfred's contribution above).

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-02-14 12:08:00 and read 17247 times.

I'm incredibly curious on the engine. IMHO Boeing will go with a 787 deal with two engine vendors. The investment is too high for 3 vendors. There is a chance of a sole source...

Quoting PW100 (Reply 10):
The again, one could also argue that the customers just have to live with the extra wingspan, have the airports adapt their gates, and let the airlines enjoy the extra benefit of the wingspan, without the weight penalty of the folding mechanism.

Airport real estate is expensive. Many airports would only build a few new gates pushing sales to the A350. I do not think Boeing had a choice.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
- 800lbs weight penalty for 777X folding wingtip, compared to 3,200lbs for 777-200 study in 1995

   I'll be impressed when Boeing achieves their goal.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
- Folding wingtip to be certified in %u2018folded up%u2019 position

They would have to be as well as the 'one failed' scenario.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
- 777X wing boasts %u20194th-generation%u2019 CFRP wing, 12% better L/D than -300ER

   Nice and a few percent better than I expected.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
- 21% lower block fuel burn per seat and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat over today%u2019s -300ER

I wonder how much of that is the weight savings. The 777 wing has always had room for weight savings (or MTOW increase... think of it how you wish). Combined with a more efficient engine... It will be a great platform.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
I believe DL was interested, as well:

   It was so the 772 could operate out of LGA and be a bit more flexible with gates.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: jet-lagged
Posted 2013-02-14 12:27:48 and read 16668 times.

Heaven forbid and of course Boeing will design against it, but what if one of these wing tips came off in midair - takeoff/landing or cruising - would that be catastrophic or recoverable?

I don't know wing design, so perhaps loss of such wingtips happens only with wing loss. But IIRC very very occasionally today's smaller commercial jet tips go missing. Unless I'm wrong about that.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-14 12:36:25 and read 16433 times.

Quoting jet-lagged (Reply 60):
Heaven forbid and of course Boeing will design against it, but what if one of these wing tips came off in midair - takeoff/landing or cruising - would that be catastrophic or recoverable?

Loss of the tip would not affect any of the control surfaces (as they both do not extend to the folding tip nor would any hydraulic or control systems run that far) so I would expect that it would impose minimal impact on flight. Aircraft have shed their wingtip fences and winglets without incident, and this would be similar, I imagine.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Devilfish
Posted 2013-02-14 12:43:11 and read 16316 times.

Well, they say Boeing is confident of launching the 777X...though non-committal on the folding wingtips.....

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_02_14_2013_p0-548819.xml

Quote:
"Boeing said Wednesday it plans to bring its next-generation 777X jet into service by the end of the decade, a time frame that had come under question after remarks from the company’s chief executive last year.

At the same time, sources familiar with the design confirmed that the 777X design is expected to have folding wingtips, a novel feature that would allow bigger wings to fit into the same-sized airport parking space as the current 777.

'We have not changed our schedule,' said Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said at a conference in Seattle organized by the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance. 'We’re focused on these airplanes coming to the market late in the decade.'

However, Tinseth declined to confirm that the 777X design included folding wings."

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-14 17:48:03 and read 15210 times.

Quoting Aerowrench (Reply 57):
They would be too heavy and negate the purpose for a longer wing.

No, it won't be. As has been mentioned before in this thread, the weight difference is minimal.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 58):
I have just been told that Boeing actually did NOT offer the folding wing.

That depends on how you define the word "offer". My understanding is that it was "offered" as an option that the airlines were free to take up, although no 777 was ever built, tested or certified with the folding wingtip as no airline chose that option. As such, it never went beyond conceptual stage. But a design for it did exist and all that remained to be done if an airline chose that option was to test and certify it.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 62):
though non-committal on the folding wingtips

As the 777X hasn't reached design freeze yet, anything is possible. Folding wingtips remain a possibility.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-02-14 21:06:11 and read 14825 times.

Hey folks,

I came across this link that has some good info on the 777x. Opinions?


http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...87-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-02-14 23:16:20 and read 14446 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 64):

That link was posted earlier in the thread:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21):
Aspire Aviation has an excellent analysis on the 777X.

- 800lbs weight penalty for 777X folding wingtip, compared to 3,200lbs for 777-200 study in 1995
- Folding wingtip contains no moveable parts, to be operated electrically
- 777X has same wing span as 777-300ER on the ground & stay as ‘Code E’ aircraft, ‘Code F’ on runway & in the air
- Folding wingtip to be certified in ‘folded up’ position
- 777X wing boasts ’4th-generation’ CFRP wing, 12% better L/D than -300ER
- No engine decision being made for 777X, originally due in December
- 21% lower block fuel burn per seat and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat over today’s -300ER

Full article: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/0...87-10-unfazed-by-787-battery-woes/

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-02-15 15:35:15 and read 13292 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 22):
This picture doesn't show the folded wingtips, does it?

The 777-9 is the middle aircraft - what looks like winglets are the wingtips in the folded position.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
I do not believe it went beyond the concept stage. To my knowledge, they never built a physical model and the idea was dropped while the 777-200 was still in the design phase as the wing was subsequently modified to support higher weights for the 777-200ER model.

Wasn't one of the wingtips on the wing-load test frame built in the "folding" configuration?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-15 18:21:34 and read 12792 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 66):
Wasn't one of the wingtips on the wing-load test frame built in the "folding" configuration?

Not to my knowledge. The concept was dropped before Boeing finished the wing design (which would have happened before static testing).

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: rwessel
Posted 2013-02-15 21:01:37 and read 12391 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 67):
Not to my knowledge. The concept was dropped before Boeing finished the wing design (which would have happened before static testing).

So I did a bit of searching, and there are a number of articles and threads out there that mention it. A couple of examples:

http://archives.sensorsmag.com/articles/0296/777/index.htm

777-300 Folding Wings (by Gnieob797 Dec 4 2006 in Civil Aviation)

As to the relationship those have to reality...

And if the idea was dropped before the wing design was finalized, why was there still that break in the tankage?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-02-15 23:04:00 and read 12164 times.

Quoting something (Reply 32):
Can someone with greater insight to the intricacies of engineering explain to me why those wingtips would fold up instead of down?

It's not that intricate, if they folded down they would hit the ground.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2013-02-16 00:55:02 and read 11887 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 33):
It's two fold:

lol, one on each wing?
Is max payload increased in the 779x or is it too early to know yet?

Fred

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-02-16 04:44:51 and read 11559 times.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 70):
Is max payload increased in the 779x or is it too early to know yet?

FlightGlobal predicts that the 777-9X will have a 344t MTOW - 7t lower than the 777-300ER. It will have to tank less fuel for any given trip thanks to its lower fuel burn. OEW is not yet known, but given the use of CFRP on the wings and possibly Al-Li fuselage skins, I wouldn't imagine that it'd be much higher, if at all, than the 777-300ER, despite the increase in length and wingspan.

So I guess the answer to that is it's too early to tell.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-02-16 07:23:51 and read 11171 times.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 68):
So I did a bit of searching, and there are a number of articles and threads out there that mention it.

Looks like it did happen then.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: 777wt
Posted 2013-02-16 08:33:50 and read 10985 times.

I can see this coming...

Pilots advance thrust levers to TO power and the aural warning going off saying "No takeoff wing tip!, no takeoff wing tip!"

 

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-02-16 11:51:16 and read 10554 times.

Sorry to drift off topic, but if Boeing is drawing up mock 777-9x's, where does the -8x fall into the equation?

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-02-16 12:03:37 and read 10461 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 74):

Sorry to drift off topic, but if Boeing is drawing up mock 777-9x's, where does the -8x fall into the equation?

That's what I was wondering.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2013-02-16 13:06:02 and read 10224 times.

Quoting 777wt (Reply 73):
Pilots advance thrust levers to TO power and the aural warning going off saying "No takeoff wing tip!, no takeoff wing tip!"

If it was an Airbus, it would first call them RETARD RETARD.

Topic: RE: Boeing Shows First 777-9X Rendering
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-02-17 11:13:53 and read 9173 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 74):
Sorry to drift off topic, but if Boeing is drawing up mock 777-9x's, where does the -8x fall into the equation?

With a length of 69.5m the 777-8X should be longer than the 787-10X (about 68m) and shorter than the 777-300ER (about 74m).


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/