TranStar From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 524 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
Major differences. While the 767-400 has a number of engineering upgrades to reduce costs over previous versions, the 777 is an entirely different generation of technology. The basic 767 wing was designed in the mid to late 1970s. The 777's was designed in the late 1980's, early 1990s, and is significantly more efficient. The 777 was completely CAD (computer) designed.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
an A330-200 did that over the atlantic not so far back
...perhaps it should be added because the aircraft ran out of fuel due to ineptitude on behalf of its pilot, and especially, its maintenance crew-- something that would have rendered even an 8-engined B52 into a glider
MYT332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 74 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
It ran out of fuel because it had a fuel leak and the pilots tried to pump fuel from the left tanks into the right. The fuel never made it and went overboard instead, i already know.
If they hadn't have done that wouldn't they still have had one engine?
Regardless it was still a big glider which granted could happen to any aircraft.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2465 posts, RR: 32 Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1496 times:
"...ineptitude on behalf of its pilot...."
I would call Captian Pichet (spelling?) a hero. It wasnt his fault that there was a maintenance screw up. He saved hundreds of lives, there is no ineptitude in that. (Mind you, he technically may have made a mistake by transfering fuel into the leaking wing, but he didnt KNOW there was a leak. It was standard procedure to do what he did. AND, even if he hadnt, its likely that they still would have ran out of fuel anyways.) He is certainly a hero in my book, and everyone who was on that flight will agree with me. That I know.
DeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1698 posts, RR: 38 Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
"I wonder what happens if those (only) two huge 777 engines fail while flying over the pacific. Then you get the worlds biggest glider" <====what is the likelihood that this would happen? Chances are slim to none. What happens to an A300, A310, A330, 757, 767 if their engines fail in the middle of the Atlantic?
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1363 times:
The Boeing 777 has a much wider cabin, much more powerful and bigger engines, much longer range if an -ER model, is about 9 feet longer, has six-wheel main landing gear trucks. Also, the 777 has a much more 747-like size to it than the 764ER. Also, the 777 has a perfectly circular cross section, whereas the 764ER retains the traditional Boeing "double-bubble" shaped fuselage. In conclusion, while the same aircraft, and while the 777's design was based off the 767, they are two completely different aircraft. Need I say more? The looks, plans, technical specs clearly show a different fairy tale of two different aircraft, brothers borne at the same time by their mother, Boeing