Il76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 46 Posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
I notice that there are a lot of 777-fans in this forum! :-) I'd just like to say that I don't think it's very pretty... I'm not trying to start an argument here, because one can't discuss taste.
But I hope that some company will design a new 3-engined plane soon!!! Who knows? Embraer, Bombardier, ATR...?? They're all expanding towards the bigger types of airplanes. It's only a matter of time before we'll have more than 2 big airplanebuilders!! Imagine a 300 seat Embraer!!
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4488 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
There do seem to be a lot of people who like the 777. Some of them I feel are just bandwagoners who like the newest aircraft or what is a buzz word. Oh, well. It is a good aircraft but it is not a world beater.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Zmey Gorynich From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
yes, that' right- some people just wil follow the lead and will listen to whatever their older "brothers" have to say- as for me, yes, you may hang me, but I do like 777. why?
I do not really know.
I first got involved in 1993, when I got a book about 777 and then I just followed it all the way until it made first flight and then- 777-300 and so forth. 777 is a 90%-computer-made plane, you know? it is slick, it is proportional, etc. go ahead- kill me now! : )
*tearing the seaman's shirt on my chest and throwing a grenade underneath of the tank*
P.S> I like Il-76 also- probably because we lost both engines on the right side and still anded without a scratch ; )
AF777 From Canada, joined Jun 1999, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
I do like the 777 and liked it well before I started talking with others about it. I like it for many reasons:
I do like the exterior, I think it is graceful and its size is impressive. Plus the fact that it is completely round it interesting. Personally I do not like tri-jets as I don't like the bulkyness of the third engine.
I am a big fan of interiors, and the 777 interior is beautiful. It is sleek and curved. Its not chunky and it has plenty of headroom. Plus it is almost as wide as a 747 with the configuration of the MD-11, so it has etra wide seats.
I is also wonderful to fly in, it is powerful and sturdy, and is confortable.
NAVION From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1020 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
I like the 777 because it is such an outstanding performer. It hauls a massive amount of cargo as well as passengers and it does it faster than the A340 (which is a good airplane itself). On a trip from the U.S. to the Orient, the 777 can arrive almost an hour ahead of the A340. Plus, no matter what anyone says, 2 engines are easier to account for than 4 (this includes you 747 and A340. Finally, only the 747 has a wider cross-section than the 777. What a machine!!!
DLAIR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
First of all, I do LIKE the 777. As most of you know, it is my second favourite plane (behind the Concorde). I like the 777, because as a frequent flyer, the seats are comfortable, the ride is smooth, and much more. The reason, if you didnt know already, Boeing made the 777 because they wanted an aircraft between the size of a 747 and a 767, but with longer range.
YMQ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Quebecair made a slight mistake about Bombardier's plans. The 100 seat they are planning is not another streched version of the actual CRJ. They're starting a new design from scratch because they need a wider body. What they have in mind is a 5 seat/row. But I doubt VERY MUCH a 3rd company would get involved in building large aircafts.
Hmmmm From Sweden, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
I agree the 777 is nothing special to look at. But that is the case with everything these days. It's going to be hard to distinguish a 767-400 from a 777-200 or a 737-900 from a 767-200, or an A321 from a 757-200 or a Pontiac Sunbird from a Hyundai Elantra. I think a tri-jet might be the solution to the problem of the next jumbo idea and the problem of spotting at airports. Take a plane with a slightly larger capacity and size of a 747 but construct it as a trijet using the big P4060 engines of the 777, or even the next generation engine pushing out 80,000lbs of thrust. If they made the 777 with a third engine on the tail, a la L-1011 S-duct, think of what the capacity of that plane could be. They could stretch it and widen it to huge proportions, exceeding the 747-400. Three engines would make it more economical to operate than the 747 while also avoiding the ETOPS hassle of two engines which has cost the 777 some orders. I'd envision a trijet with about 1.1 millions lbs MTOW laid out like an L-1011 except twice the mass of the original L-1011. Too bad that's never going to happen.