Greaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1027 posts, RR: 5 Posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11196 times:
"The GE90-110-powered 777-200LR set a world record for a twinjet last week when it took off from SeaTac for stall tests at 783,000 lb., eclipsing the record of 774,600 lb. (351,300 kg.) set by the 777-300ER "
"The 777-200LR will be certified for a maximum 759,600-lb. takeoff weight."
"It also is probable that Boeing/GE will offer the 777-200LR with a 115,000-lb. thrust option to airlines like Emirates and Qantas, which are expected to order the aircraft.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2278 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11165 times:
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): "It also is probable that Boeing/GE will offer the 777-200LR with a 115,000-lb. thrust option to airlines like Emirates and Qantas, which are expected to order the aircraft.
And here we start the rumour mill again! For some reason the link between QF and the 777-200LR comes up every time again...
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2095 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11158 times:
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): It also is probable that Boeing/GE will offer the 777-200LR with a 115,000-lb. thrust option to airlines like Emirates and Qantas, which are expected to order the aircraft.
A very interesting quote indeed!
What would be the benefit of offering the GE-90-115 as opposed to the GE-90-110?
PANAM_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3088 posts, RR: 90 Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 11131 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): "It also is probable that Boeing/GE will offer the 777-200LR with a 115,000-lb. thrust option to airlines like Emirates and Qantas, which are expected to order the aircraft.
Good to see the certification and testing program is going well for the 772LR thus far. I'd like to know how many EK are looking at and whether they're considering both the 200LR & 200F. They maintained their interest in the press release that denied the report on the 50 A350 interest, though, if they go for that many A350s, how will that impact their interest in the 772LR, if at all?
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2095 posts, RR: 40 Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10678 times:
Quoting Greaser (Reply 4): Better hot n high performance? The -115 is a thrust booster to the -110
Yeah, the -115 is the 773ER powerplant. I can't imagine what the extra 500lbs would do other than perhaps push it a little further? I'm not really sure.
Quoting Udo (Reply 8): It's only a matter of time until another "now-they-can-finally-fly-LHR-SYD-LHR"-suggestion is thrown in...
LOL... Yeah, I can't wait!
Maybe if the 772LR performs extremely well in its certification test and they extend the performance specs by a significant margin!
Widebodyphotog From United States, joined Jun 1999, 916 posts, RR: 67 Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10514 times:
Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 11): Yeah, the -115 is the 773ER powerplant. I can't imagine what the extra 500lbs would do other than perhaps push it a little further? I'm not really sure
You mean an extra 5,000lb of thrust? 110,100lbt vs 115,300lbt It won't take the normal range out any farther but would increase allowable takeoff weight from hot and high airports, giving increased range or payload under those less than favorable conditions.
Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 13): 110,100lbt vs 115,300lbt It won't take the normal range out any farther but would increase allowable takeoff weight from hot and high airports, giving increased range or payload under those less than favorable conditions.
AS739X From United States, joined Apr 2003, 4400 posts, RR: 30 Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10452 times:
This seems typical of Boeing now w/ the 777. Here is what this plane can do, oh wait! Its can do better. Same thing with the 773ER when it was down at Edwards and crush the MTOW projections. 777 continuing to impress!
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10189 times:
Quite impressive. And to be honest, I prefer Boeing's way of improving a new plane's stats throughout the test flight process over giving out data showing how great a plane is that then can't achieve that data, like the MD-11, just to give an example.
AvFan4ever From United States, joined Feb 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9958 times:
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): "It also is probable that Boeing/GE will offer the 777-200LR with a 115,000-lb. thrust option to airlines like Emirates and Qantas, which are expected to order the aircraft.
I would defer to someone like Gigneil, but is it possible that the 772 airframe is limited to 110K lbs of thrust per side due to engine-out controllability issues in the yaw axis during takeoff/initial climb (reduced available rudder authority)?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7223 posts, RR: 42 Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9878 times:
Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 9): is there any city pairs where flying westward in both directions make sense?
Good question, Ken! Once worked it out, because I wanted to visit the USA and UK, couldn't get a booking eastbound, and had to go all the way round westbound (which, oddly enough, worked out cheaper, though longer, because of the low trans-Atlantic fares).
The answer is no, unfortunately - at least from here (South-Eastern Australia). The round-world midpoint is in the middle of the Atlantic. Might well work from somewhere else, though.
On the thread topic, I am lost in admiration for Boeing at the moment. What a difference from a couple of years ago - week by week, they just go ON pulling yet more rabbits out of the hat!
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Avek00 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 22 Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8923 times:
This is yet another example of my previous point about Boeing meeting and exceeding initial performance expectation, vs. another aircraft manufacturer who typically comes up short.
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a member of the Star Alliance network.
OldAeroGuy From United States, joined Dec 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 61 Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8739 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 21): This is yet another example of my previous point about Boeing meeting and exceeding initial performance expectation, vs. another aircraft manufacturer who typically comes up short.
Don't mistake what happens in flight test with certified, inservice airplane capabilities. Flight testing does not require certification strength factors. While the 772LR can operate just fine at 783K, the planned MTOW for the airplane is still 766K, barring a structural breakthrough.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8678 times:
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): "The GE90-110-powered 777-200LR set a world record for a twinjet last week when it took off from SeaTac for stall tests at 783,000 lb.
Good Lord, there are 747's out there that don't weight that much! That's awesome!
Quoting N328KF (Reply 19): Anyone think we'll see a 777-300F?
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 7223 posts, RR: 42 Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8676 times:
Agree entirely, Avek00 - if your engineers are good enough - and Boeing's certainly appear to be.
Quoting Joost (Reply 2): And here we start the rumour mill again! For some reason the link between QF and the 777-200LR comes up every time again...
Boeing have a map on their 777 site that shows that the ONLY city the 777-200LR can't link direct to any other city, world-wide, is Sydney. They can't do Melbourne either, but they left it off the map, blast them
But it's tantalisingly close - the distance, SYD/LHR, is just over 9,000 nms. Another few thousand pounds more fuel, another few knots on the speed, or a combination of both, and it would work. Every city in the world could be linked direct to any other city.
I suspect that Boeing are rising to the challenge. I only hope that Qantas do too.........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
N60659 From United States, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 50 Reply 25, posted (4 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8554 times:
Quoting Greaser (Thread starter): "The 777-200LR will be certified for a maximum 759,600-lb. takeoff weight."
Couple of quick questions:
(1) According to this document, the max. design takeoff weight was specified at 766,800 lbs. Does this mean that the certified MTOW just 7,200lbs below the initially specified design MTOW?
(2) I am assuming that the testing took place at the 110,000lb max thrust setting. If this is the case, by boosting the thrust setting to 115,000lb, would it be possible to increase the max. MTOW beyond the stated 783,000lbs?
Boeing's philosophy of managing expectations seems to be paying off big time - promise a lot and deliver more than promised.
-N60659
Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
26 OldAeroGuy: You may be surprised. Remember, the ACN order included two 777F.
27 NYC777: I think he was referring to a 777-300LRF not he 772LRF which AC is buying.
28 DAL767400ER: It actually does, and if the Jetstream is favorable, it sometimes also goes along the East Coast for a certain time. While that routing is longer, a
29 Jacobin777: now they can hopefully/finally flry LHR-SYD-LHR route...well at least one route....... ok, I'll go for it again.........I think QF might go for LHR-S
30 Lemurs: His point was in relation to a 773F however. That's a different creature. To get a good useable payload and range on that beast, I would imagine that
31 Avek00: For the 777NGs, things get EVEN BETTER once they go into service - JL and AF have been experiencing better-than-expected fuel consumption with the 77
32 OldAeroGuy: My bad. I don't think you'll see a 773ERF at all, unless there is a crying need from a package carrier. Remember the total payload capability by weig
33 Lemurs: Ok we all hate these, but I have to ask! If you equipped the belly tanks and significantly reduced MTOW, couldn't you do this R/T? I know, the SYD-LH
34 Glom: Cool. Has the 777 family gotten lots of good reviews?
35 Gigneil: According to FI from a few weeks back, what GE is actually planning is a 3000 pound thrust bump on the GE90-110B1. The article also said that it woul
36 N60659: The document I quoted was the Boeing document for Airport Planning for the 772LR/773ER. -N60659
37 NAV20: Personally, Lemurs, I'm absolutely certain that it would - and Melbourne as well. Especially with the option of a bedspace in the fuselage crown, whi
38 OldAeroGuy: The bill of materials for the two engines is identical with the exception of the rating plug. Makes engine maintenance and spares stocking easy if yo
39 ConcordeBoy: Probably not new-build. May eventually be a conversion program though. ....do Tokyo and Sao Paulo know that??
40 Baw716: The GE90-115 is 115,000lb per engine. So when two are strapped on the 777, it produces 230K lbs of thrust v. 220klbs of thrust from the GE90-110. The
41 N1120A: Well, aside from hot/high performance and shorter runway performance, the GE-90 has reliably held 127,500 pounds and EK has expressed much interest i
42 Jacobin777: sorry Lemurs, I don't know that exact facts and figures to do the calculations...they are very simple though (if some basic assumptions are made)
43 N60659: Anyone know what the published SFC is for the GE90-110B/-115B? -N60659
44 Zvezda: I agree with NAV20 that the SYD-LHR market (and the MEL-LHR market) would support a premium 200 seat B777-200LR configuration (2-2-2 Business Class an
45 Lemurs: Hmm I was doing the numbers and while you could probably cut 20,000lbs (30,000 if you're optimisitic) by dropping down to a 200 pax layout, I'm not su
46 Jacobin777: i probably agree..i was only taking the piss from the previous comments...
47 M27: As published in the tech. specs for the 200LR on Boeing's website, and as mentioned by Old Aero Guy, the MTOW is listed at 766,000lbs with the note th
48 NW727251ADV: Who do people on A.net continue to refer to ANY 777 as a "NG" or "Next Generation"??? There is no NEXT GENERATION 777 so when did this reference of "
49 Glideslope: This would be nothing new for a Boeing Design. As we all know, the 764 is the only Boeing to not meet or exceed it's design performance. This is a si
50 Incitatus: What is the best route for SYD-LHR considering winds??? Possibly fly straight out N-NE then overfly Anchorage, Alaska??? EWR-SIN does stranger things.
51 Schipholjfk: Lately BKK-JFK-BKK (Thai) has been going all Westerly direction. Around the world trip if you may!
52 Prebennorholm: No, that's not correct. Additional thrust means reduced minimum take-off runway requirement. No more, no less. Higher gross weight takes a lot more t
53 Lemurs: Actually I didn't think of that, but that would be another strike against a new-build 773F. If I remember right, the 772LR/773ER are right near the w
54 ConcordeBoy: 127,900lbs Been around forever... yes, it's not technically correct, but common enough as to be widely-accepted. Same for the A345 & A346. Same thing
55 Kangar: What exactly do you mean by design performance? Are you talking fuel efficiency, dispatch reliability, cargo capacity versus plan, what other metrics
56 DfwRevolution: It's not so much wing technology, though it could be debated, but the end product Airbus has to offer. In this case, the 777LR versus A340NG, the Boe
57 Flyabunch: ConcordeBoy: I know you have been back for a while. It wasn't the same without you. Good to have you back. Fred, I think you were the main reason I fi
58 Kangar: Where is the data saying Airbus missed their performance estimates for the A340NG? You have given me the dcomparative data off Airliners.net for these
59 OldAeroGuy: And Kangar, in addition to the DfwRevolution list above, Airbus also needs to explain why the "most efficient wings in the business" still manage to
60 NAV20: They'd go the other way, westbound, Incitatus. The Great Circle route heads up northabout, passes west of Korea, then heads over NW China, Mongolia,
61 Widebodyphotog: I've not seen SFC figures published, but in service GE90-115B's have seen .525-.530lb/lbt. A typical Trent 500 for comparison, has an SFC of .560-.56
62 Gigneil: And I was referring to the article that differed. Only if there's tank space for that extra fuel, which there isn't on either platform. They don't. T
63 M27: Widebodyphotog: Do you have any information, or can you comment on Reply no. 47? I am not familiar with the certification process and certainly have v
64 N60659: OK, I understand now. Didn't mean to be argumentative. Sorry. -N60659
65 Kangar: Old aero guy, having a plane with wings that produce a faster cruise does not necessarily translate to being efficient. Airbus optimised their wings f
66 AvFan4ever: Thanks for the info . . . it hasn't always been easy to get a straight answer on this. I wonder if the assymetrical thrust compensation system would
67 N1120A: The "NG" 777s are a way to differentiate the over 700,000 pound MTOW 777s It met it, it just wasn't very good Then how do you explain the 777 out doi
68 Kangar: N1120 A - How do I explain the 777 outdoing the A340 on what exactly? The 747-400 has the lowest seat mile costs of any aircraft currently only as lon
69 N1120A: Of course, but you have to remember that the 777 was originally designed as the smaller aircraft while the 747SP was a shrink of an older design as w
70 Kangar: N1120A, Please back up your stories with figures, they speak louder than any generalisation you make. Your ETOPs argument is incorrect. ETOPS operator
71 Keta: Congrats to Boeing! Wow that's an awesome plane, really love it!! How is that? Maybe the A343 didn't meet its design performance, but the lately desig
72 Widebodyphotog: For 777-200LR the Highest MTOW allowed is 766,000lbs. That higher weight comes with loading limitations that constrain CG limits when using that high
73 DAYflyer: I believe the 766K figure will be the official one, as they always build in some margins for safety purposes.
74 AvFan4ever: Interesting! Do you know for how long GE was able to sustain 127,900 lbs of thrust? I would also be interested to know what adverse effects such high
75 OldAeroGuy: The only routes I can think of where the A346 might have an advantage over the 773ER are across the South Pacific due the current ETOPS rules. This w
76 M27: Widebodyphotog: Thank you so much! Your explanation answers all the questions I had. Thanks again! Regards
77 Keta: No, sorry, all what I said was based in what a pilot said on this forum some time ago. He had some data, but I can't find anything. I'm just guessing
78 Glom: It's more of a quadratic. That's a different problem. There's the subsonic, the transonic, the supersonic and the hypersonic. Most airliners are in t
79 Glom: So are we officially calling the 772LR and 773ER the 777NG and the A345 and A346 the A340NG? About ETOPS compliance. Obviously maintenance costs drop
80 ConcordeBoy: That's not a fact, that's some crap you dreamed up and hoped no one would confront. There's several other factors to consider, they somewhat vary wit
81 Glom: So maintenance related costs are less on an ETOPS twin than a quad.
82 Widebodyphotog: Not to gang up on you, but this statement is off the mark. ETOPS requires an operator to maintain engines to a higher mechanical standard than non-ET
83 N60659: A very simple-minded question comes to mind: If more stringent standards of powerplant maintenance is the primary reason for the 2:1 dispatch ratio d
84 OldAeroGuy: Many airlines have come to the same conclusion that you have. They maintain all their aircraft according to ETOPS rules, independent of engine number
Sponsor Message: 
From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1027 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10193 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 2278 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2095 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States, joined Jun 1999, 168 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
