Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Interesting B-777-x Developments  
User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 730 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 34522 times:

Hello all,

I ran across this article regarding the new line up Being is planning to offer. What caught my attention is the wingspan that the 777-9x is going to be the largest at 233.4 feet. Equally interesting the elimination of the "over the wing exit" to shave 1000 pounds. Just wanted to share with the rest of us aviation enthusiasts.

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...chooses-largest-wingspan-for-777x/

130 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 34356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I see Pratt is looking to offer the GTF.

And Boeing continues to explore Al-Li for the fuselage.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 34069 times:

In the thread linked below, I had assumed 234 feet wingspan based on a flightglobal article. 777-9X, even with 234 feet wingspan, has higher wingloading than A359 if my wingarea estimates for A359 and 777-9X are correct. 777-9X has less powerful engines normalised for MTOW. Numbers from the OP of the linked thread.
A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar 4 2012 in Tech Ops)

....................................A3510.......................B777-9X
Fuselage Length..............242..........................249 feet
Fuselage Width.................19.6........................20.33
Wingspan.......................213..........................234
Wingarea......................4767.........................5050 sq. feet(my estimate)
Seats(3 class).................350..........................407 (210 lbs. per passenger/baggage)


MTOW.....................679,000....................753,000 lbs.
MZFW......................485,000...................525,000
OEW........................335,000...................375,000 (my estimates)
MSP.........................150,000...................150,000
Design Range................8,400.....................8,200 nm (passenger only, and zero cargo)
List Price........................$309......................$320(?) million
Engine Thrust..............97,000...................99,500 lbf

Ratois
OEW/MTOW.....................0.49...........................0.50
OEW/MZFW......................0.69...........................0.71
MTOW/Wingarea............143............................149 (777 has higher wingloading)
MTOW/Thrust....................3.50...........................3.78 (A350-10 has more powerful engines normalised for MTOW)


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 33814 times:

Is it known whether this wingspan will apply to all 777-X variants, or just the -9? If it's a standard wing for all models then I can see it being problematic - as the article states such a span pushes the aircraft up into ICAO Code F. That's going to limit where and how frequently it can be used unless infrastructure is modified. Of course the folding wing option would solve that, which would be an interesting solution.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 33364 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Honestly, even though it will be a Code F airplane, integrating it into airports might not be that much of an issue.

It will still fit in an 80x80m box and with no outboard engines and the natural upward sweep, there will be no worries with FOD or clearance with runway/taxiway signage.

The only real concern I can see will be clearing other planes on the ramp during taxiing, but since one would expect a 777-9 to be only used at international gates, which are designed for large planes (747 / A380), again, it can probably be okay.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 31789 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The only real concern I can see will be clearing other planes on the ramp during taxiing, but since one would expect a 777-9 to be only used at international gates, which are designed for large planes (747 / A380), again, it can probably be okay.

Yes, this and parking (especially) would be the issue. The 777, 744, 340, 330 etc... are all code E and can be accommodated by a 65/70m wide stand - even the 748i can just squeeze in to the larger so long as taxiway separation permits access. Because of this the majority of wide body stands are 70m, it's only A380 stands which need to be wider. So if carriers like BA, CX, JL, NH etc... were to opt for the 71.14m wide 777X in any number, then their respective hubs (including LHR's new T5 - most stands are 70m wide or under) would have to be reconfigured. That's a huge pain in the ass, to put it very mildly, and I can't see how it won't impact significantly on sales when the competition (A350) will be capable of using current infrastructure.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
It will still fit in an 80x80m box and with no outboard engines and the natural upward sweep, there will be no worries with FOD or clearance with runway/taxiway signage.

Agreed regarding the sweep, but at most airports you can still count the number of 80m wide stands on your fingers - the notable exceptions mostly being home hubs for A380 fleets.

I don't see how the expectation that hundreds of airports worldwide will upgrade what, thousands of stands (presuming the 777X will be as successful as the current 777), is a sensible approach.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 30743 times:

Generally aircraft park straight in to the gate...but if the aircraft comes into the gate at a slight angle, say 15 degrees off straight, the effective width required reduces significantly. So take a 72m span 779X, angle it by a few degrees, and it will fit into a 70m wide stand. A little lateral thinking?

See gates 4,5,6 and 7 at BHD as a simple example...in this case 6 and 7 can accomodate either straight in or slant stands.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...EG_AD_2_EGAC_2-2_en_2012-03-08.pdf

[Edited 2012-07-26 15:27:46]

[Edited 2012-07-26 15:29:25]

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9818 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 30643 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5):
That's a huge pain in the ass, to put it very mildly, and I can't see how it won't impact significantly on sales when the competition (A350) will be capable of using current infrastructure.

The article said the following:

Boeing was previously studying 4 wingspan options for the 777-9X – 65m (213.3ft) with winglets, 68.6m (225ft) with winglets, 71.1m (233.4ft) with 787-styled raked wingtip, and a 233.4ft option featuring a folding wingtip before settling on the largest one.

Could we see a folding wingtip to solve that problem?



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 30518 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5):
I don't see how the expectation that hundreds of airports worldwide will upgrade what, thousands of stands (presuming the 777X will be as successful as the current 777), is a sensible approach.

I'm going to hazard a guess that Boeing has chosen this length because carriers have not objected to it. So that implies they have plans for integrating such a plane into their ground operations, either by making modifications or operating it at airports that are "A380 ready", which would mean they are also "777-9 ready".


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 30122 times:

There are many airports that are already in complience with ICAO Code F/FAA ADG VI. Any airport that handles the A-380-800 or B-747-8I will be able to handle the B-777-X. Both of the current VLAs fit into the 80m X 80m gate box and so will the B-77X.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20347 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28900 times:

It seems to me that Boeing is already going to be modifying this new 777 a lot. Al-Li alloy, new CFRP wing, new engines, new fuselage lengths, new interior. The difference between this 777X and its predecessor is going to make the difference between the 741 and the 744 look like nothing.

Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28644 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20347 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28564 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11):
If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.

How much weight would that add? How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight? How much extra reinforcement will that require?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31420 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?

From a technological standpoint, yes.

However, such a plane would probably not be ready until the mid to late 2020s and at that point, Airbus would already have secured the bulk of the 777-300ER replacement market with the A350-1000.

So Boeing would be in the positon then that Airbus is in now with the A350-1000 - airlines with hundreds of new planes that they're in no hurry to replace.

With the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9, they can offer similar delivery positions to the A350-900 and A350-1000.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28490 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
How much weight would that add?

A lot. Folding mechanisms are heavy. But, if the increased span drops the drag enough to pay for the weight increase, it's a net win on performance.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
How would you absolutely positively ensure that the tip won't break off in flight?

The same way you absolutely positively ensure that the wing won't break off in flight...you don't.

Tom.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28454 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):

I haven't looked for the link, but it was either in it or it was posted by someone here in. The discussion... But I think it said, that the technology is here today to allow it without extensive excess weight being added. Remember, the original 777 had them as an option but no one ever took it.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28349 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11):
If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips.

Isn't it true, more or less, that the airlines never ordered this option for the current generation of 777s because of the added weight and maintenance needs for the folding mechanism?

I would think that the airlines, if given the option, would rather have a lighter plane with a longer wingspan and less maintenance requirements than a heavier plane with a smaller wingspan. ....all provided that they have adequate gate space when and where needed for the larger wingspan.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 731 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 28321 times:

A new Al-Li fuselage is very unlikely because it would require a complete redesign (a cleansheet a/c) to take full advantage of weight gain, unless that's the objective of Boeing (to launch a brand new aircraft)

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7142 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28184 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Would it not make sense at this point to go clean-sheet, bust out the CFRP and all-electric architecture from the 787, and build a proper Y3?

There is still a great deal of the present 777 that will stay unchanged, just as was the case with the 737NG and the 748 projects. A clean sheet would be at least 3 times the cost, and much more time. The time is the biggest issue, as Stitch pointed out.

Quoting queb (Reply 17):
A new Al-Li fuselage is very unlikely because it would require a complete redesign (a cleansheet a/c) to take full advantage of weight gain, unless that's the objective of Boeing (to launch a brand new aircraft)

As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28073 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 6):
Generally aircraft park straight in to the gate...but if the aircraft comes into the gate at a slight angle, say 15 degrees off straight, the effective width required reduces significantly. So take a 72m span 779X, angle it by a few degrees, and it will fit into a 70m wide stand. A little lateral thinking?

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that - aircraft park nose in because it takes up the least amount of lateral space along the terminal front. A 70m wide stand offset at a 15 degree angle would take up an extra 7m of lateral space, making the problem worse, not better.

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 6):
See gates 4,5,6 and 7 at BHD as a simple example...in this case 6 and 7 can accomodate either straight in or slant stands.

These stands are not designed to save lateral space, as per above they would increase it. They are designed to accommodate the A321 (44.5m length) at an angle so that it fits more comfortably on BHD's 45m x 40m stands.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
Could we see a folding wingtip to solve that problem?

I think that could be quite likely, perhaps as an option. Wouldn't be the first time either.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I'm going to hazard a guess that Boeing has chosen this length because carriers have not objected to it. So that implies they have plans for integrating such a plane into their ground operations, either by making modifications or operating it at airports that are "A380 ready", which would mean they are also "777-9 ready".

That or they are still testing the water. I can see it won't be a problem for airports like DXB, DOH, AUH and I expect their home carriers are having a big amount of input.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):

There are many airports that are already in complience with ICAO Code F/FAA ADG VI. Any airport that handles the A-380-800 or B-747-8I will be able to handle the B-777-X. Both of the current VLAs fit into the 80m X 80m gate box and so will the B-77X.

But these 80m x 80m stands are not that common - I doubt they are provided by even half of the airports which currently have 777 services, or A330/340/747 which may potentially be replaced by a 777X.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 28020 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 11):
If we go back to the very first article on the 777x published earlier this year, it's says that the most ideal 233.4ft wing would feature the folding wingtips. With that it would remain a code E aircraft and only turn code F when entering the runway as the tips unfold. I don't see this as ever being an issue since they have already said it would remain code E.

That would make complete sense. Optimum wing span, same great maneuverability on the ground and no need to bash terminals about.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 731 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 27879 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.

You can substitute a standard alloy skin with an al-li skin (same thickness, same dimensions, etc) but the weight gain will not be optimized. Al-li is a lot more expensive than standard aluminum alloys, the optimization of weight gain, ie adjust the thickness and dimensions of parts such as skins, frames and stringers, is absolutely necessary to offset the cost of metal.

[Edited 2012-07-26 17:50:12]

[Edited 2012-07-26 17:52:11]

User currently offlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 731 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 27756 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
As I understand it, Al-Li can be substituted (with proper considerations) for Al. This means the structural design is much the same-it is just a material substitution. Not trivial, but a lot less than a clean sheet design. CFRP requires a complete new structure.

If it were that easy, all manufacturers, including Airbus with neo, Boeing with MAX and Embraer with E-Jet G2 would change for Al-Li. Even Mitsubishi chose a standard alloy for the MRJ


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 27373 times:

That sure does sound like a really expensive re-do.

Wouldn't a 260' Long 787- 11x seat just as many as a 250' long 777-9X and have more Cargo room?

I'm guessing it should weigh a lot less than a 777-9x, meaning a 65m wing would be fine making it fit in Existing Code E gates.

It would require a new center section/wing (30' longer in length) and longer front landing gear. Basically use the front and rear sections from the 787-10 and just redo the center. As it is longer I would guess the Tail size should be okay.

They just spent billions on the new 787 systems and manufacturing process - why not build further on that work rather than reinventing the 777 at great cost.

This seems to me to be the better option and I can't see it gaining 200,000 lbs (difference in weight between 787-9/10 and 777-9x) be stretching it 30', so it should have a lower thrust requirement(85-90,000lbs which there are some great options available or will be available) and be better on fuel than the 777-9x.

By 2019 they should be able to crank out a lot of 787's from there 3 FAL's, convert the 777 line once production ends and you could have close to single aisle output.

What am I missing? Wouldn't this be cheaper to develop than what they are envisioning?


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 27127 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
CFRP requires a complete new structure.

In layman's terms, why?



Fly Delta Jets
25 tdscanuck : You can't get something for free. If it has the same payload and range capability as the 777-9X then it has to be about the same weight. If it doesn'
26 Post contains images SWALUV : Interesting they are considering the 777 with winglet that we be a nice looking airplane.
27 JAAlbert : I realize the 777-x is an update not a clean sheet design, but when it does come time to do the clean sheet Y-3 aircraft, What is Boeing's attitude t
28 abba : Would it help if they wasn't parked right next to each other . A 777x that is just a little bit too big for its box next to one that is somewhat smal
29 DocLightning : Would it? Yes, it would require an entirely new structure. That's the point. But they're already doing the wings basically from scratch with the mate
30 spink : The spars really shouldn't be the issue. The issue will be the weight added for the rotation and latching mechanism. The folding tip would require li
31 UA933 : Question: Why would Boeing put engines on the 779 that have less power then the current 77W?
32 BMI727 : I think it absolutely would. Boeing could launch it during the middle of this decade and have it in service in the early to mid 2020s. With the A350,
33 brindabella : Indeed, with the mooted 14/month 787 output, the 787+777X should be able to offer better delivery by a handy margin. Does anyone have any thoughts ab
34 dynamicsguy : Same way you design every part of an airplane's structure. My understanding was that the original folding wing would have folded inboard of the ailer
35 Post contains images DrColenzo : Quite true and this does look like the commercial policy that Boeing is going to pursue; treat the A350 as a fait accompli in the early model 777 rep
36 AirbusA6 : This upgrade sounds expensive and complicated to me, and mission creep is a real risk (it's all a bit Trigger's broom), personally I'd either do a sma
37 StickShaker : Historically, Boeing have only launched clean sheet designs when they have had no other choice, when no further derivative could do the job required.
38 Post contains images EPA001 : It is a really expensive re-do. But that is what is necessary to get close to the fuel burn on a per seat basis the A350-1000 will be offering. Boein
39 SEPilot : As I said, it is not trivial; this is what I was referring to. But the basic layout of structural supports would be the same; the sizes of the skin s
40 morrisond : I was envisioning a new Wing Center Section to give the increase in length and allow longer gear - Wing Span may need to go higher than 65M, but assu
41 queb : It's doable but it's not financially sustainable
42 SEPilot : That is a question I do not have enough information to answer, and I suspect that only Boeing insiders do. All decisions on what to do with the 777 w
43 rj777 : So, in other words, we'll have to wait quite a while for the 797.
44 SEPilot : Actually, I have a bit different take. Boeing has been reluctant to undertake new planes strictly because of the huge risk involved. They are now in
45 Roseflyer : It depends on how much of the wing would fold. If it includes the slats and outboard aileron, then the mechanism is quite complicated because you als
46 SEPilot : Boeing has stated that if they go for folding wings it will be the wingtip only, with no control surface involvement.
47 seabosdca : Because the 777X will have a lighter MTOW than the 77W/77L as well as a much bigger wing that produces more lift.
48 Post contains images EPA001 : About the wing I already answered the question from UA933. See reply 38. . I am not so sure that the B777-9X will be lighter. The plane will be signi
49 Stitch : If it isn't, then there is no reason to launch it as it needs similar range to the 777-300ER to be effective.
50 KC135TopBoom : For Airbus isn't that the case now? Sales of the A-3510 are anemic, compared to its two smaller sisters, and due to all the B-777-300ERs being reliti
51 Post contains images EPA001 : The greatly improved aerodynamics of the wings and interface with the fuselage and new engines will make for a much lower fuel consumption. So the MZ
52 MotorHussy : No airline client ever went for it before with the initial Triple-7's and I can't imagine it offering any appeal now. How much confidence do you thin
53 Post contains images brindabella : Great point; I dont have the answer as to which of you is right; indeed I suspect that we are ultimately talking about the balance of trade-offs, as
54 Post contains images Stitch : At MZFW, a 777-300ER can load a bit under 114t of fuel. If trip fuel weight is reduced by 10%, that would recover about 12t. MTOW drops by 7t, so tha
55 SEPilot : The whole point is to reduce fuel burn. The larger wing (with lower wing loading, higher aspect ratio and better aerodynamics will produce more lift
56 oykie : I believe that the F-18 has given Boeing engineers enough experience with a folding wing design. I saw the F-18 at RIAT 2012 doing a very impressive
57 BG777300ER : I think whats also amazing is that it will be a couple inches longer than the 748. That long of a body with two engines will look awesome! Can't wait
58 SEPilot : The answer is simple: the market will not wait for a Y3 or 787SWB. Also, the necessary equipment (CFRP lay-up machines and autoclaves) to build 777 s
59 Roseflyer : First off, public perception into how airplanes operate is only of limited importance in design. If Airbus and Boeing were really concerned about peo
60 tdscanuck : Yes. They've been using CFRP for 20+ years. The change on the 787 was the scope of use, not the material. The 777 uses *exactly* the same material co
61 morrisond : No need to build an 787 XWB - a 260' long 787 at 9W will seat as many as the 777-9x at 10W and should be more comfortable with the 787 Barrel Shape.
62 qf002 : I don't suppose that Boeing could develop a system that allow the aircraft to fly with the wingtip folded down to form a a full raked wingtip for long
63 SEPilot : This would be way too long for any airport; it would have monumental rotation problems; and it would probably have structural problems due to length/
64 seabosdca : I think it's a valid suggestion. It would fit within the 80 m box (260 ft = 79.2 m); if you had to build a new wingbox anyway, you could incorporate
65 Post contains images DocLightning : I hadn't even thought about the 757/767 pair, but you're absolutely right. Except for the minor problem that it would be unable to take off because i
66 OldAeroGuy : I think a good analogy for the folding tip as proposed for the 777-9X would be retractable landing gear, ie single hydraulic cylinder actuation, up/d
67 ContnlEliteCMH : And they should employ a proofreader that understands English sentence structure and basic tense. "Awkward" doesn't begin to describe this article.
68 Post contains images oykie : Why would it not be ready until 2024. The 787 was more complex and a higher risk. I know design for the 787 started in 2003, but it was not launched
69 tdscanuck : A raked tip always outperforms a winglet from an aerodynamic standpoint. If the wing is built to operate properly with the raked tip there would be n
70 StickShaker : I didn't mean to imply that Boeing are/were reluctant to launch new designs, but rather cautious and conservative. I certainly agree that the aviatio
71 jetmech : Didn't Boeing perform ultimate load tests on the 777 with one wing tip configured with a folding mechanism? I seem to remember that they did. Do any
72 Stitch : The folding wingtips were discarded prior to Boeing starting static testing of the 777. So the 777 wing test was performed with the wing we see today
73 Revelation : It seems to me losing a wingtip in flight would not in general be a loss of control event, right? Presuming it didn't damage anything else as it left
74 tdscanuck : They may have taken a full scale test article to ultimate load with a folding mechanism, but the full static rig going through the wing break that's
75 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : While I'm sure there has been interest in the 777X program, I am not convinced that carriers are indicating that they will be buying them by the buck
76 Areopagus : I think it's more correct to say that in the late'90s, Boeing was researching both Glacier and Yellowstone, both sharing common systems and materials
77 Post contains images oykie : While the 787 benefit from the materials, systems and propulsion from the Sonic Cruiser, I fail to see why this would not apply if Boeing built a 777
78 sweair : F18s and F14 etc have had foldable wingtips iirc, none of them have broken off and these things fly hard as hell.
79 oykie : Adding to my argument. The A350XWB was launched in 2006, and will eventually fly in 2014. That is 8 years. The prior design the non XWB A350 did not
80 StickShaker : I think EK belongs to the "buy them by the bucketload" category as the aircraft is essentially being designed to their specifications. Other carriers
81 Revelation : Right, but airliners are optimized for economics, not for air combat. I agree it's a solvable problem, but the reason the 777 wingtip fold didn't cat
82 Post contains images Devilfish : Plus 18,100. I wonder if surviving earthlings would not be traveling to the outer fringes of the galaxy by then?
83 Post contains images CXB77L : A 777-300+? If I understand you correctly, I'm assuming you mean incremental improvements that will be made to the 77W in the meantime while the 777X
84 Revelation : I agree. I personally have a hard time seeing how the thrust is being cut back from ~115k lbs to ~98k lbs just based on aerodynamic improvements alon
85 SEPilot : There is a lot of work to do before it is launched, and Boeing has its hands full still with the 789, 7810, and MAX programs. They are in no way read
86 Post contains images brindabella : Would probably be a good idea, when one of the A-vs-B flame-wars is underway here on a.net! cheers,Bill
87 Post contains images brindabella : My understanding is that the proposal is for a weight-reduction program via a new belly-fairing or suchlike, as well as the employment of new materia
88 seabosdca : Assuming 10-abreast, the 777-8X will have near-identical capacity to the A350-1000. And I agree that it will be mighty difficult for it to be competi
89 neutrino : In an inverse and even cooler way, that has been done before...on the Valkyrie during its flight envelope. To put it simply, the wingtips folded down
90 Stitch : I believe it is to bracket the A350-900 - the 777-8X above and the 787-10X below. That being said, I maintain my original belief that the 777-8 shoul
91 DocLightning : How different are the internal systems on the 73G from the 732? The big difference is wing and engines, no? But a fuel tank puncture means a relative
92 Post contains links and images oykie : LOL! They probably just discovered a 777 wreck on a deserted planet The AA 777-300ER will already have elements of the Sky-interior so we do not have
93 tdscanuck : Mostly new flight deck, all new fuel system, all new generators, all new fire extinguishing, all new interior, all new avionics, all new nacelles...i
94 Post contains links flightsimer : Never seen a b52 takeoff have ya? Lol http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_DEnO-YTRU Like everything else, there are always multiple solutions to everythin
95 CXB77L : I'm not sure if it's worth it then, especially when the 777X will be here before the end of the decade. Unless such improvements can be done cost-eff
96 rwessel : Not the F-14, which had variable sweep wings. For parking it had an "oversweep" position for the wings (78 degrees sweep, IIRC). But nothing folded.
97 rotating14 : This may seem premature since there hasn't been anything said by the board by Boeing but would both proposed models be built simultaneously? Since thi
98 DarkSnowyNight : If these things can be certificated and added to the 77W, and incorporated into the 77NGs I'd think that Boeing is just getting a little ahead of the
99 sweair : I just gave some examples of foldiong wingtips that worked, the F18 has them and that wing gets truly punished, never heard of one loosing a wingtip h
100 flyingcello : Plym, I've sketched out the arrangement (can't work out how to show my sketch here though). At a 15 degree slant, the width footprint of the 779X as
101 spink : FYI, quoting pressure in ft of altitude for a plane is a bit fuzzy. Was matters is the max nominal pressure differential. A330s have a max nominal di
102 par13del : Product lineup, why force your customers to another OEM when they have additional product needs.
103 TomB : How does Boeing increase the nominal seating capacity of the B-777-9X to 407 seats from 365 seats in the B-777-300ER? That is an increase of 42 seats.
104 CXB77L : I'm not entirely sure what, if any, premium economy seating will be counted in Boeing's standard configuration, but it's almost a given that there'll
105 DocLightning : Boeing usually models their med/long-haul aircraft with a 3-class configuration for seat counts. I've noticed that most airlines actually seat in les
106 Post contains images sweair : I was looking at some old ideas for the BWB cabin ideas man that was wide, 2-2-2-2-2-2-2 People who whine about cross sections are people who travel i
107 135mech : From what I have read, and veiwed on things like the 5 hour PBS special on the making of the 777 back in the 90's...Boeing's efforts on working direc
108 135mech : That would be awesome and "on-par" with the 747-100 through the 747-8F/i lifetime...
109 Post contains images EPA001 : Those threads are not always the best source of information. .
110 135mech : It's no less than this thread, right? My point was (thought it was pretty clear) was that Boeing wasn't thrown back to the drawing board because they
111 Post contains images EPA001 : Remember the Sonic Cruiser which a only couple of years later turned out to be the B787? I can assure you that it required some very serious drawing
112 SEPilot : But they have also realized that the massive delays to both the 787 and the 748 programs was partly a direct result of being way overextended, and th
113 Post contains images sweair : Put that new wing on the 748 too
114 SEPilot : Unfortunately, I believe the 747 has seen the last major upgrade. There is no financial case for a new wing, or any other major improvement; demand f
115 tdscanuck : I think that's actually an ICAO standard configuration to allow apples-to-apples comparison. Remember that the airlines actually wanted the Sonic Cru
116 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes, I do remember that. Just as I also remember Airbus already sold 200 copies of the A350-MK-1. But market developments caused them to change plans
117 sweair : To say the 748 got a new wing is stretching it IMO. Who knows in 10 years, the freighter might still be needed in the market as the 77F never really w
118 tdscanuck : How so? New loft, new flight controls, new high lift system, new pylons, new planform, new tip...the only thing they didn't change was the sweep and
119 SEPilot : If their is no other large freighter available you may be right. However, I see it likely that with the 777x program Boeing is likely at some point t
120 bmacleod : I can't see UA passing on the 777-X. Sure, they selected the A350 to replace the 744 but as markets grow the A350 won't be big enough to meet their lo
121 astuteman : You need to be oh so careful with this kind of comment. To suggest that Airbus don't talk to their customers in much the same way that Boeing do stri
122 135mech : As I stated "IMO" ... from all of the things I have read and the reports etc...Boeing has done a LOT better at customer satisfaction with the 777 tha
123 Post contains images EPA001 : That you did, but not in the correct way. Your quote was: Where you clearly state as a fact that "Airbus did not do that" and only then you state tha
124 Post contains images Stitch : Airbus' willingness to work with customers on interior fittings have been a - if not the - major reason Airbus has been unable to meet their delivery
125 tdscanuck : The original comparison was specifically to the 777; this program was marked by far (unusually) higher customer involvement than prior programs, both
126 135mech : That was my point and thank you for confirming.
127 bikerthai : Although not directly working on the 777 program at that time, I was able to visit UA maintenance facility in SFO as the overall cultural change at t
128 Post contains images astuteman : So pointing out that Airbus had to to "re-create/improve" the A350 because they didn't talk to the customers isn't a disparagement.. particularly as
129 Post contains images EPA001 : Indeed that was said. We know that now, but you are correct. Originally the statement sounded quite different. Agreed.
130 StickShaker : My earlier comment (post 80) was to highlite that the recent 777X proposals outlined by Boeing have been well received by the airlines (particularly c
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...
Strange/Interesting Developments @ Air Zimbabwe posted Mon Jul 11 2005 20:51:13 by Planenutz
Interesting Statistic Detail About The 777/747-400 posted Tue Sep 4 2001 12:11:21 by Na
Interesting Article Re: A340 Vs. 777 posted Wed Apr 25 2001 02:16:07 by Travelin man
Interesting Pictures Of New Airbus Developments! posted Mon Dec 18 2000 15:25:09 by Aerosol
Concorde : Interesting Developments posted Mon Nov 13 2000 23:16:55 by Gordonroxburgh
Ice Pilots... American 777 posted Mon Jul 23 2012 18:26:17 by crownvic
Interesting Article About LCCs In Japan posted Sat Jul 21 2012 17:16:58 by PHX787
Interesting Day At FRA posted Mon Jul 16 2012 08:15:16 by Semaex
1,035th 767 & 777 - On The Line Together posted Sat Jul 7 2012 09:14:05 by kaitak
SUA 777 Coming To IAH? posted Fri Jul 6 2012 06:09:28 by drerx7
Further Developments To Improve The Boeing 777? posted Sun Nov 25 2012 02:33:17 by jorisdebont
Strange/Interesting Developments @ Air Zimbabwe posted Mon Jul 11 2005 20:51:13 by Planenutz
Interesting Statistic Detail About The 777/747-400 posted Tue Sep 4 2001 12:11:21 by Na
Interesting Article Re: A340 Vs. 777 posted Wed Apr 25 2001 02:16:07 by Travelin man
Interesting Pictures Of New Airbus Developments! posted Mon Dec 18 2000 15:25:09 by Aerosol
Concorde : Interesting Developments posted Mon Nov 13 2000 23:16:55 by Gordonroxburgh
Biman Taking Delivery Of Ex-Egyptair 777 posted Tue Mar 25 2014 06:57:23 by na
Emirates 777-200 Arrived At FLL This Evening. posted Mon Mar 17 2014 16:38:35 by eksath