747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3923 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11648 times:
With an 233 ft wing span, length of 250 ft and capacity of 408 passengers in a three class configuration, I believe the 777-9X, could be the worlds first twin engines VLA.
I know in my last post here, about should Boeing have launch the NLA, some people consider the 77W as a VLA, but the 777-9X is a larger a/c, and even though, it do not have a double deck area or four engines, it still has a wing span and length, that would classify it as a VLA, so what do you think?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7364 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11640 times:
Since there is really no formal definition of a VLA it is somewhat ambiguous. My answer is yea, but others may disagree. I would think that anything in ICAO Class F would qualify, but that has not been formally accepted as the definition.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11460 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1): Since there is really no formal definition of a VLA it is somewhat ambiguous. My answer is yea, but others may disagree. I would think that anything in ICAO Class F would qualify, but that has not been formally accepted as the definition.
Agreed,any airline buying it could call it what ever they choose
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6441 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11305 times:
It's really just a label for convenience. Personally, I think it works best to reserve the VLA label for aircraft that are out of the market mainstream. Today, that means A380 and 747-8 only. But my position obviously creates a silly-sounding inconsistency: the 747-400 was clearly a VLA in its day, but I'm refusing to call the identically sized 777-9X a VLA.
Although I would reserve it for the very biggest birds, I have no issue with anyone who applies the VLA label to anything the size of an A340-600 or larger: A340-600, A350-1000, 777-300 (ER), 777-9X, or any 747 or A380.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 11206 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3): Although I would reserve it for the very biggest birds, I have no issue with anyone who applies the VLA label to anything the size of an A340-600 or larger: A340-600, A350-1000, 777-300 (ER), 777-9X, or any 747 or A380.
Does it really make a differance what the aircraft is called, by its owner? The size of the aircraft doesn't change. It will only matter to airliners members Who love to use terms like VLA
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4315 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7367 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Right, there is no formal definition of a VLA.
Is a 767 a VLA? It depends compared to what.
Compared to a Beech 1900 or an ATR, yes.
Compared to a 747 or an A380, or a C-5, no.
When a new hire airline pilot starts flying the 737 or the A320 as F/O after flying light twins for a while, and no previous jet experience, it is a VLA for him or her.
In World War II, the B-29 was considered as a VLA.
Everybody refers the 747 and the A380 as VLAs because they are VLAs compared to most other aircraft. I guess that back in the early 70s when the 747-200 was all new, the DC-10 and the L-1011 were also considered as VLAs.
The Queen Mary 2 is the "VLA" of the boats, or maybe it could be referred as VLB.
So to answer the question to the original poster, based on the dimensions, the 777-9X can be considered as a VLA.
Quoting max550 (Reply 5): Seriously though, it's up to you what to call it. I'm inclined to call anything that can lift more than 350 tons 7.5 miles into the sky very large but that's just me.
Someone once told me that the 744 wasn't a "VLA." My response was: "Have you actually SEEN one? It's bigger than your dream home. The nose wheels alone come up to a man's chest. You can drive your car into the engines. You can't afford a TV screen as large as one of the winglets!"
It's not as if there is a thin line, but I think that max550 has the basic idea. A VLA is a Very Large Aircraft. And anyone arguing that the 744 isn't "very large" is out of their tree.
The 773 (and of course W) are most certainly VLA's. While I agree that the standards for what is a "VLA" are murky, the 773 is already larger than a 742 by all but one (unimportant) metric. My reasoning is that if a 742 or 1 is a VLA, then a larger aircraft (like the 77W or A346) most certainly qualify.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6112 times:
There is a certain inflation in aircraft size. The smallest wide body today, the A332 and the 788, are much bigger than the wide bodies of the 80th, the 763 and the A300/310 - more in size like the DC10 and L1011.
All wide bodies I would call large aircraft. A very large aircraft is significantly bigger than the average large aircraft. So today, in a time where most wide bodies are in size between 762 and B772, the 773 variants, the 747s and the A380 are very large. But as A300, A310 and 767 head for their end, and the 787,772 and A330 define the lower end of the large aircraft, and the upper end will be shifted up by the A389 around 2020, I doubt the 77W still to be significantly above average in size. If the 777-9 will be, maybe - maybe if it comes out before the A389 we call it a VLA for a short time and then it really no longer is v...
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10534 posts, RR: 97
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6096 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): With an 233 ft wing span, length of 250 ft and capacity of 408 passengers in a three class configuration, I believe the 777-9X, could be the worlds first twin engines VLA
Both OEM's seem to use 400 seats + as their top market segment. The 777-9X as currently proposed fits this bill.
Add that to a plane that is ICAO Cat F without any doubt, and I'd suggest the answer is "yes" whichever way you look at it.
na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11045 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6096 times:
Such plane would still rank below the "real" VLAs, the 748 and A380. For me a VLA should have two decks. Being even longer than the already unaesthetic 773 I would call a 777-9X a VUA, a Very Ugly Aircraft.
Sure. But the 748 is bigger than the 744, while a possible 777-9X would be having almost exactly the 744 capacity. If it ever comes, and I still hope not, then at a time when about 75% of all pax-744s will have been retired due to age.
: So if a BWB or HWB with 600 seats or even more comes along sometime in the future, it would still not be a VLA despite its capacity being more than a
: From what I can see, there seems to be two schools of thought: one that says that the original VLA (the 747, as it was so much bigger than everything
: Yes, there should be no "revisionist history" on VLA classification. High time to create the new class of VVLAs for the A380 and 748 (too?); in the v
: I think the case for the A-380 gets very dark when Boeing launches the 9X as well. As the 300 ER clearly demonstrated to the A-340, two engines are c
: Well your pretty negative towards the 777 arent you... For me I think the 777-9X will be a VLA, but IMO really due to its wingspan (234 feet is quite
: So would some of Thomas Cook Scandinavia's A330-300's with 407 seats be classed as a VLA? Food for thought. Imagine if they ever got there hands on a
: And I thought the 77W was monstrous. At 250 feet long, I find it amazing that the 779 will still be a twinjet. Will there really be a point where twin
32 American 767
: If there will be a third engine then there will also be a fourth one, because it doesn't look like BoeIng or Airbus will ever make a tri jet again (tr
: For the moment, the solution seems to be to add more wing and lighten. Remember, the 777-9X is planned to have substantially less thrust despite its
: Not anymore. The QM2 was surpassed in 2006 by Freedom of the Seas and subsequently five other cruise ships in terms of gross tonnage (the common meas
: If a BWB gets built it might just be even larger than the A380 in capacity and still only have two engines, if you get 20% more lift with that design,
: EASA categorizes "VLA" as Very Light Aircraft. Airbus' own definition of VLA is an aircraft with more than a 400 passenger seating capacity: In the V
: It is possible and it will be built sometime in the future, say 50 years? You want to bet?