Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11254 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?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7144 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11246 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
User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6535 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11065 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


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5841 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10910 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.


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6535 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10811 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


User currently offlinemax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10748 times:

More importantly, if an airline has both 779's and 744's which one is their flagship?   

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.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10723 times:

Isn't the 777 already a VLA anyway? It's a widebody still......


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9538 times:

[quote=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.

[/quote]

I am inclined to agree with this view; twin jets are cheaper to run and maintain and will just get bigger and bigger.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1900 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8952 times:

If you fly an ultralight, you can call a Cessna 402 a VLA if you want. The fact is, it pretty much universally refers to 380s and 747s now.
And Pluto still isn't a planet.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7322 times:

What qualifies the A380 as a "Super" and could that designation apply to the 777-9X?

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7222 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 8):
And Pluto still isn't a planet.

It WAS a planet.   



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineWesternFlyer From Norway, joined Sep 2010, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7080 times:

What does "VLA" mean?

User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3996 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6973 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.

VLA means Very Large Aircraft.

[Edited 2012-07-28 10:26:06]

[Edited 2012-07-28 11:07:03]


Ben Soriano
User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6876 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
but that has not been formally accepted as the definition.

I'd be interested to know who decides what is acceptable as the definition of VLA.

Quoting max550 (Reply 5):
which one is their flagship

What are the criteria for a flagship?

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 9):
What qualifies the A380 as a "Super" and could that designation apply to the 777-9X?

Wake vortex. So the B748 is not Super.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
777-300 (ER)

Which is the exact same size as the standard B773.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6867 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 13):
I'd be interested to know who decides what is acceptable as the definition of VLA.

Most would agree VLA would be a double-decker; like the 747 or A380. However some would add the 777-300 since it has same load as a classic 747.



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6805 times:

If the criterion is as a double decker, would the Hunchback of Mukilteo be considered a VLA if it was ever built?
Going by seat count regardless of passenger deck counts would make much more sense.



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20352 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 8):
And Pluto still isn't a planet.

Of course he isn't. He's a dog.   

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.


User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6773 times:

I would call it a VLA since it is the direct replacement for the 747-400.

User currently offlinecanyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6728 times:

Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 13):
What qualifies the A380 as a "Super" and could that designation apply to the 777-9X?

Wake vortex. So the B748 is not Super.

Would we know in advance before the aircraft is operational if the 777-9X would have a wake vortex similar enough to the A380 that it could be considered a "Super"?


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20352 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6699 times:

Quoting canyonblue17 (Reply 18):
Would we know in advance before the aircraft is operational if the 777-9X would have a wake vortex similar enough to the A380 that it could be considered a "Super"?

Yes, but I'm assuming that improved aerodynamics will probably make the vortex less than or equal to the 77W, not more.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6249 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
The nose wheels alone come up to a man's chest.

The nose and main tires are interchangeable on the 747. This is very uncommon in this industry, of course.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
You can drive your car into the engines.

Try not to.



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.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5746 times:

Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 17):
I would call it a VLA since it is the direct replacement for the 747-400.

I thought the 747-8 was to replace the 747-400   

If the 777-9X goes ahead, no doubt this would be the end of the 747-8 as more airlines are picking the A380.  tombstone 

[Edited 2012-07-30 05:46:54]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5718 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...


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Rgds


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5702 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.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 21):
I thought the 747-8 was to replace the 747-400

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.


25 Post contains images neutrino : 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
26 Post contains images CXB77L : 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
27 neutrino : 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
28 KDAYflyer : 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
29 Post contains images 817Dreamliiner : 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
30 AAMDanny : 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
31 Mcoov : 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
33 seabosdca : 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
34 Post contains images MountainFlyer : 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
35 sweair : 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,
36 Post contains links and images redflyer : 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
37 Post contains images neutrino : It is possible and it will be built sometime in the future, say 50 years? You want to bet?
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...
Could The A318 PW6000 Be A Good Workhorse For SAS? posted Fri Feb 6 2009 00:29:00 by OyKIE
If Built, What Routes Can A Turboliner Be Use On? posted Sun Jul 6 2008 17:14:55 by 747400sp
Could The A340-500 Be A Good Fit For NWA? posted Wed Mar 19 2008 21:47:36 by Jetjack74
Could The Y1 Offering Be A New Sonic Cruiser posted Tue Jan 8 2008 21:28:31 by CygnusChicago
What If Delta Orders The 777-300ER? posted Sun Jul 29 2007 00:32:47 by 1337Delta764
Could The 747-800 Be The Last Of The 747 Series? posted Sat Jan 7 2006 17:24:21 by JAM747
Could The 757 Ever Be A Tanker? posted Fri Nov 21 2003 00:16:50 by GalvanAir777
Could The A380 Still Be A Failure? posted Thu May 29 2003 05:35:20 by United777
If Lockheed Built A Competitor To The 777 posted Fri Aug 29 2003 15:40:01 by 747400sp
Could The China Airlines Accident Be Worse If... posted Mon Aug 23 1999 09:48:43 by Pandora