747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 months 9 hours ago) and read 9357 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, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 1, posted (10 months 8 hours ago) and read 9349 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, 5980 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (10 months 7 hours ago) and read 9168 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, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (10 months 7 hours ago) and read 9013 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.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5980 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (10 months 6 hours ago) and read 8914 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
max550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 hours ago) and read 8851 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.
DrColenzo From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7641 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.
nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7055 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.
canyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5425 times:
What qualifies the A380 as a "Super" and could that designation apply to the 777-9X?
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5076 times:
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]
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4908 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4891 times:
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.
canyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4831 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"?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4802 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.
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 Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3821 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, 9138 posts, RR: 96 Reply 23, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3805 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, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3805 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.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3823 times:
Quoting na (Reply 24): For me a VLA should have two decks.
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 A388?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, RR: 4 Reply 26, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
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 else at the time) is the "definition" of what a VLA should be, and if an aircraft meets or beats the original 741 in size, then it, too, is a VLA. The other is that the defintion is ever changing with the ever increasing size of medium size and large sized aircraft (which I attribute to widebodies - from the small-ish 767 to the A330/A340 and 777.
Then, of course, there is the thought that it's all relative and depends on what you're flying.
Personally, I'm with the school of thought that says the definition of what constitutes a VLA is ever changing, but I also believe that there is nothing yet to put the 741 back in its box as "no longer a VLA" ... perhaps until something twice its size comes to the market. As such, and given that the 773/77W is longer, has a larger wingspan and carries as many passengers as the 741, along with more cargo ... there's no reason why the 773/77W can't be classified as a VLA. If the 773/77W isn't a VLA, then neither are the original 747 Classics anymore.
Even if one were to argue that the definition of a "VLA" has moved since the introduction of the A388 and the 748i, then the 777-9X, being longer, and with a larger wingspan as the 748i, and presumably carries more cargo than the 748i, will fit into that new category of VLAs.
Quoting American 767 (Reply 12): The Queen Mary 2 is the "VLA" of the boats, or maybe it could be referred as VLB.
It's a ship, not a boat
A century ago, the Titanic was the biggest ocean liner ever built. But that is dwarfed by the size of the Queen Mary 2.
Quoting na (Reply 24): Being even longer than the already unaesthetic 773 I would call a 777-9X a VUA, a Very Ugly Aircraft.
You just couldn't resist yet another of your negative jibes on every thread that has to do with the 777, can you?
The 77W is gorgeous, just as the 777-9X will be.
Quoting na (Reply 24): If it ever comes, and I still hope not
It will come, it will be a VLA, and it will make the business case for a pax 748i a little more difficult. The 747 will live on as a freighter, but when there's a VLA with two fewer engines that can do the job more efficiently, then airlines needing an aircraft that size will flock to it.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3661 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 26): Personally, I'm with the school of thought that says the definition of what constitutes a VLA is ever changing, but I also believe that there is nothing yet to put the 741 back in its box as "no longer a VLA"
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 vein of VIPs and VVIPs.
KDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
Quoting bmacleod (Reply 21): If the 777-9X goes ahead, no doubt this would be the end of the 747-8 as more airlines are picking the A380.
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 cheaper to run than 4.
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 large dont you think?) And I hope it does get launched, I bet it will look just as good or even better than the 77W. I can just imagine the what the wingflex would look like
Blast Reality, Burst it into shreds! Banishment, This World!
Mcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 31, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3160 times:
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 twinjets like the 777X get so big that they'll need a third engine?
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 32, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3084 times:
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 (true, Airbus has never made one). The last tri jet ever designed was the Lockheed L-1011 more than 40 years ago, I don't count the MD-11 because it s a derivative of the DC-10. Otherwise engine manufacturers would have to design a very large engine delivering 200k lbs of thrust, and imagine the ground clearance issues that will come up when mounting the engines on the pylons under the wing.
I think that in a few decades from now, in the middle of the century, Boeing will consider making a four engine 77W or 787-10 which will replace the A380 and the 748i. A four engine 77W will look like an enlarged A340, it may be called 77Q, Q for Quad. That will be the next generation VLA.
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 33, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3009 times:
Quoting Mcoov (Reply 31): Will there really be a point where twinjets like the 777X get so big that they'll need a third engine?
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 greater length.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
MountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 363 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2721 times:
Quoting American 767 (Reply 12): The Queen Mary 2 is the "VLA" of the boats, or maybe it could be referred as VLB.
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 measure of a ships size). She was also surpassed in length in 2009 and again in 2010 by sister ships Oasis of the Seas, and Allure of the Seas, respectively, which each surpass every other cruise ship in every metric by a very large margin. Oasis and Allure are 52% larger than QM2 by gross tonnage, and carry more than double her passengers each.
Sorry, I know that was off topic, but I thought I'd throw that in there.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
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, engine thrust decreases?
Looking at UAVs built for the future almost all are of the BWB type and shape, the step from that to an airliner cant be that big? Windows and exits aside, it is possible that will be the future VLA shape?
redflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4181 posts, RR: 30 Reply 36, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 8): 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.
EASA categorizes "VLA" as Very Light Aircraft.
Quoting bmacleod (Reply 14): Most would agree VLA would be a double-decker; like the 747 or A380.
Airbus' own definition of VLA is an aircraft with more than a 400 passenger seating capacity:
Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 28): I think the case for the A-380 gets very dark when Boeing launches the 9X as well.
The case for the A380 would be dark regardless of whether or not the 9X is launched. Unfortunately, the A380 is in a class all its own as a VLA, since it is so much larger than anything else out there. When Airbus built the A380, they didn't just build a new VLA, they built a behemoth that stood apart from the pack. The baseline A380 could hold more than 100 passengers more than the next biggest commercial plane flying at the time (744), and it could only grow from there. In hindsight, they probably should have started the A380 with a 3-class capacity in the low to mid 400's, with room to grow.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 35): Looking at UAVs built for the future almost all are of the BWB type and shape, the step from that to an airliner cant be that big? Windows and exits aside, it is possible that will be the future VLA shape?
It is possible and it will be built sometime in the future, say 50 years?
You want to bet?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2012, 105 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 351 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2010, 16 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2083 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9138 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2186 posts, 
From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 1405 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
