Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The 777 Attraction?  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2940 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27164 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I recently read a few A.netters either insult the look of the 777, one person strongly ripping apart the horror of the proportions of the 777-300. Another group seems so bored with seeing them. But some airline's like SQ, EK and UA among many others have almost made them their backbone. Even TAM, which seems almost exclusively Airbus has 8 or 9 777-300's I think, with a few more coming. It seems like almost every airline has some or many (except LH / LX which I know has been discussed many times)

I personally love them inside and out and their safety record is amazing.

What was it that Boeing got "so right" that they have sold over 1000 of them? Why do so many airlines have them? And for those who chose not to order any, is there a general reason for that?)

I guess I could guess at this point, but are their specifics beyond the fact they make money?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
115 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8724 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27221 times:

Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread.

I suppose that the popularity has a lot to do with the lack of competition and the qualities of the GE90 engine - the 77W is most certainly in a class of its own and as a result, it may well end up with half the orders of the entire 777 programme. Had Boeing's decision for the GE90 not worked out as well as it did, we might well be seeing far more A346s in the sky.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2770 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27223 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread.

Please send them this way. All I see is boring 737s and A320s. 

I personally think a 77W at takeoff is awesome. You really get a sense of power unlike the A330.   



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27221 times:

Only been on a 77L and that was one impressive take off, almost felt overpowered in a way, the flight was not maxed out either. Other than that just another airplane and a boring long flight.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 is probably my favorite plane to fly in, and I do find it aesthetically pleasing.

As to why airlines loves it - good range + good capacity + good economics =         


User currently offlineHIRSCH777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 27232 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread

Boring ? What I am Most impressed with is the Design of the Aircraft and how the Engineers at Boeing and its respective suppliers went so far 'beyond' on 777 program. Everything on this plane is over engineered. From the Wing Loading, to the tires. Not to Mention, Airlines rely on the 777 to be profitable. E.G Emiates.

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Had Boeing's decision for the GE90 not worked out as well as it did, we might well be seeing far more A346s in the sky.

Agreed.

The GE90-115b made this possible, and is one of the major aspects to the over engineering I mentioned above.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10763 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 27212 times:

I´m fine with the standard-length 777 but I find them as boring like all twinjets. I´m probably the one you mean with "strongly ripping apart the horror of the proportions of the 777-300." I think the long 777 is the ugliest big widebody built so far.

The 777 success is simply because its effective. And as today the beancounters rule that is why nothing else counts.



Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
...and their safety record is amazing.

Amazing like all modern types built since the 744 debuted with the exception of the MD11.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 27218 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
What was it that Boeing got "so right" that they have sold over 1000 of them?

They pushed the twin into a new size and capability class, and as a result were the first to reap the benefits of two engines in that class.

They also executed the airplane very, very well. The first 772 was over budget, but it was on time and within promised spec. Then the 77W blew away the promised spec on introduction, a very unusual event.

Also, Airbus came in overweight (not necessarily compared to promised spec, but compared to what they needed to do for competitiveness) with the A346 and A345. If they had been substantially lighter, they would have put up a much better fight despite having four engines. They are good products, just heavier than they need to be, which the 77W wasn't.

Competition caught up with the 772 over time. The A330-300 is lighter than any 772 and has grown enormously in capability; it can now do regional, TATL, and the shortest TPAC missions. The 789 and A350-900 will bracket the 772ER and take over all of the remaining missions the A330-300 can't, when they enter service within the next three years. Very few operators need the raw capability of the 772LR.

But the competition for the 77W remains substantially in the future. The A350-1000 looks like the first serious competitor to arrive, and it's not coming for more than five years. And the Boeing replacement is further out yet.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8724 posts, RR: 43
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 27209 times:

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 5):
Boring ?

Yes, because the aircraft that I don't find boring are the rare ones... although the 747 will always be special in my view. While I do like the engine roar of a 77W or the "barking" of an A320, they are both very common.

edit: I just noticed that my post count is rather appropriate for this thread.  silly 

[Edited 2012-09-10 08:37:37]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineHIRSCH777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27238 times:

Quoting na (Reply 6):
Amazing like all modern types built since the 744 debuted with the exception of the MD11.

I think you are forgetting about the A330. Terrible record for a Modern Airliner. It looks beautiful. But I would fly a 777 anyday over the A330. 6 write-offs


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 6):
I think the long 777 is the ugliest big widebody built so far.

My "ugliest twin" is the A330-300. Super long body and really wide wings with two tiny little engines. The 777-300 at least has those massive engines under it to help balance out the design.

For "perfect proportions", I find the A340-500 to be the one thanks to the Trent 700s. While the A340-300 looks better to me than the A330-300 thanks to having four engines, the CFM56 hair dryers are still too small (and the A340-600 is just too long).


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4900 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27210 times:

The low pitched rumble can get to you on long flights in a 777. There are no special places like on the 747 - the nose and upper deck for premium cabins. On a 330 the two by the window seating is preferable in Y. The hair dryer powerplants are quieter.

User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 794 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27213 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
Also, Airbus came in overweight (not necessarily compared to promised spec, but compared to what they needed to do for competitiveness) with the A346 and A345.

I think the real reason the 777 is doing so well is because Boeing picked the right tube diameter for the stretch. The 345 and 346 are too heavy because their tubes are so thin that they needed further reinforcements, while the wider 777 tube was easier to stretch into the 77W. In addition, GE hit the ball out of the park with the 115B. Preliminary numbers had the 346 and 77W as close competitors, with the 346 having better range and payload with a slight fuel burn hit. When the 115B came out, the range was roughly equal and the burn was ~8% better, so that sealed the deal.

On the smaller end, the 772 is a bit too heavy, but that didn't matter in 1995 when the A330 wasn't yet as capable as it it now.

That said, I find twins boring, and the neck on the 777 ugly. If aestheticians were in charge of fleet planning, we'd only have A345s, Concordes, VC10s, and 707-300Bs flying around.


User currently offlineSLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27211 times:

I think the 777 (all variants) is a great looking plane, kind of a scaled up 767 but with engines that actually match the size of the aircraft. The A342-3 with the 4 small CFM engines never looked good to me, and after seeing them take off, I might be right, (someone lengthen the runway please!). The A345-6 with the bigger engines look much better and are rockets on take off.

[Edited 2012-09-10 11:07:38]

User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4520 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27212 times:

Quoting na (Reply 6):
I´m fine with the standard-length 777 but I find them as boring like all twinjets.

Yep, the "boring" factor is due to the widespread move to the "tube with an engine under each wing" design.

That said, the 777 is my favorite plane in the AA fleet to fly on (because I'm up in the F cabin and the Flagship Suite is quite nice and yes, I know, I'm talking about how they have outfitted the interior of the aircraft and not really the airplane itself). I hope they keep at least one of these flying on MIA-LAX-MIA for years to come!


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27215 times:

I find the 777 ugly, but since airlines don't care one bit about that (and it's not that ugly that it would matter anyway), it sells on its economic merits, like other planes.

I see far more A340 haters on this website, but YMMV.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSLCGuy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27195 times:

Old aviation saying, "If it looks right, it probably flies right".

User currently offlinedeltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1655 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27200 times:

Funny thread...

To add my 2 cents, I too thing the 777 is the ugliest plane inside and out. Especially on the inside! I feel like the over head bins are overly curved and the way they blend into the ceiling-its almost creepy. It also makes the plane feel wider than it is. In comparison the A330/340 (esp 340-600) are so sexy on the outside and on the inside are geometrically contoured just so. I'm happy to see the 787 kinda fixed this and looks contoured well in the interior.

To me I tried to over look my geeky opinion of the 777 but THEN when this fad of going 3-4-3 in coach took over its fate was sealed in my head, urgh. I think its the WORST plane from a passenger/enthusiasts/a.netter view.

THat said, YES I'm very aware and educated on its economics and I'm very aware why it sales well.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27214 times:

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 19):
Especially on the inside! I feel like the over head bins are overly curved and the way they blend into the ceiling-its almost creepy.

   Glad to know I'm not the only one! I've never been on a 777, but I have been on a few 767-400ER's. The cabins are just.. eery. I much prefer the older over-head bins.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8419 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 is the king of twin efficiency, period. ITs the most efficient plane for what it is, a slightly smaller then 747 and capable if up to 16 hours of flight. The 77W could also do JFK to Hong Kong, a 744 is very inefficient on that mission; Cathay wants nonstops to every city they fly. The 777 has truly made the world smaller, many airlines found the 767 too small and a 744 to big, the 777 is just right.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27248 times:

A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design. Fortunately the outcome for the pax and crew was good.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31096 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 25):
A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design.

That being said, the faulty design was in the Trent 800 engine, and not the 777 airframe.


User currently offlineElGrandeB777CA From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28626 times:

Since I'm a Captain on the B-777 and have flown other wideboy aircraft....

Boeing just got it right when they designed the Triple Seven...The B-787 on the other hand I think is a bit off, but a good bird...The simple word is ECO-Nomics with the Triple...It makes the company money in the cost and fare structure of this current time period...until then....


User currently offlinedelta88 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The best guess is that the 777 can replace almost any type of aircraft. You could use it to replace the 767, 757, certain Variants of the 747, and you could replace your A340s or A330s if you wanted to. It burns less fuel and is quieter than the competition. And it could be that its the perfect size, its not too big where space becomes an issue at smaller(ish) airports, but it can still carry a large load of passengers and cargo and fly long distance. It also came out with ETOPS at 180 minutes, so Airlines must have thought it was a safe aircraft and decided to try it out. The 777-300ER many airlines used to replace the B747 Series, because the two have the Same capacity in range and Pax, while burning less fuel. The aircraft was basicly another 757, good for anything, well powered but not over or under powered by your engines, and well built.


707,717,727,738,744,752,762ER,763ER,772ER,MD82,MD-83,MD-88, DC-9-10,DC-10-10,A320
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10101 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 22):
Ask yourself this - how come the 777 doesn't experience "pilot error" at the same rate as the 330 ?

With only two out of the six examples quoted being "pilot error", and one of THEM being during flight testing?????

Must be the same reason that terrorists find the A330 so popular I guess...   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I find the A340-500 to be the one thanks to the Trent 700s

Point of order, my friend, they're Trent 500's ....

Rgds


25 Post contains images Stitch : Indeed. The 700's are those scrawny (but darn efficient) things hanging off the A330.
26 peergynt : The 777 looks awfully similar to a 767 (another boring plane). The 787 will probably follow the same path. But as long as they are profitable and effi
27 tsugambler : I know it's just a matter of opinion, but I can't see why people think the 777 is ugly... I think it's beautiful (for a twinjet). The proportions are
28 VC10er : First thanks to all. I personally love the way all of them look, probably due to the fact I saw and flew a brand new UA 777 within a few months of int
29 TheRedBaron : I think the 777 is the BIG 757. but its not a beautiful plane, its boring. But its a sales king due to economics. If its crammed inside is due to the
30 VC10er : Gosh, such hatred for the 777! I am really surprised. I think she is gorgeous in her perfection. Nothing wasted. The clean razor sharp lines. The sign
31 2707200X : I think it is many things. 1) The 777 is the biggest twinjet in the world. 2) Most 777s are comfortable with the majority of them at nine abreast at t
32 AirPacific747 : These statements are like my own opinion... inverted. I like the 777 because it looks so sleek and the design is so "clean". It just looks like an ef
33 MCOflyer : What I like about the 777 is it can o any route an airline has and make profit. DL, EK, QR, and SQ have shown this on both short an long haul flights.
34 817Dreamliiner : I find it really amazing how much people in this thread think the 777 is ugly. Not trying to beat anyone down or anything because as aircraft enthusia
35 Viscount724 : The -300ER is the only 777 model that's selling in significant numbers today (about 110 orders in the past 2 years), and that's because it's the only
36 Max Q : It's a very good Aircraft with a great record. It is boring though, just like all twins..
37 Post contains images Eightball : While some people may find the looks of the 777 to be boring and long for the old-school looks of older airliners like the 747 and the DC-10, to me th
38 TJCAB : Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. period. No need to convince one another. Some of my friends and family cannot understand what I see in planes. T
39 frmrCapCadet : LUCK. The 777 did quite well but it was not the super star until the 300. At that point it went quite beyond being a very good plane. I do not think t
40 Viscount724 : And not until the -300ER. Only 60 standard non-ER -300s were sold.
41 seabosdca : It takes time for the full potential of any aircraft family to become apparent to the public. The 777 was no exception. No one expected a 240 t A330-
42 frmrCapCadet : Indeed, I meant to say 300ER. Thanks
43 sweair : It must have been the ETOPS rules that made the 300ER such a success? If it werent for ETOPS it would never had taken off like it did?
44 columba : I do find the 777-200 Series as well as the A330 series very boring to look at, while I do find the 777W and the A340 both very good looking planes.
45 pvjin : I find 777 series kind of boring, somehow from outside they just look so generic and lack shapes. Their engines do have nice sounds though if you sit
46 Burkhard : Add a few 748I, somehow they have better proportions than the 744. For most airlines, the 77W especially is the right long range aircraft for most of
47 Post contains images tom355uk : Boy oh boy, you have just rubber stamped by assertion about your lack of knowledge. I can see you haven't been a member here for long, so I'll give y
48 nasula : That raises an interesting question: What is part of the airframe then? Computers?, Flaps? Rudder? Wheels? etcetc. I guess the point Aesma was trying
49 Bobloblaw : What do you guys want to look at Sonic Cruisers? Is aircraft spotting any more boring than 30 years ago? Spotters 30 years ago were probably bored and
50 Burkhard : No, we still had Lockheed, Douglas, VC10, Tridents, Concorde, many Russian aircraft, Caravelle,... - much more series vanished than new ones came int
51 817Dreamliiner : Like I said in my previous post, its all personal opinion. It might be boring for some, but its not boring for eveyone.
52 Post contains images aloges : 747-8s, A340s, MD-11s, DC-9s and Mad Dogs, propliners... essentially: anything that differs from the tube + wings with one engine each design Oh, and
53 okees : Well, firstly in my opinion all aircraft are competing for a distant seconds looks wise to the 747... so yes, in some way they all look boring compare
54 Post contains images CXB77L : I think what attracts airlines to the 777 is pretty obvious: it can do almost any mission that a quad engined A340 or 744 can but burn less fuel in th
55 HIRSCH777 : Please Provide Some sort of Source for your Knowledge Does not mean because I have not been a Member of A.net for long that I do not Know much About
56 aerorobnz : The attraction is that the 77W saves 20% on fuel over a 744 and can fly further with more cargo.
57 nasula : I'm just an interested layman and do not know the details of the aircraft systems, but what I've understood from real AB pilots posting here on some
58 AirPacific747 : Also possible in the Airbus. Next. No there is absolutely no reason to override the protections. I doubt you will ever need to bank more than 67 degr
59 chrisflier : I would have to agree! I find the 777 beautiful for a twinjet too! I would also have to agree with the cockpit windows being more aesthetically pleas
60 tom355uk : My copy of the A330 Flight Crew Operating Manual. "Section 1.34.10: ADIRS The system includes - - 3 identical ADIRU's (Air Data Inertial Reference Un
61 Post contains images astuteman : Amazing........... Suggestion. Why don't you a) provide the source of YOUR knowledge or better yet b) read the plethora of threads in tech-ops which
62 columba : The outboard aileron on the 747-8 is using fly-by-wire.
63 Post contains images tom355uk : Quite right. To be pedantic, I did say 747-400. The 747-8 actually has FBW spoilers as well as outboard ailerons, but no form of envelope control. Th
64 HIRSCH777 : How Old Are you, Sir? I think We are taking this too personally. This is a Aviation Forum, I must remind Myself, Not a Engineering Board Meeting with
65 HIRSCH777 : Boeing's says: "These are the limits. I sure don't recommend you go past them, so to make sure you know I'll make it really difficult for you. If you
66 Post contains links tdscanuck : Not really. By intentionally failing other systems (e.g. shutting down flight control computers or pitot probe heaters) a pilot can force the flight
67 Post contains images astuteman : To be honest, it doesn't bother me how much of a complete arse you make of yourself. If it doesn't bother you either, that's fine too. For what its w
68 Post contains images nasula : You're calling Astuteman immature? If you look at astuteman's RR score (94/100), you'll notice that he is one of the most respected members here and
69 Post contains images aeroflop : I don't know how anyone can say the 777 is the ugliest!!!
70 HIRSCH777 : I Respect His thoughts.
71 StickShaker : Had the price of aviation fuel not increased from around $30/barrel at the time of 345/6 launch to over $100/barrel not too long after the 77W EIS th
72 StickShaker : The 777-200ER became a superstar because it had similar capacity, better range and a lot less fuel burn than the A340-300. I assume when you say luck
73 BlueSky1976 : Why do I love the Mighty Triple Seven? It's simple: no other passenger aircraft impressed me as much as the 777 when I saw it for the first time in my
74 AirPacific747 : That is why even in normal law, it will allow you to override the protections in case the aircraft for example would be flipped upside down by say ex
75 tom355uk : Banking an aircraft to extreme angles doesn't necessarily load it up heavily. It is possible to perform a full 360 degree barrel roll without exceedi
76 AirPacific747 : Of course, but banking 67 degrees while maintaining the same altitude is a different situation. In such an aircraft assuming you are trying to mainta
77 CXB77L : I think getting aircraft on spec and on time requires a little element of luck, on top of all of the above. Aside from the 777 and the Longer Range 7
78 Post contains images tom355uk : I don't think it will ever happen again to be honest. The sales guys will always shave as much time off as possible, because customers don't want to
79 wingman : In this entire thread there are no pics of big, beautiful 777s. WTF?! I love riding 777s just to stare dumbfounded at the engines turning for 10 hours
80 tdscanuck : You never specified "while maintaining altitude." That's a very different restriction. The wing doesn't know or care what bank angle you're at; you c
81 seabosdca : Sadly, the 787 went only 1-for-3 in that respect (and that's being a little generous, counting "on spec after LN 90" as "on spec"). I think the 777 e
82 Post contains images aerokiwi : My one gripe with the 77W is the engine start-up. There can be a pretty horrific noise for 15-20 seconds in the cabin as they get underway, to the poi
83 Post contains images CXB77L : That "noise" is music to my ears
84 Post contains images 817Dreamliiner : Same here!
85 Post contains links 135mech : Yes it is...and put the sales in motion for the KC-135 and later on the B707 lines! Tex Johnston was awesome! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezt5Iuwg
86 jfk777 : When the 747 was the only 7000 mile plane around many airline used it even if it was too big for the route, the 777 put the "miss use" to an end. WE a
87 LH707330 : The A340 could do the thin 7000 mile routes back in '93 without having to wait until '98 for a 777-200ER...
88 tom355uk : To be fair, really how many 'thin' routes are there that are even 7000nm+? The 767-200ER has a stated range of 6,385nm, and was released in 1984. I c
89 zipsy : I find all jetliners beautiful.nothing boring about them.Come over here and you will be bored stiff with just little prop planes buzzing around.Even
90 MSR777 : I'm a die hard Airbus man myself, but I really do like the look of the 777-300, especially in Egyptair colours. It was a nice flight on one of theirs
91 phxa340 : Maylasia - Labeling Error (Nothing to do with the design of the 330) Air France - Pilot Error (Nothing to do with the design of the 330) Afriqiyah -
92 Post contains images KPDX : Hahaha, touche. I personally love watching all aircraft. (cmon, we're aviation enthusiasts!) You can dislike one more than the other, but I don't see
93 AirPacific747 : Fair enough. My bad, but what would be the point of banking 90 degrees if you are then going to stall? Especially in a 747? There is no reason to go
94 VC10er : Since I started this thread to learn "why" the 777 program was so successful I have to say thank you to everyone, I have learned why. I didn't expect
95 Post contains images michaeljp : Wow...there have been some interesting comments within this thread aside from the "what is the 777 attraction". I personally think that the 777 is a f
96 tom355uk : A raked wingtip and winglet have much the same purpose: they both help to reduce drag caused by the turbulent air at the wingtip. This is achieved by
97 tdscanuck : You don't have to stall. That was the whole point. Wings can't "see" bank angle. They just see angle of attack. The point of doing it, in my case, wa
98 AirPacific747 : But still, why would you need that other than for flight testing?
99 tdscanuck : Recovery from a deep stall is the only one I can think of offhand. C_N_Beta is a powerful thing. The original point was that Boeing didn't want to te
100 VC10er : Can a 777 turn upside down? Or do a full flip? A really stupid, but curious thought. Can any pax aircraft do that? Naturally if the pilot did do that
101 michaeljp : There was a post earlier in this thread regarding the famous video of the Mr T Johnson doing the barrel roll in the 707.
102 OldAeroGuy : Yes. I've looped one in the simulator, as well as a barrel roll and a split S. The flight control laws allow this capability.
103 VC10er : I flew a few days after 9/11. The FA was a friend because she was almost always my FA on UA. She told me to keep my seat belt as tight as I could as
104 hirsch777 : Indeed, they are all very safe aircraft. But, the two above could have something to do with the design. Af447, Pitot Tube, Envelope Laws. Afriqiyah,
105 na : The 777 is a Toyota. Effective, and utterly boring. That suits many, but only the ones with low expectations.
106 tdscanuck : Which is *exactly* what the OEM's customers want. It's far harder to make a Toyota that runs perfectly, day in day out for 20 years, than it is to bu
107 TJCAB : ...in your opinion!
108 VC10er : That quote angered me too. "pieces of garbage?" I'm an admitted novice but I'll go way out on a limb here and say that they are both engineering marv
109 BoeingGuy : I didn't know the 747-8 has also been over 90 degrees. Who was flying, Mark? I do know that WA001 (the first 777) did get up to 110 degrees of bank a
110 tdscanuck : Not Mark. A Boeing guy (who's name I'll keep out of this forum but you can IM me if you want) plus an FAA cert pilot. High altitude roll rate respons
111 Post contains images 9VSIO : Perhaps to stop a climb in a hurry without incurring neg G forces? After all, it does kill the vertical component of your lift vector pretty quickly
112 n729pa : Didn't a Cimber Air ATR42 do that a few years ago for some odd reason at an airshow or something? I remember seeing pictures of the original 707 doin
113 Post contains images CXB77L : A true aviation enthusiast would not find any aircraft "boring".
114 Post contains images COEWR787 : Considering that the 707 became an L0L, why not? LOL
115 Post contains images 135mech : True! There are birds I find not as "inspiring" as others...however if I hear or even think I hear an airplane, I'm whipping my head around to find i
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...
What Is The Reg.# Of The Boeing's 1st 777 posted Thu Apr 19 2001 19:57:29 by Red Panda
Is The 777-200 A "Gas Guzzler"? Air India Thinks So. posted Tue Aug 21 2012 12:19:39 by globalflyer777
What Is The Route Fr YUL To HNL To Deliver ATR De posted Sat Jul 21 2012 12:29:02 by Canflight
What Is The Current Status Of The Kingfisher Fleet posted Wed Feb 15 2012 13:48:32 by AirCanadaA330
What Is The Status Of This 707-321B At TLV? posted Fri Jan 13 2012 20:56:43 by fanofjets
What Is The Delivery Rate Of EK 77Ws? posted Sun Jan 8 2012 10:50:34 by DFWHeavy
What Is The Deal With 100 Seaters? posted Wed Nov 30 2011 13:14:08 by DeltaMD90
What Is The Status Of FRA Expansion? posted Thu Sep 8 2011 17:52:56 by YYZAMS
What Is The TSA Doing At The Rental Car Building? posted Mon Nov 15 2010 15:41:23 by varigb707
What Is The Future For VS? posted Fri Nov 5 2010 08:15:41 by LondonCity