Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Re: Is The Boeing 777 Efficient  
User currently offlinePeter S. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 5 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

I recently took a trip to London on a Boeing 777 and was amazed at the engines not only in power but the size. I started to try and figure out whether all that power was necessary for that aircraft and whether it wasted unnecessary fuel. I started comparing it to other aircraft mainly the 747, the A340 and the proposed A380. I took the maximum thrust of all the engines combined on each aircraft and compared it to their maximum takeoff weight. The results are in the form of lbs of thrust for each lb of weight.

747= .29

Without making this a Boeing vs. Airbus arguement, can it be argued that the engines for the 777 are too powerful and thus burn more fuel than is necessary thus reducing potential profits for airlines. Could this also explain why many people feel that the A340 is underpowered as well as the A380. Comments and insight are welcome. I got the weight and engine thrust from their respective websites.


5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSoaring Spirit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

The B777's engines are very powerful and fast. They use less fuel, and are more "green friendly" than the other aircrafts' engines.

User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6966 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Twins compare with twins, and quads compare with quads. Most any twin has more thrust-per-pound than most any quad, for well-known reasons.

User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4852 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Twins need to have a higher reserve power because of the possibility of engine failure. The 777 is not an inefficient aircraft.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8345 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Incredibly efficient aircraft. All the aircraft you compared it to are quads, which need much less reserve power margins (as stated above). But to continue the thought, compare it to other twins. I bet the 757 and A310 are more powerful and the 767 and A330 are comparable.

fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineRw774477 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1085 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

777's must be able to climb out on 1 jet ( after 1 failure ) - the others must do it on 3 jets - hence the larger single unit


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...
Who Is The Boeing 777-200LR Launch Customer? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 09:49:23 by Chris7217
Why Is The Boeing 720 Weaker And Lighter? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 16:57:56 by Duke
Is The 7880nm 777-300ER Flying Yet? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 18:42:21 by WestWing
Who Operates The Boeing 777? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 18:57:29 by Broncoguy
Qantas (CEO Dixon) "loves" The Boeing 777! posted Tue Jun 21 2005 00:55:09 by Jacobin777
How Legit Is The Boeing 7E7? posted Wed Jun 9 2004 00:55:32 by AVPOH77
When Is The Boeing 7E7 Supposed To Be In Service? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 22:11:50 by Chicago757
Problems In Building The Boeing 777. posted Wed Dec 19 2001 23:16:51 by Funny
Could Varig Get The Boeing 777-300? posted Thu Sep 6 2001 02:57:06 by RJ_Delta
Your Thoughts On The Boeing 777... posted Sun Jan 14 2001 05:42:23 by UAL_777_FO