747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3519 times:
I know Boeing, knows what they doing, but when I read that they de-rating the GE 90 with GE 90X to 99000 lb thrust engines for the 777-X, I thought, something does not feel right about this. I see that the 777-X has a beast of a wing span, I believe it's around 134 ft, (larger than the 747-8) which should give the 777-X, amazing lift, but with de-rated engines, there may-be a problem. Now I can see where the de-rated GE 90X, could help the program, by burning less fuel. So will the de-rated GE 90X hurt the 777-X or help the giant twin jet?
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 89 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
The point is that the 777-X should be much much lighter and burn, and therefore need, much less fuel.
thegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2607 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 1): The point is that the 777-X should be much much lighter and burn, and therefore need, much less fuel.
But then you have a wing too big for the MTOW. It still doesn't feel right to me. I guess the too big wing could work out if operated at higher average weights.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3439 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 2): But then you have a wing too big for the MTOW.
That has been presented as a plus for the A350 and A380, so why would it be a negative for the 777X?
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2069 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3406 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): I see that the 777-X has a beast of a wing span, I believe it's around 134 ft, (larger than the 747-8)
Misprint? I know its not 134' and its also not 134' longer than the 747-800.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3246 times:
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 4): Misprint? I know its not 134' and its also not 134' longer than the 747-800.
Yes, you are right, I meant 234', and that is wider than a 747-8.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3245 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 2): Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):
The point is that the 777-X should be much much lighter and burn, and therefore need, much less fuel.
But then you have a wing too big for the MTOW.
That's not at all unusual...the 777-200 (original), the 767-200, the 787-8, the A380-800, and soon the A350-800 are all in exactly the same situation. "Oversize wings" tend to provide very good aerodynamics and provide room for future growth at much lower cost.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Quoting thegeek (Reply 5): I don't know that I buy that the A358 having the same wing as the A359 is a plus, unless its for a longer range version.
Maybe the lower wing-loading helps with long-range cruise efficiency? It certainly helps field performance.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3128 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
Don't forget that its likely to have HUGE margin for hot and high operations at higher thrust than "max". Only compared to the current GE90-115, this might not have the fairly large penalty to MX intervals given its lower base thrust on the same core size.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1769 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
A wing is characterized by it's span and it's wing area.
SPAN
The span is a good thing asit reduces induced drag. A CFRP wing can be made with a higher aspect ratio (ie more span with the same wing area) then an alu one. The original 777 wing was alu and was dimensioned for MTOWs in the 250t range (777-200), for the 350t only swept wingtips was added. Given the chance B has now increased the span and aspect ratio a lot=good.
WING AREA
The wing area gives the lift (area * lift-coeffcient) but it also produces weight (lots of structure) and drag (wetted area) so you don't want more then you need. We don't know the area for the new wing but don't expect it to increase as much as the span. MTOW/Wing area seems to lie in the range 650kg/m2 (today 800kg/m2) when you start fresh so expect the area for the 720-740t 777-8-9X to lie in the range of 500m2 (today 435m2).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2607 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2010, 1769 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
