747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:22 pm

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
Posts: 4914
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:08 pm

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
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:05 pm

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 avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:46 pm

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.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:17 pm

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
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:34 pm

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.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:40 pm

Isn't the 777 already a VLA anyway? It's a widebody still......
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
DrColenzo
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:26 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:36 pm

[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
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:43 pm

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.
Anon
 
canyonblue17
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:22 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:49 pm

What qualifies the A380 as a "Super" and could that designation apply to the 777-9X?
negative ghostrider the pattern is full
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:59 pm

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

It WAS a planet.   
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
WesternFlyer
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:44 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:13 pm

What does "VLA" mean?
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:25 pm

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
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:02 pm

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
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:06 pm

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 avatar
neutrino
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:33 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:42 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:46 pm

I would call it a VLA since it is the direct replacement for the 747-400.
 
canyonblue17
Posts: 385
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:22 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:03 pm

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"?
negative ghostrider the pattern is full
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:22 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:31 am

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.
You Sir, are a very funny lady.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:26 pm

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.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:42 pm

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
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:46 pm

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
 
na
Posts: 9129
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:46 pm

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.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:37 pm

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?  
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2600
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:30 pm

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.

[Edited 2012-07-30 07:41:09]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:37 pm

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.
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
KDAYflyer
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:13 pm

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.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3209
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:08 pm

Quoting na (Reply 24):

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 
Please let me know... If you know this is the end of the world, Let me know... If you know the truth...
 
AAMDanny
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:06 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:09 am

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 B773 :S
 
Mcoov
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:14 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:19 am

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?
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:10 am

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
Ben Soriano
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:02 am

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.
 
MountainFlyer
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:19 pm

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.  
SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:27 pm

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
Posts: 3881
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:01 pm

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:

In the Very Large Aircraft (VLA) category with seating capacities of more than 400 passengers...
http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...en-by-airbus-2011-2030-global-mar/

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.
My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

RE: If Built, Could The 777-9X Be Considered A VLA?

Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:57 pm

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?       
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis