GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Who asked about the size of the tip earlier?

This photo adds perspective unless that employee is a child...

True, though the specs indicate a wingspan growth of 7m (23') to 72m when lowered from the 65m wingspan of the folded configuration, which is, frankly, not all that much. That's roughly 11.5' per wing, which is why I'm keen to learn whether the 777X can fly with the wingtips folded (or removed), and if so what the limits/penalties are.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Who asked about the size of the tip earlier?

This photo adds perspective unless that employee is a child...

Wow! They are massive indeed. Some would argue they are as large as a small aircraft's VTP.

@ Spetsnaz55, thanks for the photos. The windows look massive too. Everything is super-sized on this bird.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Point taken; thank you. I do wonder, though, if the 777x can fly with them removed in case of a MX issue...?

I believe the 777x can fly with the wing tip in folded position. I'm not sure about flying with a wing tip missing.

The 777X will not be certified to fly with the wing tips folded.

In common with existing 777's, 777X's will be able to dispatch with the wing tips removed after appropriate performance penalties are applied.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Who asked about the size of the tip earlier?

This photo adds perspective unless that employee is a child...

It's a 11 foot wingtip.

Looks like that wingtip starts around the employees stomach

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

It's a 11 foot wingtip.

Looks like that wingtip starts around the employees stomach

Google states the 777 fuselage diameter is 20 ft 4 in so each wing tip is about half the fuselage diameter, and most of us who have been inside 777 know how big that is.

It's also a handy way to gauge the wingtip height when the fuse is in the picture.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

WildcatYXU wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Point taken; thank you. I do wonder, though, if the 777x can fly with them removed in case of a MX issue...?

I believe the 777x can fly with the wing tip in folded position. I'm not sure about flying with a wing tip missing.

The 777X will not be certified to fly with the wing tips folded.

In common with existing 777's, 777X's will be able to dispatch with the wing tips removed after appropriate performance penalties are applied.

So I had it the other way around. Thanks for the info!

Western727 wrote:

I wonder if the "smallish" size is to allow for flyability with the wingtips removed (either as a MEL with whatever drag, weight & takeoff performance penalty that's appropriate...or if necessary an empty ferry flight) if a MX issue comes up?

As far as I know, they're as small as they could be to achieve the desired span while still fitting in the ICAO Code E 65 meter limit.

DL717 wrote:

trijetsonly wrote:

Will they finally have LED landing lights or do they stick to halogen bulbs?
It's hard to see on the pictures.

I don’t see any new aircraft coming off any line anymore given LED advancements, unless laser diodes take over.

Laser Excited Phosphor emitters are really closely related to LED's - in both cases it is a phosphor made to glow in white light by a short-wavelength diode - but currently are quite a ways behind LED's in efficiency. If they need a tighter beam or a smaller frontal area, the LEP emitters might be worth pursuing.

planecane wrote:

Why on Earth would you want to use lasers for lighting? For illumination you want a relatively wide beam. Laser diodes will give your a bunch of dots.

This is the same basic technology as Audi's laser headlights. It's typically a blue (sometimes violet) laser shining on a phosphor that absorbs that light and glows in white in response. Although the laser light is a tight beam, the light emitted by the phosphor is spread out.

With a laser, you can get smaller, more intense spot of light on the phosphor. The smaller optical size of the light source can be focused more tightly by a given sized lens.

Max Q wrote:

a nose up attitude on the ground just looks wrong

Counterpoints: Spitfire and numerous other taildraggers, as well as the A-4 Skyhawk.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Big arrays of LED's. In case you miss a few posts below yours, the lighting under the wheel well is dark, but you can see a pair of lights here:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

https://i.ibb.co/XShJCNK/20190313-111738.jpg

so the front gear doors stay open full length?
( do I rightly remember the A350 thingies to be segmented and closing partially after deploying the FLG? noise reduction? )

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Big arrays of LED's. In case you miss a few posts below yours, the lighting under the wheel well is dark, but you can see a pair of lights here:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

https://i.ibb.co/XShJCNK/20190313-111738.jpg

so the front gear doors stay open full length?
( do I rightly remember the A350 thingies to be segmented and closing partially after deploying the FLG? noise reduction? )

I think they're segmented as well on the 779, that image shows the open sections behind where the retract strut joins the main one.

Western727 wrote:

Point taken; thank you. I do wonder, though, if the 777x can fly with them removed in case of a MX issue...?

The current 777-9 ACAP states that if the folding wing-tip fails to deploy during taxi-out, the airplane will return to the gate / stand and the issue will be repaired. So it does not appear it will be possible to dispatch a 777X without it's wingtips. We'll know for sure when the MEL is issued.

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Big arrays of LED's. In case you miss a few posts below yours, the lighting under the wheel well is dark, but you can see a pair of lights here:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

https://i.ibb.co/XShJCNK/20190313-111738.jpg

so the front gear doors stay open full length?
( do I rightly remember the A350 thingies to be segmented and closing partially after deploying the FLG? noise reduction? )

I think it is similar to the nose gear of the legacy 777:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7xaYOMRPA

This YouTube video get you close up and personal with the roll-out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1imYmNSatU

bt

How does the increased span of the 777-9 affect the cruising altitude? The initial cruising level for a heavy 77W lies between FL290-310 and later on rarely above FL370. I guess with the new wing, it should be able to climb up higher in the first stages of flight...

LSZH34 wrote:

How does the increased span of the 777-9 affect the cruising altitude? The initial cruising level for a heavy 77W lies between FL290-310 and later on rarely above FL370. I guess with the new wing, it should be able to climb up higher in the first stages of flight...

I hadn't thought about that, and I think it's a good question. At the same time, the engines are less powerful than the 77W's due to the larger wings, so I wonder what kind of impact that will have on the initial cruising altitudes when a 777-9 is heavy.

Remember, the 77W & 779 have the same MTOW.

With 15% more wing area and 10% more wing span, the 779 should have an ICAC at least 2000-3000 higher than the 77W, depending on the engine cruise thrust bucket shape.

Add me to the meeeh crowd.
It doesn't look as impressive as on renderings, it almost looks as long as a B77W.
The folding wingtips's technical execution is not pretty, the fortress castle ⛫ pattern at the hinges is plain ugly. Why didn't they put a plate to make it flush?

The lack of chevrons is not going to help the cabin noise. As a successor to the noisy B77W, that is very promising...

The folding wingtip doesnt look to be more than a raked wingtip.

I hope that that wing flexes real well, that's the only positive thing to look forward to in the esthetics department.

It looks very nice, but for some reason the longer the 777 gets, the more annoying the transition from the nose to the main body looks. (above and behind the cockpit) Why is the transition so sharp when it seems like it should be more rounded? (would also give more space) The 787 looks much better in this area.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

It doesn't look as impressive as on renderings, it almost looks as long as a B77W.

It's only a 2.7m stretch.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The folding wingtips's technical execution is not pretty, the fortress castle ⛫ pattern at the hinges is plain ugly. Why didn't they put a plate to make it flush?

Weight?

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The lack of chevrons is not going to help the cabin noise.

The engine OEMs found they could reduce the noise signature without chevrons, which is why they are not on the latest models of engines.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

The folding wingtip doesn't look to be more than a raked wingtip.

That would be because that is the function they serve.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Remember, the 77W & 779 have the same MTOW.

With 15% more wing area and 10% more wing span, the 779 should have an ICAC at least 2000-3000 higher than the 77W, depending on the engine cruise thrust bucket shape.

Just to put that into perspective, 2,000ft more altitude is about 7% less dense air (less drag). In the stratosphere, 9% less dense air.

Lightsaber

Stitch wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:The folding wingtips's technical execution is not pretty, the fortress castle ⛫ pattern at the hinges is plain ugly. Why didn't they put a plate to make it flush?Weight?

How would you design a plate to close it off? Would you design a cantilevered cover to close off the hinge line? It would just mean there would be more parts that can potentially fall off

bt

777Jet wrote:

Awesome looking plane! Thanks for sharing the pics...

Miquel787 wrote:

Wow,what a beauty! The 777 always looks right..76.7 metres long.

1 more meter and its length would be 77.7

Make it 1.2m and it would be 77.9

NTLDaz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Are the windows any bigger than the current gen 777?

Yes.

Those windows are fabulous. I like the higher placement as well.

Pity so many FA's make you keep them shut.

I hope QF orders for Project Sunrise ( the 8 ).

Those pictures can't be a correct reflection of size difference.

Doing a rough screen measurement:
* A350 window: 57 mm height;
* 77X window: 80 mm height.
That's a difference of 40% in height. In area, that translates to 97% area.
Picture is showing the window to be twice as large as A350 window. Text says it's only 29% larger.

Great Marketing!

PS. Not trying to take anything away from 77X, I think it's a fabulous plane. Just don't like these marketing claims . . .

I like big windows and I prefer window seats.
BUT: in real life you get forced to close the blinds (or the crew does it) because people are said to prefer staring at their screens. Available windows size therefore is not usable for most of the flight duration.

777X will come with optional improved second gen dimmable windows. (Not sure whether it will be a standard feature by EIS).

Edit to add this link:
https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... ndows.html

Dimmable windows are the worst

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

Said the aviation enthusiast.

Screen glare and being kept awake by bright sunlight is the worst, said a large percentage of other airline passengers.

Meh, said the rest.

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

To you. But then you are entitled to your own views.
To some others it could be the best thing since sliced bread.
Different people have different tastes, otherwise the world would be very boring.
Btw have you ever flown on the Dreamliner?
I did, multiple times, both day and night. And I kinda like it over the traditional shades.
Looking forward to the improved 2G version on the 777X.
I hope more airlines go for that option.
(You can hope otherwise).

Revelation wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

Said the aviation enthusiast.

Screen glare and being kept awake by bright sunlight is the worst, said a large percentage of other airline passengers.

Meh, said the rest.

Put on $5 sleeping eyes strap and problem solved.
When I buy window seat, good luck telling me to close the shade lol.

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

Only when the crew override passenger settings.

WIederling wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Big arrays of LED's. In case you miss a few posts below yours, the lighting under the wheel well is dark, but you can see a pair of lights here:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

https://i.ibb.co/XShJCNK/20190313-111738.jpg

so the front gear doors stay open full length?
( do I rightly remember the A350 thingies to be segmented and closing partially after deploying the FLG? noise reduction? )

I am not quite sure I get this... could someone please explain the landing gear config. on the A350 and 777-9?

RRUltrafan wrote:

I am not quite sure I get this... could someone please explain the landing gear config. on the A350 and 777-9?

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cxEndx-Q0
NLG doors on the A350 are two paired sets.
The smaller rear one stays open to have the gear leg stick out
the larger set reaching forward to the radome only open for extension and then close again.

The 777 pic showing the landing light position would require the full length doors to stay open to be able to "shine out".
( not found a fitting video yet.)

I just hope 777-x will not have any hidden system

gia777 wrote:

I just hope 777-x will not have any hidden system

A big clue to this will be when Boeing and the hugely independent FAA say any 77W driver can hop onboard and fly it, after just an hours 'tuition' on an iPad

neutrino wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

To you. But then you are entitled to your own views.
To some others it could be the best thing since sliced bread.
Different people have different tastes, otherwise the world would be very boring.
Btw have you ever flown on the Dreamliner?
I did, multiple times, both day and night. And I kinda like it over the traditional shades.
Looking forward to the improved 2G version on the 777X.
I hope more airlines go for that option.
(You can hope otherwise).

I agree with neutrino completely.

As a frequent flyer with 600 commercial PAX flights behind me, nearly 50 of those on the 787, I can say for sure that I prefer the dimmable windows over all others. When they are all dimmed, they make the cabin sufficiently dark for most people who want to sleep, and they still allow others to enjoy a sunset or otherwise take a peek outside without allowing bright daylight to disturb other passengers.

In an age where everyone wants more choice, it surprises me that so many frown on a system that allows just that - the choice to look outside for some AND the choice to have a dark cabin for others at the same time.

One thing that really gets to me is when I am enjoying the view with no intention of sleeping and then the FA comes and tells me to close the shutter.

Edited for clarity and spelling.

Opaque wrote:

neutrino wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Dimmable windows are the worst

To you. But then you are entitled to your own views.
To some others it could be the best thing since sliced bread.
Different people have different tastes, otherwise the world would be very boring.
Btw have you ever flown on the Dreamliner?
I did, multiple times, both day and night. And I kinda like it over the traditional shades.
Looking forward to the improved 2G version on the 777X.
I hope more airlines go for that option.
(You can hope otherwise).

I agree with neutrino completely.

As a frequent flyer with 600 commercial PAX flights behind me, nearly 50 of those on the 787, I can say for sure that I prefer the dimmable windows over all others. When they are all dimmed, they make the cabin sufficiently dark for most people who want to sleep, and they still allow others to enjoy a sunset or otherwise take a peek outside without allowing bright daylight to disturb other passengers.

In an age where everyone wants more choice, it surprises me that so many frown on a system that allows just that - the choice to look outside for some AND the choice to have a dark cabin for others at the same time.

One thing that really gets to me is when I am enjoying the view with no intention of sleeping and then the FA comes and tells me to close the shutter.

Edited for clarity and spelling.

The dimmable windows arent too bad but they have a flaw. On the side where the sun is shining, they get very hot. Hotter than with shades for sure and hot enough to burn yourself.
The darkness level is fine, when they lock it it's annoying but then again it s also annoying when someone opens a shade in an otherwise dark and sleepy cabin.
Dimmable windows yes, but they need to find ways to keep the heat outside.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Dimmable windows yes, but they need to find ways to keep the heat outside.

dimming is absorptive and not reflective. ( haven't seen variable window dimming via controlling reflection yet. )
They must get hot when dimmed down.

lightsaber wrote:

OldAeroGuy wrote:

Remember, the 77W & 779 have the same MTOW.

With 15% more wing area and 10% more wing span, the 779 should have an ICAC at least 2000-3000 higher than the 77W, depending on the engine cruise thrust bucket shape.

Just to put that into perspective, 2,000ft more altitude is about 7% less dense air (less drag). In the stratosphere, 9% less dense air.

Lightsaber

So does that translate into further fuel efficiency?

Sorry, I know it is a silly question, but I will ask anyway. What happens if the hinged wingtips fall off during midflight? Can the plane still fly/be maneuvered?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Maneuver? Yes. There is no control surface on the wing tip. By comparison, the chance of a wing tip falling off is probably lower than a one engine out condition (which is worse in terms of maneuverability). You probably can compare it to a flap falling off in terms of frequency.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Add me to the meeeh crowd.
It doesn't look as impressive as on renderings, it almost looks as long as a B77W.
The folding wingtips's technical execution is not pretty, the fortress castle ⛫ pattern at the hinges is plain ugly. Why didn't they put a plate to make it flush?

The lack of chevrons is not going to help the cabin noise. As a successor to the noisy B77W, that is very promising...

The folding wingtip doesnt look to be more than a raked wingtip.

I hope that that wing flexes real well, that's the only positive thing to look forward to in the esthetics department.

This sentiment seems to be widely shared
here, I guess I don’t get the ‘aesthetics’
of a wing that has significant flex



Like the 787, then again I’m in the minority that has never been impressed with its
looks

bikerthai wrote:

Maneuver? Yes. There is no control surface on the wing tip. By comparison, the chance of a wing tip falling off is probably lower than a one engine out condition (which is worse in terms of maneuverability). You probably can compare it to a flap falling off in terms of frequency.

so what happens if 1 wingtip falls off during flight? Does the plane become extremely unstable? Does anyone know? It got my interest because I see the hinges on the wingtips as being the so called weak link in the chain.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

oschkosch wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Maneuver? Yes. There is no control surface on the wing tip. By comparison, the chance of a wing tip falling off is probably lower than a one engine out condition (which is worse in terms of maneuverability). You probably can compare it to a flap falling off in terms of frequency.

so what happens if 1 wingtip falls off during flight? Does the plane become extremely unstable? Does anyone know? It got my interest because I see the hinges on the wingtips as being the so called weak link in the chain.

In our current wing tip thread you read the wing tips will account for 10% of the wing span.

Lose one and you still have 95% of the wing span, and of course much more than 95% of the area since the wing tips are on the skinny end of the wing.

You also retain all the control surfaces, since the wing tip has no control surfaces on it.

The other thread tells us:

LAX772LR wrote:

jagraham wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

Do they actually have a significant enough impact that the plane can't fly without them?

The 77X can most likely fly without those wingtips, although not as well as with them.

There's no "most likely" about it... the aircraft has to be able to complete all 5 phases of flight (1) without the wingtips deployed or (2) with an imbalance in deployment.

So all the permutations will be tested, and the aircraft will not be certified if a failure makes the aircraft "extremely unstable" in any phase of flight.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417971&p=21192201&hilit=wingtip#p21190985

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417971

May I suggest we use that other thread for wingtip discussions and leave this to the 777-9 roll out topic?

Does anyone know if the wingtip and tail white strobe lights and the dorsal and ventral fuselage red lights on the 777X will be the same as the earlier 777s or will be like those on the 787? I've noticed that the wingtip strobes on the 747-8 and 737Max are similar to those on the 787, but the dorsal and ventral fuselage lights are as on earlier 747s and 737s.

DrPaul wrote:

Does anyone know if the wingtip and tail white strobe lights and the dorsal and ventral fuselage red lights on the 777X will be the same as the earlier 777s or will be like those on the 787? I've noticed that the wingtip strobes on the 747-8 and 737Max are similar to those on the 787, but the dorsal and ventral fuselage lights are as on earlier 747s and 737s.

We may see seemingly retrospective steps, with earlier model features re-instated, to protect grandfathering. MAX grandfathering is going to be top of mind. The until now 'flexible' FAA approach, will swing in the opposite direction. Even cosmetic features on the just revealed aircraft may change to protect the count back process used to affirm grandfathering.

neutrino wrote:

777X will come with optional improved second gen dimmable windows. (Not sure whether it will be a standard feature by EIS).

Edit to add this link:
https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... ndows.html

This article on the mfg site has a good section view. I wonder why the dust cover is still there, protection if the glass breaks? It is nearly a 5 pane window, probably quite good U value. That is needed when it is -50F outside so a 120 degree delta across the window. Applying the voltage, although low wattage might reduce fogging.

http://www.gentex.com/aerospace/aircraft-windows

I recall that the FAA requires the window shades to be up in certain landing conditions, well pilot control helps a bunch with that.

It is interesting that most buildings have solar heat gain coatings that have a light transmittance between 30 & 70%, nobody seems to complain as the view is still quite good. In the desert one would select a coating close to the 30% to reduce the AC load in the building.

WIederling wrote:

RRUltrafan wrote:

I am not quite sure I get this... could someone please explain the landing gear config. on the A350 and 777-9?

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2cxEndx-Q0
NLG doors on the A350 are two paired sets.
The smaller rear one stays open to have the gear leg stick out
the larger set reaching forward to the radome only open for extension and then close again.

The 777 pic showing the landing light position would require the full length doors to stay open to be able to "shine out".
( not found a fitting video yet.)

I posted this upthread, but it might have gotten missed - 777-300ER landing gear test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM7xaYOMRPA

As you can see, it is also a smaller rear door, and a larger set forward.

Although the angle may make it hard to tell, the light position is low enough to shine forward without the forward set opened.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Although the angle may make it hard to tell, the light position is low enough to shine forward without the forward set opened.

Thank you!
Looks like about the same basic layout. ( The original image made it difficult for me to access image depth shown.)

JayinKitsap wrote:

It is interesting that most buildings have solar heat gain coatings that have a light transmittance between 30 & 70%, nobody seems to complain as the view is still quite good. In the desert one would select a coating close to the 30% to reduce the AC load in the building.

You are talking about reflective surface coatings. ( usually some metal vapor deposit coating system )
dimmable system are absorptive. You change color in the full volume and thus absorptivenes.

WIederling wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

It is interesting that most buildings have solar heat gain coatings that have a light transmittance between 30 & 70%, nobody seems to complain as the view is still quite good. In the desert one would select a coating close to the 30% to reduce the AC load in the building.

You are talking about reflective surface coatings. ( usually some metal vapor deposit coating system )
dimmable system are absorptive. You change color in the full volume and thus absorptiveness.

You are correct about the dimmable windows being absorptive, I think it is a good way to go.

The point I was trying to make is most windows of today only have tight transmittance around half of the light, but people seem fine with it. Only on airplanes do they complain about the windows being too dark.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Only on airplanes do they complain about the windows being too dark.

Some people will always find faults - big, small and even non-existent - to complain about. C'est la vie!