TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.

With the same MTOW all things being equal would they not have been smarter to put them in the same place so the tail was smaller (and could have been smaller than 777W) due to lower thrust and longer fuselage length?

Or was it because they are really planning for a much longer 85M -10 and they needed the wider gear/engines for stability and ground handling issues?

Most likely the latter reason. Boeing was in talks with Emirates on a -10 after all.

Also, I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the uncontained engine failures we've had in the last two years resulting in passenger fatalities. Having such a powerful engine farther away might materially reduce the risk of an uncontained engine piece piercing the fuselage given the possible angles of exit and lateral distance traveled while being pushed backward by air resistance.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13663
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:46 pm

TFawkes wrote:

One team of Boeing got it wrong. But beyond that, your trust is immaterial and irrelevant. Can you prove the math is faulty, yes or no? If not, you have no valid input to give on the quality of their work wrt a certification campaign.



Hot air, bluff, half truths, who do you think you are, we are Boeing, w'll push it through, set the rules, make it work.

Until they hit the wall in an epic way. Unprecedented, on different levels in many ways.

A new situation. I hope they take lessons learned & improve. The 777x provides a good opportunity to convince Lufthansa, EASA and Emirates.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
olle
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 4:59 pm

The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:07 pm

The tail definitely looks different. If you look at the top of the tail, it appears to be somewhat angled in relation to the fuselage, ending in a more acute angle than the original 772/773.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:25 pm

morrisond wrote:
Bleed air system


The ECS you see on all of the newer aircraft these days Max/Neo/A350/777X are known as hybrid systems, neither all electric, and nor all bleed.
TFawkes wrote:
No. The GE9X is already 11% more fuel efficient, so to de-rate the GE90-115B would only widen that gap. You want your engine operating as close to redline conditions as possible for best efficiency under the Sterling Cycle.


I have difficulty believing that, the annual rate of improvement in propulsion technology has been reasonably constant and predictable in the last 20 years, the engine does not appear to have anything disruptive that would suggest such a large improvement over the GE90-115 in such a sort period of time. We see incremental improvements though the use of more advanced materials, aerodynamics, and manufacturing techniques.

morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.


The engine placement probably is a result of a longer fuselage and the location of the bow wave relative to the engine. Rudders are sized not only for engine out, also for control issues like asymmetric flap, spoilers, ailerons, elevator etc. The current 777 rudder is also multi part, like a simple partial-span flap, which would increase lift for the size of the rudder. The 777-9 rudder looks like its a simpler single piece design like the 787.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Opus99
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:34 pm

olle wrote:
The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.

I don’t see a re-engined or extended a350 EIS coming in this decade. I mean the 35K is about 2 years into service. And Airbus has expressed there are currently no plans to extend or re engine at the moment.
 
Opus99
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:37 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Bleed air system


The ECS you see on all of the newer aircraft these days Max/Neo/A350/777X are known as hybrid systems, neither all electric, and nor all bleed.
TFawkes wrote:
No. The GE9X is already 11% more fuel efficient, so to de-rate the GE90-115B would only widen that gap. You want your engine operating as close to redline conditions as possible for best efficiency under the Sterling Cycle.


I have difficulty believing that, the annual rate of improvement in propulsion technology has been reasonably constant and predictable in the last 20 years, the engine does not appear to have anything disruptive that would suggest such a large improvement over the GE90-115 in such a sort period of time. We see incremental improvements though the use of more advanced materials, aerodynamics, and manufacturing techniques.

morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.


in your estimate how much more efficient is the 777x over the 77W, it doesn’t have to be based on any facts or anything. Because Boeing has to make it worth the extra buck
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:49 pm

The historical rate of change has been around 0.5% per year.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:07 pm

olle wrote:
The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.

The 777-9 achieves a different mission profile than the A350-1000. It is a combined passenger-freight dream, hence the big interest from the ME 3, CX, SQ, and LH specifically, 5 of whom operate the A350 already (or in Emirates' case, will shortly).

The cargo yield is far higher than the A350-1000 while having trunk route passenger capacity. For TATL flights the fuel efficiency curves are nowhere close if both planes are fully weighed down. So for every flight with spare cargo room, that's a couple LD3 containers that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon can purchase part of at a lower cost than on an A350 while giving the operator higher yield (and this is done all the time to get 2-day and next-day international shipping fulfilled). TPAC is a bit more constrained given the fuel requirements, but that could be only 2 of 6 open slots disabled.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:08 pm

TWA902fly wrote:
The tail definitely looks different. If you look at the top of the tail, it appears to be somewhat angled in relation to the fuselage, ending in a more acute angle than the original 772/773.

'902

That's an iteration on the Laminar Tail from the 787-9/10. It's just easier to see at that size. A similar angling occurs on the 787 tail.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:11 pm

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Bleed air system


The ECS you see on all of the newer aircraft these days Max/Neo/A350/777X are known as hybrid systems, neither all electric, and nor all bleed.
TFawkes wrote:
No. The GE9X is already 11% more fuel efficient, so to de-rate the GE90-115B would only widen that gap. You want your engine operating as close to redline conditions as possible for best efficiency under the Sterling Cycle.


I have difficulty believing that, the annual rate of improvement in propulsion technology has been reasonably constant and predictable in the last 20 years, the engine does not appear to have anything disruptive that would suggest such a large improvement over the GE90-115 in such a sort period of time. We see incremental improvements though the use of more advanced materials, aerodynamics, and manufacturing techniques.

morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.


The engine placement probably is a result of a longer fuselage and the location of the bow wave relative to the engine. Rudders are sized not only for engine out, also for control issues like asymmetric flap, spoilers, ailerons, elevator etc. The current 777 rudder is also multi part, like a simple partial-span flap, which would increase lift for the size of the rudder. The 777-9 rudder looks like its a simpler single piece design like the 787.

GE's numbers, not mine. Though TSFC can be a bit deceptive, And the 115B would be well off from its redline design at the 9X's levels.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:23 pm

TFawkes wrote:
The cargo yield is far higher than the A350-1000 while having trunk route passenger capacity. For TATL flights the fuel efficiency curves are nowhere close if both planes are fully weighed down. So for every flight with spare cargo room, that's a couple LD3 containers that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon can purchase part of at a lower cost than on an A350 while giving the operator higher yield (and this is done all the time to get 2-day and next-day international shipping fulfilled). TPAC is a bit more constrained given the fuel requirements, but that could be only 2 of 6 open slots disabled.


Yield is basically the price a customer pays per tonne for someone to transport cargo, the customer and the cargo do not know generally what sort of aircraft it is carried on.

Please take away the empty weight from MZFW to actually work out how much payload it will carry.

Please post these “fuel efficient curves”.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:29 pm

TFawkes wrote:
GE's numbers, not mine.


It would have been useful in the first case then to link to the GE source. An early GE90 on a 777-200 is not the same engine as a 777-300ER.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:35 pm

zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
The cargo yield is far higher than the A350-1000 while having trunk route passenger capacity. For TATL flights the fuel efficiency curves are nowhere close if both planes are fully weighed down. So for every flight with spare cargo room, that's a couple LD3 containers that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon can purchase part of at a lower cost than on an A350 while giving the operator higher yield (and this is done all the time to get 2-day and next-day international shipping fulfilled). TPAC is a bit more constrained given the fuel requirements, but that could be only 2 of 6 open slots disabled.


Yield is basically the price a customer pays per tonne for someone to transport cargo, the customer and the cargo do not know generally what sort of aircraft it is carried on.

Please take away the empty weight from MZFW to actually work out how much payload it will carry.

Please post these “fuel efficient curves”.

Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:51 pm

cedarjet wrote:
I am stunned by how few have been sold. In this day and age we’re used to seeing new types go into service with 1,000 preorders, but this bird is at just 309.

Is it jitters because of Boeing’s shortcomings (as an aside, January 2020 was the first month since the 1950s Boeing haven’t booked a single order for a jet airliner), not quite right for the market, lots of young 777-300ERs too young to need replacing...?

the 777x is a subtype It stands to reason that it will not sell as many as the -200 and -300 because the -300 is not yet old enough to be replaced yet. The -9X will be even a bigger airplane as it was designed to replace the 747-400 in capacity and range but even the -300ER will be giving the 8X and and -9X have to compete 9X a run for their money for some time to come. Even right now United is taking deliveries of the -300ER and because of where they fly from? They might never have to buy the -8X or -9X because there's nowhere they can't get to from the USA East or West Coast. Now Qantas or Air New Zealand? That's a whole 'nuther Story To get up top from Way Down Under? that will take range and efficiency and will pretty much stretch any airplane's range they buy making tradeoffs of capacity and or Weight uplift. the ME3 airlines can use it as they are mid way to Europe, Asia and Down Under. but the 777-8X have to Compete with the A350 which when the 777-200 came out there Were no real competitors in the Big Twin class of airplane as the A330 was not yet out and Airbus was late to the streets with that airplane and the A350 was only built to try and One-up the 787 It's going to get pretty Spirited here over the next 20 years. I'm close to 70 now so I may not get to witness what the new designs get to become. But I'll bet they'll be spectacular!
 
StTim
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:00 pm

TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
The cargo yield is far higher than the A350-1000 while having trunk route passenger capacity. For TATL flights the fuel efficiency curves are nowhere close if both planes are fully weighed down. So for every flight with spare cargo room, that's a couple LD3 containers that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon can purchase part of at a lower cost than on an A350 while giving the operator higher yield (and this is done all the time to get 2-day and next-day international shipping fulfilled). TPAC is a bit more constrained given the fuel requirements, but that could be only 2 of 6 open slots disabled.


Yield is basically the price a customer pays per tonne for someone to transport cargo, the customer and the cargo do not know generally what sort of aircraft it is carried on.

Please take away the empty weight from MZFW to actually work out how much payload it will carry.

Please post these “fuel efficient curves”.

Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.

We are talking marginal belly freight in a passenger frame.

You seem to be picking numbers from the air and changing reference points to suit your argument.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1294
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:04 pm

StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Your trust and feelings on the matter are immaterial. Can you look at the math and prove it's faulty? Can you look at the materials and manufacturing processes behind the base parameters of the math and prove they don't meet spec? If not, you don't get a seat at the table to say they can't do their jobs well.

That's the big difference between academia and commercial operations in the public view. Your opinion has no validity in academia if you can't prove its soundness. There are long-established techniques of proof used for this, techniques Boeing engineers and mathematicians know like the back of their hand.

Trust is a meaningless construct in the substance of engineering. You either did it right or didn't, and if you did it right, the testing is pointless. And the testing will always be incomplete regardless because of unknown unknowns.


To do the maths you have to understand the input conditions. Boeing did not get this right on the MAX. Why should we trust them to do so again?

The whole point of testing is to catch snafu's not railroad them through.

So if I accept the A330 as the last relatively seamless frame then perhaps it is more the current engineers than the companies.

Trust, feelings and instinct are important.

That's why the FAA performed an assessment very early on of who 'touched' the MAX, and their involvement in other models, especially since.

It's why all X documentation to-date is being reviewed.

It's why at least 2 contributors usually here, working on the X, are silent.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:08 pm

TFawkes wrote:
StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Your trust and feelings on the matter are immaterial. Can you look at the math and prove it's faulty? Can you look at the materials and manufacturing processes behind the base parameters of the math and prove they don't meet spec? If not, you don't get a seat at the table to say they can't do their jobs well.


Its not maths - its processes and assumptions before you get near maths.

The processes & assumptions Boeing either officially use, or actually use, obviously didn't work on MAX.

The holes in those need to be understood, they need to be eradicated and the regulator needs to be happy they are eradicated.

That will take time. If the target moves - then its possible that the 777X misses the new target and a redesign of items is required.


For instance, we know Boeing has assumed that a pilot can diagnose and take correct action to a flight control deviation within 2 seconds. The FAA might decide that is rubbish and it should be 10 seconds.

Which then means the FCS cannot enter a non-recoverable state (or break up the aircraft!) in those 10 seconds. So, how does the FCS deal with iced pitots? [thinking of AF447 here]


Indeed - AF447 is another strong argument that pilots cannot diagnose problems as quick as either airframer would assume when developing their assumptions.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:16 pm

StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:

Yield is basically the price a customer pays per tonne for someone to transport cargo, the customer and the cargo do not know generally what sort of aircraft it is carried on.

Please take away the empty weight from MZFW to actually work out how much payload it will carry.

Please post these “fuel efficient curves”.

Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.

We are talking marginal belly freight in a passenger frame.

You seem to be picking numbers from the air and changing reference points to suit your argument.

Every bit counts, and 4 additional LD3s vs. the -300ER is not marginal.

I'm not picking numbers out of thin air. Graph if yourself. I gave you the reference points. You can easily prove me wrong if you're so inclined if I'm lying about the basis.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9387
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:18 pm

TFawkes wrote:
olle wrote:
The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.

The 777-9 achieves a different mission profile than the A350-1000. It is a combined passenger-freight dream, hence the big interest from the ME 3, CX, SQ, and LH specifically, 5 of whom operate the A350 already (or in Emirates' case, will shortly).

The cargo yield is far higher than the A350-1000 while having trunk route passenger capacity. For TATL flights the fuel efficiency curves are nowhere close if both planes are fully weighed down. So for every flight with spare cargo room, that's a couple LD3 containers that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon can purchase part of at a lower cost than on an A350 while giving the operator higher yield (and this is done all the time to get 2-day and next-day international shipping fulfilled). TPAC is a bit more constrained given the fuel requirements, but that could be only 2 of 6 open slots disabled.


All numbers up to now do not show a combined passenger flight dream. I think you are far off in regards of the 777-9 capabilities compared to the A350-1000. Yes the 777-9 will carry more passengers, but when they and their bags are loaded, there will not be more payload left to carry more cargo than the A350-1000. The 777-9 will carry only slightly more payload over the same distance.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:22 pm

smartplane wrote:
StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Your trust and feelings on the matter are immaterial. Can you look at the math and prove it's faulty? Can you look at the materials and manufacturing processes behind the base parameters of the math and prove they don't meet spec? If not, you don't get a seat at the table to say they can't do their jobs well.

That's the big difference between academia and commercial operations in the public view. Your opinion has no validity in academia if you can't prove its soundness. There are long-established techniques of proof used for this, techniques Boeing engineers and mathematicians know like the back of their hand.

Trust is a meaningless construct in the substance of engineering. You either did it right or didn't, and if you did it right, the testing is pointless. And the testing will always be incomplete regardless because of unknown unknowns.


To do the maths you have to understand the input conditions. Boeing did not get this right on the MAX. Why should we trust them to do so again?

The whole point of testing is to catch snafu's not railroad them through.

So if I accept the A330 as the last relatively seamless frame then perhaps it is more the current engineers than the companies.

Trust, feelings and instinct are important.

That's why the FAA performed an assessment very early on of who 'touched' the MAX, and their involvement in other models, especially since.

It's why all X documentation to-date is being reviewed.

It's why at least 2 contributors usually here, working on the X, are silent.

They're only important if you refuse to be objective. Everyone can make mistakes at any point, but you can't lie with a mathematical proof. It only takes one mistake in just the right system to turn an otherwise flawless plane into a death trap. That's exactly why relying on trust and testing is foolish. Testing is ALWAYS incomplete. Relying on it is lying to yourself. Prove the design, maintain processes to the spec as proven, and you'll never have a problem. All kinds of manufacturing disciplines already do this. Most of your simpler electronics like toasters undergo basic validations and start shipping with certifications while never going to a testing lab. This is true in China, Europe, and the U.S..
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:31 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
StTim wrote:


Its not maths - its processes and assumptions before you get near maths.

The processes & assumptions Boeing either officially use, or actually use, obviously didn't work on MAX.

The holes in those need to be understood, they need to be eradicated and the regulator needs to be happy they are eradicated.

That will take time. If the target moves - then its possible that the 777X misses the new target and a redesign of items is required.


For instance, we know Boeing has assumed that a pilot can diagnose and take correct action to a flight control deviation within 2 seconds. The FAA might decide that is rubbish and it should be 10 seconds.

Which then means the FCS cannot enter a non-recoverable state (or break up the aircraft!) in those 10 seconds. So, how does the FCS deal with iced pitots? [thinking of AF447 here]


Indeed - AF447 is another strong argument that pilots cannot diagnose problems as quick as either airframer would assume when developing their assumptions.

Nope, putting process before maths is a surefire path to failure. You match the process to the math. You match your manufacturing to your design.

Now, humans aren't just nondeterministic systems. That would be too easy. They're pseudo-random systems, and by the end of this century they won't even be in the cockpit anymore. Faulting Boeing for undertesting an impossible to test system is ridiculous. You have to make some assumptions about human behavior in that scenario, and those assumptions have to be the outcome basis of training. Now, Boeing ROYALLY screwed up pilot training, so you got me there, but the rest of your post is just untrue.

You can ask any competent mathematician or computer scientist about the usefulness of testing, and they'll say the same thing. It's pointless. You will spend more time building and testing a finite subset of conditions than you will solving the whole problem if you pursue testing. Prove correctness, and move on.

Some of the best software engineers in the world, programming the very bedrock of the global financial system, do not test anything they write. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BOSpxYJ9M
 
StTim
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:37 pm

TFawkes wrote:
smartplane wrote:
StTim wrote:

To do the maths you have to understand the input conditions. Boeing did not get this right on the MAX. Why should we trust them to do so again?

The whole point of testing is to catch snafu's not railroad them through.

So if I accept the A330 as the last relatively seamless frame then perhaps it is more the current engineers than the companies.

Trust, feelings and instinct are important.

That's why the FAA performed an assessment very early on of who 'touched' the MAX, and their involvement in other models, especially since.

It's why all X documentation to-date is being reviewed.

It's why at least 2 contributors usually here, working on the X, are silent.

They're only important if you refuse to be objective. Everyone can make mistakes at any point, but you can't lie with a mathematical proof. It only takes one mistake in just the right system to turn an otherwise flawless plane into a death trap. That's exactly why relying on trust and testing is foolish. Testing is ALWAYS incomplete. Relying on it is lying to yourself. Prove the design, maintain processes to the spec as proven, and you'll never have a problem. All kinds of manufacturing disciplines already do this. Most of your simpler electronics like toasters undergo basic validations and start shipping with certifications while never going to a testing lab. This is true in China, Europe, and the U.S..


There is a vast difference between a toaster, a tv or some other consumer item compared to say a car. All cars must go through crash testing if only to confirm that as built the results conform to that which the designers saw in the computer.

An airframe is so much more complicated than almost any other item around. The number of systems that there are and how they interact with each other in all phases of flight and flight conditions - let alone in various different failure modes is extremely complicated. I have seen no automated ways to do this fault analysis on such complex systems. It relies on the knowledge and experience of the engineers.

The otiginal 777 may have been able to be tested in 10 months. I do not see how that is still possible as the system complexity has increased.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:49 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.


The 777-9 will only carry about 7.6 tonnes of payload if you fill the tanks up with fuel, need to still observe the other limits like MTOW when refueling.

Image
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:52 pm

StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
smartplane wrote:
Trust, feelings and instinct are important.

That's why the FAA performed an assessment very early on of who 'touched' the MAX, and their involvement in other models, especially since.

It's why all X documentation to-date is being reviewed.

It's why at least 2 contributors usually here, working on the X, are silent.

They're only important if you refuse to be objective. Everyone can make mistakes at any point, but you can't lie with a mathematical proof. It only takes one mistake in just the right system to turn an otherwise flawless plane into a death trap. That's exactly why relying on trust and testing is foolish. Testing is ALWAYS incomplete. Relying on it is lying to yourself. Prove the design, maintain processes to the spec as proven, and you'll never have a problem. All kinds of manufacturing disciplines already do this. Most of your simpler electronics like toasters undergo basic validations and start shipping with certifications while never going to a testing lab. This is true in China, Europe, and the U.S..


There is a vast difference between a toaster, a tv or some other consumer item compared to say a car. All cars must go through crash testing if only to confirm that as built the results conform to that which the designers saw in the computer.

An airframe is so much more complicated than almost any other item around. The number of systems that there are and how they interact with each other in all phases of flight and flight conditions - let alone in various different failure modes is extremely complicated. I have seen no automated ways to do this fault analysis on such complex systems. It relies on the knowledge and experience of the engineers.

The otiginal 777 may have been able to be tested in 10 months. I do not see how that is still possible as the system complexity has increased.

All cars must undergo crash testing because regulation requires it, not because that testing is objectively useful or going to save lives where an absence of testing would not. If the DOT and car manufacturers had high-caliber mathematicians proving the designs and verifying the proofs (which takes days vs. weeks), then the time to market would improve with no negative impact to quality. This applies to anything and everything that can be made. Sure, the giant stack of papers of passed tests makes Joe Consumer and Manager Mark comfortable, but who is to say the tests are truly comprehensive? Where is the closed proof that the battery of tests is complete?

Nope, even our most advanced commercial airliners do not hold a candle in complexity vs. a Tesla with AI-driven autopilot. A complete order of magnitude apart. In fact in many ways, autopilot of a plane is strictly simpler since you don't have to factor in "idiots on the road".

You not seeing the automation is not evidence it hasn't been or can't be done. That comes down purely to how much you invest in your mathematicians and computational capacity. As long as you can encode the proof, we have the computing power to flesh out the validation of the design against the proof.

You assume increased complexity = increased time. I can hand you plenty of algorithmic examples where the opposite occurs. It also comes down to keeping your battery of tests clean of duplicates or superfluous tests. And in the case of testing the airframes themselves, get enough pilots trained and hire the staff to keep the birds in the air practically 24/7 to keep the data flowing. But again, testing is pointless for multiple reasons: either the design was flawless or it wasn't, and if that flaw cannot be covered by the tests you have, then passing all the tests was just an expensive waste of everyone's time while saving no lives. If the design was in fact flawless, the testing was an expensive waste of time that saved no lives. All it did was provide a feel-good stack of papers and ink to imperfect regulators, managers, investors, pilots, and fliers.

The truth is testing is a lie unless you can mathematically prove the battery is closed and complete. If you are capable of creating THAT proof, you were capable of proving the design had no flaws to begin with, meaning you did twice the work in at least twice the time as needed.
Last edited by TFawkes on Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:57 pm

zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.


The 777-9 will only carry about 7.6 tonnes of payload if you fill the tanks up with fuel, need to still observe the other limits like MTOW when refueling.

Image

I know that. Cargo capacity usually bulks out before it weighs out, and I did specify TATL would be where the plane shines on the mixed mission of passengers&baggage+cargo. By the time you completely fill up the engines with fuel, you're in 787-9 top-end flying distance, like Perth to London, and the world already operates edge cases with weight restrictions. The order numbers we already have show this is not how the plane will be used most. Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:02 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.


Where is the best place to look at how they use them ?
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mig17
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:24 pm

TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Cargo planes tend to bulk out before they weigh out, so the increased capacity is the big sell here. The 747 freighters have also had this advantage where they have so much capacity you actually can max out your payload weight.

Look at the quoted increase in usable fuel capacity. You can fit that against the 777-300ER, superimpose the estimated curve on the A350/777 comparisons, and draw your own conclusions. Until you pass the 9,000km mark, the 777-9 is the clear efficiency winner.


The 777-9 will only carry about 7.6 tonnes of payload if you fill the tanks up with fuel, need to still observe the other limits like MTOW when refueling.

Image

I know that. Cargo capacity usually bulks out before it weighs out, and I did specify TATL would be where the plane shines on the mixed mission of passengers&baggage+cargo. By the time you completely fill up the engines with fuel, you're in 787-9 top-end flying distance, like Perth to London, and the world already operates edge cases with weight restrictions. The order numbers we already have show this is not how the plane will be used most. Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.

With that way of thinking, the 747-8i should have outsale 777-300ER, no?
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:30 pm

zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.


Where is the best place to look at how they use them ?

We will have to wait and see. In this case I'm admitting to making an assumption and betting my reputation on being right. CX I think will make big use of the 777X on routes to Europe, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand. Everything in the 6-11 hour range representing big cargo movements they currently serve with the 777-300 and A350. For long routes like HKG-JFK, I expect the A350-1000 will take over for the 777-300ER in due time.

And in the cases where cargo space pays a premium, like HKG-LAX/SFO, the 777-9 will also take over, as business class will also pay high yields (this is assuming the Coronavirus hit subsides).
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:41 pm

mig17 wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:

The 777-9 will only carry about 7.6 tonnes of payload if you fill the tanks up with fuel, need to still observe the other limits like MTOW when refueling.

Image

I know that. Cargo capacity usually bulks out before it weighs out, and I did specify TATL would be where the plane shines on the mixed mission of passengers&baggage+cargo. By the time you completely fill up the engines with fuel, you're in 787-9 top-end flying distance, like Perth to London, and the world already operates edge cases with weight restrictions. The order numbers we already have show this is not how the plane will be used most. Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.

With that way of thinking, the 747-8i should have outsale 777-300ER, no?

No, not by that logic. The 747-8I was massively heavier with massively higher pax capacity. Only a few airlines could justify it where the 747-400 was already usually full, such as LH. The 777-9 has a modestly higher pax capacity vs. the 777-300ER against the backdrop of the 747-400s retiring and the A380s retiring too while the 777-300ER is going to begin retirement in the next 5 years.

As demand has to be split across significantly smaller planes than the 747 and A380, the 777-9 makes sense as BOTH a big pax craft AND acting as a hybrid freighter for select markets, beating the A350 on that capability.

For the extremely long-legged flights where freight really matters, the A350-1000 and 777-8 are both available, where the A350 has a CASM advantage and the 777-8 has a freight capacity advantage (remembering that bulk cargo is not necessarily heavy, which is why the 747Fs are so beloved by their operators due to its ample space and lift capability). If you can fill every seat, the 777-8 is an extraordinary people and cargo hauler from Hong Kong to JFK, or Sydney to JFK, or Auckland to Doha, or Dubai to LAX.

That's the big advantage of the 777-300 and 777X families. You can drive a car into the belly of those planes. You can't with an A350. Cargo space sells at a premium to cover any shortfalls in pax sales. I think there's a video on YouTube of an Emirates ground crew doing this and explaining they can't do the same with any other craft. Let me see if I can dig it up.

Edit: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BOSpxYJ9M (from 15:14). It's an incredibly tight fit. It won't fit in an A350.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:14 pm

TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Look primarily at how CX and EK use the 777X, probably LH too. At 10,000km and below you will see it taking off at MTOW quite often.


Where is the best place to look at how they use them ?

We will have to wait and see. In this case I'm admitting to making an assumption and betting my reputation on being right. CX I think will make big use of the 777X on routes to Europe, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand. Everything in the 6-11 hour range representing big cargo movements they currently serve with the 777-300 and A350. For long routes like HKG-JFK, I expect the A350-1000 will take over for the 777-300ER in due time.

And in the cases where cargo space pays a premium, like HKG-LAX/SFO, the 777-9 will also take over, as business class will also pay high yields (this is assuming the Coronavirus hit subsides).

So, in this case, your original sentence should have been:
Look primarily at how we believe CX and EK WILL use the 777X, probably LH too.

That's what zeke was pointing out: we have no clue yet about the actual 777X numbers and mission profiles, this is all speculation so far.
 
StTim
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:22 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Cargo space sells at a premium to cover any shortfalls in pax sales.


This is a new view on me - freight is normally seen as a bonus and often carried at very marginal rates,

I did try to review your youtube video but it seems to be unrelated to this topic.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:43 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
zeke wrote:

Where is the best place to look at how they use them ?

We will have to wait and see. In this case I'm admitting to making an assumption and betting my reputation on being right. CX I think will make big use of the 777X on routes to Europe, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand. Everything in the 6-11 hour range representing big cargo movements they currently serve with the 777-300 and A350. For long routes like HKG-JFK, I expect the A350-1000 will take over for the 777-300ER in due time.

And in the cases where cargo space pays a premium, like HKG-LAX/SFO, the 777-9 will also take over, as business class will also pay high yields (this is assuming the Coronavirus hit subsides).

So, in this case, your original sentence should have been:
Look primarily at how we believe CX and EK WILL use the 777X, probably LH too.

That's what zeke was pointing out: we have no clue yet about the actual 777X numbers and mission profiles, this is all speculation so far.
Not entirely. Look at how Emirates uses the passenger 777-300ER to transport sports cars to and from Europe. The A350 is incapable of doing that. Now, for routes and markets where that isn't an applicable piece of the puzzle, they'll use the A350 and 787-10. But given they have 130 777X on order, it's obvious a great deal of this capability and existing use will be maintained 1:1 by the successor. CX is also a very high-end airline serving a lot of ridiculously rich clients. So is SQ. None of this is a stretch of the imagination.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:47 pm

StTim wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Cargo space sells at a premium to cover any shortfalls in pax sales.


This is a new view on me - freight is normally seen as a bonus and often carried at very marginal rates,

I did try to review your youtube video but it seems to be unrelated to this topic.

It was an example of loading a car into a passenger 777-300ER and a view on just how tight the fit is. The A350, which directly competes with the 777-300ER and 777X, cannot perform the same task, so for a few very big airlines, the 777X is the natural replacement for the birds currently used for this.

That "bonus" view is only an outlook for Euro and American carriers. Asian carriers have been pressing for strong cargo capability in Boeing's NMA. This sort of use case is why. The 787 is too big and the A320 can't perform on cargo.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:57 pm

TFawkes wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
We will have to wait and see. In this case I'm admitting to making an assumption and betting my reputation on being right. CX I think will make big use of the 777X on routes to Europe, Tokyo, Australia, and New Zealand. Everything in the 6-11 hour range representing big cargo movements they currently serve with the 777-300 and A350. For long routes like HKG-JFK, I expect the A350-1000 will take over for the 777-300ER in due time.

And in the cases where cargo space pays a premium, like HKG-LAX/SFO, the 777-9 will also take over, as business class will also pay high yields (this is assuming the Coronavirus hit subsides).

So, in this case, your original sentence should have been:
Look primarily at how we believe CX and EK WILL use the 777X, probably LH too.

That's what zeke was pointing out: we have no clue yet about the actual 777X numbers and mission profiles, this is all speculation so far.
Not entirely. Look at how Emirates uses the passenger 777-300ER to transport sports cars to and from Europe. The A350 is incapable of doing that. Now, for routes and markets where that isn't an applicable piece of the puzzle, they'll use the A350 and 787-10. But given they have 130 777X on order, it's obvious a great deal of this capability and existing use will be maintained 1:1 by the successor. CX is also a very high-end airline serving a lot of ridiculously rich clients. So is SQ. None of this is a stretch of the imagination.

OK, forget the "believe"; still, the "will" does apply since the 777X just started flying and is yet to enter commercial service.
And, seeing the Emirates videos, the cars that are shipped in the cargo hold are highly limited in size; you won't ship your RR Phantom or Ghost in one of those. And forget about the SUVs that are loved in that area of the world.

Such cargo, while most likely highly lucrative (although it takes a huge amount of space), is most likely limited in volume: Emirates Cargo can deliver those vehicles as well and cargo planes are better suited for this kind of activity.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:06 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
So, in this case, your original sentence should have been:

That's what zeke was pointing out: we have no clue yet about the actual 777X numbers and mission profiles, this is all speculation so far.
Not entirely. Look at how Emirates uses the passenger 777-300ER to transport sports cars to and from Europe. The A350 is incapable of doing that. Now, for routes and markets where that isn't an applicable piece of the puzzle, they'll use the A350 and 787-10. But given they have 130 777X on order, it's obvious a great deal of this capability and existing use will be maintained 1:1 by the successor. CX is also a very high-end airline serving a lot of ridiculously rich clients. So is SQ. None of this is a stretch of the imagination.

OK, forget the "believe"; still, the "will" does apply since the 777X just started flying and is yet to enter commercial service.
And, seeing the Emirates videos, the cars that are shipped in the cargo hold are highly limited in size; you won't ship your RR Phantom or Ghost in one of those. And forget about the SUVs that are loved in that area of the world.

Such cargo, while most likely highly lucrative (although it takes a huge amount of space), is most likely limited in volume: Emirates Cargo can deliver those vehicles as well and cargo planes are better suited for this kind of activity.

Yes you will. I know there's a Nat. Geo. video of them driving a very long Porsche into one (I think it's one of their "busiest/craziest airports in the world"), and the clearance is a mere 1.5" per side getting through the door at the tightest point. Emirates probably has a published guide on what you can take. I know this guy says the car has to be capable of being pushed while in neutral to fly on a passenger plane. That's all single-clutch manuals and all front-wheel automatics, size limits notwithstanding.

But think of all the small Amazon packages flying around with just 1-2 light items inside that are on 1-2 day shipping. When Atlas and Prime Air don't have the capacity, where do those packages go?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:07 pm

olle wrote:
The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.

the 778/9 engines are GE engines developed For the 778/9. is rolls working on a new engine for the A350-1000? Because that might be a game changer. But if it's not equal to the work that GE has already done? It's academic and the 778/9 will be better then the -1000.
 
Boeingphan
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:29 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:14 pm

I just looked at the past several flight's and why is it that they haven't taken this bird above 20,000ft? At 20,000ft you are pressurized no? I understand being conservative but 66 plus hours into fligth testing and keeping it below 20k makes you wonder. Any insight would be great.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:00 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
olle wrote:
The main problem of 779is that it seems to be dependent on a generation younger engines in order to stay competitive against the A350-1000 and it needs to be bigger to do so.

When a new genration engines arrives and let us say that both types get the same generation engines not mentin that A350 might get stretched, the advantage if there is any will dissapear.

the 778/9 engines are GE engines developed For the 778/9. is rolls working on a new engine for the A350-1000? Because that might be a game changer. But if it's not equal to the work that GE has already done? It's academic and the 778/9 will be better then the -1000.

It's an open secret that the Trent Ultrafan is being worked on for the A350 NEO. It's also known that the programme is too expensive to be exclusive to the A350, so unless Airbus equips the A330 NEO 2 with it as well, Rolls will force them to let Boeing use it as well.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8039
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.

With the same MTOW all things being equal would they not have been smarter to put them in the same place so the tail was smaller (and could have been smaller than 777W) due to lower thrust and longer fuselage length?

Or was it because they are really planning for a much longer 85M -10 and they needed the wider gear/engines for stability and ground handling issues?




I think a big reason to put the engines out further from the fuselage is to provide wing bending relief out as far as possible on this much longer wing
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
StTim
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:51 pm

Max Q wrote:
morrisond wrote:
So why did Boeing put the engines farther apart on the 777X? I believe this necessitated the bigger tail. Was this due to the wider wingspan? Or was it an Aero advantage or some other reason.

With the same MTOW all things being equal would they not have been smarter to put them in the same place so the tail was smaller (and could have been smaller than 777W) due to lower thrust and longer fuselage length?

Or was it because they are really planning for a much longer 85M -10 and they needed the wider gear/engines for stability and ground handling issues?




I think a big reason to put the engines out further from the fuselage is to provide wing bending relief out as far as possible on this much longer wing


I am pretty sure that is the main reason but with the added benefit on cabin noise. The 777 is already noisy and they are going to have a thinner insulation blanket due to the side wall sculpting.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:13 am

TFawkes wrote:
Yes you will. I know there's a Nat. Geo. video of them driving a very long Porsche into one (I think it's one of their "busiest/craziest airports in the world"), and the clearance is a mere 1.5" per side getting through the door at the tightest point. Emirates probably has a published guide on what you can take. I know this guy says the car has to be capable of being pushed while in neutral to fly on a passenger plane. That's all single-clutch manuals and all front-wheel automatics, size limits notwithstanding.

But think of all the small Amazon packages flying around with just 1-2 light items inside that are on 1-2 day shipping. When Atlas and Prime Air don't have the capacity, where do those packages go?


Are you talking about this video and the clearance for the car getting into the cargo hold?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PFCcj_1zAo
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7896
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:38 am

enzo011 wrote:
Are you talking about this video and the clearance for the car getting into the cargo hold?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PFCcj_1zAo


I think there is one on Ultimate Airports, much more dramatic, only Joe can load...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 2:49 am

TFawkes wrote:
[Look at how Emirates uses the passenger 777-300ER to transport sports cars to and from Europe. The A350 is incapable of doing that.


I would encourage you to have a look at this site https://www.qrcargo.com/ourfleet and go through the different aircraft in the fleet. You will notice that the 77W maximum cargo dimensions are more restrictive than for example the A330-300 or A350-1000.

Cars are carried on standard pallets, these pallets when packed with general cargo can weigh upwards of 6000 kg each, a car is actually relatively a very light piece of freight around 1500 kg. All passenger aircraft have around the same maximum height of 64” for the cargo hold. There is absolutely nothing special about the 777 cargo hold.

I am aware of airlines in that area that fly cars to the UK just to get serviced, it is not unusual.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:19 am

zeke wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
[Look at how Emirates uses the passenger 777-300ER to transport sports cars to and from Europe. The A350 is incapable of doing that.


I would encourage you to have a look at this site https://www.qrcargo.com/ourfleet and go through the different aircraft in the fleet. You will notice that the 77W maximum cargo dimensions are more restrictive than for example the A330-300 or A350-1000.

Cars are carried on standard pallets, these pallets when packed with general cargo can weigh upwards of 6000 kg each, a car is actually relatively a very light piece of freight around 1500 kg. All passenger aircraft have around the same maximum height of 64” for the cargo hold. There is absolutely nothing special about the 777 cargo hold.

I am aware of airlines in that area that fly cars to the UK just to get serviced, it is not unusual.

Nope. The width of the 777-300ER cargo hold floor is 5.8" wider than the A350's. It's a make or break difference in this case.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14771
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:47 am

TFawkes wrote:
Nope. The width of the 777-300ER cargo hold floor is 5.8" wider than the A350's. It's a make or break difference in this case.


Can you please provide a reference to that number from a Boeing document ?

This article has some photos of a car loaded into a 777, you can see the cargo hold floor is the width of a standard 96”x125”pallet https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... thday.html
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:28 am

TFawkes wrote:
Nope. The width of the 777-300ER cargo hold floor is 5.8" wider than the A350's. It's a make or break difference in this case.



I would think the main problem with flying a car in the belly of the plane is actually loading it into the hold. The widest sports car I could find in production is the Bugatti Chiron at around 2038mm, or just over 2m. Seeing that a standard LD3 container has a base width of 119cm, double that to get your width available in the belly for most widebody aircraft gets you to 2.38m. That is more than enough space in the A330, 787, A350 and 777 to comfortably fit a car.

Image

As you can see in this screenshot there is more than enough space on the side for the vehicle and the 5.8" of supposed extra space does less than nothing in this example. The model in question is even wider than the Bugatti Chiron at 2056mm width and there is more than enough space either side of it in the hold to comfortably fit.

I would think it makes sense to ensure your LD3 containers when they loaded fits snugly into position and doesn't have 5.8" of extra space to move from side to side if a latch breaks to cause damage to your aircraft. I would hope you have a link to confirm this information or even just a picture showing a cross section of a 777 aircraft with this extra space.

Your initial link to a youtube video had nothing to do with loading a car into a 77W, that is why I asked you if the link I provided was the one you were actually looking to show as it shows a snug fit into the hold at the same position in the video you mention. In my link you can see the problem isn't the width inside but the actual loading of the car into the hold.

Image


Zeke's link is handy in that it shows us the size of the cargo doors of the different aircraft and the A330, 777 and 787 has roughly the same size cargo doors at 66" x 105". The A350 however has a slightly larger door to load cargo from, 69" x 114" front cargo loading door and 68" x 112" for the rear. So you have a bigger door to fit the car into the hold as well, seeing as you have to work with angles and unless I am mistaken, it gets easier the bigger the space is to work in to manoeuvre the cargo into place.

So this is another myth that has been started on here that somehow the 777 can do something the A350 can't without facts or links. I am happy to concede if I am wrong though, you have the space to provide links for your opinion.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:33 am

TFawkes wrote:
Nope, putting process before maths is a surefire path to failure. You match the process to the math. You match your manufacturing to your design.


What a load of ____.

If folks don't test to ensure their assumptions are correct - that says more about the standards of their work and the accepted standards of their industry than anything else.


But sure what would I know. I just design DAL A S/W for a living right now. :rolleyes:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:35 am

TFawkes wrote:
Faulting Boeing for undertesting an impossible to test system is ridiculous. You have to make some assumptions about human behavior in that scenario, and those assumptions have to be the outcome basis of training. Now, Boeing ROYALLY screwed up pilot training, so you got me there, but the rest of your post is just untrue.


Totally backwards.

You assume it takes X seconds for pilot to respond to scenario Y.

Then design & build systems accordingly.


After all that, blind test a representative sample set of pilots in that scenario to ensure that assumption is correct.

Which is where things are failing currently. Blind tests are not happening.


If you believe that system was untestable, that says more about your understanding than anything else.
 
StTim
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: So how New is the 777X?

Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:42 am

If the system is untestable should it be anywhere near a plane?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos