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

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:35 am

Quoting Bobloblaw (Reply 49):
Spotters 30 years ago were probably bored

No, we still had Lockheed, Douglas, VC10, Tridents, Concorde, many Russian aircraft, Caravelle,... - much more series vanished than new ones came into use.
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3534
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:38 am

Quoting Bobloblaw (Reply 49):

Like I said in my previous post, its all personal opinion. It might be boring for some, but its not boring for eveyone.
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
aloges
Posts: 14849
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:30 pm

Quoting Bobloblaw (Reply 49):
What do you guys want to look at Sonic Cruisers?

747-8s, A340s, MD-11s, DC-9s and Mad Dogs, propliners... essentially: anything that differs from the tube + wings with one engine each design

Oh, and Concorde!  

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 50):
No, we still had Lockheed, Douglas, VC10, Tridents, Concorde, many Russian aircraft, Caravelle,... - much more series vanished than new ones came into use.

exactly  
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
okees
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:49 pm

Well, firstly in my opinion all aircraft are competing for a distant seconds looks wise to the 747... so yes, in some way they all look boring compared to the queen of the skies.
As far as the 777 is concerned, I really like the tail cone shape, I like the 6 tires per main landing gear, engine size and shape is outstanding, the tail looks razor sharp and sleek.. and the nose looks menacing. Just love the way it looks..
I don't like the way the A330/340 is slanted forwards a bit.. and the blowdriers look weak and out of proportion.

Ultimately, I'll enjoy looking at any aircraft.. doesn't matter how much I might dislike it! (it's all relative anyway)
mobs jakis
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:42 pm

I think what attracts airlines to the 777 is pretty obvious: it can do almost any mission that a quad engined A340 or 744 can but burn less fuel in the process. If there is a similar sized twin that can do the same mission for less, then it only makes sense to order the twin. The 777's capabilities, especially the -200ER and the -300ER, showed airlines that they no longer need 4 engines for long haul.

As for my personal views about the plane, put me in with those who love everything about the 777. There's nothing I don't like about it. Nothing at all. Even though I may not have personally worked on the program, nor have I flown one (as opposed to flying on one as a passenger), I feel a sense of affection for and affinity with the plane and have since I first saw highlights of its first flight back in 1994. My first flight as a passenger on the 777 was in 2001, on board an SQ 777-212ER, and for me, it was not only love at first sight with its simple, yet elegant lines; it was also love at first flight  
Quoting na (Reply 6):
I think the long 777 is the ugliest big widebody built so far.

I think that (dis)honour goes to the A380.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 7):
They also executed the airplane very, very well. The first 772 was over budget, but it was on time and within promised spec. Then the 77W blew away the promised spec on introduction, a very unusual event.

  

I think that Boeing were probably at the peak of its powers in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the 777 project was under way. The 744 had just entered service at that time, the 767 and 737 Classics were selling at a decent rate, and they were the biggest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world. They were ambitious with the 777, and they made it work, even if it was over budget. I don't recall any other aircraft in the past twenty years that have entered into service within promised spec. The fact that the 77W exceeded expectations was astonishing, and it just goes to show how good the 777 is. I wonder if Boeing's luck with the 777 program will hold so that the upcoming 777-8X and 777-9X also exceeds expectations  
Quoting N62NA (Reply 14):
Yep, the "boring" factor is due to the widespread move to the "tube with an engine under each wing" design.

Well, every Airbus commercial model, and every Boeing commercial model bar the 717 and 727 were tubes with an engine (or engines) under each wing. If tubes with wings are boring, then what's the point in being an aviation enthusiast?

The tube with wings concept is popular because it works and it's the most efficient design. I honestly don't get the people that say there's no variety, because every aircraft is different and every aircraft looks different, and any aviation enthusiast worth his (or her) salt should be able to spot the differences a mile away.

Quoting deltaflyertoo (Reply 17):
feel like the over head bins are overly curved and the way they blend into the ceiling-its almost creepy. It also makes the plane feel wider than it is.

I'm confused: you don't like it because it makes the plane feel wider than it is? Would you prefer an aircraft to feel more cramped?

The Boeing Signature Interior is part of the reason why I love the 777. The interior is deceptively spacious. What was immediately noticeable to me was how high the ceilings were. There was plenty of head room, aided, no doubt, by the design of the overhead bins. It looked futuristic at the time, and to this day it still looks amazingly contemporary. I'm not sure if the new 'Sky Interior' is any better looking aesthetically over a Signature Interior that has been similarly equipped with mood lighting.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
A 777 did crash and it was caused by a faulty design.

No, it was a faulty design made by Rolls-Royce, not Boeing.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 27):
I know it's just a matter of opinion, but I can't see why people think the 777 is ugly... I think it's beautiful (for a twinjet). The proportions are great, ESPECIALLY on the 77W. Also, the cockpit window design is much more aesthetically pleasing than the A330/A340 cockpit windows. And I personally like the "neck" of the 777, contrary opinions notwithstanding.

  

I also think it's beautiful, especially the 77W. Those raked wingtips and the enormous GE90-115Bs add character to the airframe. It's long, but not overly so, giving it a sleek profile. The shape of the empennage is also quite unique to the 777 with its relatively slender vertical tailfin.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 30):
I think she is gorgeous in her perfection. Nothing wasted. The clean razor sharp lines. The signature bins have swept up the most coveted of industrial design awards. It all is in the eye of the beholder isn't it!?!

  

And now, the fold up bins concept is starting to appear in the competition's aircraft as well.

Quoting Eightball (Reply 37):
May the 777 continue to grace the skies for many years to come.

I'll drink to that. I'm hoping that come 2035 (40 years after EIS), the 777 (or some derivative of it) will still be rolling out the factory door at Boeing, a few years after L/N 2000 gets delivered to EK  
Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 39):
The 777 did quite well but it was not the super star until the 300.

While the -300ER has the most orders of any 777 family, at the moment it's the -200ER that has had the most deliveries. So I would argue that the 777 did become a superstar when the -200ER model came out, with as much range as a 744 and a lot less fuel burn. With ETOPS, the 777-200ER could do almost any city pair that the 747-400 could.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 47):
The A330 actually has 3 independent ADIRU's, all forming the ADIRS system, plus a standby airspeed indicator and altimeter fed from separate pitot and static sources.

Please Provide Some sort of Source for your Knowledge

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 47):
a member here for long, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and a word of advice: if you have an opinion here, then that is fine, perfectly acceptable. But do not try and reinforce your opinion with factually incorrect assertions and pure hyperbole.

Does not mean because I have not been a Member of A.net for long that I do not Know much About Airplanes, Aviation, Life.
Many Aerospace Engineers Are not A.Net ers. lol.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 47):
shock horror - the 777 and 787 use fly by wire technology: the flight control computers translate the yoke input to control surface deflections. To all intents and purposes, the only difference (apart from the actual law, Boeing use a Speed stability term, but you probably need to do some research to understand what that means) is the 'Pilot input device'

This Insures Your Lack of Knowledge.
Yes, I am WELL aware that the 777 and 787 use fly by wire, even the 747 to some extent. But the computer is translating human input to Analog or Digital (Ill admit, I dont know which form). It does have a Flight Envelope, yes. But the Pilots can turn that off and overide it at any time.

Please Provide me some Sources that you claim falsify my knowledge,
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:18 pm

The attraction is that the 77W saves 20% on fuel over a 744 and can fly further with more cargo.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
nasula
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:20 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:27 pm

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
Yes, I am WELL aware that the 777 and 787 use fly by wire, even the 747 to some extent. But the computer is translating human input to Analog or Digital (Ill admit, I dont know which form). It does have a Flight Envelope, yes. But the Pilots can turn that off and overide it at any time.

Please Provide me some Sources that you claim falsify my knowledge,

I'm just an interested layman and do not know the details of the aircraft systems, but what I've understood from real AB pilots posting here on some other threads over the years, the same can be said about airbus products. A quick google search gives 4 LAWs that the AB can be in (http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm) + a manual backup. Can the pilot not switch between these LAWs? The fifth mode seems to be a "direct drive" just like your protection overridden Boeing.

OTOH, why would a pilot want to override the protections? Is there a real benefit to doing so?

A bit off topic: You are asking for sources to back up claims that refute your similarly unsourced claims. Why not provide your own sources and end the argument right there? Otherwise the discussion risks degrading into a she-said he-said argument, which goes nowhere.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:24 pm

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
Yes, I am WELL aware that the 777 and 787 use fly by wire, even the 747 to some extent. But the computer is translating human input to Analog or Digital (Ill admit, I dont know which form). It does have a Flight Envelope, yes. But the Pilots can turn that off and overide it at any time.

Also possible in the Airbus. Next.

Quoting nasula (Reply 57):
OTOH, why would a pilot want to override the protections? Is there a real benefit to doing so?

No there is absolutely no reason to override the protections. I doubt you will ever need to bank more than 67 degrees, and if you do, you will overstress the aircraft anyway.

Same with the other protections. If you're not in the flight envelope, you're doing it terribly wrong.

[Edited 2012-09-11 13:15:03]
 
chrisflier
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:50 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:03 pm

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 27):
I know it's just a matter of opinion, but I can't see why people think the 777 is ugly... I think it's beautiful (for a twinjet). The proportions are great, ESPECIALLY on the 77W. Also, the cockpit window design is much more aesthetically pleasing than the A330/A340 cockpit windows. And I personally like the "neck" of the 777, contrary opinions notwithstanding.

I would have to agree! I find the 777 beautiful for a twinjet too! I would also have to agree with the cockpit windows being more aesthetically pleasing on the 777. Hmm, I'm not sure what to call it.. Some of you have referred to it as a "neck" but always used to call it the plane's "forehead".. I just love that on the 777! Especially when you see it from a certain angle, looks hot! lol
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
Please Provide Some sort of Source for your Knowledge

My copy of the A330 Flight Crew Operating Manual.

"Section 1.34.10: ADIRS

The system includes -
- 3 identical ADIRU's (Air Data Inertial Reference Units). Each ADIRU is divided into two parts, either of which can work separately in case of failure in the other."


This sentence just means that the ADR and the IR parts are independently operated so the failure of one part doesn't preclude the whole unit from operating.

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
This Insures Your Lack of Knowledge.

It's actually ensures, but that's beside the point.

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
Yes, I am WELL aware that the 777 and 787 use fly by wire, even the 747 to some extent. But the computer is translating human input to Analog or Digital (Ill admit, I dont know which form). It does have a Flight Envelope, yes. But the Pilots can turn that off and overide it at any time.

As far as I am aware, the 747 uses conventional mechanical controls to hydraulic power units, there is no FBW at all in 747-400. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

The flight control law as used by Boeing (particulary the 777, not too sure about 787) isn't too dissimilar to the Airbus normal law. Pitch control in Boeing's case is a combination of pitch rate demand and load factor, but with speed stability so you can trim for speed as in a conventionally controlled aircraft. The roll control is simply proportional to the control wheel deflection.

The major point you focus on, envelope protection is the most different.

Airbus' Normal Law basically says: "These are the limits. You do not need to go past them, as it could be very dangerous and stupid, so I need to save you from your own idiocy. Go anywhere you like within them, but you sure as hell aren't going past them."

Boeing's says: "These are the limits. I sure don't recommend you go past them, so to make sure you know I'll make it really difficult for you. If you leave it to me, I'll put you back within the safety of the envelope, because that's where we are safest."

If you really wanted to, you can switch off the FCC's in an Airbus and ride it like an old 707. But that would be a totally moronic thing to do under virtually any circumstance.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
astuteman
Posts: 6947
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:31 pm

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 55):
Please Provide Some sort of Source for your Knowledge

Amazing...........

Suggestion.

Why don't you

a) provide the source of YOUR knowledge or better yet

b) read the plethora of threads in tech-ops which provide an abundance of information from easily the most knowledgeable posters on these forums on this subject, which may allow you to, er "calibrate" your own "knowledge"......

Posters whose intimate knowledge of these subjects, and their willingness to share it, make A-net worth participating in...

Unlike some ...  

Rgds
 
columba
Posts: 5232
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:38 pm

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 60):
As far as I am aware, the 747 uses conventional mechanical controls to hydraulic power units, there is no FBW at all in 747-400.

The outboard aileron on the 747-8 is using fly-by-wire.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:48 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 62):

Quite right. To be pedantic, I did say 747-400. 

The 747-8 actually has FBW spoilers as well as outboard ailerons, but no form of envelope control. The inboard ailerons are still mechanically signalled and hydraulically operated, just like the 744.

I guess the use of limited use of FBW is so they can tune the characteristics to make the 748 feel the same as the 744, being they have the same type rating.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61):
Amazing...........

Suggestion.

Why don't you

a) provide the source of YOUR knowledge or better yet

b) read the plethora of threads in tech-ops which provide an abundance of information from easily the most knowledgeable posters on these forums on this subject, which may allow you to, er "calibrate" your own "knowledge"......

Posters whose intimate knowledge of these subjects, and their willingness to share it, make A-net worth participating in...

Unlike some ...  

Rgds

How Old Are you, Sir?

I think We are taking this too personally.
This is a Aviation Forum, I must remind Myself, Not a Engineering Board Meeting with Boeing.

I Respect Your Thoughts. But Know Mine.

Kindest Regards,

HIRSCH777
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:07 am

Boeing's says: "These are the limits. I sure don't recommend you go past them, so to make sure you know I'll make it really difficult for you. If you leave it to me, I'll put you back within the safety of the envelope, because that's where we are safest."


Thank You for this!

Thats My Point in the A & B differences. The Pilot has the Ultimate Say!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:02 am

Quoting nasula (Reply 57):
A quick google search gives 4 LAWs that the AB can be in (http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm) + a manual backup. Can the pilot not switch between these LAWs?

Not really. By intentionally failing other systems (e.g. shutting down flight control computers or pitot probe heaters) a pilot can force the flight controls to go into degraded modes but there's no direct selector for various sets of flight control laws.

Quoting nasula (Reply 57):
The fifth mode seems to be a "direct drive" just like your protection overridden Boeing.

A protection overridden Boeing is not in direct mode; Boeing does have a direct mode but, in that case, you don't have any protections at all so you can't override them. If you do override the protections in Primary or Secondary mode the basic control laws are still in effect and you're not directly driving anything.

Quoting nasula (Reply 57):
OTOH, why would a pilot want to override the protections? Is there a real benefit to doing so?

The Boeing theory is that they don't know why a pilot would want to override the protections but, if a pilot wanted to override the protections, then the pilot must have a good reason for doing so and should be allowed to do it. The airplane, in return, will use all the cues in its power (aural, visual, and tactile) to make sure the pilot knows what they're doing and, if the pilot returns to control to the aircraft, the aircraft will immediately go back inside the envelope.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 58):
Quoting nasula (Reply 57):
OTOH, why would a pilot want to override the protections? Is there a real benefit to doing so?

No there is absolutely no reason to override the protections.

There is no *known* reason. The whole point is that the OEM's can predict everything and Boeing felt that they should give the ultimate decision in a case like that to the pilot.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 58):
I doubt you will ever need to bank more than 67 degrees, and if you do, you will overstress the aircraft anyway.

You will not necessarily overstress the aircraft. I've been in a 747-8 past 90 degrees of bank and it was just fine.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 60):
As far as I am aware, the 747 uses conventional mechanical controls to hydraulic power units, there is no FBW at all in 747-400. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

As note later, I believe they were referring to the 747-8.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 60):
The flight control law as used by Boeing (particulary the 777, not too sure about 787) isn't too dissimilar to the Airbus normal law. Pitch control in Boeing's case is a combination of pitch rate demand and load factor, but with speed stability so you can trim for speed as in a conventionally controlled aircraft. The roll control is simply proportional to the control wheel deflection.

The 777 and 787 pitch laws are very similar and, as you note, also similar to Airbus with the addition of speed stability. Note that the speed stability isn't there so you can trim, it's there so you have to trim and so that the airplane will attempt to return to trim speed.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 63):
I guess the use of limited use of FBW is so they can tune the characteristics to make the 748 feel the same as the 744, being they have the same type rating.

That was part of the original reason, along with some weight savings. It turned out to be a lucky choice, since they later used the same system to help deal with certain flutter modes discovered in flight testing:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...7-8-oams-special-condition-354600/

Tom.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6947
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:47 am

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 64):
How Old Are you, Sir?

I think We are taking this too personally.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me how much of a complete arse you make of yourself.
If it doesn't bother you either, that's fine too.

For what its worth I'm old enough to recognise constructive coaching when it's offered, and take the opportunity to learn something...  

Rgds
 
nasula
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:20 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:27 am

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 64):
How Old Are you, Sir?

You're calling Astuteman immature?   

If you look at astuteman's RR score (94/100), you'll notice that he is one of the most respected members here and just about always tries to bring a balanced, well argumented and sourced (if necessary) view into the discussions without visible bias. Calling him immature couldn't be further off the mark. He hasn't achieved a high RR score by calling people names. It's usually worth while reading his comments with some thought.  
 
aeroflop
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:12 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:45 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54):
I think that (dis)honour goes to the A380.

   I don't know how anyone can say the 777 is the ugliest!!!
 
hirsch777
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:48 am

Quoting nasula (Reply 68):
If you look at astuteman's RR score (94/100), you'll notice that he is one of the most respected members here and just about always tries to bring a balanced, well argumented and sourced (if necessary) view into the discussions without visible bias. Calling him immature couldn't be further off the mark. He hasn't achieved a high RR score by calling people names. It's usually worth while reading his comments with some thought.

I Respect His thoughts.
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:51 am

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 5):
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):Had Boeing's decision for the GE90 not worked out as well as it did, we might well be seeing far more A346s in the sky.
Agreed.

The GE90-115b made this possible, and is one of the major aspects to the over engineering I mentioned above.

Had the price of aviation fuel not increased from around $30/barrel at the time of 345/6 launch to over $100/barrel not too long after the 77W EIS then we would also see more 346's in the sky. The fuel efficiency delta between the 346 and 77W was the archilles heel of the 346 and the 300% increase in the price of jet fuel in a few short years only magnified that weakness.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:05 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54):
So I would argue that the 777 did become a superstar when the -200ER model came out, with as much range as a 744 and a lot less fuel burn.

The 777-200ER became a superstar because it had similar capacity, better range and a lot less fuel burn than the A340-300.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54):
I wonder if Boeing's luck with the 777 program will hold so that the upcoming 777-8X and 777-9X also exceeds expectations

I assume when you say luck you mean engineering excellence, business strategy and vision (particularly in pushing the boundaries of ETOPS twins). If the hot debate in the many 77X threads is anything to go by then there's no simple answer at this point in time - just as well as the 787 doesn't give ground for quite so many A.net arguments nowadays.


Regards,
StickShaker
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:08 am

Why do I love the Mighty Triple Seven?

It's simple: no other passenger aircraft impressed me as much as the 777 when I saw it for the first time in my life at Newark airport. EVER.

Distant second: A320. The first truly "modern" aircraft I experienced in my adolescent life when I saw it first.

Why do I hate all 747s and A380s? Because doubledeckers do not belong in the sky. This applies to all of their piston-powered predecessors as well. They are disguisting, ugly pieces of garbage.
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:13 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
There is no *known* reason. The whole point is that the OEM's can predict everything and Boeing felt that they should give the ultimate decision in a case like that to the pilot.

That is why even in normal law, it will allow you to override the protections in case the aircraft for example would be flipped upside down by say extreme turbulence or any other situation where the aircraft is already outside the flight envelope.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
You will not necessarily overstress the aircraft. I've been in a 747-8 past 90 degrees of bank and it was just fine.

Yes according to the g-load limit of the aircraft, you will. A 90 degree bank in such an aircraft means stalling.

[Edited 2012-09-12 03:14:43]
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:44 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 74):
Yes according to the g-load limit of the aircraft, you will.

Banking an aircraft to extreme angles doesn't necessarily load it up heavily. It is possible to perform a full 360 degree barrel roll without exceeding 1G if performed correctly. Theoretically, with the Airbus Load Factor protection active but Bank Angle protection deactivated you could perform it without the aircraft ever 'knowing'.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 74):
A 90 degree bank in such an aircraft means stalling.

Again, not necessarily. As long as you keep the AoA within range then the wings will keep flying, it doesn't matter what your bank angle is.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:15 am

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 75):
Banking an aircraft to extreme angles doesn't necessarily load it up heavily. It is possible to perform a full 360 degree barrel roll without exceeding 1G if performed correctly. Theoretically, with the Airbus Load Factor protection active but Bank Angle protection deactivated you could perform it without the aircraft ever 'knowing'.

Of course, but banking 67 degrees while maintaining the same altitude is a different situation.

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 75):
Again, not necessarily. As long as you keep the AoA within range then the wings will keep flying, it doesn't matter what your bank angle is.

In such an aircraft assuming you are trying to maintain your altitude, then yes. It's not a fighter jet.

[Edited 2012-09-12 04:18:08]
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:20 pm

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
I assume when you say luck you mean engineering excellence, business strategy and vision (particularly in pushing the boundaries of ETOPS twins).

I think getting aircraft on spec and on time requires a little element of luck, on top of all of the above. Aside from the 777 and the Longer Range 777 programs, I'm not aware of any other recent airliner program that arrived on time and on (or better than) spec.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:45 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 77):
I'm not aware of any other recent airliner program that arrived on time and on (or better than) spec.

I don't think it will ever happen again to be honest. The sales guys will always shave as much time off as possible, because customers don't want to hear that the newest airliner will really take 5 years to develop and certify - so call it 3 years, take the deposits and placate the customers when the time comes.

The fact that the amount of technology in aircraft has increased so massively also leaves more scope for things to go wrong. Look at all the recent programs, and the things that have really caused problems seem so massive that you think "how could nobody of thought of this??"

Examples in point:

A380 - compatibility issues between two different versions of the CAD software, and a large number of wiring issues.
787 - The wing-body join issue, numerous supply chain issues and several rounds of incorrectly fitted fasteners.
A350 - Numerous supply chain issues, and the wing drilling software issue.

Its always easy to see the problem after it occurs though  
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
wingman
Posts: 3804
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:18 pm

In this entire thread there are no pics of big, beautiful 777s. WTF?!

I love riding 777s just to stare dumbfounded at the engines turning for 10 hours. Anyone that finds that shit boring should probably head over to origamiandballetfans.net.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:26 am

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 74):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 66):
You will not necessarily overstress the aircraft. I've been in a 747-8 past 90 degrees of bank and it was just fine.

Yes according to the g-load limit of the aircraft, you will. A 90 degree bank in such an aircraft means stalling.

You never specified "while maintaining altitude." That's a very different restriction. The wing doesn't know or care what bank angle you're at; you can have any bank angle you like and be within g-limits (which was the original stipulation).

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 77):
Aside from the 777 and the Longer Range 777 programs, I'm not aware of any other recent airliner program that arrived on time and on (or better than) spec.

And the 777 is still a shining jewel in the crown of "On Spec-On Time-On Budget: Choose two". The 777 was enormously expensive; it's cost overrun in order to meet spec and schedule was part of the reason that the 787 partner model was invented. In many ways, the huge schedule delays of the 787 were just the flip side of what happened to the 777.

Tom.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6560
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:47 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 80):
And the 777 is still a shining jewel in the crown of "On Spec-On Time-On Budget: Choose two". The 777 was enormously expensive; it's cost overrun in order to meet spec and schedule was part of the reason that the 787 partner model was invented. In many ways, the huge schedule delays of the 787 were just the flip side of what happened to the 777.

Sadly, the 787 went only 1-for-3 in that respect (and that's being a little generous, counting "on spec after LN 90" as "on spec").

I think the 777 experience (and, before it, the 747 experience) proves that for a program that will be bringing in cash for as long as a successful all-new airliner program does, "on budget" should be the last priority unless the overrun is a meaningful threat to the company.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:01 pm

My one gripe with the 77W is the engine start-up. There can be a pretty horrific noise for 15-20 seconds in the cabin as they get underway, to the point where my last SQ-flight had passengers with fingers in their ears. It wasn't a pleasant noise. Though it ended up being a very pleasant flight  
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2612
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:09 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 82):
My one gripe with the 77W is the engine start-up. There can be a pretty horrific noise for 15-20 seconds in the cabin as they get underway, to the point where my last SQ-flight had passengers with fingers in their ears. It wasn't a pleasant noise. Though it ended up being a very pleasant flight

That "noise" is music to my ears  
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
User avatar
817Dreamliiner
Posts: 3534
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:12 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:17 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 83):
That "noise" is music to my ears  

Same here!  
I'll wake from the dream, To keep and relive, Now life it is a dream, And dream's on a... BREAK!
 
User avatar
135mech
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:56 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:02 pm

Quoting tom355uk (Reply 75):
Banking an aircraft to extreme angles doesn't necessarily load it up heavily. It is possible to perform a full 360 degree barrel roll without exceeding 1G if performed correctly.

Yes it is...and put the sales in motion for the KC-135 and later on the B707 lines! Tex Johnston was awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezt5IuwgMvo

[Edited 2012-09-13 08:07:44]
135Mech
 
jfk777
Posts: 7124
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:36 am

When the 747 was the only 7000 mile plane around many airline used it even if it was too big for the route, the 777 put the "miss use" to an end. WE all know how the 777 made suc operations more efficient.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:55 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 86):

The A340 could do the thin 7000 mile routes back in '93 without having to wait until '98 for a 777-200ER...
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:23 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 86):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 87):

To be fair, really how many 'thin' routes are there that are even 7000nm+?

The 767-200ER has a stated range of 6,385nm, and was released in 1984. I can't think of many major city pairs that won't cover that don't require something the size of a 747. Even the 763ER can nudge 6000nm.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
zipsy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:06 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Fri Sep 14, 2012 11:52 pm

Quoting KPDX (Reply 2):
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
Since I'm strongly in the "bored with seeing them" camp and find them as uninteresting as the A320 series, I'm looking forward to the replies to this thread.

Please send them this way. All I see is boring 737s and A320s.

I find all jetliners beautiful.nothing boring about them.Come over here and you will be bored stiff with just little prop planes buzzing around.Even a humble 737 or A319 would be nice to see.I would love to see all these boring twinjets here!
 
MSR777
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:03 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:32 am

I'm a die hard Airbus man myself, but I really do like the look of the 777-300, especially in Egyptair colours. It was a nice flight on one of theirs that I had a few weeks back, a quantum leap from flying on their -200s. The Biman colours look good on them too. The sound of a -300 on take off is incredible!
Behold! The Wings of Horus
 
phxa340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:34 am

Quoting HIRSCH777 (Reply 9):
I think you are forgetting about the A330. Terrible record for a Modern Airliner. It looks beautiful. But I would fly a 777 anyday over the A330. 6 write-offs

Maylasia - Labeling Error (Nothing to do with the design of the 330)
Air France - Pilot Error (Nothing to do with the design of the 330)
Afriqiyah - Pilot Error (Nothing to do with the design of the 330)
Sri Lankan (2) - Airport Attack (Nothing to do with design of the 330)

I assume the 6th one your talking about is the Airbus test flight ... but I do not know enough about that crash to talk about the merits, however as you can see the A330 has had zero hull losses due to Aircraft fault.

To put thing into perspective for you : 159 Hull Losses for the 737 (Been around for a long time though) and 23 Hull Losses for the A32X family. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to step foot on any of these aircraft.
 
User avatar
KPDX
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Quoting zipsy (Reply 89):
I find all jetliners beautiful.nothing boring about them.Come over here and you will be bored stiff with just little prop planes buzzing around.Even a humble 737 or A319 would be nice to see.I would love to see all these boring twinjets here!

Hahaha, touche. 

I personally love watching all aircraft. (cmon, we're aviation enthusiasts!)

You can dislike one more than the other, but I don't see how anyone can find an airliner, let alone a widebody of any type necessarily boring. Always amazing to watch them leave terra firma.  
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:43 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 80):
You never specified "while maintaining altitude." That's a very different restriction. The wing doesn't know or care what bank angle you're at; you can have any bank angle you like and be within g-limits (which was the original stipulation).

Fair enough. My bad, but what would be the point of banking 90 degrees if you are then going to stall? Especially in a 747? There is no reason to go there anyway.

Also, as mentioned before; The Airbus has something called Abnormal Attitude Laws, which means no protections except load factor protections in case the aircraft is already outside the flight envelope. Please refer to DSC-27-20-20 P6/6 if you are interested. There is no reason to be against the flight envelope protections.
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4148
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:40 pm

Since I started this thread to learn "why" the 777 program was so successful I have to say thank you to everyone, I have learned why. I didn't expect to read so much about liking or disliking her looks. In that regard I agree with others above who ask how could an airplane lover HATE anything. Yes, we can prefer one over another, but to say as on poster said "all double deckers are disgusting pieces of garbage" (paraphrasing) blows my mind. I LOVE the look of a 777. And livery does have a lot to do with her appearance. I have one of the first 2 VARIG 777's in take off as my wallpaper. The huge VARIG branding and the sun-compass looks so classy. (RIP RG!)

Aside from liking a 777 or not, or any other aircraft, I am humbled by the people who design and make them. The massive task to create a 777, A380, 747-8, 787, 737 or A320 makes them all worthy of admiration: especially when you see a Singapore VLA in NYC, or a Lufthansa 747 in Brazil or a United 747 in HK and think...that MASSIVE United 744 machine was in Chicago yesterday and will be back there tomorrow - and has done so 1000 times is a miracle to me.

One thing I would like to learn more about is how a raked wing tip on a 777 or even a 767-400 works? Why are they better than a winglet?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
michaeljp
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:30 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:27 pm

Wow...there have been some interesting comments within this thread aside from the "what is the 777 attraction".

I personally think that the 777 is a fantastic a/c. I love the look of the 77W. I think the GE90's are an amazing set of engines. All engines have their issues, its mechanical. The more reliable the better clearly but lest we not forget that everything is still machinery.
Having worked on the 777 in the air and also the 330 I personally found the 777 a nicer airplane to work on. The F/D was much more to my liking, the lighting at night for example etc. The galleys are bigger (especially the rearmost galley on the 777) in comparison to the 330.
Granted some of the older 777's look a bit tired now and the 773 with the RR looks out of proportion in comparison to the 77W its still a brilliant airplane with fantastic ergonomics, excellent economic properties and passengers do like the 777.

As far as start up of the GE90...all I can say is I'll happily listen to it over and over again all day long  
 
tom355uk
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:34 pm

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:37 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 94):
One thing I would like to learn more about is how a raked wing tip on a 777 or even a 767-400 works? Why are they better than a winglet?

A raked wingtip and winglet have much the same purpose: they both help to reduce drag caused by the turbulent air at the wingtip. This is achieved by effectively increasing the wingspan and therefore the lift produced by the wing to raise the lift to drag ratio, making the wing more efficient. Winglets are primarily offered as an aftermarket fit as generally they require no structural reinforcement on the wing which may mitigate the effect of drag reduction by increasing weight - which raked wingtips would normally require. Raked wingtips are more effective at increasing the lift available generally (which is why raked wingtips are usually included in a design if required), but can increase parasitic drag and wingspan limitations have to be considered.
on Twitter @tombeckett2285
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:57 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 93):
My bad, but what would be the point of banking 90 degrees if you are then going to stall? Especially in a 747?

You don't have to stall. That was the whole point. Wings can't "see" bank angle. They just see angle of attack. The point of doing it, in my case, was lateral stability checks but the aerodynamics are generally applicable. There is nothing about high bank angles that requires a stall if you allow altitude to vary; that's the entire principle behind barrel rolls (1g, no stall, all possible bank angles).

Tom.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9673
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:33 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 97):

But still, why would you need that other than for flight testing?
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: What Is The 777 Attraction?

Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:49 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 98):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 97):

But still, why would you need that other than for flight testing?

Recovery from a deep stall is the only one I can think of offhand. C_N_Beta is a powerful thing.

The original point was that Boeing didn't want to tell a pilot "We've thought of all possible situations and we know you'll never have to do this," as opposed to, "We don't know why you'd want to do this but, if you do, we believe you have a good reason and we'll allow you to." I was merely trying to counter an originally incorrect assertion:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 58):
I doubt you will ever need to bank more than 67 degrees, and if you do, you will overstress the aircraft anyway.

There would be a lot more argument to disallow bank past 67 degrees if this were true.

Tom.

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