Boeing Completes Firm Configuration For 777-9

rotating14 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:22 pm

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-firm-configuration-300134043.html

The link speaks for itself but I'm very curious of what the numbers/specs will be.

Revelation · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:27 pm

Can't wait to see that bird fly for the first time! We're so blessed to live in an era where so many new and cool aircraft are rolling down the lines. 787, A350, A320neo, 737max, C Series, and many others are coming to life all around us! Next up, 777X!

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:28 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Thread starter):
I'm very curious of what the numbers/specs will be.

What numbers are you looking for?

Flighty · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:33 pm

Revelation, even though those a/c all have the same twin engine configuration, yes. I agree. The amount of sheer engineering being thrown down on these jets is humbling... and inspiring!

[Edited 2015-08-27 07:39:12]

Revelation · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:34 pm

Nice video referenced via the announcement:

http://www.boeing.com/innovation/#/the-wing-is-the-thing

Nice vid of the wing in flight, comparison to 787, folding wingtips, etc...

MrHMSH · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:46 pm

From the linked article:

Quote:
The 777X family includes the 777-8 and the 777-9 – both designed to respond to market needs and customer preferences. The 777-8 and 777-9 provide significant range, payload and fuel burn advantages compared to the A350.

I think we'll have to take that with a pinch of salt!

I imagine the main customers were the ME3, but I wonder if they had more input that someone like BA/AF.

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:48 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 5):
I think we'll have to take that with a pinch of salt!

It's a direct quote from the Boeing press release, so

Polot · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 5):
I think we'll have to take that with a pinch of salt!

Fuel burn advantage? Yes. Better range? Depends of what you are comparing (778X vs A359LR advantage likely 777X, 779X vs A350-1000, who knows). Better payload? No, I suspect most people including Airbus would admit the 777X is likely to be better there. It is whether the extra payload and the tradeoffs that it brings is necessary for most operators.

Stitch · Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 7):
Fuel burn advantage? Yes.

Even there, it would only be in per-seat as I am confident the A350 will have lower trip fuel burn.

Revelation · Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:33 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 5):
I imagine the main customers were the ME3, but I wonder if they had more input that someone like BA/AF.

LH has 30 firm and 34 options so I have to presume they provided valued input, and some would say they are like BA/AF and less like the ME3.

MrHMSH · Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:40 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 7):
Fuel burn advantage? Yes.

The key word in the press release was 'significant' fuel burn/range advantages, I can believe the 778 and 779 will have better payload. But as Stitch says, it is very unlikely that the 777X will have a lower trip fuel burn, and I don't think the advantage in per-seat fuel burn is going to be significantly higher. Trip fuel burn is the measure by which the A380 is called a gas-guzzler, so I don't think Boeing can really call any huge advantage on the 777X in terms of fuel burn.

PacificBeach · Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:45 pm

Wasn't LH order for 20 firm plus 14 options? Did they order more after the initial one?

jacobin777 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Quoting polot (Reply 7):
I am confident the A350 will have lower trip fuel burn.

There would be problems if it didn't.

ec99 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:05 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 5):
I think we'll have to take that with a pinch of salt!

The 777X better have a significant advantage as its EIS is 5 years after the A350. Engine technology continues to improve as is the use of composites and wing design. The 777X having somewhat of a fuel burn advantage on a per seat basis doesn’t say anything bad about the A350, it is just newer technology. It is similar to a 787 v A350. The A350 undoubtedly has significant advantages inherent from newer technology since its EIS was almost four years after the 787.

LTU932 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:20 pm

Question: I noticed the 777-9 has no overwing exit like the 77W has today. How will that impact passenger capacity?

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:28 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 14):
Question: I noticed the 777-9 has no overwing exit like the 77W has today. How will that impact passenger capacity?

The exit limit is 475 passengers, down from 550 in the 77W.

Stitch · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:29 pm

Quoting PacificBeach (Reply 11):
Wasn't LH order for 20 firm plus 14 options? Did they order more after the initial one?

LH's order to date is 20 firm per Boeing's O&D site (believed to be a conversion of their 20 747-8 purchase rights), but LH's press releases stated they ordered 37, so the belief is that they will firm more up in due time.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 14):
Question: I noticed the 777-9 has no overwing exit like the 77W has today. How will that impact passenger capacity?

The 777-9 does appear to have what looks like a Type III exit between Doors 3 and 4, so that should peg the Exit Limit at 475 - 75 below the 777-300 families 550.

KarelXWB · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:46 pm

Regarding production, the first of three autoclaves was moved to the 777X Composite Wing Center yesterday.

777x Composite Wing Autoclave #1 Move by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

SeJoWa · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:35 pm

Those autoclaves are humongous. Thank you for posting images.

In the video, two things strike me: the pared down wing to body fairings, and the size of the engines - they dominate the front view.

LAX772LR · Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:18 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
Revelation, even though those a/c all have the same twin engine configuration

Because it's what PROVENLY WORKS BEST for the overwhelming majority of applications... so they went with it.

I've never understood the aversion to that, masked as "lack of diversity."
I mean, we don't see biplanes, mainline props, MLG ahead of a tail wheel, etc etc etc anymore... and no one whines about that lack of diverity.

Why are AvGeeks so fixated on number of engines? It's never made sense to me.

**************************
That said, how 'bout that 779?

StTim · Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:35 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):
It's a direct quote from the Boeing press release, so

They are working on the basis that if you repeat it often enough it will become accepted as fact by the fan boys. Airlines are however not fan boys. They are hard nosed businessmen (and women). It will be great if you can regularly fill it over long distances but can you????

SEPilot · Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:28 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):

Revelation, even though those a/c all have the same twin engine configuration, yes. I agree.

The simple fact is that we are unlikely to ever see another new airliner (at least in the foreseeable future) with anything other than two engines. One engine is off the table, for obvious reasons. And the fewest engines you can get away with is the most efficient way to go, and with the ability of engine makers to make huge engines that are incredibly reliable the days of 3 and 4 engined airliners is over. The airport infrastructure cannot cope with an airliner that would require 3 or 4 120,000 lb thrust engines, and so there is no likelihood of a super whale jet with 1000+ passengers.

Boeing778X · Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:22 pm

Really exciting! Congrats to Boeing! The 777X will certainly be a slam dunk in the years ahead

Sooner787 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:04 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 22):
Really exciting! Congrats to Boeing! The 777X will certainly be a slam dunk in the years ahead

Pray the EIS goes a lot smoother than the diva of the company, the 787

Boeing778X · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:44 am

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 23):
Pray the EIS goes a lot smoother than the diva of the company, the 787

I'm sure it will. Hopefully some lessons have been learned.

To be fair, the 787 was all new.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 19):
MLG ahead of a tail wheel

i.e. Taildraggers?

lightsaber · Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:20 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
Revelation, even though those a/c all have the same twin engine configuration, yes. I agree. The amount of sheer engineering being thrown down on these jets is humbling... and inspiring!

It is amazing how little is staying constant.
New engines
New wing
New interior width (ribs and insulation will change).
Weight savings almost throughout the plane.

This will have to be flight tested an almost new design.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
Nice video referenced via the announcement:

http://www.boeing.com/innovation/#/t...thing

Worth watching for the folding wingtips. That video highlights their concept. In my opinion, folding wingtips on airliners is an enabling technology for a whole new generation of aircraft with wider wingspans. I would be surprised if Boeing's "MOM" plane didn't have them.

MOM=Middle Of Market, the 757 replacement.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):

Regarding production, the first of three autoclaves was moved to the 777X Composite Wing Center yesterday.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21):
he simple fact is that we are unlikely to ever see another new airliner (at least in the foreseeable future) with anything other than two engines. One engine is off the table, for obvious reasons. And the fewest engines you can get away with is the most efficient way to go, and with the ability of engine makers to make huge engines that are incredibly reliable the days of 3 and 4 engined airliners is over.

The exception would be a BWB (flying wing). The lack of a rudder makes them tw0 unstable in an engine out with only one engine. Boeing is proposing 3 engines, Northrop 4. I've seen 3 and 4 engine concepts from Airbus. But the efficiency of a BWB will result in a return to multi-engine airlines.

I assume you know the plan is for Dassault's Falcon 9X will be a trijet.

Lightsaber

TheRedBaron · Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:20 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 17):

Amazing Pictures ! KarelXWB, if I could put you twice on my respected users list I WOULD.

Hope this program is a lot smoother than the Dreamliner, hope to see those folding wings in action soon!!!

TRB

ua2162 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:24 am

You gotta admit, the folding wingtip is pretty damn cool. And smart.

tortugamon · Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:58 am

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 10):
But as Stitch says, it is very unlikely that the 777X will have a lower trip fuel burn

I don't know how many are really expecting the larger aircraft to have a lower trip fuel burn. Not the biggest piece of news here.

Quoting StTim (Reply 20):
It will be great if you can regularly fill it over long distances but can you????

~40 airlines are operating the best selling large aircraft model in history (773/W) so I do think airlines will know whether or not they can fill it. ~320 orders tells us a lot.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
I would be surprised if Boeing's "MOM" plane didn't have them.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if most large commercial aircraft have them going forward. It will help airport congestion and the additional cost isn't very large.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25):
The exception would be a BWB (flying wing).

I personally welcome flying far out on the wing for a BWB flight but I am not positive the average consumer will. Steep turns on final with that kind of change will be hard to adjust to for most I believe. I love the design aspects but I wonder how catering/average passenger happiness works. I love the idea but can't envision it practically.

tortugamon

LAX772LR · Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:13 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 28):
I personally welcome flying far out on the wing for a BWB flight but I am not positive the average consumer will. Steep turns on final with that kind of change will be hard to adjust to for most I believe

That, and I'm curious how you could evacuate a design layout like that, in 90sec or less, with only half the exits?

What if it ends up on its back, or (somewhat gingerly) its side (somehow)?

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:42 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 24):
To be fair, the 787 was all new.

That's not an excuse for poor program management.

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:46 am

Here, the 777X in 2013 versus today by Jon Ostrower:

http://twitter.com/jonostrower/

CARST · Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:59 am

Very interesting, thx Karel. Interesting how the shape of the wings changed and how the engines got larger in diameter.

SYDSpotter · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:09 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 20):
It will be great if you can regularly fill it over long distances but can you????

Airlines don't seem to be having trouble filling A380's on long distances, so I don't think this is the issue that is going to worry airlines who know their markets well.

cosyr · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:38 pm

But I know everyone is asking the same question...is Gemini Jets going to make the wingtip extended or folded?!

rotating14 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 31):

Quoting CARST (Reply 32):

Isn't this normal? Is this not regular evolutionary change from start to finish. We knew of these changes as they happened (chevrons, thrust increase, weight increase etc)

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:00 pm

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 35):
Isn't this normal?

It is perfectly normal for the reasons you mentioned. Still, that doesn't make the animation less interesting IMO.

par13del · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:05 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 28):
Steep turns on final with that kind of change will be hard to adjust to for most I believe. I love the design aspects but I wonder how catering/average passenger happiness works. I love the idea but can't envision it practically.

Inertial dampeners should take care of the pax comfort.

TheRedBaron · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:41 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 37):
Inertial dampeners should take care of the pax comfort.

Why use the inertial dampeners if you can ask Scotty to beam you up!

TRB

KarelXWB · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:51 pm

Boeing also dropped the 'X' and now calls both airplanes 777-8 and 777-9.

Egerton · Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:33 pm

Interesting brochure-ware, but not yet hardware. I await empty weight, V1, and payload range graph.

American 767 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:53 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Boeing also dropped the 'X' and now calls both airplanes 777-8 and 777-9.

And they also dropped the "hundred" series. I don't think the new variants will be called 777-800 and 900 Series, what Boeing has always done up until recently with the introduction of the 747-8, the 787-8/9/10 and the 737-7/8/9MAX. And I don't think they will continue to use the customer codes.

tortugamon · Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:02 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
Boeing also dropped the 'X' and now calls both airplanes 777-8 and 777-9.

Thanks for posting these JO tweets. Very interesting to see these comparisons. Those engines look massive.

It seems they dropped the X in the narrative and on the front of the plane but if you look at the top pictures you see that they added the X on this version to the Vert Stab and the bottom of the airplane. We are not done with it yet, but I think they will go that direction.

tortugamon

atlflyer · Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:16 am

Those engines are gigantic.

RayChuang · Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:32 am

I was hoping Boeing was going to call it 777-800LR and 777-900ER....

karadion · Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:34 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 44):

Why? I'm glad they dropped the 00's since there's no need for customer codes. There's nothing stopping them from using "LR".

LAX772LR · Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:51 am

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 44):
I was hoping Boeing was going to call it 777-800LR and 777-900ER....

What's the point though, as they're already differentiated by their unique frames.

The 777-200LR is still on the original frame as the 777-200 that first flew in 1994. The "LR" tag is needed to differentiate.

There's no 778A. Nor even an -ER.
So what's the point of tacking -LR onto it?

Clipper101 · Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:21 am

Change in door configuration as seen in the presentation is more visible in the following link:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/a...stick/777-9X%20TC-XXX-page-001.jpg

[Edited 2015-08-28 22:35:40]

briguychau · Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:46 am

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 47):
Change in door configuration as seen in the presentation

Actually, based on their newest renderings, the extra, smaller doors don't exist anymore.

Clipper101 · Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:51 am

Quoting briguychau (Reply 48):

What you are saying is that B777-9 will come in 8-door configuration based on newest renderings?!! Wow!

[Edited 2015-08-28 23:22:42]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net