Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

KarelXWB · Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:18 pm

Pre-assembly of the first a/c is now underway.

https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/sta ... 9622045697

The previous discussion can be found at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=558021

Sooner787 · Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:34 pm

I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan
like the fuselage panel shown above?

Tedd · Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:07 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan
like the fuselage panel shown above?

Being alloy won`t the fuselage & wings be built in-house like previous triple 7 models? Even if wings are
carbon-fibre covered ( didn`t they buy an autoclave for the wings? ) surely they`d do that in Seattle too?

trex8 · Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:37 am

Tedd wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan
like the fuselage panel shown above?

Being alloy won`t the fuselage & wings be built in-house like previous triple 7 models? Even if wings are
carbon-fibre covered ( didn`t they buy an autoclave for the wings? ) surely they`d do that in Seattle too?

Japanese had 21% of the 777 airframe and will have same on the 777X.

Presently MHI is in charge of aft fuselages, fuselage tail sections and passenger entry doors; KHI, forward and center fuselages, main landing gear wheel wells, cargo doors and pressure bulkheads; FHI, center wing section, integration of the center wing section with the main landing gear wheel wells, main landing gear doors and wing-to-body fairings (forward); SMIC, wing-to-body fairings (center and aft); and NIPPI, wing components.

https://www.mhi.co.jp/en/m/news/story/140612.html

Fixinthe757 · Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:42 am

Ive been working 777s for over 2 years now and have yet to find any part of the plane that's been built/manufactured in the US. Granted not every single part of the aircraft has a "Made in XXX" stamped on it, but a large part of some them do. Ironically when I was working A330s I found a decent number of components that built/manufactured here in the US.

Stitch · Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:45 am

Sooner787 wrote:
I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan like the fuselage panel shown above?

The Dreamlifters are dedicated to 787 production.

The Japanese suppliers of the 777's fuselage panels will be doing the same for the 777X and both sets will arrive via ship at Mukilteo and then delivered by train to the FAL.

The 777X's wings will be built by Boeing in Everett.

JAAlbert · Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:29 am

Those sure don't look like 787-sized windows. Didn't Boeing suggest that they would use larger windows on the 777X? Fixinthe757, what's the scoop on the 777X's windows?

F14TCT · Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:58 pm

Mitsubishi also had a delivery event.

http://www.mhi.com/news/story/1802072106.html

Revelation · Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:36 pm

F14TCT wrote:
Mitsubishi also had a delivery event.

http://www.mhi.com/news/story/1802072106.html

It points out a point worth making:

Tokyo, February 7, 2018 - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) has delivered the aft fuselage panels for the first Boeing 777X, Boeing's next-generation wide-body passenger aircraft. The panels were shipped from MHI's Hiroshima Machinery Works Eba Plant.

787 was the first Boeing airliner where whole sections were delivered stuffed to the FAL. Given the high value of such sections, and the difficulty in transporting them via mixed modes, the Dreamlifter approach was taken.

My understanding is the 777 is still 'stick built' i.e. the various pieces/parts are delivered to KPAE and largely assembled on site. Thus we talk of aft fuse panels being delivered via ship instead of completed sections being delivered by air.

It seems Boeing didn't want to turn things over too much ( other than doing the wings in house ) for 777x and is largely following the existing production model ( but with more automation ).

jubguy3 · Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:38 pm

Fixinthe757 wrote:
Ive been working 777s for over 2 years now and have yet to find any part of the plane that's been built/manufactured in the US. Granted not every single part of the aircraft has a "Made in XXX" stamped on it, but a large part of some them do. Ironically when I was working A330s I found a decent number of components that built/manufactured here in the US.

It's the same thing that Japanese and US automakers do... my Toyota Camry has one of the highest percentages of US made components of any car, and yet it's still "foreign"... oh America.

KarelXWB · Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
It seems Boeing didn't want to turn things over too much ( other than doing the wings in house ) for 777x and is largely following the existing production model ( but with more automation ).

Boeing was pretty clear on existing production from the beginning.

ojjunior · Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:56 am

Received yesterday an email marketing from Boeing (I believe many of you also did) talking about the 777X composite wings, as follows:

Join us live at 10 AM Pacific Time from the 777X Composite Wing Center in Everett, Washington as we look inside the world's largest autoclave.

Our experts will give you a behind the scenes tour of the autoclaves which produce critical parts for the all-new 777X composite wing.

Click either of the images below to listen live on Facebook or Twitter, and submit your 777X questions in the comments.

I'm assuming the event is already in the past now so any of you folks have something to share?

pugman211 · Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:11 pm

Ha, I've just watched that 25 minute live feed on Twitter. Was very interesting. I like it Boeing.

gatechae · Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:08 pm

Fixinthe757 wrote:
Ive been working 777s for over 2 years now and have yet to find any part of the plane that's been built/manufactured in the US. Granted not every single part of the aircraft has a "Made in XXX" stamped on it, but a large part of some them do. Ironically when I was working A330s I found a decent number of components that built/manufactured here in the US.

Spirit Aerosystems Wichita builds the Section 41, and Nacelles of all 777s

Spirit Aerosystems Tulsa builds the floor beams and slats on 777s.

Slash787 · Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:30 pm

Stitch wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan like the fuselage panel shown above?

The Dreamlifters are dedicated to 787 production.

The Japanese suppliers of the 777's fuselage panels will be doing the same for the 777X and both sets will arrive via ship at Mukilteo and then delivered by train to the FAL

Just out of Curiosity, how many days it takes for the total shipment.

Revelation · Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:50 pm

Next time you're on a 777x/777/787, you are (at least in part) on a Subaru!

Subaru completes first 777X centre wing box

Ref: https://www.subaru.co.jp/press/news-en/2018_02_09_5450/

BlatantEcho · Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:31 pm

wow, it's really starting to come together.

I think the X is going to be a real step forward for Boeing. They are refining their carbon techniques with the wings, and automating more and more of the processes.
More precision, more ability to take out weight, more repeatability, and less reliance on human labor to do some of the tasks.

We're starting to see the future, and I think it's exciting.

--
For passengers, I look forward to the X too.
I'm doing 13 hours over to Dubai on a -300ER this afternoon, and I love the ride.
Can imagine the incremental improvements that the X will bring.... should be awesome.

WIederling · Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
Next time you're on a 777x/777/787, you are (at least in part) on a Subaru!

Subaru is Fuji Heavy Industries. ( at least that is what the papers for my Subaru minibus said. :-)

Polot · Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Next time you're on a 777x/777/787, you are (at least in part) on a Subaru!

Subaru is Fuji Heavy Industries. ( at least that is what the papers for my Subaru minibus said.

Fuji Heavy Industries actually rebranded itself as Subaru Corporation to reflect its most well known brand.

ikolkyo · Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:20 pm

The first static test frame was spotted at PAE

https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/966128930196406272

OldAeroGuy · Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:38 pm

Interesting update on the 777X Program from AVWeek.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... 5a059932cc

pabloeing · Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:28 pm

GE9X in the air for the first time ........Amazing see that engine.

@GEAviation boss says GE9X intended for Boeing 777X flew for the first time this week via @dougcameron

FrenchPotatoEye · Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:03 pm

Here is a pic that's just been tweeted:

[Url]https://twitter.com/StratAero/status/974008503160524800[url/]

It is massive!!

chiki · Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:07 pm

The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

MileHFL400 · Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:33 pm

Am I right in saying this is the largest Civil aviation engine ever?

SFOtoORD · Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:40 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
Here is a pic that's just been tweeted:

https://twitter.com/StratAero/status/974008503160524800

It is massive!!

That picture almost looks fake. Huge engine.

travaz · Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:20 am

A two engine 747 would be awesome!

Aeroplasma · Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:57 am

With the GE90X on the B747, it looks very out of the ordinary (obviously it's meant for the B777X, but the engine is an extra behemoth). One has to pat General Electric for all the efforts they have been giving to this project.

7BOEING7 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:11 am

travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

There was one on the drawing board in ‘76.

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:01 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

There was one on the drawing board in ‘76.

Really? There were no engines powerful enough at the time. There was a "777" concept from 1977 (part of the 757 / 767 family) that was a 767 frame with a third engine in the after fuselage ala the 727 and with a T-tail. An early concept of what became the current 777 also employed a DC-10 style third engine before the OEMs agreed to make an engine powerful enough to allow it to only need two.

I know there was a three-engined concept of the 747 (the "747-300") designed to compete with the DC-10 and L-1011:

OldAeroGuy · Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:32 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

There was one on the drawing board in ‘76.

I agree but I think the year was more like '73-'74 when the 7X7 (later the 767) was being looked at.

The 7X7 at that time was being studied in 2, 3, & 4 engine versions. A 747 twin was studied to see how it would compete with the 7X7 (767) twin. It used the existing engines so it was a huge shrink, being shorter than the 747SP.

If you recall, the Boeing gift shop at the time sold "cute" stylized models of the 707, 727, 737 and 747 with egg shaped fuselages.

They looked something like this:

https://www.hasegawausa.com/product-ima ... ain-lg.jpg

The twin 747 to compete with the twin 7X7 had one of those egg shaped fuselages. It died an early death on the Product Development drawing boards.

OldAeroGuy · Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:28 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
Am I right in saying this is the largest Civil aviation engine ever?

Yes, in terms of fan size. The GE9 fan diameter is 134" vs 128" for the GE90-115B.

No, in terms of thrust. Takeoff ratings are GE9 produces 105K lb while the GE90 is rated at 115.3K lb.

The GE9 should be much quieter for takeoff, lower thrust spread over larger fan as long as the tip speeds are not too high.

And there is no need to say Civil, it's the largest fan diameter for all applications.

speedbird52 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:40 am

OldAeroGuy wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

The twin 747 to compete with the twin 7X7 had one of those egg shaped fuselages. It died an early death on the Product Development drawing boards.

Seriously? Are you sure that's not an exaggeration?

steman · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:13 am

chiki wrote:
The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

Does anybody know why on recent GE engines (RR Trent 1000 too?) the metal rim at the mouth of the fan
is so much bigger (thicker, deeper) than on current/previous models?
Is it a specific requirement or just a design choice? It makes the engine look cartoonish in my opinion.

qf789 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:19 am

Boeing has published plans for "non normal" ops for 777X wingtips

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f184600423

Dutchy · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:28 am

That is one seriously large engine. The normal 744 engines look so tiny.

Source: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -luchtruim

Raptormodeller · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:43 am

Dutchy wrote:
That is one seriously large engine. The normal 744 engines look so tiny.

Source: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -luchtruim

Mind=blown. on another note how do they keep the aircraft balanced when it's in such a configuration?
Reminds me of this: https://goo.gl/images/x7hzSk

ZaphodHarkonnen · Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:46 am

Probably put more fuel on the starboard wing tanks I would think. It isn't like they're doing 22 hour long flight tests with the thing.

Dutchy · Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:05 pm

More tricky with the engine output I think.

cathay747 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:32 pm

travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

747neo

mjoelnir · Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:52 pm

chiki wrote:
The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

hardly, even if the original engine looks tiny, it puts out 62,000 lbs. Two make 124,000 lbs and that compares to 105,000 lbs on the GE9X. Add to that, that one engine has to be enough on a twin to keep climbing in take off, after one engine failure, than you compare 105,000 lbs with 3 * 64,000 = 204,000 lbs for one engine out.

I would simply say no way in hell you would be able to run a 747-400 (or 747-200/300) on two of this. Even the GE90-115B at 115,000 lbs would not be enough. Still a long way from about 200,000 lbs.

People forget that the 777-300ER and now soon the 777-8/9 use the biggest available engine. A 747-400 is quite a bit heavier, about 60 t at MTOW, the 747-8 about 80 t. Perhaps if you would mount a huge wing.

AAlaxfan · Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:38 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
chiki wrote:
The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

hardly, even if the original engine looks tiny, it puts out 62,000 lbs. Two make 124,000 lbs and that compares to 105,000 lbs on the GE9X. Add to that, that one engine has to be enough on a twin to keep climbing in take off, after one engine failure, than you compare 105,000 lbs with 3 * 64,000 = 204,000 lbs for one engine out.

I would simply say no way in hell you would be able to run a 747-400 (or 747-200/300) on two of this. Even the GE90-115B at 115,000 lbs would not be enough. Still a long way from about 200,000 lbs.

People forget that the 777-300ER and now soon the 777-8/9 use the biggest available engine. A 747-400 is quite a bit heavier, about 60 t at MTOW, the 747-8 about 80 t. Perhaps if you would mount a huge wing.

UM.....3*64000=192000

kevin5345179 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:38 pm

AAlaxfan wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
chiki wrote:
The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

hardly, even if the original engine looks tiny, it puts out 62,000 lbs. Two make 124,000 lbs and that compares to 105,000 lbs on the GE9X. Add to that, that one engine has to be enough on a twin to keep climbing in take off, after one engine failure, than you compare 105,000 lbs with 3 * 64,000 = 204,000 lbs for one engine out.

I would simply say no way in hell you would be able to run a 747-400 (or 747-200/300) on two of this. Even the GE90-115B at 115,000 lbs would not be enough. Still a long way from about 200,000 lbs.

People forget that the 777-300ER and now soon the 777-8/9 use the biggest available engine. A 747-400 is quite a bit heavier, about 60 t at MTOW, the 747-8 about 80 t. Perhaps if you would mount a huge wing.

UM.....3*64000=192000

btw where is 64 klbf comes from ?
I thought you should have 62 instead ??

nry · Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:44 pm

cathay747 wrote:
travaz wrote:
A two engine 747 would be awesome!

747neo

More like 747MAX!

Sooner787 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:40 pm

I can't wait to see the 779 in the flesh. With those insane engines and monstrous wingspan,
she'll be a sight to behold , especially when the wingtips fold down prior to takeoff

OldAeroGuy · Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:01 pm

qf789 wrote:
Boeing has published plans for "non normal" ops for 777X wingtips

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f184600423

Note there is no non-normal procedure for inflight wing folding. All non-normals are for ground operations.

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:09 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
Note there is no non-normal procedure for inflight wing folding. All non-normals are for ground operations.

Assuming there is one, I would expect it would have to wait until the test frames are flying to identify the conditions and effects.

pugman211 · Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:13 pm

Stitch wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
Note there is no non-normal procedure for inflight wing folding. All non-normals are for ground operations.

Assuming there is one, I would expect it would have to wait until the test frames are flying to identify the conditions and effects.

Well, Boeing have stated they will automatically fold up when on the ground and below 50 knots, so again, assuming it would require weight on the main gear for the tips to be moved to the raised position.

So that really only leaves failure of the hinge, locking mechanism and excessive loads surely? I'm not trying to imply that will happen, but they're the only conditions I can see for the wingtip to fold

mjoelnir · Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:54 pm

AAlaxfan wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
chiki wrote:
The engine is huge, wonder if you cant run the 747 on just 2 of these.
https://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/973904829956358144

hardly, even if the original engine looks tiny, it puts out 62,000 lbs. Two make 124,000 lbs and that compares to 105,000 lbs on the GE9X. Add to that, that one engine has to be enough on a twin to keep climbing in take off, after one engine failure, than you compare 105,000 lbs with 3 * 64,000 = 204,000 lbs for one engine out.

I would simply say no way in hell you would be able to run a 747-400 (or 747-200/300) on two of this. Even the GE90-115B at 115,000 lbs would not be enough. Still a long way from about 200,000 lbs.

People forget that the 777-300ER and now soon the 777-8/9 use the biggest available engine. A 747-400 is quite a bit heavier, about 60 t at MTOW, the 747-8 about 80 t. Perhaps if you would mount a huge wing.

UM.....3*64000=192000

does not change the point I made. 105,000 or 115,000 are not in the same ballpark as 192,000.

sharles · Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:56 pm

pugman211 wrote:
So that really only leaves failure of the hinge, locking mechanism and excessive loads surely? I'm not trying to imply that will happen, but they're the only conditions I can see for the wingtip to fold

Actually, the condition would have to be the opposite of excessive loads. If the way folding is prevented is that as long as there are loads transmitted, it is physically impossible to fold, then the only condition for uncommanded folding I can imagine is:
the "active" locking mechanism fails
with the "active" locking mechanism not locked, the plane experiences 0g, therefore unloading the "passive" lock.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net