Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Sooner787 wrote:I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan
like the fuselage panel shown above?
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?
Sooner787 wrote:I wonder if Boeing is using the Dreamlifters to bring in large plane parts from Japan like the fuselage panel shown above?
F14TCT wrote:
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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
Revelation wrote:Next time you're on a 777x/777/787, you are (at least in part) on a Subaru!
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.
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:Here is a pic that's just been tweeted:
https://twitter.com/StratAero/status/974008503160524800
It is massive!!
travaz wrote:A two engine 747 would be awesome!
7BOEING7 wrote:travaz wrote:A two engine 747 would be awesome!
There was one on the drawing board in ‘76.
7BOEING7 wrote:travaz wrote:A two engine 747 would be awesome!
There was one on the drawing board in ‘76.
MileHFL400 wrote:Am I right in saying this is the largest Civil aviation engine ever?
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.
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
Dutchy wrote:That is one seriously large engine. The normal 744 engines look so tiny.
Source: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... -luchtruim
travaz wrote:A two engine 747 would be awesome!
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
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.
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
cathay747 wrote:travaz wrote:A two engine 747 would be awesome!
747neo
qf789 wrote:Boeing has published plans for "non normal" ops for 777X wingtips
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f184600423
OldAeroGuy wrote:Note there is no non-normal procedure for inflight wing folding. All non-normals are for ground operations.
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.
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
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