User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25702
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:53 pm

jtdieffen wrote:
I'm surprised by what look like a fifth set of exit doors. I thought Boeing had removed a pair from the original spec. Is this an optional feature or perhaps a glimpse into future model(s)?


Yes, Boeing deleted the Type A overwing exit found on the 777-300ER and the 777-9's exits are all fore or aft of the wing.

The 777-9 is offered with four exit configurations:

1) Four Type A (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
2) Three Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 385 seats)
3) Three Type A and Two Type C (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
4) Four Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 475 seats)

(Doors are per side so total exists would be twice that)
 
jtdieffen
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:46 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:00 pm

Thanks, Stitch! That's really interesting! Will be interesting to see who's choosing which configs.
Regards! JDief
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 11247
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:44 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 777-9 is offered with four exit configurations:

1) Four Type A (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
2) Three Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 385 seats)
3) Three Type A and Two Type C (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
4) Four Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 475 seats)

Here's something I never really understood, perhaps you could help with it:

What would be an airline's incentive to take less than the max available doors for allowing max seating?
Even if they don't plan on using it, one would think that it'd affect potential resale/re-lease.

My guess is that different configurations amount to differing (higher) weights, and that additional doors may also "block" what could've been a potential row of seats-- but I figure the latter could be rectified by the amount of extra seats allowed.

Anyone?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25702
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:13 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Here's something I never really understood, perhaps you could help with it: What would be an airline's incentive to take less than the max available doors for allowing max seating? Even if they don't plan on using it, one would think that it'd affect potential resale/re-lease.


I believe most 777-300ER operators configure their frames with less than 440 seats. Outside of ANA's and JL's domestic shuttles, the highest-density configuration I can think of off the top of my head is AF's 468. As such, the fifth Type A door is mostly just taking up space that could be used for seats or more galley / lavatory space. Therefore, I believe most 777-9 operators will take the four Type A configuration.

EK's highest-density configuration is 428 and they have said their 777-9's will max out at 440 seats, which would be covered under a 4xType A configuration.


LAX772LR wrote:
My guess is that different configurations amount to differing (higher) weights...


Eliminating the overwing Type A exit is said to reduce the weight by around 450kg / 1000 pounds. In a four-door configuration, the distance between the 2nd and 3rd doors would be 60 feet, which meets certifying authority maximums.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 15822
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 777-9 is offered with four exit configurations:

1) Four Type A (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
2) Three Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 385 seats)
3) Three Type A and Two Type C (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
4) Four Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 475 seats)

Here's something I never really understood, perhaps you could help with it:

What would be an airline's incentive to take less than the max available doors for allowing max seating?
Even if they don't plan on using it, one would think that it'd affect potential resale/re-lease.

My guess is that different configurations amount to differing (higher) weights, and that additional doors may also "block" what could've been a potential row of seats-- but I figure the latter could be rectified by the amount of extra seats allowed.

Anyone?

I can answer that. Each seating setup changes the distribution of seats. At each type C, the pitch must be 36" (going from memory, so when someone quotes another number, they are right). 4 Type A slightly reduces business class seating. So airlines with large business cabins go for Three type A doors to improve revenue.

4 Type A and a C is only useful on very high density configurations and most airlines do not require this. It adds weight and maintenance costs. Type C can be retrofitted, so airlines that do not require it for initial configurations will not order them. The resale value improvement is less than the cost to operate for 12 years.

Lightsaber
You only have the first amendment with the 2nd. If you're not going to offend someone with what you say, you don't have the 1st.
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:44 pm

PHBVF wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
WIederling wrote:

If that ever catches on you will have the Boeing PR people wring their hands to no end.


As long as it's unofficial, I think they'd love it. The connotation is good and there is no bad PR.

Besides, wasn't "LONGER" one of the A340-600's catch words painted on the demo airplane?


Actually it was Longer - Larger - Fart :biggrin:
Image

I thought I was maturing until I saw that picture
Next flight: Jan 3 AA609 BWI-CLT A321
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR, BAW, EIN | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 744 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:47 pm

Stitch wrote:
jtdieffen wrote:
I'm surprised by what look like a fifth set of exit doors. I thought Boeing had removed a pair from the original spec. Is this an optional feature or perhaps a glimpse into future model(s)?


Yes, Boeing deleted the Type A overwing exit found on the 777-300ER and the 777-9's exits are all fore or aft of the wing.

The 777-9 is offered with four exit configurations:

1) Four Type A (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
2) Three Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 385 seats)
3) Three Type A and Two Type C (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
4) Four Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 475 seats)

(Doors are per side so total exists would be twice that)

Just so we're on the same page, what does a Type C exit look like? I assume Type A is a standard door. Is Type C like an overwing 737-style exit? Would Type B be like the R1 door on the MD8X? Is there a Type D?
Next flight: Jan 3 AA609 BWI-CLT A321
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR, BAW, EIN | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 744 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25702
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:20 pm

BWIAirport wrote:
Just so we're on the same page, what does a Type C exit look like? I assume Type A is a standard door. Is Type C like an overwing 737-style exit? Would Type B be like the R1 door on the MD8X? Is there a Type D?


A Type A is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 42 inches wide by 72 inches high.

A Type C is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 30 inches wide by 48 inches high. It appears to be that carriers who use Door 2L on the A321 for boarding it is a Type C, as it is larger than the Type I used on the other exits. I believe most narrowbodies use Type I exits.

The overwing exit on the 737NG/MAX is known as a Type III - this type is a rectangular opening of not less than 20 inches wide by 36 inches high and with a step-up inside the airplane of not more than 20 inches. If the exit is located over the wing, the step-down outside the airplane may not exceed 27 inches.

Type B is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 32 inches wide by 72 inches high. I am not sure what frames use them (if any).

(Information taken from FAR Sec. 25.807 — Emergency exits)
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
BWIAirport wrote:
Just so we're on the same page, what does a Type C exit look like? I assume Type A is a standard door. Is Type C like an overwing 737-style exit? Would Type B be like the R1 door on the MD8X? Is there a Type D?


A Type A is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 42 inches wide by 72 inches high.

A Type C is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 30 inches wide by 48 inches high. It appears to be that carriers who use Door 2L on the A321 for boarding it is a Type C, as it is larger than the Type I used on the other exits. I believe most narrowbodies use Type I exits.

The overwing exit on the 737NG/MAX is known as a Type III - this type is a rectangular opening of not less than 20 inches wide by 36 inches high and with a step-up inside the airplane of not more than 20 inches. If the exit is located over the wing, the step-down outside the airplane may not exceed 27 inches.

Type B is a floor-level exit with a rectangular opening of not less than 32 inches wide by 72 inches high. I am not sure what frames use them (if any).

(Information taken from FAR Sec. 25.807 — Emergency exits)

Thanks for the information!
Next flight: Jan 3 AA609 BWI-CLT A321
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR, BAW, EIN | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 744 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 933
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:34 am

lightsaber wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The 777-9 is offered with four exit configurations:

1) Four Type A (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
2) Three Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 385 seats)
3) Three Type A and Two Type C (for an Exit Limit of 440 seats)
4) Four Type A and One Type C (for an Exit Limit of 475 seats)

Here's something I never really understood, perhaps you could help with it:

What would be an airline's incentive to take less than the max available doors for allowing max seating?
Even if they don't plan on using it, one would think that it'd affect potential resale/re-lease.

My guess is that different configurations amount to differing (higher) weights, and that additional doors may also "block" what could've been a potential row of seats-- but I figure the latter could be rectified by the amount of extra seats allowed.

Anyone?

I can answer that. Each seating setup changes the distribution of seats. At each type C, the pitch must be 36" (going from memory, so when someone quotes another number, they are right). 4 Type A slightly reduces business class seating. So airlines with large business cabins go for Three type A doors to improve revenue.

4 Type A and a C is only useful on very high density configurations and most airlines do not require this. It adds weight and maintenance costs. Type C can be retrofitted, so airlines that do not require it for initial configurations will not order them. The resale value improvement is less than the cost to operate for 12 years.

Lightsaber


I suspect the most common option will be A-A-A-A and A-A-C-A as alluded to above.

Simply because Door 2 will be the most common "general" door for boarding (you would not want a type C there) and from what I understand the first and last set of doors are fixed as full type A doors. (Per Boeing ACAPS). It remains to be seen if the "optional service door" (type C) would actually be useful for servicing, thus why 4 full type A doors seems the logical choice, with the supplementary A-A-A-C-A and A-A-C-C-A config restricted to ultra high density configs. (Personally, apart from the Boeing test frames, I doubt we will see anything but A-A-A-A in the real world)
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 6993
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:29 am

Some more photos of the static test frame

Image

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/BoeingEurope/status ... 4432857088
Forum Moderator
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:56 pm

The third pic really shows off the wingtips in their folded up position. They almost look like super massive winglets.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:24 pm

If I understood correctly winglet are more efficient at cruise and for such an LR bird I'd think you don't want a "flat" wing once folding tips are deployed, right ?
Or the tip device is just missing as not needed for fatigue testing ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:31 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
If I understood correctly winglet are more efficient at cruise and for such an LR bird I'd think you don't want a "flat" wing once folding tips are deployed, right ?
Or the tip device is just missing as not needed for fatigue testing ?


The bit pointing up is the folding wingtip. My understanding is the motors and such for folding aren't installed but the wingtips are still needed for the non flying tests. So they're installed. To move them up or down you'll need to use outside mechanisms.

My understanding for winglets vs raked wingtips is that if you've got the space to spare then the raked wingtips are preferable. But if you've got space restrictions then winglets are better than nothing. So for the B777X they're going for the best of both worlds, raked wingtips for flight and folding mechanism to fit the space restrictions. I expect these sorts of mechanisms to appear in narrowbodies in the not too distant future.
 
Eyad89
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:10 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
If I understood correctly winglet are more efficient at cruise and for such an LR bird I'd think you don't want a "flat" wing once folding tips are deployed, right ?
Or the tip device is just missing as not needed for fatigue testing ?



The raked wingtip (while flat) adds 85% of the wingtip's length into the effective wing span. A blended wingtip (folded) adds 45% of the wingtip's length into the effective wing span.

In other words, the effective wingspan after unfolding the wing tip would be 64.8 (the length of the wing) + 0.85 * 7 (effect of span increase due to raked wingtip) = 70.75 m
While the wingtips are folded, the effective wing span would be 64.8 + 0.45 * 7 = 67.95. Those are of course rough estimates. The flat wing in this case adds 3m to the effective span over the folded (kinda blended) wingtip.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:



My understanding for winglets vs raked wingtips is that if you've got the space to spare then the raked wingtips are preferable. But if you've got space restrictions then winglets are better than nothing


True, the raked wingtip adds more to the wingspan for a given length and weight of a wingtip device, but it has a negative side to it, it wastes horizontal wingspan while doing so. On the other hand, a blended wingtip extends upwards, so it eventually does not waste any span. The folding wingtip of the 77X fixes this problem for the raked wingtip as it keeps it at 64.75 span limit when needed.

That's why I always wondered why the 777 (non -X model) was designed with a raked wingtip if it's limited at the 64.75m span. This 64.75m span of the 777 is actually wing+(0.8*wingtip length), so its effective wingspan is actually somewhere between 63-64m. That could've been more if they went for a blended wingtip back in the day.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7769
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:54 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
If I understood correctly winglet are more efficient at cruise and for such an LR bird I'd think you don't want a "flat" wing once folding tips are deployed, right ?
Or the tip device is just missing as not needed for fatigue testing ?



The raked wingtip (while flat) adds 85% of the wingtip's length into the effective wing span. A blended wingtip (folded) adds 45% of the wingtip's length into the effective wing span.

In other words, the effective wingspan after unfolding the wing tip would be 64.8 (the length of the wing) + 0.85 * 7 (effect of span increase due to raked wingtip) = 70.75 m
While the wingtips are folded, the effective wing span would be 64.8 + 0.45 * 7 = 67.95. Those are of course rough estimates. The flat wing in this case adds 3m to the effective span over the folded (kinda blended) wingtip.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:



My understanding for winglets vs raked wingtips is that if you've got the space to spare then the raked wingtips are preferable. But if you've got space restrictions then winglets are better than nothing


True, the raked wingtip adds more to the wingspan for a given length and weight of a wingtip device, but it has a negative side to it, it wastes horizontal wingspan while doing so. On the other hand, a blended wingtip extends upwards, so it eventually does not waste any span. The folding wingtip fixes this problem for the raked wingtip as it keeps it at 64.75 span limit when needed.

That's why I always wondered why the 777 was designed with a raked wingtip if it's limited at the 64.75m span. This 64.75m span of the 777 is actually wing+(0.8*wingtip length), so its effective wingspan is actually somewhere between 63-64m. That could've been more if they went for a blended wingtip back in the day.


You can look at it the other way round. A raked wingtip is optimal as long as you do not hit the limits of the airport categories, C less than 36 m, D less than 52 m, E less than 65 m and F less than 80 m.

If you want to extend the effective span, as opposed to the geometric span, past the category limits, you can either go up (or down) with a blended winglet or go passed the limit and do a raked folding wingtip.

So the 777-8/9 goes well past the category limit and folds the raked tip. The 787 is well below the limit with a raked tip. The A350 and A330neo go geometrically right to the limit and extend the effective span past the limit with the sharklet or blended winglet, however you want to call it.
 
tvarad
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:40 am

Here's an article with a picture of the folding wing-tip that will actually fly. Lots more pictures in the article itself. Cool.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/10/03/boeing-777x-jet-folding-wingtips-everett.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:34 pm

http://aviationweek.com/propulsion/ge9x ... tification tells us "GE9X For Boeing 777X Delivered For Final Flying Testbed Certification" and that everythings on track for EIS. I've posed more details in tech-ops at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1385673&p=20773469#p20773469 ....
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
rj777
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:26 pm

So when is rollout of the first flight test plane expected for?
 
SleeplessInZh
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:04 am

If an airline leases the B777x,not purchase,are they able to retrofit their cabins after 5-10years without attachments from the lessor?emirates did that to their b777, but i think they are purchased.is it for airlines more attractive to purchase a new aircraft,than to retrofit them after 10years?or to buy them out from the leasing agreement with low price,and then retrofit them?maybe its more profitable,i don't know.can someone explain about aircraft leasing?i already search through wikipedia,but its not well-explained.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 6993
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:13 am

A few photos of the wings being attached to the first flight test aircraft

Image

Image

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/sta ... 7644118016
Forum Moderator
 
smartplane
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:32 am

SleeplessInZh wrote:
If an airline leases the B777x,not purchase,are they able to retrofit their cabins after 5-10years without attachments from the lessor?emirates did that to their b777, but i think they are purchased.is it for airlines more attractive to purchase a new aircraft,than to retrofit them after 10years?or to buy them out from the leasing agreement with low price,and then retrofit them?maybe its more profitable,i don't know.can someone explain about aircraft leasing?i already search through wikipedia,but its not well-explained.

If an airline leases a new aircraft on a 12 year lease, end of lease (EOL) negotiations will usually start in Y10 if the leasee has plans to do anything other than return the aircraft at the end of the 12th year.

The EOL balloon payment, usually includes the leasee making a payment to the leasor sufficient to replace the interior, or they negotiate a discount of the EOL payment based on the value applied to the current interior.

If a leasee of a new aircraft on a 12 year lease wants to replace the interior say at the halfway mark, and plans to return the aircraft to the leasor at the end of the lease, they will try to negotiate a new (higher) EOL interior valuation with the leasor, before embarking on the changes.

Changing a complete interior is pretty unusual mid lease, because it puts the leasor in a strong bargaining position at end of lease. A case of the leasee showing their hand, for example increasing the odds the lease will be extended.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 19136
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:12 pm

qf789 wrote:
A few photos of the wings being attached to the first flight test aircraft

All I can say is Wow!

That is the the finest example of aviation porn I've seen in a long time!

The flight test wings look so much more buttoned up than the stress test wings.

The pictures show the significance of the folding wingtips beautifully.

Think of how much money those photos capture.

Billions for the design, and the building of the wing factory, and these early examples.

More billions for the rest of the flight test squad and the flight tests themselves.

We're lucky to witness this next step in aviation.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:29 pm

Does the GE9X have the saw-figure trailing edge, same as the 747-8, 787 and 737MAX? I've seen renderings with and without it, and e.g. the flying testbed was without it.

I just find it very cool personally, and would be a shame if they don't include it.
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:24 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
Does the GE9X have the saw-figure trailing edge, same as the 747-8, 787 and 737MAX? I've seen renderings with and without it, and e.g. the flying testbed was without it.

I just find it very cool personally, and would be a shame if they don't include it.

From the pictures of the engine on the GE testbed, it does not appear so.
Next flight: Jan 3 AA609 BWI-CLT A321
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR, BAW, EIN | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 744 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
User avatar
PHL9R
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:27 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:46 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
Does the GE9X have the saw-figure trailing edge, same as the 747-8, 787 and 737MAX? I've seen renderings with and without it, and e.g. the flying testbed was without it.

I just find it very cool personally, and would be a shame if they don't include it.


GE ditched the Chevrons a while ago. They claimed they've achieved the desired noise levels without the feature. Production units will now have a "regular" trailing edge fan cowl. Also, the chevrons weigh more so they'll be saving some weight on each engine.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2231
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:09 pm

Well if they just bolted on the wings, I figure we're still a few months from a formal rollout, let alone first flight
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:08 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
Well if they just bolted on the wings, I figure we're still a few months from a formal rollout, let alone first flight


I don't recall, and can't find, if Boeing has given any more specific target than 1Q, 2019, so they've got as much as 5 months to go before first flight, unless the schedule slides.
 
SleeplessInZh
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:23 pm

Thank you smartplane!
I'd like to know more about 'leasing agreements' (not found in wiki) and you gave a good reply.
 
Airboe
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:50 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:53 am

PHL9R wrote:
GE ditched the Chevrons a while ago. They claimed they've achieved the desired noise levels without the feature. Production units will now have a "regular" trailing edge fan cowl. Also, the chevrons weigh more so they'll be saving some weight on each engine.


Chevrons also creates a little drag, - so I am happy to see they can achieve noise levels without.



KR/
Airboe
I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
Coming down is the hardest thing

- Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
 
Oykie
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:29 pm

I could not see this posted, but Boeing shared this picture. Image looks really good
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
danj555
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:32 pm

Anyone compare and contrast the 777 and 777x on wikipedia. Im looking it over and Im finding inconsistencies.

The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...

Then there is the overall seating capacity. The 777x is 4meters longer yet the 3-class seating capacity is 16 seats less.

Whats the deal here. Burns more fuel and carries fewer people??!

Yes I know the seating numbers are estimations and carriers will do what they want. And range is not entirely accurate either... I get all that.

But still...
 
george77300
Posts: 816
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:47 pm

danj555 wrote:
Anyone compare and contrast the 777 and 777x on wikipedia. Im looking it over and Im finding inconsistencies.

The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...

Then there is the overall seating capacity. The 777x is 4meters longer yet the 3-class seating capacity is 16 seats less.

Whats the deal here. Burns more fuel and carries fewer people??!

Yes I know the seating numbers are estimations and carriers will do what they want. And range is not entirely accurate either... I get all that.

But still...


Can't answer all of the points but yes the -9X is longer than -300 and -8X longer than -200 so the capacity is larger in the -9X than -300/300ER. Maybe the new "typical 3-class" seating is more premium heavy or the business class takes up more room than older products. That is all I can think of.

As for tanks I don't know but the fuel economy is better. i.e. The 8X/9X will burn less per mile than old 200/300. Range of the -8X should be longer than -200LR and the Range of the 9X again slightly longer than -300ER.
A306 A313 A319 A320 A20N A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388
B712 B733 B734 B735 B738 B38M B742 B744 B752 B763 B772 B77E B773 B77W B788 B789
AT75 AT76 B190 C208 DH3T E175 P46T SF34 SR20 SR22 TBM8
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 5875
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:57 pm

danj555 wrote:
The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...


Neither aircraft can fill its tanks with a full brochure-configuration passenger load. The 777-300ER will burn more fuel on the brochure mission than the 777-9. The 777-9 will rarely use its full fuel capacity--the capacity is intended for a 777-8 flying ULH missions.

Then there is the overall seating capacity. The 777x is 4meters longer yet the 3-class seating capacity is 16 seats less.


Boeing has been adjusting its reference density downward with newer widebody products, to stay consistent with the practice of the largest airline customers. Airlines have been devoting more space to Business, and Business products have become a bit less space-efficient.

With the same space allocation, the 777-9 will typically hold 25-30 more passengers than the 777-300ER.
 
WIederling
Posts: 7155
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:16 pm

Carlos01 wrote:
Does the GE9X have the saw-figure trailing edge, same as the 747-8, 787 and 737MAX? I've seen renderings with and without it, and e.g. the flying testbed was without it.

I just find it very cool personally, and would be a shame if they don't include it.


the chevrons kill noise at significant cost. You are better of without them ( if you can meet the noise requirements.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:25 pm

danj555 wrote:
Anyone compare and contrast the 777 and 777x on wikipedia. Im looking it over and Im finding inconsistencies.

The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...

Then there is the overall seating capacity. The 777x is 4meters longer yet the 3-class seating capacity is 16 seats less.

Whats the deal here. Burns more fuel and carries fewer people??!

Yes I know the seating numbers are estimations and carriers will do what they want. And range is not entirely accurate either... I get all that.

But still...



The ACAP documents are usually far better for comparison than wikipedia
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page
Happy Landings
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:54 am

Oykie wrote:
I could not see this posted, but Boeing shared this picture. Image looks really good



In this picture it appears the tail is similar to the 787 tail now....was this apart of the changes or am I just seeing things ?
 
mullac30
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:45 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:10 am

TropicalSky wrote:
Oykie wrote:
I could not see this posted, but Boeing shared this picture. Image looks really good



In this picture it appears the tail is similar to the 787 tail now....was this apart of the changes or am I just seeing things ?
No, you are right the tail is a 787 style "shark fin"

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:21 am

mullac30 wrote:
TropicalSky wrote:
Oykie wrote:
I could not see this posted, but Boeing shared this picture. Image looks really good



In this picture it appears the tail is similar to the 787 tail now....was this apart of the changes or am I just seeing things ?
No, you are right the tail is a 787 style "shark fin"

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk


Boeing sure did put a lot of things learnt on the 787 program back into the 777.....will it also have the luminar flow feature that's on 789&10 tail ?
 
WIederling
Posts: 7155
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 8:55 am

TropicalSky wrote:
Boeing sure did put a lot of things learnt on the 787 program back into the 777.....will it also have the luminar flow feature that's on 789&10 tail ?


Wasn't that discontinued on the 787 already? "Too much hassle".
Murphy is an optimist
 
Eyad89
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:21 am

danj555 wrote:


The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...



The range isn't simply determined by the maximum fuel capacity (even though it could be a limiting factor at times). it is rather determined by the payload/range chart for a specific payload. That chart gets its shape from the maximum structural payload of the aircraft, maximum zero fuel weight, and maximum take off weight.

MTOW: 351t (same as 77W)
MZFW: 255t (18t heavier than 77W)
MSP: still unknown

Once MSP is announced, we will see why it is given the range it has for a certain payload.
 
pabloeing
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:55 am

Lufthansa News

Cuenta verificada

@lufthansaNews

Lufthansa Boeing Airplanes
Congrats! A few more weeks, then it's our turn. We're looking forward to our 34 Boeing 777-9s.
 
chiki
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:16 pm

The later said "We have ordered 20 aircraft and firmly reserved 14 more (reconfirmable)" .
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25702
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:21 pm

chiki wrote:
The later said "We have ordered 20 aircraft and firmly reserved 14 more (reconfirmable)" .


:yes:

In September 2013, the Lufthansa AG Board "committed" to 34 frames (of which 20 were firm orders via a transfer of deposits from their 20 747-8 Purchase Options) with up to an additional 30 purchase rights / options.

I'm guessing Lufthansa has something similar to what American did with the 787-9 and those 14 never-firmed frames have guaranteed production slots assigned to them that Lufthansa must confirm a certain period of time ahead (AA's window was 18 months prior) or they become available for another customer.
 
kengo
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:04 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
chiki wrote:
The later said "We have ordered 20 aircraft and firmly reserved 14 more (reconfirmable)" .


:yes:

In September 2013, the Lufthansa AG Board "committed" to 34 frames (of which 20 were firm orders via a transfer of deposits from their 20 747-8 Purchase Options) with up to an additional 30 purchase rights / options.

I'm guessing Lufthansa has something similar to what American did with the 787-9 and those 14 never-firmed frames have guaranteed production slots assigned to them that Lufthansa must confirm a certain period of time ahead (AA's window was 18 months prior) or they become available for another customer.


OT...been a while...good to see you back at this forum, Stitch.
 
danj555
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:21 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
danj555 wrote:


The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...



The range isn't simply determined by the maximum fuel capacity (even though it could be a limiting factor at times). it is rather determined by the payload/range chart for a specific payload. That chart gets its shape from the maximum structural payload of the aircraft, maximum zero fuel weight, and maximum take off weight.

MTOW: 351t (same as 77W)
MZFW: 255t (18t heavier than 77W)
MSP: still unknown

Once MSP is announced, we will see why it is given the range it has for a certain payload.



Wait, so its weight without fuel is higher, it carries more fuel (which adds weight), and its take off weight it the same??

Something has to give. That must mean that payload takes a hit.
Yet it can carry more cargo and pax. What am I missing here?
 
trijetsonly
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:35 pm

danj555 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
danj555 wrote:


The fuel capacity of the 777x is 52k vs 48k gallons. Yet with this extra fuel it only flies 200nm further...



The range isn't simply determined by the maximum fuel capacity (even though it could be a limiting factor at times). it is rather determined by the payload/range chart for a specific payload. That chart gets its shape from the maximum structural payload of the aircraft, maximum zero fuel weight, and maximum take off weight.

MTOW: 351t (same as 77W)
MZFW: 255t (18t heavier than 77W)
MSP: still unknown

Once MSP is announced, we will see why it is given the range it has for a certain payload.



Wait, so its weight without fuel is higher, it carries more fuel (which adds weight), and its take off weight it the same??

Something has to give. That must mean that payload takes a hit.
Yet it can carry more cargo and pax. What am I missing here?


Hopefully the fuel consumption is less.

When the future operator needs less fuel to fly a higher payload over the same distance (+200nm) the MTOW can remain the same as with the 77W.
Happy Landings
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:39 pm

danj555 wrote:

Wait, so its weight without fuel is higher, it carries more fuel (which adds weight), and its take off weight it the same??

Something has to give. That must mean that payload takes a hit.
Yet it can carry more cargo and pax. What am I missing here?


No, the fuel capacilty is higher becase of a larger wing where fuel is stored, which will rarely be filled. Typical fuel loads on a flight will be lower than the existing 777's.

Sometimes increases in weight reduce fuel consumption in aircraft...If the the weight is going into more effcient higher bypass ratio jet engines or a higher aspect ratio wing. Both are the case for the 777X.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3146
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:06 pm

Image

Is this the former 787 surge line (40-24)?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
WIederling
Posts: 7155
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 777X Production Thread 2018

Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:20 pm

danj555 wrote:
Yet it can carry more cargo and pax. What am I missing here?


Full payload does not allow full tanks.
Full tanks allow a certain, reduced payload.
Between full payload (MZFW) and full tanks you exchange payload for fuel.
Beyond you reduce payload at about twice that rate to achieve comparable incremental range.

extreme example on the left side is the A321 without aux tanks. full payload and full tanks is just 3 miles apart :-)
extreme example on the right is the A332 that before the last MTOW boosts could not
completely fill its tanks even with zero payload.
Murphy is an optimist

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