B-HNL the first 777 built will have a proper end to its passenger flying career, it has already retired from service with CX as of 5/31.

http://discovery.cathaypacific.com/poin ... g-777-300/

Great to see. Though, wondering where they're going to find the space to position it?

Seems pretty tight "across the street" with Concorde/747/787/etc.

Wasn't N777UA the first 777?

Veigar wrote:

Isn't the first ever 777 N777UA?

That was the first 777 ever delivered. If my memory serves me correctly that aircraft was the 7th 777 built.

B-HNL was the first 777 to ever fly and was reconfigured from prototype form to fly passengers. It even changed engines from its orignal PW4000s to Trent 800s to cater to CX. Lots of history in this bird.

I noticed that it hadn't flown since the end of May, and was concerned that it had been retired. Looks like my fears were warranted!
But at least it's going to a good place; several younger Triples have already been scrapped.

ikolkyo wrote:

Veigar wrote:

Isn't the first ever 777 N777UA?

That was the first 777 ever delivered. If my memory serves me correctly that aircraft was the 7th 777 built.

B-HNL was the first 777 to ever fly and was reconfigured from prototype form to fly passengers. It even changed engines from its orignal PW4000s to Trent 800s to cater to CX. Lots of history in this bird.

B-HNL is actually line number 1.
And yes indeed, N777UA is line number 7. The noteworthy fact about that airplane is that it was the first one delivered to a customer. But it wasn't the first built.

Wonder how it’s getting there, I understand we are keeping the engines

zeke wrote:

Wonder how it’s getting there, I understand we are keeping the engines

Either fly it to BFI and send the engines back or other way around. I would think CX would be ok with the first option.

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

BHXLOVER wrote:

bland

That's an opinion, not a fact.

BHXLOVER wrote:

really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

But none of them will have the historical significance of the first... many examples of which were placed in museums when there were plenty of other such models still in operation at the time.

BHXLOVER wrote:

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

None of the aircraft on display there are engineless (or at least fake "props" closely resembling engines); no reason to believe that this one would be either.

LAX772LR wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

bland

That's an opinion, not a fact.

BHXLOVER wrote:

really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

But none of them will have the historical significance of the first... many examples of which were placed in museums when there were plenty of other such models still in operation at the time.

BHXLOVER wrote:

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

None of the aircraft on display there are engineless (or at least fake "props" closely resembling engines); no reason to believe that this one would be either.

I agree. The prototype, especially one that on top had a long flying career, deserves a place in a museum. Its a historically signifant piece of aviation. If another 777s deserves it can be discussed in 10 years time when the last of the original "normal" length 777s (772 and 77E) are being retired, or in 20-25 years when the last 77Ws are on the way out.

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

I wonder why anyone wants to display all those Spitfires and Lancasters? We need to move on from the war and build bridges. Best just scrap them all. Same with the Brabazon, utter failure, no point in saving one.
Get some context please!!!

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

You wonder why the prototype of the best-selling commercial widebody airliner belongs in a museum just because the type is still in widespread service? If you don't put it in a museum now, it's not like you can get it back in a meaningfully preserved condition when its eventually less common decades from now and feels nostalgic. That kind of thinking was applied in the past and then later on, great effort had to be expended to get the planes back into exhibit worthy condition...i.e. the restoration of the first 727.

I was hoping a prototype aircraft would be preserved. It should be painted in either Boeing house colors, or its original Boeing livery.

zeke wrote:

Wonder how it’s getting there, I understand we are keeping the engines

Hi zeke, I understand it was receiving the engines off an incoming ex EK 773. CX were keeping their engines off their outgoing 772's and they were being flown off to greener pastures with the EK 773 engines. I understand the deal to acquire the incoming high density 773's didn't include engines.

CX Flyboy posted up a while ago about the arrangement.

zeke wrote:

Wonder how it’s getting there, I understand we are keeping the engines

The engines off the EK 773 (A6-EMR) that's arrived for CX (in Xiamen) should be put on HNL for the flight to Seattle.

Just one more reason to head for Boeing's Museum of Flight!

Anyone know the timing of arrival at the museum? There isn't anything on the museum's site about it.

Will the Plane be shown at the museum with Rollers or its original Pratts ?

itisi wrote:

zeke wrote:

Wonder how it’s getting there, I understand we are keeping the engines

The engines off the EK 773 (A6-EMR) that's arrived for CX (in Xiamen) should be put on HNL for the flight to Seattle.

Such engine change requires certain paper works and certifications, which is not worth for a one-off flight.
Better option is fly HNL with the current engines to Seattle then ship the engines back to HKG / XMN.

CX has plenty of cargo capacities between Asia and USA

AA737-823 wrote:

I noticed that it hadn't flown since the end of May, and was concerned that it had been retired. Looks like my fears were warranted!
But at least it's going to a good place; several younger Triples have already been scrapped.

ikolkyo wrote:

Veigar wrote:

Isn't the first ever 777 N777UA?

That was the first 777 ever delivered. If my memory serves me correctly that aircraft was the 7th 777 built.

B-HNL was the first 777 to ever fly and was reconfigured from prototype form to fly passengers. It even changed engines from its orignal PW4000s to Trent 800s to cater to CX. Lots of history in this bird.

B-HNL is actually line number 1.
And yes indeed, N777UA is line number 7. The noteworthy fact about that airplane is that it was the first one delivered to a customer. But it wasn't the first built.

Is that not what I said?

skipness1E wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

I wonder why anyone wants to display all those Spitfires and Lancasters? We need to move on from the war and build bridges. Best just scrap them all. Same with the Brabazon, utter failure, no point in saving one.
Get some context please!!!

CX agreed to return the plane to Boeing upon retirement from day 1 they purchased the plane.

Boeing 777 is the most successful twin engine WB plane, the 1st copy of the type surely worth a place in the museum.

jfk777 wrote:

Will the Plane be shown at the museum with Rollers or its original Pratts ?

CX will get back the engines for the incoming ex-EK 773, I believe it will be shown with fake engines.

P.S. the plane will keep the current CX livery

fallap wrote:

Just one more reason to head for Boeing's Museum of Flight!

It isn't Boeing's museum.

"The Museum of Flight is a private non-profit air and space museum in the northwest United States." (First sentence of the link.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Flight

There are a lot of Boeing airplanes there though.

res engines: wouldn't there be a lot of retired engines available? When we talk about engines how much of what hangs from the wing is involved?

skipness1E wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

I wonder why anyone wants to display all those Spitfires and Lancasters? We need to move on from the war and build bridges. Best just scrap them all. Same with the Brabazon, utter failure, no point in saving one.
Get some context please!!!

They scapped the Brabazon. AFAIK the only remaining bigger parts are a nose wheel and a panel from the fuselage with the word "Brabazon" on it. Both on display at Bristol.

They also scrapped all the Boeing 314 Clipper flying boats.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

fallap wrote:

Just one more reason to head for Boeing's Museum of Flight!

It isn't Boeing's museum.

"The Museum of Flight is a private non-profit air and space museum in the northwest United States." (First sentence of the link.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Flight

There are a lot of Boeing airplanes there though.

The more you know!

Well hopefully they can put it up for display by next year. I'm planning to visit Seattle with a friend & would love to drop by for the third time.

OldAeroGuy wrote:

fallap wrote:

Just one more reason to head for Boeing's Museum of Flight!

It isn't Boeing's museum.

"The Museum of Flight is a private non-profit air and space museum in the northwest United States." (First sentence of the link.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Flight

There are a lot of Boeing airplanes there though.

Quite similar to the Evergreen Museum in Oregon, Evergreen Aviation basically set up the Museum as a non-profit not affiliated so if it cratered it wouldn't kill the company. Well in that case the Company died, but the Museum and Water Park lives on with quite a display of a 747-100. Thousands of kids take the emergency slides each week.

http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs ... -park.jpeg

Just to clarify, isn't the CX 777 that is coming to the MOF will be a -300...not a -200, right?

Boeing is a major contributor to the MOF and the Future of Flight Museum.

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

1. The Boeing 777 itself is not a bland aircraft like many people like to claim. It can't have the same design of 747, but still has a very good design.
2. This is the first Boeing 777 ever built. No other copy of the 777 will have the same importance of this airplane historically. So, WA001 (the codename of the first Boeing 777) has really merit to be in the Museum of Flight.
3. None of the aircraft exhibited at Museum of Flight in Seattle is engineless. The aircraft exhibited have prop engines at least.

They shouldn’t keep it in CX livery. Original 777 livery with Pratt engines and “Working Together” titles. Make the aircraft as similar to its first flight condition as possible. I’m curious as to where it will be stored. The 777 isn’t exactly small and the building across the street doesn’t exactly have a lot of space.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Just to clarify, isn't the CX 777 that is coming to the MOF will be a -300...not a -200, right?

Boeing is a major contributor to the MOF and the Future of Flight Museum.

It will be B-HNL, first 777 made which is a 777-200

ikolkyo wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Just to clarify, isn't the CX 777 that is coming to the MOF will be a -300...not a -200, right?

Boeing is a major contributor to the MOF and the Future of Flight Museum.

It will be B-HNL, first 777 made which is a 777-200

The article is confusing at first because most of it talks about CX's first 777-300, but mentions this 777-200 at the very end.

From the article:
"This is a story of firsts and lasts. Cathay Pacific went on to own and operate the original prototype Boeing 777-200 – B-HNL, which retires this year after 18 years of service. On retirement, she will take her place in the Museum of Flight at Boeing Field – fittingly the same place where the first Boeing 777-300 was handed over."

frmrCapCadet wrote:

res engines: wouldn't there be a lot of retired engines available? When we talk about engines how much of what hangs from the wing is involved?

That was going to be my question. Surely a pair of correct but no longer serviceable engines could be found that could hang from the wings while the aircraft is on display.

About 20 years ago I saw a piece on regular news about a group of nuns from the mid 1800’s who had buried a time capsule. Among early photos and newspaper clippings were letters to “the future” and the primary topic was “are there flying machines?”
It gave me goosebumps! How could they have ever imagined a 777 or any of it predecessors?
Absolutely the very first 777 needs to be preserved for future generations. Just because we take her for granted now doesn’t diminish her role in our global society today. The 777 in all forms have probably flown billions of people from all points across the planet. Same with an A330 etc, etc.
The 777 might be plain looking today but she is (or was) state of the art. At her launch, the most perfect flying machine.
I am thrilled that just about every car ever manufactured has a mint condition version.
Human history is important to preserve. One day a couple hundred years from now some dad is going to tell his son (or daughter) about how life on Earth was today. (I hope!)

BHXLOVER wrote:

I wonder whether bland modern airliners really merit a place in a museum. There will be loads of these about for many years to come.

And in my opinion displaying an aircraft with no engines is just gross.

This comment is ridiculous. The whole point is to preserve it now so that in the future people can enjoy a well-preserved example of an old airplane and, in the meantime, get up close to a modern jetliner, which is something nobody can really do outside of airshows and museums. Go try walking around the ramp next time you fly, or walking through the cockpit, or ripping carpeting up so you can see the guts of the airplane.

And I’m sorry, you think there are “loads” of original, first-built 777’s? I’m pretty sure there’s only one...

Lots of reasons why it is worth preserving. Importantly it was Boeing's first fully fly-by-wire airliner, the technology that now defines future airliners. It's hard to emphasise just how important that step-change in avionics is.

I agree though. If it is being put into a museum then ideally a pair of time-expired Pratts would be perfect for engines. However Trents do have a similar look, whereas GE90s just wouldn't look right.

Just me waffling. Anyhoo, I hope they get Alan Mulally to unveil it when it is complete.

Are any widebody trijets on display? IMHO much more interesting but whatever.

This was also the only 777 that I’m aware of to be inverted. It snap rolled a couple of times during stall testing. In one case they were over the Strait of Juan De Fuca and ended up 45 degrees nose down and in a 110 degree roll. John was able to pull out of with a loss af a few thousand feet.

First Post, lurker for 10 years...

I was the creator of the program to retrofit this airplane (S/N 27116, production code WA001) from flight test use to revenue service, was involved in the marketing to CX, and am now very pleased to see it being preserved so close to its birthplace. Just a couple more B-777 fun facts:
1) Actually IIRC, this is the only B-777 has flown with all three engine types; originally with Pratt 4077's, then GE-90's during their certification program, and finally with the RR Trent 800's when
the airplane was refurbished to B-777-267 configuration for CX service. Very unique.
2) When Boeing tested the B-777 static test airframe wing to destruction in 1995, at the moment of snapping (...it sounded like an explosion in person) the resultant shockwave energy showed up on a
seismometer at the University of Washington ~30km away as a magnitude 2ish earthquake. The wing was a bit stronger than anticipated at 154% of design limit load and made the growth to the outstanding
eventual B-300ER/200LR(F) model capabilities easier. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

This will be a great addition to the Museum of Flight displays, and will be the next 'first flight' Boeing airliner model type since the first B-747 was acquired, as the first B-757 and B-767 are elsewhere currently.

This is great. I love that you can see the evolution of passenger airliners at this museum. They will soon have a comet, and already have the 707, 727, 737, 747 and 787. The 777 will be a great addition and the 757 and 767 hopefully will join the collection eventually.
True that there is not enough space in the pavilion for all these AC. Also the B52 just arrived... and the comet is expected. Expansion anyone?

Whilst I can see the historical value this plane has, personally I am not sure how many more planes the museum of flight can handle. And to be honest I would rather it be filled with more interesting planes than the 777.

speedbird52 wrote:

Whilst I can see the historical value this plane has, personally I am not sure how many more planes the museum of flight can handle. And to be honest I would rather it be filled with more interesting planes than the 777.

The 777 is an interesting plane, like it or not, it revolutionized the industry into a new phase, an era where 2 engined planes can replace 4 engined planes on most long haul missions both in terms of range and capacity, and one that did it successfully. It certainly is a technological achievement worth mentioning.

One man'a bland is another's pecan pie. And anyone who actually thinks the 777 is just ordinary-looking has never stood at ground level next to one, admiring the big gull wings with tips ridiculously high off the ground.

Wasn’t the 777 the first aircraft to be entirely designed on a compooter, with the use of computer aided design? That’s... probably worth mentioning?

Airnerd wrote:

This is great. I love that you can see the evolution of passenger airliners at this museum. They will soon have a comet, and already have the 707, 727, 737, 747 and 787. The 777 will be a great addition and the 757 and 767 hopefully will join the collection eventually.
True that there is not enough space in the pavilion for all these AC. Also the B52 just arrived... and the comet is expected. Expansion anyone?

Perhaps they should scrap the aircraft and display just the flightdeck section and maybe a small part of the passenger cabin. That would save space, but I think the 777 fans will be having nightmares over that idea.

Yes, the CX 777 is significant and will be a beautiful addition to the M-O-F in Seattle.
Thanks Rock3tman for your great contribution re 777 testing.

Another 777, line #7, N777UA is also significant, in that it is the first 777 delivered, fully
5 years before the CX bird, and was placed in service by UA in June, 1995. It is also
significant, in that United was the launch customer for the 777, with an order for 34 in
October of 1990.

This aircraft still flies, mostly on domestic routes, but should really be preserved upon
retirement in a United Museum. What, you say, there is no United Museum?
There should be, and the time is now, with the UA 747’s at VCV soon not flyable, and other iconic
aircraft still available, like the 737 and 757, and older aircraft like the DC-8, the Clay Lacy DC-3 and
the Smithsonian’s 247D. 4 engine prop aircraft are probably unattainable, i.e, DC-6/7,
but the United legacy should be preserved and displayed. UA and others are sitting on a
huge amount of historic collections and there has to be space at some underused UA owned facilities with all the MM outsourcing. Look what DL has done with their excellent museum in ATL.

I'm years overdue for a visit to Seattle; this will definitely be on my list of places to see.

Anyone know when exactly it'll be on display at the MOF?

I worked for a guy in Seattle that seriously considered buying this airplane for his own personal use. Went so far as to tender and application for a hangar on the west side of KBFI. King county put so many restrictions and covenants on the deal he lost interest. Being a basic -200A model didn't help. It was fun to watch none the less.

Snap Roll? OMG