View Full Version : New ETOPS record for 777
Soulman
17th Oct 2003, 15:30
Given that it's delivery date to some airlines is getting closer and closer, I thought this may be of some interest to a few people.
Fri, 17 Oct '03
777-300ER Flies a Lot of the Pacific on One Engine
The old ETOPS record was well under four hours; the new 777-300ER has just landed in Taiwan, after having left Seattle. During that 13-hour flight (over Tuesday and Wednesday), it was on one engine for five and a half hours.
The GE90-115B, the most-powerful engine in commercial service, was "perfect," according to Boeing spokesman Ed McGinn. Test pilot Frank Santoni confirmed that evaluation.
Aero-News Network.
I bet Mr Frank Santoni loves his job! :ok:
I think Air France are first in line to receive this aircraft, somewhere around April 2004.
Soulman.
cargo boy
17th Oct 2003, 16:24
It's all very well doing that when you've got a spare engine, fully servicable and available on the other wing. It's the pucker factor when you know that the engine keeping you going is all you have left that counts.
We all know how reliable the engines are most of the time, so what were they trying to prove with this flight? IFSD rates are all very well but if the shutdown was because of something more serious than just a precaustion, say a mechanical failure of a high speed component, then so what if you can fly for over five hours on the other donk if there could be damage not only inside the bad engine itself but in the event of an uncontained failure what about damage to other systems and aircraft structure?
BOEINGBOY1
17th Oct 2003, 16:48
Even with the best engine's (Rollers are my preferred choice) they do still fail or have to be shut down, but that doesn't scare me in the slightest. The thought of a cabin fire at 30w has me $h1ting for Britain.
Now that engine technology has been proven (as much as it feasibly can be) lets look at what we can do to enhance fire protection - in my view a far more likely situation
PAXboy
17th Oct 2003, 17:20
BB1 - such as water mist systems in the cabin? They, of similar are long overdue. Astounding that they have not been mandated. They might be perfect but I would rather have the liquid in their tanks to see what they can do, than the extra liquid in bottles of duty free.
Soulman
17th Oct 2003, 17:43
A brief overview of the complex testing outline can be found here (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/777300ER.html).
It's a pretty interesting read - they even plan to do some tests here in Australia! :)
Soulman.
PPRuNe Towers
17th Oct 2003, 18:14
Thanks for the link soulman. Lots of oooh aaah stuff but never a mention of chasing 330 minutes etops.
Soulman
17th Oct 2003, 18:58
Well, you don't sound too happy about the previous link Towers - so maybe this (http://www.tecpilot.net/news.php?a=read&nidx=1321) will satisfy your needs!
Happy now? ;)
Soulman.
PPRuNe Towers
17th Oct 2003, 21:43
Not quite the point I was making but, nevertheless, thanks.
Maybe this test flight would have been a more realistic simulation if, on shutting down No 2, they had then cut the engine restart circuitry with the pliers!
Then they would really know how it felt to be dependent on just one engine operating flat out for more than half a working day, that if that faltered in the next 5.5 hours they were finished. And let's fit engines at the end of their overhaul life while we are at it, and instead of Boeing's top test pilots get a couple of crew from an agency.
Oh, and they should all have their wives and kids in the back too.
Tandemrotor
18th Oct 2003, 03:10
"flat out"?
In the cruise?
WHBM, get a life. Alternatively read the previous posts regarding far more likely scenarios equally appropriate to 2, 3, 4, and even 8 engined aeroplanes!
ETOPS are here to stay, and so they should be!
cpt744
18th Oct 2003, 09:03
Maybe this test flight would have been a more realistic simulation if, on shutting down No 2, they had then cut the engine restart circuitry with the pliers!
You have a very valid point there, WHBM. As what cargo boy had said, the scenario is entirely different if you know you have got nothing to bank on in a real life scenario crossing the pond with 3-5hours to go for the next landing strip, not my idea of over water flight. Guess I'm just too spoilt with 4 engines..