777X

[cavuman1]

A comprehensive, if brief, glimpse at Boeing's newest venture. (My search of 777X came up all balls, but feel free to move if necessary MODS.)

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/777x-gigantic-plane-could-change-080000250.html

- Ed

[er340790]

Hmmmmm... so a stretched, re-engined update of a 23 year old plane is going to "change flying forever".

You know, I'm willing to bet that it doesn't. :rolleyes:

[ACMS]

Don’t know much about Boeing then do you.......

[DaveReidUK]

Boeing are stretching the 777?

Who knew?

[lurkio]

"inside the Everett assembly plant in north-east America"

​​​​​​They have 2? Now that is a game changer.

[tdracer]

Hmmmmm... so a stretched, re-engined update of a 23 year old plane is going to "change flying forever".
Lets see - completely new engine, completely new composite wing, new flight deck, nearly all the avionics new, completely revamped fuselage (about the only part of the fuselage that isn't changing is the outside diameter).
So yea, 23 year old plane :ugh:

[OK4Wire]

Lets see - completely new engine, completely new composite wing, new flight deck, nearly all the avionics new, completely revamped fuselage (about the only part of the fuselage that isn't changing is the outside diameter).
So yea, 23 year old plane :ugh:

So, completely NEW aircraft is what you're saying.

The only commonality to the old 777 is that it's a twin and made by Boeing. And it's still a 777?

[DaveReidUK]

So, completely NEW aircraft is what you're saying.

The only commonality to the old 777 is that it's a twin and made by Boeing. And it's still a 777?

The proof of the pudding will be whether the 777X is grandfathered onto the current 777 Type Certificate. If it's essentially a new aircraft it won't and can't be.

[tdracer]

The proof of the pudding will be whether the 777X is grandfathered onto the current 777 Type Certificate. If it's essentially a new aircraft it won't and can't be.

Depends on the flight characteristics and procedures - the 757 and 767 are very obviously different aircraft, yet they have a common type rating.

[DaveReidUK]

Depends on the flight characteristics and procedures - the 757 and 767 are very obviously different aircraft, yet they have a common type rating.

No, it doesn't. The 757 and 767 don't share a Type Certficate.

[Prober]

Commercially it must be a winner if one can achieve commonality. TDRacer’s comments about the 757/767 are relevant here. I was current on both and found them to be two quite different aircraft – but they both did have something very fundamental in common – they were both aeroplanes – and back is up!

There has been a huge amount of comment here about the variations in past and present flying skills, especially stick versus automation. Many regret the emphasis away from crop dusting, club instructing and other basic forms of flying. Personally, I also regret this. I did my first 1,000 hours in military light aircraft, mostly on active service, and this brought one to the boundaries of the flight envelope far more so than even remotely possible in commercial aviation. But, by goodness, you learned about flying! But once I got used to it, I found that a very large four engined turbo prop, then an unmentionable three (4) engined jet, then 757 and 767 all had something in common – they were all aeroplanes – and they flew like that too – just like the Auster IX!

Prober

[Prober]

Quote from post #10. "The 757 and 767 don't share a Type Certficate."
Spelling apart (see me after), All my recurrency checks on the 757/767 were done in either a 757 or 767 sim, whichever just happened to be available at the time. I, and all the other instructors, were under the impression that they were on a common type rating. Maybe that is not the certificate referred to, but it was treated by us to be a common type (even if it actually was not). (Plenty of more anecdotal evidence of that in my head if you want!)
Prober
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10365883)

[CONSO]

Quote from post #10. "The 757 and 767 don't share a Type Certficate."
Spelling apart (see me after), All my recurrency checks on the 757/767 were done in either a 757 or 767 sim, whichever just happened to be available at the time. I, and all the other instructors, were under the impression that they were on a common type rating. Maybe that is not the certificate referred to, but it was treated by us to be a common type (even if it actually was not). (Plenty of more anecdotal evidence of that in my head if you want!)
Prober
https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10365883)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#mw-head) Jump to search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#p-search)Boeing 757https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Icelandair_Boeing_757-256_Wedelstaedt.jpg/300px-Icelandair_Boeing_757-256_Wedelstaedt.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Icelandair_Boeing_757-256_Wedelstaedt.jpg)
Icelandair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandair) Boeing 757-200 on final approachRoleNarrow-body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow-body_aircraft) jet airliner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_airliner)National originUnited StatesManufacturerBoeing Commercial Airplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes)First flightFebruary 19, 1982IntroductionJanuary 1, 1983, with Eastern Air Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines)StatusIn servicePrimary usersDelta Air Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines)

FedEx Express (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express)
United Airlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines)
UPS Airlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines)

Produced1981–2004Number built1,050[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#cite_note-last757built-1)Unit cost

757-200: US$65 million (2002)
757-300: US$80 million (2002)

VariantsBoeing C-32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-32)The Boeing 757 is a mid-size, narrow-body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrow-body_aircraft) twin-engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinjet) jet airliner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_airliner) that was designed and built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Commercial_Airplanes). It is the manufacturer's largest single-aisle passenger aircraft and was produced from 1981 to 2004. The twinjet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinjet) has a two-crew member glass cockpit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cockpit), turbofan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan) engines of sufficient power to allow takeoffs from relatively short runways and higher altitudes, a conventional tail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailplane) and, for reduced aerodynamic drag (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_drag), a supercritical wing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_airfoil) design. Intended to replace the smaller three-engine 727 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727) on short and medium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_length) routes, the 757 can carry 200 to 295 passengers for a maximum of 3,150 to 4,100 nautical miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile) (5,830 to 7,590 km), depending on variant. The 757 was designed concurrently with a wide-body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-body_aircraft) twinjet, the 767 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767), and, owing to shared features, pilots can obtain a common type rating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_rating) that allows them to operate both aircraft.

[stilton]

I’m sure it will do well



I just can’t get my head around the massive reduction in overall thrust for an aircraft that has the same gross weight as the -300 ER


Is the bigger wing going to make that much difference?

[tdracer]

DR, of course we're talking about two different things - type cert vs. type rating. But the 777 type cert is a given - the FAA (and EASA) have already accepted the project as an amended type cert to the 777 (not much has to stay common to make it an ATC rather than a new TC). There are some common parts between the 777 and the 777X - the tail is pretty much unchanged, and I suspect that includes the APU installation (not sure about that part), and as noted the fuselage OD is unchanged (although fuselage structure is quite a bit different. But look at the 747-8, compared to the 747-100 - not much common aside from the fuselage diameter and the tail, but no one has complained that the 747-8 isn't really a 747...
Sure Boeing could have called it something else - it wouldn't have made much difference in the end - but all the operators care about is common type rating - so that can seamlessly move crews between the 777 and the 777X.
Oh Stilton - remember the current 777 wing was originally designed for the 777-200 and a much lower MTOW. The 777X wing is quite a bit bigger in area.

[PAXboy]

They were running out of numbers, with only '9' left for the rest of time, so they had to reuse '7'. :E

[hans brinker]

The proof of the pudding will be whether the 777X is grandfathered onto the current 777 Type Certificate. If it's essentially a new aircraft it won't and can't be.

AFAIK the DC9 and the B717 are the same type certificate, but the FAA denied Fokker the same for the F27 and the F50. Type Certificate doesn't mean as much as it should.

[Mark in CA]

They were running out of numbers, with only '9' left for the rest of time, so they had to reuse '7'. :E
My first thought, too. Maybe they'll start using letters next, like 7A7? Hexadecimal?

[Cows getting bigger]

It sort of concerns me when there are professional pilots out there who don't know the difference between a licence Type Rating and an aircraft Type Certificate. :bored:

[DaveReidUK]

AFAIK the DC9 and the B717 are the same type certificate, but the FAA denied Fokker the same for the F27 and the F50. Type Certificate doesn't mean as much as it should.

No. you're wrong, I'm afraid. The Fokker 50 (alias F27 Mark 050) was most certainly added 30 years later to the original 1957 F27 Type Certificate.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/214x266/a_817_7109b23ab6d1094ae9430f4095c8bde31bb54c90.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

It sort of concerns me when there are professional pilots out there who don't know the difference between a licence Type Rating and an aircraft Type Certificate.:

I was wondering that, too. It's not as if either is a particularly obscure concept.

[Bidule]

AFAIK the DC9 and the B717 are the same type certificate, but the FAA denied Fokker the same for the F27 and the F50. Type Certificate doesn't mean as much as it should.


??????
Wrong! Just see FAA TCDS A817; it includes Fokker 27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 and 050...
By the way, it is same with EASA.

[Volume]

maybe a bit OT...
TCDS No.: EASA.A.036 Fokker F27 Page 18 of 33 Issue: 07 Date: 03 September 2018

SECTION 3 - “FOKKER 50” AND “FOKKER 60” SERIES I. Model: F27 Mark 050

F27 Mark 050, application for T.C. January 10, 1983, approved May 15, 1987.

The F27 Mark 050 same as Mark 500 except for the installation of two new technology Pratt & Witney Canada PW125B engines, Dowty Rotol (c) R 352/6-123F/1 composite 6-bladed propellers, state of the art systems and cockpit instrumentation, electronic engine and propeller controls, increased use of composite structure, four type I doors i.l.o. two type I doors and two type IV exits, double the number of windows, switch from pneumatic systems to hydraulic systems, an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS) and integrated warning system.

1. Engine
Two (2) Pratt and Whitney PW125B or PW127B turboprop engines. Reduction gearing 0.060:1.

Fokker 50 is the marketing designation of the F27 Mark 050

And I find it quite surprising, that all authorities have bought into the 777X being a derivative of the 777. On the other hand, what does a 737 Max and a 737-100 have in common?
More political, than technical decisions.

I am still wondering how the market will embrace the 777X, looks like big is no longer beautiful... Sales for the 777X are slower than for the "classic" 777 in the same timeframe. 787-10 and A350-1000 are not the best selling variants of the model.
Boeing may have succeded to kill the 777 with the 787, just like they killed the 747 with the 777-300ER.

[llagonne66]

In a nutshell, grandfathering is used by all manufacturers to keep the initial applicable product specification:
- EASA TCDS EASA.A.064 for the A320 Family covers all types from ceo to neo;
- EASA TCDS EASA.A.015 for the A340 covers all types from -200 to -600 and I feel we can all admit that -200 and -500/600 are quite different A/C (a bit similar to 777X vs 777).

As stated by DaverReidUK above, we need to wait for the certifiaction to see if Boeing is able to do the same trick with the 777X.

[DaveReidUK]

As stated by DaveReidUK above, we need to wait for the certification to see if Boeing is able to do the same trick with the 777X.

Tdracer did answer my original question:

But the 777 type cert is a given - the FAA (and EASA) have already accepted the project as an amended type cert to the 777.

[tdracer]

I am still wondering how the market will embrace the 777X, looks like big is no longer beautiful... Sales for the 777X are slower than for the "classic" 777 in the same timeframe. 787-10 and A350-1000 are not the best selling variants of the model.

Simply not true - prior to first flight, the original 777 had a little over 110 orders. The 777X currently has over 300 orders and is still months away from first flight. The original 777 didn't top 300 orders until it had been in-service for over two years.

[AndoniP]

Sounds like they've just used the wing / cockpit / whatever technology and design from the 787 and put it on the 777X.

[er340790]

Still waiting to hear how a mid-life tart-up is going to "change flying forever".... exactly.

[Flutter speed]

Sounds like they've just used the wing / cockpit / whatever technology and design from the 787 and put it on the 777X.

It shares a lot of the technology indeed. Rockwell Collins and GE were the big winner here for the avionics contracts (Honeywell, not so much). AIMS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane_Information_Management_System) will be gone. The CCS (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-simplifies-787-software) from the 787 will be inherited. Some of the old architecture will stay though. The 777 is famous (with avionics nerds like me) to be the only commercial airliner to use the Arinc 629 bus on a large scale.
What I really like is that this is the first commercial airliner (AFAIK) which has touch screens. If you know the 777 automated checklists and the 787 FMS/MCDU (which will be adopted for the 777X), it makes a lot of sense to control with touch. Obviously there will be fallback control in case touch fails.

777 has always been my favorite airliner and I am happy to see it live on in a new outfit.

[glofish]

What I really like is that this is the first commercial airliner (AFAIK) which has touch screens.

Well, no. Because i have to clear the screens of my good ol' John Deere before every flight from the greasy fingerprints of the "touchscreen loving generation" previous crew .... :yuk:
Not looking forward to "real" touchscreen avionics, believe me!

[Andy_S]

Still waiting to hear how a mid-life tart-up is going to "change flying forever".... exactly.

As tdracer noted (and you appear to have ignored)

Lets see - completely new engine, completely new composite wing, new flight deck, nearly all the avionics new, completely revamped fuselage (about the only part of the fuselage that isn't changing is the outside diameter).

A bit more significant than a "mid-life tart-up".

[reverserunlocked]

Interestingly the wing fold occurs automatically on the landing roll out below 50kts, with the idea being that by the time you vacate they have folded. Smart idea.

Extending them though is down to the pilots and although it’ll be impossible to depart without them extended (EICAS) it seems like a bit of a headache to pick a time to do it. The current trend is towards doing all the flappy bits at the gate having pushed back, but the wing unfold will need to be done later in the taxi in some tighter places. They take 20 seconds to lock into place so need a bit of time.

In a world of single engine taxi and MRO and all the other guff, worrying about banging the wingtips onto someone on the taxi out in the dark is another one for list!

[Volume]

Simply not true - prior to first flight, the original 777 had a little over 110 orders. The 777X currently has over 300 orders and is still months away from first flight. The original 777 didn't top 300 orders until it had been in-service for over two years.
What I was comparing were the 777X orders Boeing received during the last 3 years (20 Orders in Total in 2016, 2017, 2018), and the 777 "classic" orders (127 Orders in Total in 2016, 2017, 2018). So I was referring to recent sales, which should be an indicator of where the industry is heading. Not even talking about the number of interested operators...
I am afraid the time of the very large aircraft is over. Boeing might repeat the A380 experience with the 777X.

Interestingly the wing fold occurs automatically on the landing roll out below 50kts, with the idea being that by the time you vacate they have folded. Smart idea.
Let´s just hope it never activates in flight by mistake... Like the 747 slat auto-retraction (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ba-747-crew-commended-for-escaping-near-stall-on-tak-343738/)...

[Mac the Knife]

Press button, wings fold out.....looks good...wait for the green light (or equivalent on screen), and wait, and wait, and wait...
"Lock not confirmed", "Press it again then!" and wait, and wait, and wait.
"Still Lock not confirmed Sir"
"I can see that you idiot, what does the Book say?"
"Eerrrmmm. It says push the button again"
"Well do it!" - etc., etc.

Long silent taxi back to the gate...

Mac......

[DaveReidUK]

Long silent taxi back to the gate...

Possibly even longer than anticipated, if the failure mode is one wingtip folded but the other one deployed ...

[tdracer]

What I was comparing were the 777X orders Boeing received during the last 3 years (20 Orders in Total in 2016, 2017, 2018), and the 777 "classic" orders (127 Orders in Total in 2016, 2017, 2018). So I was referring to recent sales, which should be an indicator of where the industry is heading. Not even talking about the number of interested operators...
I am afraid the time of the very large aircraft is over. Boeing might repeat the A380 experience with the 777X.

Boeing has had something of a fire sale on the 'classic' 777 the last few years in order to fill in the production slots prior to the 777X switch over - so operators could buy 777s much cheaper than springing for the X. So the numbers are not really comparable. While Boeing has not indicated when they'll stop producing the original 777, the big financial incentive to get the older model is no longer there. There are rumblings several operators considering placing 777X orders, but with first flight just a few months away, there's little reason to place an order before it's starts flying - when there will be hard data available on what the aircraft can do. It's a common pattern for new aircraft.
As for the 777X being too large, the 777-8X is only slightly larger than the 777-300ER (with better range). The smaller 777-200LR has not been a big seller.

[Airbubba]

The classic 777 had folding wingtips as an option but I don't believe it was ever ordered.

The 777 was also offered with optional folding wing tips where the outer 6m/21ft of each would fold upwards for operations at space restricted airports, but this option has never been selected by any customers for the aircraft.

https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Type_Acceptance_Reps/Boeing_777.pdf

Several military aircraft have inadvertently taken off with folded wingtips with varying outcomes.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x508/9ooofw7u6f421_e659cd0b07ec5bb9258caa29ebe52eb0a890c01d.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/278x259/f_4folded_bf2ac68cf3462c9c9326f8185fe97e631c9615c9.gif
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/685x511/f_8_folded_wings_497e1b56b7c506876ddb2bf54e063883e613b2e1.pn g

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Wow! That’s a heck of a winglet! :eek:

[DingerX]

In terms of aircraft sales, the 777-300ER was the big hit. Just about every major player operates some form of the triple. LH doesn't, but LX and OS do. Of course, Southwest doesn't. It's kinda like where the 767 was in the 90s (more transatlantic crossings than all other airlines combined) or the 74 in the 80s. Big, efficient at a variety of load factors, and can haul cargo without cubing out.
Not a lot of fun ten wide behind those monstrous engines, but the economics are great.

[SeenItAll]

Press button, wings fold out.....looks good...wait for the green light (or equivalent on screen), and wait, and wait, and wait...
"Lock not confirmed", "Press it again then!" and wait, and wait, and wait.
"Still Lock not confirmed Sir"
"I can see that you idiot, what does the Book say?"
"Eerrrmmm. It says push the button again"
"Well do it!" - etc., etc.

Long silent taxi back to the gate...

Mac......

And isn't this the same process as for flaps, except you have lever rather than a button?

[hans brinker]

No. you're wrong, I'm afraid. The Fokker 50 (alias F27 Mark 050) was most certainly added 30 years later to the original 1957 F27 Type Certificate.

??????
Wrong! Just see FAA TCDS A817; it includes Fokker 27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 and 050...
By the way, it is same with EASA.

maybe a bit OT...
Fokker 50 is the marketing designation of the F27 Mark 050
And I find it quite surprising, that all authorities have bought into the 777X being a derivative of the 777. On the other hand, what does a 737 Max and a 737-100 have in common?
More political, than technical decisions.
I am still wondering how the market will embrace the 777X, looks like big is no longer beautiful... Sales for the 777X are slower than for the "classic" 777 in the same timeframe. 787-10 and A350-1000 are not the best selling variants of the model.
Boeing may have succeded to kill the 777 with the 787, just like they killed the 747 with the 777-300ER.

I stand VERY corrected. Haven't flown the F50 since 2005, but was told in initial training in 1999 there were problems getting it typed in the US, and never researched it myself. Thanks for the update.

[Foxdeux]

The 777 has been a game changer for commercial airlines, especially the 777-300ER, and I expect nothing less from the 777X. Superior fuel efficiency, low maintenance, high capacity seating coupled with great cargo space, equipped with the most powerful engines in the world, it's a winning formula.

[Winemaker]

Well, at least the largest engines...

[NWA SLF]

We need to get rid of all those appendages on a wing that have caused crashes - flaps, slats, spoilers, winglets. Wait, aren't many, if not all, planes equipped with winglets able to complete flights while missing a winglet? Although the fight characteristics, landing speed, etc., will be different, is it a sure thing that if a folding wing should have an extremely unlikely failure the plane will crash?

[lomapaseo]

We need to get rid of all those appendages on a wing that have caused crashes - flaps, slats, spoilers, winglets. Wait, aren't many, if not all, planes equipped with winglets able to complete flights while missing a winglet? Although the fight characteristics, landing speed, etc., will be different, is it a sure thing that if a folding wing should have an extremely unlikely failure the plane will crash?


Why stop there? What about the pilots?

[DaveReidUK]

is it a sure thing that if a folding wing should have an extremely unlikely failure the plane will crash?

Is anyone seriously suggesting that it would ?

[reverserunlocked]

I’m sure I read somewhere that it could fly still without the winglet. It would be rather unpleasantly asymmetric but I’m sure it would still be controllable if one fell off.

[WHBM]

. Haven't flown the F50 since 2005, but was told in initial training in 1999 there were problems getting it typed in the US, and never researched it myself. .
I believe the Fokker F50 was never certified in the USA. It was never sold or operated there, although the original Fokker F.27 was, and the F50 was on the market when US feeder operators were buying larger turboprops (which they later mostly retreated from).

Not the only major derivative that wasn't certified there. The original BAC One-Eleven sold well in the US, but the stretched Super One-Eleven 500 was never certified or operated there either, although a number operated into US airports from the Caribbean and Central America.

[DaveReidUK]

I believe the Fokker F50 was never certified in the USA. It was never sold or operated there, although the original Fokker F.27 was, and the F50 was on the market when US feeder operators were buying larger turboprops (which they later mostly retreated from).

Not the only major derivative that wasn't certified there. The original BAC One-Eleven sold well in the US, but the stretched Super One-Eleven 500 was never certified or operated there either, although a number operated into US airports from the Caribbean and Central America.

You are correct about the One-Eleven - only the 200 and 400 series were certficated in the USA.

You are completely wrong about the Fokker 50 (not "F50"). I reproduced the header from the US Type Certificate (A-817) in an earlier post, but here it is again:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/214x266/a_817_9b3ae05211bbb87429021ec7ad885021a589c613.jpg

[WHBM]

You are completely wrong about the Fokker 50 (not "F50").
I don't think I'm wrong that the type was never sold or operated in the US, not even in non-airline service.

I believe F50 was the standard IATA designation for it.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't think I'm wrong that the type was never sold or operated in the US, not even in non-airline service

No argument about that, though there have been a few Fokker 50s on the FAA register for short periods with leasing companies, making use of the fact that the type is US certificated.

I believe F50 was the standard IATA designation for it.

I'll grant you the ICAO code, in fact there are a fair number still flying, so it's a current designator.

But Fokker used to get uppity, particularly with the jets in my experience, if you referred to them outside ATC circles as the F70/F100 (and certainly not as the "Fokker F100"). A bit like the non-existent "Boeing B747". :O

/pedant mode off

[WHBM]

No argument about that, though there have been a few Fokker 50s on the FAA register for short periods with leasing companies, making use of the fact that the type is US certificated.
I think you can get a US registration without a certificate, provided you mark the aircraft as Experimental. Seen marked up behind the flight deck on prototypes, presumably the B777X prototype will have this. I think the handful of short term US registrations of secondhand F5.... er .... of This Type never made it to the US but stayed in Europe/Africa. I winder if the US tail numbers were ever actually applied.

[DaveReidUK]

I wonder if the US tail numbers were ever actually applied.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/463x536/n203nm_53ccc0ef7f373b0f14f2ce7afd5846be8601866c.jpg

Taken at Maastricht, presumably in between leases.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/162699

[hans brinker]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/463x536/n203nm_53ccc0ef7f373b0f14f2ce7afd5846be8601866c.jpg

Taken at Maastricht, presumably in between leases.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/162699

Ha! I fthink I flew this plane (MSN 20203) with registration PH-DMG in +/-2000.. Don't think it made it stateside, but definitely N-reg.

[NWA SLF]

I remember seeing on this site an A330 derivative that was either clipped by another plane in NYC or clipped a pole leaving the winglet hanging. The interim fix was to finish removing the winglet, cover the end with speed tape, and fly it home with a passenger load. People said the winglet was not needed by regs but fuel burn would be higher so additional would need to be loaded. Inference by several on this thread has been the extended wing tip on the 777X is asking for disaster. I pointed out there are any appendages on the wing that move during flight making them more susceptible to failure. I have no idea if the 777X will need to be tested for flight while folder - Boeing likely already has wing tunnel test results and knows the answer. Folding wings - much ado about nothing.

[FCeng84]

One example of a model being tolerant to flight with a winglet removed or a wing tip folded does not imply that all will be. It all comes down to the aerodynamic impact of the failure / incorrect configuration. This is directly related to the size of the affected portion of the wing. One must pay attention to all impacts in all axes: lift, drag, roll, yaw, and pitch. The robustness of the systems that confirm correct configuration prior to takeoff and prevent wing fold from occurring during flight must be consistent with the hazard category for the resultant aero characteristics. For sure the impact of a single wing tip being folded while the other is correctly extended and the impact of both being improperly folded have been carefully analyzed. I can imagine that the asymmetric configuration of one up and one down may be much more of an issue than inadvertently taking off with both in the up/folded position.

[DaveReidUK]

For sure the impact of a single wing tip being folded while the other is correctly extended and the impact of both being improperly folded have been carefully analyzed. I can imagine that the asymmetric configuration of one up and one down may be much more of an issue than inadvertently taking off with both in the up/folded position.

One would hope that the failure of the actuator/lock case, thereby in theory allowing the wingtip to move freely in both directions, has also been analysed.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds. :O

[Check Airman]

Interestingly the wing fold occurs automatically on the landing roll out below 50kts, with the idea being that by the time you vacate they have folded. Smart idea.
When airbus designed the stall warning to cut out at 60kts, I'm sure they had the idea that you'd be firmly on the ground at 60kts.

Obviously Boeing and Airbus have some very clever and very talented people working for them, but I'm not particularly excited about an automatic fold feature.

[tdracer]

When airbus designed the stall warning to cut out at 60kts, I'm sure they had the idea that you'd be firmly on the ground at 60kts.

Obviously Boeing and Airbus have some very clever and very talented people working for them, but I'm not particularly excited about an automatic fold feature.

I think you can be pretty confident that any automatic wing fold function will be inhibited unless 'on-ground' is true.

Back in the 1960's, there was a 707 that suffered an uncontained outboard engine failure. Due to the resultant damage and fire, they eventually lost not only the engine, but all the wing outboard of the engine pylon. Even with that much damage, the aircraft was readily controllable and landed safely.
There are far, far worse in-flight failure scenarios than loosing a few feet of wingtip lift...

[Machinbird]

Back in the 1960's, there was a 707 that suffered an uncontained outboard engine failure. Due to the resultant damage and fire, they eventually lost not only the engine, but all the wing outboard of the engine pylon. Even with that much damage, the aircraft was readily controllable and landed safely.
I remember reading about it in the newspaper. Saw a picture taken from below. I was impressed.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/686x470/panam843_b6db235127402b4a95e90cc10a67cdfc46714bbf.png

[JumpJumpJump]

They were running out of numbers, with only '9' left for the rest of time, so they had to reuse '7'. :E

I imagine that after 797 they can get clever and use 7X7 Roman Numerals are your friends.

[pettinger93]

Quite a few years ago, I was flying (as a passenger) UK to Copenhagen, (I think it was an A320, but might be wrong,) for the whole flight in which starboard wing had no winglet and the port one did. The aircraft behaved quite normally as far as I could see, but my colleague was more than little concerned, and asked the pilot about it. He was told that it was quite normal and certified, and the only effect was a small fuel consumption penalty.

[b1lanc]

I remember reading about it in the newspaper. Saw a picture taken from below. I was impressed.


Yes, amazing home video of that event on YT. Also another 707, TWA 42 which lost about 25 feet of wing in a collision with an Eastern Connie over CT/NY border. Never have been able to find a picture of the damage to that aircraft. Amazing piloting skills by both crews.

[PAXboy]

Looking at the 707-321B and the video, one must ask what part of it's survival was played by it's 'heavy metal' construction versus how such a failure would affect the modern day airliner?

[CONSO]

Looking at the 707-321B and the video, one must ask what part of it's survival was played by it's 'heavy metal' construction versus how such a failure would affect the modern day airliner?

Uhh other than a better aero shape, the wing construction methods and materials have not significantly changed. Improvements in riveting and better fit fasteners and in some casesminors changes for fatigue improvement- wing construction has not changed until the carbon fiber wings were put into service. And that was about 25 years ago ( on the B2 bomber ) . 737 wings and 767 wings and 777 wings up to 7x7, are all aluminum, similar spars and ribs, improved riveting and fastening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

And the failure point in the video was within a few inches of that predicted on the top surface ( compresion buckling ) a close match as it was for the 747 test , 767 did not quite go to failure,
So what do you consider a ' modern day ' airliner.

787 was not taken to failure- which is NOT a requirement anyhow .

And OLD B52 wings are still flying and they really do bend and bend and bend and at takeoff appear to ' flap "

All mostly aluminum with similar construction . .

[Volume]

high capacity seating
Whih only helps, if you are able to sell all those seats. If you fill an A380, it is a very economic machine. Unfortunately you do only reliably fill it on very limited routes.
Now with all those smaller long range aircraft around (not even talking the very small ones just making it to the market), you do not have to buy size to get range, it becomes much more attractive to buy two smaller aircraft instead of one large, it gives you much more flexibility with only minor efficiency losses.
Time will tell, and I might stand corrected. But I am sceptical whether size still matters and big is still beautiful...

planes equipped with winglets able to complete flights while missing a winglet?
Following according procedures. If you lose a winglet just after rotation without adapted speed, you will barely be able to correct the wing drop.
See the crash of N652GD as an example for selecting the wrong speed in a failure case scenario (in this case one engine out, not one winglet missing).
So noticing that your folded wing is not properly locked at rotation with low margings (which today is the norm, due to flex power), may put you in a very undesirable situation.
If you always plan with enough margin, you lose the efficiency you just gained with the additional wingspan that your folding wing allowed...

787 was not taken to failure- which is NOT a requirement anyhow .
This has been under debate for quite some time... Actually if you demonstrate compliance by "calculation supported by test" (which is possible and done), you need to demonstrate that you identified the right failure mode (as mentioned above, for example compression buckling). So somehow you need to take real or representative structure to failure, to demonstrate that not only the load level, but also the mode of failure has been correctly predicted. For the 777X Boeing may take credit for the 787 Wing test.
With composites it is a bit more complex anyway, as you have to consider an "environmental knockdown factor" for the test not done under the worst environmental conditions (hot and wet). So you do expect a higher failure load under test hangar conditions anyway, above nominal ultimate load.

the wing construction methods and materials have not significantly changed.
Actually the materials have changed much more than the construction methods. Which is why some cynics state that today we build aircraft from black aluminum...

[CONSO]

Actually the materials have changed much more than the construction methods. Which is why some cynics state that today we build aircraft from black aluminum.

Uhhh how many ' ALL black aluminum " aircraft are flying since the707 -321 you referenced? ( hint count 20 B-2 bombers plus current number of 787 ) compare to ' aluminum" aircraft flying or in production since 707.

As to your comments as to taking wing test to failure being under debate for some time - please notify BA and Airbus that they obviously do not understand the risks, nor do the agencies involved, and provide a list of those aircraft that passed the ' no failure ' requirements bnut which lost wings in service absent a bomb or similar and crashed. To prove your point you need not lilst over 100 such.

And at what altitude do you claim the temperature is significantlty hotter than near sea level absent speeds over mach 1 for commercial aircraft.

SR71- is/was not black aluminum - it was predominately titanium ...

[Volume]

at what altitude do you claim the temperature is significantlty hotter than near sea level
For example at 60 ft altitude, on the apron of DXB airport... This is when your composite structure is above 60°C just when you perform a takreoff at MTOW.

Uhhh how many ' ALL black aluminum " aircraft are flying since the707 -321 you referenced?
Compare a composite glider with a metal glider, and then compare the 707-321 stabilizer with a 787 stabilizer. Still the same rib and stringer stiffened shell, connected by fasteners.
Yes, we learned our lessons about sandwich structure in rough commercial air transport environment. Yes, we had issues with bonded struchture. Yes, we need a design which is quick and easily repaired. And yes, some composite design today is really innovative (e.g. the CSeries/A220 wing produced with vaccum assisted RTM), or the wound barrel design of the 787 fuselage sections.
But a majority is still a metal design using composites material. We are still far from using the potential of those materials in an adapted design.
For example we use multiple load path design in metal structures for damage tolerance reasons. Composites material however is inherently damage tolerant, there are already millions of load paths (fibres) which fail individually, so the complete design concept could be completely different. We can embed structures health monitoring devices in composites layup (impossible in metal) to detect damage in service without the need for dedicated inspections. This also means we can design with significantly less access provisions.
There is still a lot of future ahead with respect to composites aircraft...

However, the hybrid 77X may tell whether it performs better in the end, compared with the all composites 787. There probably is a reason why Boeing did not change the fuselage to carbon, maybe the same reason why the A350 fuselage design is completely different from the 787 fuselage design (panels vs. seamless barrels), and why Mitsubishi switched back the MRJ wing to aluminum.

[Terry McCassey]

Excellant set of pictures. Sadly, XV431 @ Bruggen 1974 wasn't so lucky. Witnessed the whole event on the way to the Mess for a spot of lunch.

[CONSO]

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-03-28-Boeing-Completes-Ultimate-Load-Wing-Test-on-787#assets_20295_1138-117
As to body - how many large autoclaves with several hours cycle times plus layup and bagging tooling would it take to maintain a high production rate- and then there is the making of carbon fiber,etc. probably an overall cost versus rate issue compared to possible improvements.

As to wet conditions- A6 REwings of composite have been around for over a decade.. (https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2010-03-28-Boeing-Completes-Ultimate-Load-Wing-Test-on-787#assets_20295_1138-117)

[Volume]

A310 composite vertical tails have been around for some 34 years...
However, structural design of A380 and A350 vertical tails is completely different, so there are lessons learned as well.

Composites gliders are around for some 63 years now and CFRP gliders for 46 years. Lessons with respect to hot and wet have been learned.
This however is covered today by cupon testing in the laboratory, full scale tests are done in "as procduced" (= fully dry after curing above 100°C) and room temperatur, hence an "environmental knockdown factor" is applied. Epoxy resin absorbs a few percent moisture in service.

It would be interesting to know, how many design changes are between the 787 and the 777X wing, I assume Boeing has meanwhile learned something about the 787 design as well...
It is amazing how the aviation world has changed, aircraft like the A380 and 787 were developed "on the internet", both manufacturers published an awful lot on the web, you could follow the complete design and testing period. Topics like GLARE or would fibre barrels were discussed in scientific conferences and publications. For A350 and 777X there is almost total silence, you just see some high level marketing publications and that is it.

[keesje]

The proof of the pudding will be whether the 777X is grandfathered onto the current 777 Type Certificate. If it's essentially a new aircraft it won't and can't be.

It is. And I won't be suprized if we hear more about that this year.

[CogSim]

I'm no aircraft designer, but the direction of the folding wing puzzles me. Wouldn't it be better for the wing to fold down so airflow in flight can keep it securely locked?

[DaveReidUK]

I'm no aircraft designer, but the direction of the folding wing puzzles me. Wouldn't it be better for the wing to fold down so airflow in flight can keep it securely locked?

If it required airflow to keep it securely locked, it wouldn't be.

[swh]

Depends on the flight characteristics and procedures - the 757 and 767 are very obviously different aircraft, yet they have a common type rating.

Yet the 787 and 777 do not have common FAA type ratings. Type ratings have nothing to do with type certificates. https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/

No. you're wrong, I'm afraid. The Fokker 50 (alias F27 Mark 050) was most certainly added 30 years later to the original 1957 F27 Type Certificate.

There is no F50 type rating on a FAA licence https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/
Simply not true - prior to first flight, the original 777 had a little over 110 orders. The 777X currently has over 300 orders and is still months away from first flight. The original 777 didn't top 300 orders until it had been in-service for over two years.

How many of those orders have been cancelled cancelled ..... 50 ?

[DaveReidUK]

There is no F50 type rating on a FAA licence https://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/

No argument there.

But, as I'm sure you're aware, a type rating and a Type Certificate are two completely different things. The discussion was about the latter.

[Tech Guy]

Interestingly the wing fold occurs automatically on the landing roll out below 50kts, with the idea being that by the time you vacate they have folded. Smart idea.

Would the wing tips automatically fold up from a rejected take off at a speed above 50 kts?
If not, would there be a "warning" to fold them?