The Biggest Jet Engines in History Are Finally Ready to Power Boeing's Biggest Plane
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the drawing FlyXKsa posted is a hint from Boeing about the design of their new 797. It is to be powered by a de-rated single GE90 built into the fuselage..... after all if Cirus can do it, why not Boeing? We can look forward to the videos of their giant airframe parachute system being tested.
Happy New Year to all Ppruners from a member of the SLF team
Happy New Year to all Ppruners from a member of the SLF team
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folding wings
Wiffy says ": Ah , just another thing that can go wrong!"
And she is an Domestic Engineer.
Oh and Boeing, do us a favor , connect it to the TakeOff Config Warning
Just in case.
Gone fishing
Watching the Eagles
Cpt B
And she is an Domestic Engineer.
Oh and Boeing, do us a favor , connect it to the TakeOff Config Warning
Just in case.
Gone fishing
Watching the Eagles
Cpt B
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original B777 prototype had folding wings tips. I believe it was meant to be an optional extra, not sure if anyone ordered it. I guess it will just serve to further complicate all that line graffiti around the terminal area.
And yes, that is an impressively big engine.
And yes, that is an impressively big engine.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh yes, the folding wingtip version 
I don't care what the brochure says, that alone will keep me off the jet. At least the 787 gets there, even if it is with a numbum.
I don't care what the brochure says, that alone will keep me off the jet. At least the 787 gets there, even if it is with a numbum.
Cattletruck, the original 777 had folding wings as an option, but no one ever ordered it and no flyable 777s were ever built with the feature. I suspect there were some structural provisions in the early build wings, but those were quietly removed to save weight as it became apparent no one was going to order the folding wings. The original folding wing was far more complex than what is being used for the 777X - the original folded where there were still flaps and such (and hence hydraulics) outboard of the fold point. On the 777X, the folding portion is outboard of any movable aerodynamic surfaces - hence no hydraulics outboard, just some electrical wiring for the collision lights and such.
IIRC, the original 777 folding wing was to get the 777 into the same gate size as a 767. The 777X folding wing is simply to get the X into the same gate size as the 777-300ER.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is fascinating, and a true testament to progress. It's not about making it bigger, but making it better.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sand pit
Age: 54
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, the 777X's length, span and (with the exception of the 747SP) height are all greater than any previous Boeing jet airliner.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer - I see the max takeoff weights are the same for 777-300ER and 777-9. I didn't find published takeoff distance under standard conditions for the 777-9 - I assume they need to be confirmed by testing. With the same max weight and 10,000 pounds less thrust, shouldn't the takeoff distance be longer or does the large wing factor in with reduced takeoff speed? Boeing's video showing the first engine being mounted shows an airframe lacking a lot of missing parts. As a Boeing stockholder should I be concerned?
Boeing's video showing the first engine being mounted shows an airframe lacking a lot of missing parts. As a Boeing stockholder should I be concerned?
Think of it as more of a progress photo to calm the investors
We're told that the GE9x has a higher tip speed than its predecessors, thanks to the redesigned blades and lower blade count.
Assuming a typical 2400 rpm at 100% N1, the tips of a 134" fan will be travelling at around 430 m/s (apologies for the mixed units).
Assuming a typical 2400 rpm at 100% N1, the tips of a 134" fan will be travelling at around 430 m/s (apologies for the mixed units).
the original 777 had folding wings as an option, but no one ever ordered it and no flyable 777s were ever built with the feature. I suspect there were some structural provisions in the early build wings, but those were quietly removed to save weight as it became apparent no one was going to order the folding wings....IIRC, the original 777 folding wing was to get the 777 into the same gate size as a 767.
In just a few years that followed widebodies disappeared altogether from US domestic flights, initially from mid-Continent points like Chicago, and afterwards even from coast-to-coast flights. I don't think any 777s were ever configured and deployed wholly on US domestic flights. The requirements and mission of aircraft types do change notably over time, and particular features for particular markets do have a habit of not working out long term.
So 961 mph or 1.24 Mach. That be fast!