777X
??????
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
- 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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tokyo (ENRI)
Age: 42
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Flutter speed; 21st Jan 2019 at 09:25. Reason: Added GE
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I really like is that this is the first commercial airliner (AFAIK) which has touch screens.
Not looking forward to "real" touchscreen avionics, believe me!
A bit more significant than a "mid-life tart-up".
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Middle East
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Plastic PPRuNer
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......
"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......
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.
I am afraid the time of the very large aircraft is over. Boeing might repeat the A380 experience with the 777X.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The classic 777 had folding wingtips as an option but I don't believe it was ever ordered.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Typ...Boeing_777.pdf
Several military aircraft have inadvertently taken off with folded wingtips with varying outcomes.
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.
Several military aircraft have inadvertently taken off with folded wingtips with varying outcomes.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Not a lot of fun ten wide behind those monstrous engines, but the economics are great.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
"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......