777X

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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.

Originally Posted by Bidule

??????
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.

Originally Posted by Volume

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Why stop there? What about the pilots?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by NWA SLF

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]

Originally Posted by hans brinker

. 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]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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:

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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".

/pedant mode off

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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

Taken at Maastricht, presumably in between leases.

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

[hans brinker]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by FCeng84

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.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

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.