777X
Thread Starter
777X
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...080000250.html
- Ed
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/777x...080000250.html
- Ed
Originally Posted by er340790
Hmmmmm... so a stretched, re-engined update of a 23 year old plane is going to "change flying forever".
So yea, 23 year old plane
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
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
So yea, 23 year old plane
The only commonality to the old 777 is that it's a twin and made by Boeing. And it's still a 777?
Originally Posted by OK4Wire
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 only commonality to the old 777 is that it's a twin and made by Boeing. And it's still a 777?
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
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.
Originally Posted by tdracer
Depends on the flight characteristics and procedures - the 757 and 767 are very obviously different aircraft, yet they have a common type rating.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commonality
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commonality
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 77
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
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
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to searchBoeing 757
Icelandair Boeing 757-200 on final approachRoleNarrow-body jet airlinerNational originUnited StatesManufacturerBoeing Commercial AirplanesFirst flightFebruary 19, 1982IntroductionJanuary 1, 1983, with Eastern Air LinesStatusIn servicePrimary usersDelta Air LinesProduced1981–2004Number built1,050[1]Unit costVariantsBoeing C-32The Boeing 757 is a mid-size, narrow-body twin-engine jet airliner that was designed and built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It is the manufacturer's largest single-aisle passenger aircraft and was produced from 1981 to 2004. The twinjet has a two-crew member glass cockpit, turbofan engines of sufficient power to allow takeoffs from relatively short runways and higher altitudes, a conventional tail and, for reduced aerodynamic drag, a supercritical wing design. Intended to replace the smaller three-engine 727 on short and medium routes, the 757 can carry 200 to 295 passengers for a maximum of 3,150 to 4,100 nautical miles (5,830 to 7,590 km), depending on variant. The 757 was designed concurrently with a wide-body twinjet, the 767, and, owing to shared features, pilots can obtain a common type rating that allows them to operate both aircraft.
Icelandair Boeing 757-200 on final approachRoleNarrow-body jet airlinerNational originUnited StatesManufacturerBoeing Commercial AirplanesFirst flightFebruary 19, 1982IntroductionJanuary 1, 1983, with Eastern Air LinesStatusIn servicePrimary usersDelta Air LinesProduced1981–2004Number built1,050[1]Unit cost
- 757-200: US$65 million (2002)
- 757-300: US$80 million (2002)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,996
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
They were running out of numbers, with only '9' left for the rest of time, so they had to reuse '7'. 
Originally Posted by hans brinker
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.
