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

Boeing are stretching the 777?

Who knew?

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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
https://www.pprune.org/images/status...ser_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

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

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.

My first thought, too. Maybe they'll start using letters next, like 7A7? Hexadecimal?

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:

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....e31bb54c90.jpg