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

I was wondering that, too. It's not as if either is a particularly obscure concept.

??????
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.

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.

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.

Tdracer did answer my original question:

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.

Sounds like they've just used the wing / cockpit / whatever technology and design from the 787 and put it on the 777X.

It shares a lot of the technology indeed. Rockwell Collins and GE were the big winner here for the avionics contracts (Honeywell, not so much). AIMS will be gone. The CCS from the 787 will be inherited. Some of the old architecture will stay though. The 777 is famous (with avionics nerds like me) to be the only commercial airliner to use the Arinc 629 bus on a large scale.
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.

Well, no. Because i have to clear the screens of my good ol' John Deere before every flight from the greasy fingerprints of the "touchscreen loving generation" previous crew .... :yuk:
Not looking forward to "real" touchscreen avionics, believe me!

As tdracer noted (and you appear to have ignored)

A bit more significant than a "mid-life tart-up".

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.

Let´s just hope it never activates in flight by mistake... Like the 747 slat auto-retraction...

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......

Possibly even longer than anticipated, if the failure mode is one wingtip folded but the other one deployed ...

Boeing has had something of a fire sale on the 'classic' 777 the last few years in order to fill in the production slots prior to the 777X switch over - so operators could buy 777s much cheaper than springing for the X. So the numbers are not really comparable. While Boeing has not indicated when they'll stop producing the original 777, the big financial incentive to get the older model is no longer there. There are rumblings several operators considering placing 777X orders, but with first flight just a few months away, there's little reason to place an order before it's starts flying - when there will be hard data available on what the aircraft can do. It's a common pattern for new aircraft.
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.

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.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b0a890c01d.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....631c9615c9.gif
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....83e613b2e1.png

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.

And isn't this the same process as for flaps, except you have lever rather than a button?