12 ms·
Boeing 777X: World’s largest twin-engine jet completes first flight
- cstross 7y agoThe 777X is a program, covering two (or more) models: the 777-8 and 777-9. The one that flew yesterday was the first 777-9 -- a replacement for the 777-300ER, with significantly increased range, a stretched fuselage (it's slightly longer than the 747-8), and up to 426 seats. Increased use of lightweight materials and those whizzy folding winglets mean it's no heavier than its predecessor. Maximum cargo capacity is roughly three-quarters that of a 747-8 by weight. There's also a possible 777-10X model that will seat up to 450 passengers and is being pitched as a rival to the A-380 superjumbo. The real miracle here is that the big four-engine jumbos are being replaced by a twin-jet. (This says something profound about advances in engine technology since 1970. Or even 1990.)
- inferiorhuman 7y agoI always thought the real miracle was grandfathering that thing on the 777 type certificate.
- neuronic 7y agoWill pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Complete noob here, so I am trying to improve my understanding.
- nottorp 7y agoYou want Boeing's opinion or the pilots' opinion? :)
- masklinn 7y ago> Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Well that depends what you mean by "need" specifically. The point of being the same type is that regulations-wise they don't.
- mrtweetyhack 7y agoNo, software will handle any deficiencies in the pilot
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoWhich tricks did they have to pull here?
- wolfgke 7y ago$$$
- raverbashing 7y agoDoesn't look too complicated (I mean, given what "complicated" means in aviation), the 777 is a relatively modern project.
- kijin 7y agoYeah, Boeing gets (and rightfully deserves) a lot of flak these days but updating the 20-year-old 777 is very different from updating the 50-year-old 737. More specifically, the 737 design had so little ground clearance that the bigger, more efficient engines used in the Max had to be mounted in a different position than before. This change resulted in different maneuvering characteristics that Boeing tried to patch with crappy software. The 777, on the other hand, is a much bigger plane with plenty of clearance and the new engines are only marginally larger than the old ones. I don't see Boeing messing with the engine positioning needlessly here, especially in the wake of the 737 Max fiasco.
- londons_explore 7y agoTechnology dramatically changes in 20 years. Would you be happy to drive around in a 20 year old car design? I for sure would feel a little uneasy about the rather basic airbags, and the lack of proper FEA modelling of the crumple zone. Same applies for planes. Now remember these planes will probably be produced for 30 years, and then maybe in service for a further 20 years. Will you be happy to know that safety critical design decisions were made to standards of 90 years ago?
- maxerickson 7y agoI crashed a gen 2 Ford Explorer (first production year 1995) head on at about 35-40 MPH and wouldn't be scared to drive one around today. The other driver crossed the centerline directly in front of me and I crashed into the rear of their gen 2 Ford Explorer (so a medium-large vehicle striking a medium-large vehicle). It didn't have airbags, I was wearing the seat belt, I had a slightly sore neck for a couple months (not like bothersome sore, I noticed it when doing higher impact things). Which isn't to say I'm opposed to updated safety features, rather that 20 years ago wasn't that bad, even without air bags.
- vasilakisfil 7y agoDoesn't that make a plane less engine-fault tolerant? Completely noob here, but I would feel better if I flew in a 4-engine plane than 2-engine. In a 4-engine plane, even if 2 engines faults (like, bird strike), the other 2 will still make the plain airbone.
- foryourpleasure 7y agoRobust testing should make the dual engine failure scenario quite unlikely. That’s why the miracle on the Hudson was so remarkable. ETOPS is the general set of rules for how far a plane with two engines can be from an airport. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
- marcinzm 7y agoA bird strike (keep in mind birds fly in flocks) I'm guessing would either take out 1 engine (which is fine on a new 2 engine plane even during takeoff) so no benefit or take out all engines (or all engines on one side which again means just 1 engine on a 2 engine plane). A flock big enough to take out both engines on a 2 engine would be big enough I presume to take out all 4 on a 4 engine. Four engines just means there's 4 things that can catastrophically fail and potentially damage the plane rather than 2.
- dehrmann 7y agoYou don't necessarily lose engines instantly to bird strikes, they're most likely to happen at takeoff and landing, and it hasn't been an issue for the massive fleet of twin-engine short-haul jets. The real concern is trans-oceanic long-haul. Supposedly modern engine failure rates have improved to the point that you're less likely to have problematic engine failures than a four-engine 70s-era 747.
- dx034 7y agoWhich is shown by statistics. There are thousands of daily flights over Atlantic & Pacific. Engine failures over the ocean are incredibly rare (I couldn't find any recent ones). Most reasons why airliners choose to divert at this stage are medical issues nowadays. And for the plane to crash not one but both engines would have to fail.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- IMTDb 7y agoSo this plane has : a different fuselage, different wings, and different engines than the "regular" 777 but somehow is still called a 777. Has Boeing learned anything from the past 12 month ?
- threatripper 7y agoIt just needs to behave like a regular 777 and you can partly do that using software emulation.
- aritmo 7y agoJust like the 737MAX?
- unethical_ban 7y agoNo, wrong. The MAX did not behave like its predecessors.
- akie 7y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted because this is exactly what went wrong with the 737MAX.
- Gwypaas 7y agoThe 777 is Fly-By-Wire so it never felt like anything other than what it was programmed to feel like.
- p_l 7y agoActually the opposite. Had 737MAX gone the way of 777, there would have been no MCAS - but it would involve significant rework of control system, new avionics, and a lot of training. The core difference is that even the original 777 is a Fly-By-Wire system with programmed behaviour, in fact it was a well known case study in building civilian safe FBW systems. Because of that, there's no need to "patch over" differences like it was done with MCAS, as the minute adjustments can be done across the whole flight envelope protection system that is already there since first 777. In fact, 787 controls are derived from that and use software adjustment extensively in order to make control surface generate less drag yet still be usable.
- aritmo 7y agoIf something comes out on the 777X that is similar to the 737MAX, it will break Boeing irreparably.
- gizmodo59 7y agoThey can ride quite a while due to the fact that there is only one alternative in commercial flight (Airbus). I hope there is not a time when both companies have such an issue at the same time. That would disrupt travel.
- clement_b 7y ago> The 252-foot-long passenger plane had been due to launch this year but has been delayed by some technical difficulties. Is that related to the recent MAX issues, or to the fact shipping such a large aircraft on two engines only was much harder than expected?
- l31g 7y agoNeither. The main delay is due to a problem with the GE9X engines. Some of the internal components were wearing out faster than expected so they had to redesign them.
- velox_io 7y agoI am fascinated by the wings, you can see that they have been heavily optimised and wonder how much compute time went into perfecting them. I'd love to see a documentary on the design & construction. I have a carbon-fibre road bike and it is incredible how much they can tune the materal. Where it is rigid and where/ even how it flexes to dampen vibrations. Interestingly, most of that article is about the 737 Max issues (the MCAS software is a disaster, it's a push to even call it engineering).
- bfieidhbrjr 7y agoRecently I've been doing a teeny tiny bit of CFD again. You might be amazed at how little CFD goes in to wings. It's still a huge amount, but tunnel testing still wins. I was kind of surprised. As best I can tell, CFD is still kind of like impedance-based home body fat scales. They're kind of directionally accurate but have a pretty high error. I thought CFD would be a solved thing by now, but then I remembered how good (e.g. bad) weather prediction still is.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoYou might be interested in this bet on the LongNow site: http://longbets.org/753/ http://longbets.org/753/ Some people think that wind tunnels will be obsoleted by computational fluid dynamics within the decade. Others think that the problems with CFD are not a lack of compute power but a lack of comprehensive understanding and modeling of the physics at play, and expect that wind tunnels will be with us for quite a while. (Personally, I believe in the progress of technology and expect an eventual if not near-term breakthrough in CFD software will eventually obsolete the wind tunnel, but I also think that institutional inertia will keep a lot of wind tunnels and businesses that purchase time in them in operation for a decade or more after CFD's big breakthrough...)
- Gravityloss 7y agoThere are sources of error in wind tunnel testing too.
- 7y ago
- mikece 7y agoDid the military division of Boeing have a hand in engineering the folding wingtips? It would make sense since McDonnell Douglas/Boeing have decades of experience doing this with the F-18. Then again it wouldn’t surprise me if the 777X team reinvented the wheel on this point.
- vermontdevil 7y agoThis site has some more info about the 777 etc. Some articles may be paywalled though. https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/25/third-time-is-the-charm-777x-takes-to-the-sky-today/ https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/25/third-time-is-the-charm-77...
- ComputerGuru 7y agoPresumably the fuel efficiency (and emissions) are improved by a good chunk? 40 percent?
- ac29 7y agoThat would be amazing, given that current jets are already pretty efficient. Looks like its a little over 10% more efficient compared to older 777's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X#Efficiency
- ComputerGuru 7y agoYou’re right. I didn’t realize how much larger the new engines were.
- mavhc 7y agoWho wrote the software?
- trekrich 7y agohow many airlines are going to be thinking, hmmm lets let someone else fly them and see what happens.
- sschueller 7y agoDoes this plan have a market? I thought the airbus A380 was having a very bad time and airlines don't want it anymore because it's too big.
- p_l 7y agoA crucial difference is that, ultimately, 777X is a much smaller plane with easier operations compared to huge A380. It needs no new special handling compared to the existing 777, which already had a higher amount of airports available as destinations, if only because it didn't need two-level tunnels for speedy embarkation/disembarkation. Also, 777 has always served the long distance market, and this plane is essentially an extension for it without many of the downsides of both A380 and 747
- sithadmin 7y agoIt's not the capacity of the A380 that airlines dislike; it's that operating a heavy, double-decker quad-jet is expensive. It's estimated that A380s have an hourly operating cost that is double (or more) that of a 777. Which isn't surprising, considering an empty A380 weighs in at about 280 tons. An empty 777-300 weighs in somewhere around 180 tons.
- vondur 7y agoApparently they’ve only sold 300 of them. Same thing with the new updated 747.
- wchar_t 7y agoConsidering recent events I'm wouldn't be to interested in flying in it
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y agoNo thanks. I don't mind beta testing software but I draw the line at beta testing the next Boeing aircraft.