10 ms·

The 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, w

The 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 ago
I always thought the real miracle was grandfathering that thing on the 777 type certificate.
- neuronic 7y ago
  Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Complete noob here, so I am trying to improve my understanding.
  - nottorp 7y ago
    You want Boeing's opinion or the pilots' opinion? :)
    - wolfgke 7y ago
      A lawyer's opinion. ;-)
      - coding123 7y ago
        I'd like the aftermath opinion (before the "math" happens).
        samstave 7y ago
        I'd prefer the NTSB's take-off on this...
  - 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.
    - iso947 7y ago
      That worked so well before
    - neuronic 7y ago
      Yes, this was my question, thank you!
  - mrtweetyhack 7y ago
    No, software will handle any deficiencies in the pilot
- the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
  Which tricks did they have to pull here?
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    $$$
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Doesn't look too complicated (I mean, given what "complicated" means in aviation), the 777 is a relatively modern project.
  - kijin 7y ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      Technology 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 ago
        I 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 ago
Doesn'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 ago
  Robust 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 ago
  A 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    Which 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.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

I always thought the real miracle was grandfathering that thing on the 777 type certificate.

neuronic 7y ago
Will pilots need new training if they are already 777-certified? Complete noob here, so I am trying to improve my understanding.
- nottorp 7y ago
  You want Boeing's opinion or the pilots' opinion? :)
  - wolfgke 7y ago
    A lawyer's opinion. ;-)
    - coding123 7y ago
      I'd like the aftermath opinion (before the "math" happens).
      - samstave 7y ago
        I'd prefer the NTSB's take-off on this...
- 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.
  - iso947 7y ago
    That worked so well before
  - neuronic 7y ago
    Yes, this was my question, thank you!
- mrtweetyhack 7y ago
  No, software will handle any deficiencies in the pilot
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
Which tricks did they have to pull here?
- wolfgke 7y ago
  $$$
raverbashing 7y ago
Doesn't look too complicated (I mean, given what "complicated" means in aviation), the 777 is a relatively modern project.
- kijin 7y ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    Technology 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 ago
      I 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 ago

Doesn'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 ago
Robust 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 ago
A 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 ago
You 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 ago
  Which 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.