Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Boeing's New 777X, the World's Largest Twin-Engine Jet, Completes Maiden Flight (forbes.com) 84

Posted by EditorDavid from the first-flight dept.
Today Boeing's new 777X aircraft completed its maiden flight, reports CNBC: The plane is the largest twin-engine jet ever built and has a wingspan so wide — more than 235 feet — it features folding wingtips that reduce that width by more than 20 feet so the plane can fit into various airport taxiways and gates. The 777X-9 is slightly longer than Boeing's most iconic plane: the hump-backed 747, which is fading away as airlines opt for twin-engine aircraft that require less fuel...

The 777X, which lists for $422.2 million although airlines usually receive discounts, can fit up to 426 passengers in a two-class configuration. Boeing had 344 firm orders for the 777X at the end of the third quarter, according to a company filing, and Emirates is its biggest single customer.
By allowing more passengers on a single flight, the plane's wide-body design achieves a smaller carbon footprint, Forbes reports. And an expected shortage of trained pilots might also help convince airlines to use the new plane. The decision may also be driven by future airport and airspace congestion. With passenger numbers expected to double over the next 20 years, it will be a real challenge for infrastructure to keep up. Fewer planes required to fly all those people would be an advantage... More planes flying requires more pilots trained to fly them and an over-reliance of narrow-bodies exacerbates the problem. The 777X can be flown by current generation 777-trained pilots, Boeing says.

It's a claim that will no doubt undergo more serious scrutiny by regulators following the 737 MAX tragedies — as will the whole aircraft — but that may be in Boeing's favor, helping to restore confidence.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boeing's New 777X, the World's Largest Twin-Engine Jet, Completes Maiden Flight More

Boeing's New 777X, the World's Largest Twin-Engine Jet, Completes Maiden Flight

Comments Filter:

  • Does it have pilot overide (Score:3)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:06AM (#59656762)

    of the anti stall system?

    • more then one sensor is needed and easy to use manual mode not need an lot of force to move the control

      • more then one sensor is needed and easy to use manual mode not need an lot of force to move the control

        The goddam sensor is angle of attack.

        How hard is that to do? It's not necessary to reinvent the wheels, too.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Angle of attack sensors are infamously failure prone. There really aren't that many good ways to do it. That's why you use two, and fail safe.

          • Angle of attack sensors are infamously failure prone. There really aren't that many good ways to do it. That's why you use two, and fail safe.

            Angle of attack is pretty much standard -- in non-automated aircraft.

            I spent 9 years in Naval aviation and we didn't have a single problem with angle of attack.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              I'm not sure if you're talking about the sensors or not. Naval aviation doesn't fly nearly as much as civil though, and you personally even less so, so your personal experience is more limited than what airliners experience.

              https://www.heraldnet.com/nati... [heraldnet.com]

        • Think I heard somewhere Airbus uses 3 sensors and if one goes nuts, the computer goes with the two that agree. Evidently a pretty sound idea by them.

      • What language is that ?

        It uses English words, but doesn't make any sense.

    • Re:Does it have pilot overide (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegreatbob ( 693104 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:49AM (#59656854) Journal
      777 systems are significantly more advanced, and it does not have a distinct system similar to MCAS, speed trim system, or really any of the bits one might find on a 737. They are not needed, as all control force feedback is artificial; it is fly-by-wire, and the aircraft's flight controls implement a system of flight envelope protection not entirely unlike that used by Airbus. They were required in the 737 for regulatory approval related to column control forces related to pitch.

      777 also has some redundancy in its use of AoA input values, my understanding being that it averages them, and can probably (i can't find good information at the moment) provide a warning if they become excessively dissimilar. More importantly, the computer's "understanding" of the current flight parameters is more in-depth, and (presumably, hopefully) it does not grant insane amounts of pitch trim authority to a single sensor/data value.

      Unless they've changed something (one must ask, certainly), 777 has the ability to revert flight controls (via a switch) to a 'direct' mode, similar to Airbus' 'direct law' (which cannot be directly enabled, except by disabling all but one flight computer via circuit breakers), if it somehow becomes desirable. 777 will, presumably, allow the pilot to exceed flight envelope protections by applying abnormally large control inputs.

      If you really don't like computers, these aircraft can (technically) fly without them. In the airbus, you have mechanical backups for the rudder, and the manual stabilizer trim wheels. In the 777, you have one spoiler panel on each wing and the manual stabilizer trim (which still requires electric power).

      • Re:Does it have pilot overide (Score:5, Informative)

        by thegreatbob ( 693104 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @02:27AM (#59656948) Journal
        Amendments... Airbus here is referring to A320, A330, A340. In both Airbus and 777, reversion still requires hydraulic function. I also see some references to newer Airbuses using electrical signaling instead of cables for the rudder reversion, but can't find much detail. Also, my description of Airbus flight computer arrangement is incorrect; there are only two ELAC (ELevator Aileron Computer computers) and disabling these two will cause the reversion to direct law. There are several other flight control computers in the system. Losing all electric and hydraulic flight surface control seems like doom for either Airbus or 777, but an A300 (DHL, Baghdad, after being struck by a missile) in similar straights was able to land safely thanks to, in part, the fortuitous position of the horizontal stabilizer at time of the event, and skillful application of engine differential thrust.

        • Losing all electric and hydraulic flight surface control seems like doom for either Airbus or 777, but an A300 (DHL, Baghdad, after being struck by a missile) in similar straights was able to land safely thanks to, in part, the fortuitous position of the horizontal stabilizer at time of the event, and skillful application of engine differential thrust.

          Smaller planes without hydraulics often use servo tabs [wikipedia.org] to provide the pilot with mechanically assisted controls. The tab moves opposite the direction you wan

      • 777 also appears to have a cable control for the stabilizer actuator as a backup, so the very last (parenthetical) part of my original comment is incorrect.
      • Going cheap, and all the kinks have been worked out. Airlines do not want to get caught holding big brother of 737 Max with high depeciation Fact: The A380 cannot land soon after takeoff as the fuel load would damage... I bet the 777 is in the same boat, but with thinner safety margins, I believe 2 A380 engines could now be removed or left on the ground, and it oul fly well. 777 = DC-10 with newer engines.

        • The problem with the DC-10 was the cargo door latches letting go in flight. Yea there was one UAL flight that had an engine failure that emptied all the hydraulic fluid and rendered the flight controls useless, but that freak accident wasn't what did the DC-10 in, the ones that crashed after the cargo doors blew off did that.

          Also, pretty much every commercial aircraft has a MAX Takeoff weight that exceeds the MAX landing weight for the normal runway lengths they use. So the A380, the 747, the 777 and more w

          • The risk is engine failure during or shortly after take off.

            I doubt the pilot landing in the Hudson river had time to ditch a significant amount of fuel. But he did not need/use the landing gear either.

            If you only lose one engine and have enough hight you probably play it calm and stay long enough in the air to drop most of the fuel, no idea how a emergency procedure for that case looks.

            • I doubt the pilot landing in the Hudson river had time to ditch a significant amount of fuel.

              He didn't dump any, because it was an A320 without fuel dump capability.

            • When you've lost all your power, you are going to land and you will have limited choices about when and where. But, having multiple engines fail would be a freak accident anyway. Besides, it's not that you cannot land over you rmax landing weight, only that being able to do so safely is more of risk. So pilots weigh the risks, and may decide that running off the end of a runway and/or having a brake fire is less risky to life and property than taking 10 min to dump fuel.

              Sometimes you just have to accept t

        • My first thought when reading the Boeing announcement was, how'll they do to be soo more efficient indeed... when Airbus consider theirs is not selling enough.
          Maybe it's because of this dual engine feature.
          But having flown (only twice) on A380s I know for sure, given the very slow acceleration and the huge time to lift off, they'd definitely never fly with one less egine...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        The big issue with the 777x is that it's big. It has the same issue as the B747 and A380 in that it's only good for routes that have both extreme range and high demand like LON-SIN or SYD-LAX and even then they're being supplanted by twinjets operating under new ETOPS rules. When you send 3 jumbos on a 12-14 hour flight per day, it can be just as cost effective to send 4 A350/B787s and get another type out of your fleet, reducing maintenance, type certifications for pilots, et al.

        Airbus pulled the plug on t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Good question...

      Malaysia Airlines flight 370, which disappeared over the Indian Ocean was a Boeing 777.

      Asiana Airlines flight 214 crashed during landing, but it was attributed to pilot error. The pilot had difficulty getting along with the automated systems.

      • Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was exactly the opposite of what you suggest - it had nothing to do with the pilot “having difficulty getting along with the automated systems”, because the automated systems usually involved in landing were disabled by the airport at that time for maintenance. The pilots were flying a manual approach and cocked it up, because they had had too few hours flying manual approaches.

        • Indeed.. The ILS being down wasn't really a huge problem.

          However, the original poster's description of this accident's cause was pretty accurate. In the end they were flying a very high energy approach, with a very high sink rate which was not unusual for the conditions, with visabilities well above 5 miles. They were not flying the ILS approach and all the visual glide slope indicators were operational. What turned out to be a major issue was the pilot's accidentally disengaging the auto throttles as h

    • My main concern is that the 777X is certified as a derivative of the 777 family, like the 737MAX was certified as a derivative of the 737 family. The watered down process of certification was one of the biggest problem of the 737MAX development.

      • Re:Does it have pilot overide (Score:5, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @05:30AM (#59657114)

        The MAX issues are due to the accommodations required to shoehorn new engines into its 1960s design - the 777 is a 1990s aircraft and as such has significantly fewer accommodations required and was certified under regulations very similar to todays. The 777X won’t have anything like MCAS because it’s already a fly-by-wire aircraft and the 777 already had the largest jet engines ever carried on a plane, so no shoehorning required for the newer engines on the 777X.

        The 777 has already had a number of highly successful derivatives, you just know them better as the 777-200LR, 777-200ER, 777-300 etc. The 777X has a few modifications beyond those, but it’s not a dissimilar process.

        • I am referring to this [nytimes.com]:

          In 2005, the F.A.A. delegated more authority to companies, allowing manufacturers like Boeing to select their own employees who would help with certification work. And the 737 Max, which started going through certification process in 2012, was one of the first passenger jets to be approved under this new program.

          [...]

          For regulators, outsourcing part of the review process was a way to stretch their resources. For American plane manufacturers like Boeing, it was critical for speeding up the regulatory process, as they try to compete with foreign rivals.

          That kind of certification process is still there: I am not saying that the 777X is flawed, but I am saying that if it is flawed, we'll know only after it crashes.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jabuzz ( 182671 )

            Thing is FAA certification of any aircraft may well no longer be enough for it to fly internationally after the complete lack of proper oversight with the 737MAX. The 737MAX won't be flying internationally on just the say so of the FAA for example.

            Trust takes a life time to earn and a second to lose. The 737MAX issues have caused a loss of trust and it will take a lot to get it back.

  • Say Boeing three times fast... (Score:3)

    by asackett ( 161377 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:24AM (#59656796) Homepage

    ... it's the elastic sound of gravity pulling their flying junk out of the sky.

  • Frankly, I'm surprised that a slashdotter would submit an article with an anti-AdBlock site.

  • Let Mikey try it ... (Score:3)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:27AM (#59656812)

    ... Mikey will try anything.

  • Boeing on a Saturday Night (Score:3)

    by The New Guy 2.0 ( 3497907 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:56AM (#59656874)

    Okay... this is the second of two Boeing stories in a row. Is any other PR desk open right now so we can talk about something else?

    • Okay... this is the second of two Boeing stories in a row. Is any other PR desk open right now so we can talk about something else?

      I find this far more preferable to another doom and gloom story about global warming, which is far more common on Slashdot lately.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Okay... this is the second of two Boeing stories in a row. Is any other PR desk open right now so we can talk about something else?

        I find this far more preferable to another doom and gloom story about global warming, which is far more common on Slashdot lately.

        I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.

        Hey blindseer I sure as hell wouldn't want to guide you duck hunting. I would feel one hell of a lot safer riding in a 737max! I just hope you don't go for sound shots the way some self proclaimed "All American" hunters do.

        I once made a quack with my duck call and had to duck real quick, been there done that, across the pond from an American I guided years ago. Almost got my head blown off. Turned out to be an important life lesson about some American gun nut cases. He sure was miffed when I turned him down

  • Now that's NEWS . . .

  • A couple of years ago when I heard about the folding wingtips, my thought was: that sounds a bit scary, but those Boeing engineers know what they are doing and Boeing has a stellar reputation for safety.

    I guess adding folding wingtips is a way to get up size and get more life out of a somewhat old air frame family.

    • The original 777 was offered with folding wingtips but no airline bought the option, so the supporting structure was removed during redesigns for weight reductions after several hundred airframes were delivered. The 777X option is actually a lot simpler than the original option, because it doesn’t involve any flight control systems.

      • The wikipedia page for the 777X has a nice photo of the plane; the enlarged version shows a fair amount of detail of the folding wingtip. I'm surprised that the tips fold up instead of down, I'd think it would be easier to make inflight failure impossible if they folded down. I'm no aircraft designer, they must have their reasons.

        • Folding down impinges on ground operations, folding up does not. Due to the locking mechanism involved, it’s highly unlikely to fold during foight, and if it does it’s not going to have a dramatic effect on aircraft control, only economics.

    • "those Boeing engineers know what they are doing and Boeing has a stellar reputation for safety."

      HAD a stellar reputation for safety. Also, pickle forks.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      A couple of years ago when I heard about the folding wingtips, my thought was: that sounds a bit scary....

      Yes, because folding wings are brand new.

      What's that? They've been widespread going back to WWII? Well I'll be.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )

        When your list of "scary" includes carrier takeoff, carrier landing, AA fire, and Axis fighters, "foldable wings" may or may not make your top five . . . whereas on a passenger plane that faces none of those . . .

        hawk

  • Boeing are going to spoil the 777 too, the one remaining good brand they had left.

  • The $9.00/hr programmers from a certificate mill they used on the 737 or did they splurge on the $9.50/hr programmers from a high end certificate mill?

  • The 777X, which lists for $422.2 million

    Does that price include the essential security features or are those "optional" extras?

    • Perhaps free at first, but eventually start making you pay more every year (but only if you're the original owner of the plane, and having bought it along with an expensive support contract, otherwise, skip this part) until they decide "this plane doesn't work anymore".

  • Can anyone tell me how wide the wingspan is in hands?
    Or maybe standard USB-C cable lengths?

    • Can anyone tell me how wide the wingspan is in hands?

      That's easy. One hand is four inches and one foot is twelve inches, so one foot is three hands.

      Or maybe standard USB-C cable lengths?

      The standard USB-C cable length is defined as: "just a little bit shorter than what you need". So this unit is not very useful for measuring anything.

  • Engines far, far in front of the wing. Hence I guess this thing probably has the same stability issues as the 737 max 8.

    • The 737 MAX's proportions are much more outlandish than this machine, relative to their respective predecessors. The engines don't appear to have moved much, if at all. Also, the GE9x also isn't that much larger than its predecessor, proportional to its size. CFM engines increased fan diameter by ~8 inches from NG to MAX; GE9x increased as well, but the difference of largest variant of GE90 (115B) and GE9x is only about 6 inches. Further, they do not have a flattened nacelle to generate gobs of extra lift a

      • relative to their respective predecessors. The engines don't appear to have moved much, if at all

        That's supposed to be reassuring? What if the whole family suffers from the same basic stability issue, Boeing was just able to evade scrutiny for now?

        • I have no way to conclusively rule it out, but given that none of these, or any other aircraft of similar configuration, are doing backflips into the dirt at an alarming rate, it seems rather unlikely. Issues of below-CoG thrust, and nacelle lift are already fairly well understood.

          As I noted at the end of the comment, the vastly different software architecture of 777 should let them compensate for aerodynamic changes pretty easily. Also, MAX issues revolved around regulatory issues related to control forc

          • none of these, or any other aircraft of similar configuration, are doing backflips into the dirt at an alarming rate

            As you say, that may be because of the control system, running on vastly more capable processors for one thing. That doesn't make the airframe itself inherently stable if it isn't. Boeing deserves scrutiny over this.

            • Couldn't agree with you more; their products really need to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Preferably, this would be done by people with no financial/political stake in the matter, motivated only by interest in personal/public safety.

              Personally, I've lost most of my former confidence in the company, though the 737 (in general) is the only one I'd be even mildly concerned about flying at this time. Only aircraft I've been on in the last year were two A318 flights (may have been the same plane), and

    • By gosh, you're right. But for the 737 Max crashes, Boeing might have been able to escape scrutiny of that basic airframe stability question.

  • Branding the Airframe (Score:3)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @11:29AM (#59657550)
    It's interesting to watch the struggle aircraft manufacturers have "branding" their aircraft, when in reality it's the way the airlines configure them that determines how the flying public sees these birds.

    For example, Boeing continues to want people to be excited about the 787 - But the fact that the airlines configure them with 17" wide seats with 30" of seat pitch means I dislike this airframe and seek out other, older, aircraft with more room. No amount of talk about "polycarbonate construction" is going to get me excited if I'm uncomfortable onboard.

    Another example: When Air Canada launched its "High Density" 777 configuration, lots of Canadians said "I hate the 777!" To them, the configuration inside was interchangeable with the brand itself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      I fully agree, except to the extent that the 737's current reputation has nothing to do with internal configuration and everything to do with their tarnished safety record and Boeing's mishandled response.

      To most people who fly infrequently, airliners are lumped into categories like "tiny cramped plane", "small plane", "slightly larger plane", pretty big plane", and (because of it's iconic hump) "747". They couldn't care less whether they're on an MD-88, A320, A321XLR, etc. From the outside, the 777 looks
      • The biggest draw of 787, at least to me, is the air system. It is bleedless (no air pumped from the engine compressors), so you'll be free of most sources of bad smells and fumes (deicing fluid, engine oil, fuel). It is also designed to maintain a lower cabin altitude of around 6000 ft. above sea level (vs. a more typical 8000 ft). Airbus A350 does not have a bleedless air system, but maintains a similar cabin altitude. Even if one is not sensitive to ear-popping, etc., the hypothetical baby in the seat beh

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dfm3 ( 830843 )
          If only we'd been so lucky... they locked out the controls for the entire cabin, claiming people were trying to sleep during meal service (as if a little ambient sunlight would wake someone who could sleep through that). Everyone had to turn on their overhead lights just so see their food.

          I do agree, that pressurized air is a nice luxury, if only a bit too humid. But I do like my nose not feeling like I've spent a week in the desert after I deplane.

  • If you saw the video of the takeoff and landing, note that the 777-9's engine has a very distinct whine--it sounds like a 777-300ER but minus the engine roar.

  • I've heard this before somewhere... (Score:3)

    by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Sunday January 26, 2020 @12:38PM (#59657702)

    I've heard this idea that we need a bigger aircraft to cope with congested airports, improve per-passenger fuel efficiency, and so on, before.

    The "lack of pilots" is an interesting one - of course, any lack of pilots is due to airline unwillingness to actually recruit new pilots, pay for their training, and pay them reasonable money before they become senior captains. So we'll chalk this down to an actual shortage of airlines willing to pay for staff, so "airlines want to pay less pilots".

    But still these things have all been heard before: they were the reasons for developing the A380 and look how successful that has been on a whole-programme basis: not very. The A380 is a lovely aircraft, it's the most advanced aircraft ever made and it's extremely safe and comfortable in all cabins. Unfortunately you have to fill it nearly full to make money, as you do with any aircraft, and because it's really big you have to have a lot of customers every time it takes off.

    The 777X will face the same challenges, and airlines like Emirates will face the same challenges in trying to make it consistently profitable.

    The main advantage the 777X will have is cargo. The 777-300ER is the best mixed cargo/passenger aircraft in the world, while the A380 has almost no cargo space after you've loaded all the passenger bags. This might make the difference, but even with cargo competition is currently fierce and there is a lot of over-capacity in the market - not least from all those older, cheaper, 747s, 777s and 767s converted into cargo aircraft.

    Airlines will still need to fill this beast full - of palletised freight and self-loading freight - on a long-term basis to make it profitable. Success is not certain.

    (Self-Loading Freight - uncomplimentary term for passengers)

    • The differences I see is that the A380 needed airports to retrofit runways and gates. Thus it can only fly into a handful of airports around the world. The second problem is that with 4 engines, it was less fuel efficient and was not as profitable unless nearly full. The A380 relied on the hub and spoke system which many airlines are going to more direct flights. And also as you mentioned the A380 never had a freight version.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I think what we see here is these airplanes are not for US or western european consumption. As the article says they are for mostly being sold to the middle east, as I presume most are. It is unfair to single out the 380 as it an extreme case, it carries 500-800 passengers, was built just two engines became the vougue, and suffered from a number of technical things that plague many intermediary machines.

      What I notice is that aircrafts are full. I mostly fly in the US, but I do take at least one flight

      • I would not say that their sphere of activity will affect only the Middle East. Do you know how many people fly to Dubai every day from New York for example? I have been to Dubai several times and my flight has always been full. If you take planes with a higher capacity, then the total number of flights will decrease and therefore the risk will be less. In general, if I had the opportunity, I would travel only in Dubai taxis - https://taxi-dubai.ae/ [taxi-dubai.ae] However, I can’t transport excellent roads to NY as

  • Didn't Boeing spend much of the 90s telling everyone that the A380 was the wrong choice, that air travel would be dominated by midrange, super efficient planes instead of vast multitudes traveling on huge airplanes?

  • Given the lead time on things like this, the same management responsible for the Max must have been running this show too. So, no.

  • I don't follow this industry, but isn't only two engines on such a plane scary? Can it safely limp home half of its entire voyage one one engine...fully loaded?
    • They're rated to be able to climb out at MTOW with a failed engine, so I suspect they'd be able to make it to the "nearest suitable airport" in just about any case of simple engine failure (e.g. shut down due to bad indications, compressor stall, etc.). They also have procedures for handling long-distance overwater flights (ETOPS) that basically specify how far (rated in time, not distance) they're allowed to be away from a suitable airport at any given time. Takeoff is one of the most probable times to exp
      • Also, effective MTOW may change with certain factors, especially temperature and altitude ("hot and high" being the worst). If done correctly (accurate loading data used to compute CoG, weight, etc.), this should be one of the best aircraft (777 in general) there is to be on if an engine does fail. Forgot to note that ETOPS ratings are calculated assuming one engine out, which forces a lower, less efficient cruising altitude.
      • A further note, 777s were originally rated for 3 hours one engine out endurance (ETOPS 180), granted by the FAA at the time of release; Europe was more guarded on this, opting to give them a two hour rating, but allowing the three hour rating after a year of proven trouble-free ETOPS 120 compliant service (for a given airline). Since then, reliability has been demonstrated, and the rules revised to allow even longer endurance ratings. Several newer models of 777 and A330, and the 787 can have 330 minute rat

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close