Talk:Boeing 777

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Aviation Portal

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related WikiProjects and/or task forces:
	Aircraft WikiProject

1 Thrust ratings
2 Lots of photos
3 Longest Emergency ETOPS?
4 747 Advanced
5 777 engine
6 777F Launch Customer?
7 More "urban legends"?
8 Fictional 777 Crash
9 PIA
10 Distances should be NM, not KM
11 772B etc. Notation - Source?
12 On the Importance of Being First Aircraft Designed on computer
13 Comparable Aircraft
14 Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section
15 Pilots' feelings about the performance of the 777-300ER
16 Triple Seven or Seven seven seven?
17 Freighter Facts
18 Most Efficient Wing
19 Unclear 777-300ER fuel efficiency

[edit] Thrust ratings

Contradiction in article - 74,000 pounds of thrust or 90,000? Rollo 22:53, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The GE90 family of engines ranges from 74,000 to 115,300 lbf thrust. —preceding unsigned comment by 206.207.158.38 (talk • contribs) 02:21, November 30, 2005

[edit] Lots of photos

Do we really need all these photos? They show the same thing... Sekicho 06:05, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Longest Emergency ETOPS?

The article states "The longest ETOPS-related emergency flight diversion (192 min. under one engine power) was conducted on a United Airlines' Boeing 777-200ER, carrying 255 passengers, on March 17, 2003 over the southern Pacific ocean."

The NTSB Searchable database has no mention of this flight. See http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/month.asp

Anyone have evidence of this flight?

The 777-300ER (242 feet long) set a new record, on October 16, 2003, during a 13-hour flight from Seattle, to Taiwan. It operated on one engine for 5.5 hours. It was equipped with the GE90-115B engine, the most powerful engine in commercial service at that time.

Boeing spokesman Ed McGinn gave out the press release. The Test pilot was Capt. Frank Santoni. Such test flights would not be found in any NTSB database, of course. I am not sure that all engine failures get in there either, if there were no other problems, and the plane landed safely.

I am aware of the one United 777, that was on a flight from either AKL or SYD, to LAX, that diverted to Hilo, after the precautionary shutdown of one engine, I think because of low oil pressure. That is probably the one you have mentioned above.

--EditorASC 09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 747 Advanced

Should this really be a separate model in the list box below? I think it's part of the 747 range. -Joseph 17:36, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

747? I think this must be a typo and you meant 777?

--EditorASC 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 777 engine

We do not have precise numbers about the diameter of the engines on the 777-300ER. Many websites claim them to have "a diameter larger" than the diameter of the fuselage of a 737, yet the only precise numbers I could find on the net were 3,43m for the engines and 3,52m for the 737, making the 737 3% LARGER. Also, in the wikipedia article on the GE-90, numbers given are 3.25 and 3.4m making the 737 larger again.

Thisis a very serious issue and should be looked into. Wikipedia should not be spreading uyrban legends nor condoning hyperlatives.

Could somebody with more knowledge investigate this and debunk or confirm the saying? We'd like numbers and trusted links. --Some anonymou sguy.

The diameter is 3.429 meters. However, that does not include the nacelle, which is a factor in the comparison against the 737. I don't know the diameter of the nacelle, but it's definitely more than 10cm in thickness. [1] -Joseph (Talk) 20:14, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I edited the article only after reading about the engine within wikipedia itself. To be internally consistent, the wiki article about the engine should also be modified accordingly to mention the nacelle thing. Otherwise, other people will be confused reading both articles.

Quote from AirlinerTech Series Vol.2 Boeing 777 "The GE90 engine is the largest fan jet engine in the world: its 123-inch diameter fan is approximately equal to the fuselage diameter of a Boeing 727"

The diameter of the B737's (as well as the 707's, 727's and as far as I know even the 757's, as they are all based on the 707 orginal design) fuselage is 3.76m on the outside (for those unfamiliar with the metric system, that's 148in). Cabin width is 3.53m (roughly 139in). So could someone PLEASE come up with reliably sourced values for the GE90's diameter, with and without nacelle? It's time to finally end this widely spread argumentation... just google'ing for "777 diameter 737" gives you thousands of inconsistent entries about whether being smaller or larger than a 737 - and a lot of evidence for plagiarism, too, btw! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.247.247.238 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 777F Launch Customer?

Is Air France really the 777F launch customer? Boeing's own information said that Air Canada would be the first carrier to receive 777Fs.

If Boeing said that, it's probably because of political reasons.

[edit] More "urban legends"?

The 777's undercarriage is the largest ever used in a commercial jetliner, and its tires are the largest ever fitted to a commercial aircraft.

Really? Anyone have any evidence of this? Considering the 777's MTOW is about two-thirds that of the A380 (351 tons vs 560 tons), I find this slightly dubious (but am very willing to be proved wrong! :) ). QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about the largest tires, I believe the undercarriage comment is based in fact, though perhaps poorly worded. The key difference between the 777 and A380 undercarriage is that the 777 supports its weight on a two-post main LG (with 12 wheels), while the A380 relies upon a four-post main LG array with 20 wheels (as shown here: [[2]]). This was done to maximize space for cargo & fuel in the 777. So the correct statement is that the 777 has the largest and strongest main LG assemblies ever used in a commercial jetliner (even though others like A380 and B747 have an overall larger undercarriage, composed of more smaller assemblies).

It should be worth mentioning that this 12-wheeled undercarriage may create a higher ground pressure than the 20-wheeled of the A380. Wasn't there something with a Paris airport ? --Denniss 16:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Tire pressure on the 777 is 218-221 psi. It's much more difficult to get configuration information from Airbus then Boeing, but it appears that the A380 is at 200 psi, which is the same as the 747-400 (190 - 200 psi, depending on configuration, except the 747-400D which is 150 psi). Not sure that this belongs in the article, though. Toiyabe 22:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Michelin tyre list (very exciting), the 777 main gear tyre dimensions are 52" x 20.5", which is a bit smaller than the A340-300's ones at 54"x 21"

Perhaps it would be better to say that the 777 has the most heavily loaded undercarriage rather than using the somewhat ambiguous term "largest". The 777-300 carries 313,900 lb per strut according to the specifications found in Boeing documents [3] vs. a maximum of 204,600 lb per strut carried by heavier variants of the 747 [4]. However, I have not found the specifications for the A380, and it appears that the A380 might exceed the 777's load. Its 1,300,000 lb MTOW divided by four struts comes to 325,000 lb per strut; however, the strut's maximum rated load is always slightly less than MTOW divided by number of main gear struts, so I'll have to check final A380 pavement data to know for sure. Carguychris 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional 777 Crash

According to a tie-website for Lost, Oceanic flight 815 was a 777. Can anyone who watched Lost confirm the plane was a 777?

It was a Lockheed Tristar from Delta Airlines, reg # N783DL - see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/trivia for more info, pictures also available on airliners.net -- pj.piotr

[edit] PIA

777200LR-PIA Though I am a PIA fan, I find the paragraph devoted to PIA and 777-200LR to be useless. This 777 article is about the aircraft, it does not need details about how the airlines are using the aircraft. I am going to remove the PIA paragraph.

[edit] Distances should be NM, not KM

The article switches between using NM and KM as the primary unit. (In some parts distances are written as XYZ NM (ABC KM) while in other parts it is written as ABC KM (XYZ NM). NM should be the primary unit, seeing as how it is what is used in aeronautics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.207.158.38 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 772B etc. Notation - Source?

Is there any source for notation such as 772B, 773A being used outside of this article? I know 772 and 773 are the IATA codes for these aircraft (and B772 and B773 are the ICAO aircraft codes), but I am not aware of the market letter being added after these as a standard notation. --Nick Moss 05:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Importance of Being First Aircraft Designed on computer

The 777 was ingrained in my memory as being the first plane to be designed entirely on computer, and I was surprised to find that fact not mentioned in the lead section—enough to think "wait, am I thinking of the wrong model?". Upon looking at the scope of the article I realize that might seem like a kind of random thing to call out, but it is a reason why most everyone I know of (geeks, admittedly) thinks of it as an especially notable plane...and I think it did get considerable press on this issue. So I moved that in as a second paragraph. Any vehement disagreement, or otherwise a reference to back up my belief that this was a big issue mediawise? P.S. The stuff about Airbus competitors seems less useful than information about how many 777s are in service or things of that nature...but maybe all that could be folded into a third lead paragraph about market reception and impact...so I took that statement out of the first paragraph and left it as a placeholder for a third. Metaeducation 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable Aircraft

I think it is a mistake, and frankly misleading to the average reader, to list the A350 as a comparable aircraft. It hasn't been built yet, and will not enter airline service for four more years, if that. I recommend that one be removed from the list.

--EditorASC 00:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How can the 777 be a direct competitor of the a330, a340 and the a350. The A340 claims to be a 747 competitor. The A330 a 767 competitor. Airbus doesnt really have a competitor for the 777 until the XWB is built.

[edit] Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[777-300]] is changed to [[Boeing 777#777-300 |777-300]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 15 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilots' feelings about the performance of the 777-300ER

When the Boeing 777-300ER completed its first flight in 2003, the pilots said that the 777-300ER had very impressive performance, having enough range and able to resist structural fatigue. When I say "resist structural fatigue," I mean by able to avoid breaking up in flight. This reminds me of what a lovely, patient lady the 777-300ER is.

??? I don't understand what you mean by "able to resist structural fatigue." I have never heard any pilot describe an airliner that way. Could you clarify, just to satisfy my own curiosity?

Thanks,

EditorASC 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not breaking up in flight is structural integrity. Resisting structural fatigue is a life issue. Two related but different things. I don't see how a pilot could properly evaluate either after 1 flight.. -Fnlayson 03:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Seven or Seven seven seven?

I note that a sentence referring to the plane being called the Seven-seven-seven, in line with people calling the jumbo a seven-four-seven, has been removed. We can probably get a good feel for what the plane is called right here. I generally hear it being called a triple-seven. Not that this is anything important or anything, just wondering... --Jumbo 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

From my limited experience I only hear the term "triple seven" used in North America or by Americans. I think the original poster is probably correct about the UK. However, this topic is so utterly inane that I think the whole list of countries that pronounce 777 a certain way should be removed completely. Nordicremote 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Brits would say "treble-seven". I might check WP:MOS and see what it says. Important to get the details right. --Jumbo 02:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the seven-seven-seven comment as I have never heard it used here in the UK - normally "triple seven" the same as everbody else. Perhaps we should just delete the whole statement as per above MilborneOne 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is moot and should be removed. Anyways, In canada and with people I talk to, we call it seven seventy seven. Just like Boeing seven twenty seven. or Boeing seven forty seven. or Boeing seven fifty seven. or Boeing seven sixty seven. And on and on.... --Bangabalunga 22:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's just call it 'The Trip'.

[edit] Freighter Facts

With reference to the 777F, the statement, "When it enters service in 2008, it will be the second-longest-ranged freighter in the world after the A380F." is either out of date or simply erroneous.

To say that the comparison is being made at the time of entrance into service implies that it must be compared to other planes that are also in service. The A380F will not enter service until 2010 (at the earliest) as is documented on the Airbus A380 Wiki Page and also here: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061003/BUSINESS/61003017

Please aid in a rewrite of this or other related statements.

I moved that paragraph to the end of the paragraph on comparable frieghters. I changed 'will be the second..' to 'it is expected to be the second..' since that's not certain. This probably should just be removed since it is speculative. -Fnlayson 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Efficient Wing

Claims were made by Boeing that the 777 wing was the most efficient wing ever designed for a sub-sonic plane. Is this still true? I have heard that Airbus makes "better" wings than Boeing and that the A380 wing is very efficient. Any comments on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.122.196 (talk • contribs).

The 777 was launched and designed in the early 1990's. Back in 1990 the 777 had the worlds most efficient and advanced wing. That is true. Even when Airbus went the winglet route Boeing still claimed that their wing was so efficient that it needed no winglets. Thats also true. However now in 2007, this is not true. The most advanced wing seems to be the one on the upcoming 787. The wing is so lite and strong it bends up during flight. For planes currently in service and flying today the A340-500 and a340-600 have one of the most efficient wings.--Bangabalunga 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bangalalunga: Thank you. That is good feedback. What makes a wing "the most efficient"? I have seen this question multiple times on aviation fan websites and I would like to write a stub article on it, so that the experts can expand on it. Can you point me to some knowledge bases? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.228.218 (talk • contribs).

There is really no comprehensive site on the net explaining what an efficient wing is. The best way to read more is get a text book on wings and airplanes. But here is some definition in a nutshell: A wing that is the most efficient is one that ballances 3 criteria and brings it all into an equilibrium whereby no one criteria takes too much significance over others. The criterias are: Payload, Speed, and Weight. A large wing can lift more but becomes heavy. A wing that has a high sweepback can fly faster but produces less lift (payload). And so on. Planes typically travel around Mach .83 so a wing is designed to produce enough lift to keep a plane flying at this speed only. If it flys any faster the wings produce more and more lift causing the horizontal stabilyzers to cause the plane to pitch downwards. This creates a drag and makes the plane less efficient. I can go on and on, but I will end it on why the A340-500/600 has a very efficient wing. This wing on this plane is totally new and has nothing in common with the wing on the A340-200/300. It is super light and strong. It is very thin for its wingspan. It has the ability to lift 800,000 lbs easily and cruise at mach .83 Even though the plane uses 4 engines which are also very efficient, it is only 8-10% less efficient than a 777-300ER. The wings deserve most of the credit. When the 777-300 first came out everyone marvelled at the engineering of the wings. With a plane length of 242 feet and a MTOW of 660,000 lbs, it only had a wingspan of 199ft!! this was amazing. It had and still has excellent low speed lift and high speed efficieny. The 787 is going to set the bar even higher! --Bangabalunga 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear 777-300ER fuel efficiency

The main reason for the 777-300ER's extra 3,500 km (1,900 nm) range over the 777-300 is not just the extra 2,600 gallons of fuel (45,220 to 47,890) but the other host of improvements; especially the increase in the maximum take-off weight (MTOW). The 300ER is slightly less fuel efficient than the regular 300 because it weighs slightly more and has engines that produce more thrust. Both the -300 and -300ER weigh approximately 360,000 lb empty, have the same passenger and payload capacity, but the ER has a higher MTOW. Under aviation rules, the MTOW must be subtracted by the empty and payload weights to determine the zero-fuel weight or landing weight, then any remaining weight gives the capacity for carrying fuel. This enables the ER to fly roughly 34% farther with the same payload. Even without the increase in fuel capacity, the range given for the -300ER would still be able to fly 25% farther than the 300 based on being able to carry more fuel. Since entering service, all orders for the -300 series have been ER versions.

This part seems confusing. I don't understand how a 300ER is less efficient than a 300 when it talks about the the advantages of the 300ER below (ex: being able to fly 25% farther than the 300 without the increase in fuel capacity.

Most of the given information contradicts the fact that the 300ER is less fuel efficient. If the 300ER is less fuel efficient, the extra 2,600 gallons of fuel would give its extra range.Starcity ai 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it sounds wiered but this is how it is. Ask any pilot. MTOW is the biggest determining factor to range. Common sense would say that all planes in the world can fill up with passengers, fill up with luggage, fill up with cargo, and fill up the tank with fuel. But this is never the case. Manuafacturers always put the MTOW below this possibility. The reason is that 99% of the time the plane does not need to completely fill up with people and cargo and fuel. Look at any airliner and their financial statements. They always say they have a load factor of 70% or around there. Nobody is constantly sold out. And no plane always travels the maximum range. Numerous routes are only half the range the plane can fly. So why have a plane with capibilities higher than needed most of the time? This leads to higher trip costs. The 300ER is ofcourse more inefficient than the regular 300. Its heavier and has much bigger engines. We always hear in the media that the 300ER is super efficient. THIS IS TRUE. But not when compared to the 300. They are different. How can you have a plane weighing 120,000 pounds more and 40,000 lbs of thrust more and use less fuel? You cant. However, there is a silver lining to all this. The extra MTOW allows for more fuel. The regular 300 only goes 11,000km because it maxes out early. When filled with payload it takes on about 60% fuel in its tanks. Ask a 777 pilot if you get a chance. The ER version can have same payload and fill up its tanks to about 95% and be at MTOW. This extra carrying capacity allows it to go so much farther. Thats why when empty planes fly they have longer ranges. Its because they fill up the tank 100% with fuel and they are also lighter with zero payload. So typically on delivery flights 777-300ER can go 16,000km. Or when the 777-200LR went from Hong Kong to London it went 20,000 km. Now this phenomenon occurs with larger planes. A cessna can fill up its tanks with fuel and take 4 passengers and everything is fine. But a 747-400 cannot. For a 747-400 to have 500 passengers and luggage and cargo and maximum fuel it would need a MTOW of 950,000 lbs. But its MTOW is 875,000 lbs. Boeing at first wanted to make the 300ER with the same tank as the 300. They used to mention a 25% increase in range just by a higher MTOW (from 660 to 775). However, when redesigning the landing gear and the underside of the plane to handle the extra weight, they realized a bulge would occur and they can take advantage of it by enlarging the center tank. So not only did they increase the MTOW they also added another 2600 gallons. Then they promised a 30% increase in range during development. However, during testing the plane performed very well and even exceeded the promised specifications. I hope this helps! --Bangabalunga 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the englightening post, Bangabalunga. I enjoyed it very much. I hope you like the [5] i made based on your input. —Fudoreaper 05:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/e/Talk%7EBoeing_777_994e.html"

Categories: B-Class aviation articles needing review | B-Class aircraft articles | B-Class aviation articles