Talk:Boeing 777

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing 777 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal


Contents

[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?

[edit] ==================

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)

[edit] ======================

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"

[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.

[edit] =========

??? 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)

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