Boeing's new 777, the largest ever twin
engine jet, takes off on its maiden
journey from Washington
Agence France-Presse,
by
Staff
Original Article
Posted By: Imright,
1/25/2020 5:59:09 PM
Boeing's new long-haul 777X airliner made its first flight Saturday, a major step forward for the company whose broader prospects remain clouded by the 737 MAX crisis.The plane took off from a rain-slicked runway a few minutes after 10:00 am local time (1800 GMT), at Paine Field in Everett, Washington, home to Boeing's manufacturing site in the northwestern United States. Weather conditions had already twice delayed the inaugural takeoff of the plane, which sports blue and white company colors and is emblazoned with the Boeing name.Scroll down for video
Reply 1 - Posted by:
watashiyo 1/25/2020 6:17:59 PM (No. 298195)
Whew!!!
3 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Grounded 1/25/2020 7:14:49 PM (No. 298227)
The engine nacelles on that puppy are HUGE.
Years ago when I was learning to fly, I got to share airspace with Boeing test pilots and engineers when they were performing airworthiness certification testing with the 747 for the FAA. When you're putzing around in a little Cessna trainer, you always have one eye on the big bird.
9 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
curious1 1/25/2020 7:37:11 PM (No. 298235)
Hope it wasn't designed and built by the same team that did the 737.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
dirtyjersey 1/25/2020 8:19:05 PM (No. 298249)
One question: where was the software programmed and quality checked?
5 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
hershey 1/25/2020 9:03:22 PM (No. 298269)
If rain delayed the test flight, how can they expect to keep up with airline schedules during bad weather??? Maybe they should have named it the 666....
4 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
DVC 1/25/2020 9:40:37 PM (No. 298277)
The cause of the 737Max accidents was a faulty angle of attack sensor, which was reported and NOT replaced by the incompetent 3rd world maintenance crew on one of the aircraft. And the unending nose down trim, in response to bad data from a failed sensor, is IDENTICAL in result to a very standard kind of a failure, known as "runaway trim". Runaway trim can happen on completely computer-less aircraft. There is a backup manual trim to use in event of this failure of what has up until now been considered a convenience system, a bit like automotive power windows compared to crank windows.
That the software wasn't able to fix the incompetent response of incompetent pilot(s), just means that
the aircraft, pretty much like all aircraft, requires a pilot able to identify simple failures and TURN OFF THE FAILED POWERED TRIM SYSTEM, with the handy switch provided right on the console to deal with this predictable kind of a failure. A runaway trim system is the kind of failure that should be regularly taught in
simulator rides, and any decent pilot should quickly recognize and handle with the flick of a easily reached
switch.
Now, Boeing is being forced to add double angle of attack sensors, and more software to cover up for 3rd world pilot and maintenance incompetence, and have the aircraft computers do what a pilot should do, detect and shut down a runaway trim system. And Boeing is being blamed for not having an aircraft that will fly safely with critical sensors failed and incompetent pilots.
And legions of ignorant writers blame Boeing, and millions of airline passengers believe them.
6 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Venturer 1/25/2020 9:57:53 PM (No. 298291)
So: 2 huge engines that burn as much fuel as 4 smaller ones.?
0 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 1/25/2020 10:09:28 PM (No. 298297)
#7, no not the same, LESS fuel burn.
These very large, most modern design engines are dramatically more fuel efficient than older, smaller engines.
Two can produce plenty of thrust, and burn less fuel than four engines used to do.
And, in reality, since a single engine failure is always possible, these aircraft can climb well on ONE engine, and of course, cruise well, too, in an emergency situation.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 1/25/2020 10:25:26 PM (No. 298307)
For comparison, the fuel burn of a JT8D engine used in early 737s was 0.737 lb/lbf-hr, for the newer GE 90 engines used on the 777, it is about 0.545, same units. So, the new engine burns only 74% of the amount fuel for each pound of thrust developed. Or stated another way, the newer engine gets 26% more "fuel economy".
And two engines will take less maintenance than four engines, typically.
Given the huge cost of fuel to fly a big airliner, saving 26% is very large $$ savings per flight.
7 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Highlander 1/26/2020 6:38:02 AM (No. 298413)
It’s a big plane, but I loved the roar of a B-52.
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 1/26/2020 12:22:00 PM (No. 298804)
Where do I sign up for ride on this beauty ? So far, the only problems with the aircraft are the engine, wings and software. I bet the seats are pretty, though.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Imright"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)