Boeing 777X

[Triton]

"Boeing considers wingtips that on its next big jet"

Seattle Times November 5, 2012

by Dominic Gates, Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Source:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019614451_777x06.html

For the immense wings planned for the 777X, engineers at Boeing are studying a design in which the wingtips fold upward to reduce the jet's span when it sits at the gate or rolls along a taxiway.

Passengers looking out the 777X's window would see each wingtip smoothly unfold to the horizontal as the jet lines up for takeoff on the runway.

Just as the hump on a 747 gives that Boeing jet a distinctive look, the folding wingtips would make the next version of the best-selling, twin-aisle 777 instantly recognizable to the general public.

"There's a coolness factor ... It's sort of a sci-fi-like thing," said a veteran Boeing engineer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he's not authorized to speak publicly on the subject. "But to those in the industry, it's not so surprising."

The engineer emphasized that the precise design of the 777X won't be finalized until around 2014, with possible tweaks to design elements even later.

But he said some kind of foldout wingtip looks almost certain, given the very large wingspan Boeing needs to provide extra fuel efficiency.

Asked about the possibility of folding wingtips, Boeing spokeswoman Karen Crabtree said the company is still "exploring all technologies" and evaluating the trade-offs they involve.

In fact, it isn't a new idea. In 1995, Boeing obtained a patent for a folding wingtip design on the original 777, which had a 200-foot wingspan.

That mechanism was even built and tested — the full-scale model used then is on display at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center at Paine Field in Everett. But no airline ever bought this option.

An old idea revisited

The idea has been revived now because of the oversized wingspan envisaged for the new 777X, the next version of Boeing's large twinjet widebody.

Targeted to enter service by the end of this decade, it will feature new, fuel-efficient engines and thin, aerodynamic wings that are similar to those of the 787 Dreamliner and likely made from the same carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic composite.

According to reports in the trade press, engineers are looking at a wingspan as wide as 233 feet — about nine feet wider than Boeing's bigger jumbo jet, the 747-8.

On the 1995 design, the outer 21 feet of each wing was to fold upward on a hinge.

In the design now under consideration, however, the wingtip section that folds need be no more than about 10 feet on each wing to avoid airport restrictions.

Most large airports in the world can accommodate airplanes conforming to an international standard referred to as Code E — which limits the wingspan to 213 feet.

Anything wider creates problems.

The Airbus A380 double-decker jet, with a wingspan of 262 feet, is a category higher, Code F.

Airports have had to widen runways and taxiways and build larger gates to accommodate that massive jet. But the A380 is a niche airplane serving a relatively small number of megacity airports.

Boeing intends to build many more 777Xs, and to sell well they must be able to land at hundreds of airports such as Seattle-Tacoma International.

Emirates, Boeing's largest 777 customer, took delivery of the 1,000th Boeing 777 in March.

The plan to revamp the highly profitable 777 is intended to extend its life to at least a further 1,000 jets, said Emirates President Tim Clark.

He said Boeing knows it needs "a very large wing with a big span" to make it capable of the ultra-long-range missions Emirates wants it to fly.

"The range and aerodynamic quality of this aircraft is all about the wing," Clark said.

Yet, at the same time, he said, Boeing must also find a way to reduce the wingspan at the airport so the jet can be accommodated without infrastructure changes.

"If they are going to produce 2,000 of these aircraft, it cannot be a Code F aircraft," said Clark. "It will not be compatible for the majority of airports in the world."

Boeing's Crabtree said the 777X development team is studying configurations "that exceed today's 777 wingspan," but that no information on ongoing studies or any details of airplane configuration are ready for release.

Large market

When Boeing developed its new 747-8 jumbo jet — which has a wingspan of 225 feet and so is technically a Code F airplane — it solved the problem by doing special safety studies at each airport where the jet might land, coupled with operational restrictions where necessary.

With that work done, the 747-8 is allowed to operate at Code E airports. But again, only a few hundred 747-8s will ever be built.

For a new 777, with an even larger wingspan and many more of the jets operating at airports worldwide, such an airport-by-airport solution seems impractical.

Emirates chief Clark said he doesn't yet know what Boeing's final 777X design will be, but "suffice it to say, they will make it a Code E airplane."

"They have to think out of the box, and they know that," Clark said.

The veteran Boeing engineer said much of the research and development for the 777X has to be completed next year.

"I think that we'll offer it is guaranteed," he said about the folding wingtip.

 

[Triton]

Flight Global artist's speculation of Boeing 777X.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/boeings-twin-aisle-product-strategy-provides-better-segment-coverage-than-airbus/

 

[Grey Havoc]

Boeing Nears Authority To Offer 777X (Aviation Week, March 11, 2013)

Boeing’s board of directors is expected to decide as early as its next meeting in April whether to give the Commercial Airplanes division authority to offer the proposed 777X derivative to airlines.

The milestone move, if confirmed, puts Boeing at the start of a six-year development track culminating with the entry into service of the first of two new 777 family members in 2019. The extended twinjet series will include a 777-8X, sized to succeed today’s 777-300ER, and a larger 777-9X which opens up new territory in the 400-plus seat, long range market.

Before the 777X proposal goes before the board, however, Boeing needs to finalize one of the most crucial decisions it has faced over the new development: whether to offer the larger twin with a choice of engines. The longer range 777-200LR/300ER versions, which now account for all but a handful of 777 orders, are powered by General Electric GE90-115 engines provided under a sole-source deal agreed in 1999.

According to airline sources, Boeing is believed to be on the verge of selecting General Electric’s GE9X under a similar agreement for the follow-on 777X. Boeing had been considering offering Rolls-Royce’s proposed RB3025 as an alternate to the GE9X, mostly under pressure from the airlines which wanted the competitive benefit of an engine choice. However, having eliminated late last year a study version of a higher thrust variant of Pratt & Whitney’s geared turbofan, it now seems Boeing is once again set to continue along the sole-source path with GE.

Boeing declines to comment on whether the 777X program is about to be proposed to the board for authority to offer (ATO). It says only that “customers are happy with the airplane design and we are pleased with where we are in the process. We are aggressively moving forward per our plan and working with our customers on the requirements. While we haven’t set a firm timeline or launched the program, we’ve consistently talked about a potential EIS around the end of the decade.”

The manufacturer also declines to comment on whether the engine selection has been made, saying that its “decision regarding engine options will be based on the right technical solutions available at the right time under the right business arrangements to meet our customers’ requirements.” Neither Rolls-Royce nor GE are willing to comment on the status of their 777X proposals.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Emirates is now planning to place an order for the Boeing 777X.....

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-06/emirates-planning-major-777x-order-helps-boeing-market-aircraft

When putting the wingspan of the 777X in the context of other giant passenger aircraft, it's important to note that 233-foot wingspan of the 777X out-spans the 230-foot span of the Convair Model 99 airliner by three feet. The Convair Model 99 would have had the biggest span of any propeller-driven passenger aircraft built in America or Europe, had it ever gone into production. In this sense, Boeing may finally be accomplishing that Convair and Lockheed never did: developing a superjumbo bigger than the 747 in terms of size and wingspan.

 

[Triton]

"Aluminum-lithium alloys may be used for Boeing 777X"
Steve Wilhelm
Staff Writer- Puget Sound Business Journal
May 3, 2013, 2:44pm PDT

Source:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/05/03/aluminum-lithium-alloys-may-be-used.html

As Boeing officially enters the fray against Airbus in the large twin-jet category with Boeing's planned 777X, a secondary theme is that Boeing is continuing to bet on aluminum.

But not your parents’ aluminum.

The stretched 777-9, the biggest twin-engine model Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) is planning to build, may be partly fabricated from a new breed of aluminum-lithium alloys, lighter and stronger than the aerospace-grade aluminum now used. Boeing gave the green light to the model Wednesday.

Yes, these new alloys do include lithium, the highly reactive metal that caused Boeing such problems with the 787’s lithium-ion batteries. (Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner has been grounded for more than three months due to charring of two lithium-ion batteries, and only recently was cleared to return to service by the Federal Aviation Administration, after an expensive battery fix.)

But don’t worry, when lithium and aluminum are mixed together, the resulting alloy has no propensity to combust.

The promise of aluminum lithium alloys is so interesting to the aerospace industry that an entire panel was devoted to the subject at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference in Lynnwood, in February.

Executives from Dutch aluminum company Constellium and from Alcoa Aerospace updated the audience, mostly made up of aerospace suppliers.

“As aircraft design requirements change, aluminum is still innovating, and we expect to be here for a long time,” Brandon Bodily, an Alcoa engineer, told the crowd. “New aluminum lithium alloys can offer 1 to 2 percent improvements for long-range aircraft.”

Alcoa is pouring money into facilities to produce aluminum lithium alloys, expecting it to be incorporated in new aircraft including Boeing’s planned 777 and perhaps the 737 Max. Boeing hasn't said whether or not it will use aluminum-lithium alloys in either plane.

Alcoa is now building a $90 million aluminum-lithium ion production plant in Lafayette, Ind. When completed next year, the new factory will be able to produce 200,000 metric tons of the alloy a year.

“Our primary role as aerospace solution providers is to help the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) reduce fuel consumption per seat mile,” said Eric Roegner, president of Alcoa Forgings and Extrusions, in a statement at the factory groundbreaking last year. “Our aluminum-lithium supply chain will be the premier operation in the world, and this specialty alloy will be flying on the next generation of aircraft.”

Alcoa also is expanding another aluminum lithium facility, located in Upper Burrell, Penn.

Currently Boeing’s popular 777 300-ER weighs 370,000 pounds when empty, and carries 386 passengers in a standard configuration. The new stretched 777-9 is intended to carry 21 more passengers. What if the combination of a aluminum-lithium fuselage and a new composites wing made its weight the same or less?

That might be a key to competing against the formidable Airbus A350-1000, which features a light composites fuselage and wings. Airbus engineers are claiming their plane, which also uses aluminum lithium alloys, will be 25 percent more fuel efficient, on a per-seat mile basis, than the current 777. And a big piece of that gain is about less weight.

Alcoa claims that using its aluminum-lithium alloys can lower an aircraft’s weight by 10 percent, and manufacturing and repair costs by 30 percent.

These are big numbers. It’s very likely you’ll hear word lithium used a lot around the 777-9, and the word won’t be referring to batteries.

STEVE WILHELM covers manufacturing, aerospace and trade for the Puget Sound Business Journal. Phone: 206-876-5427 | Email: swilhelm@bizjournals.com | Twitter: stevewPSBJAERO Click here to sign up for the PSBJ Daily Update.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Qatar Airways has announced its plans to order the Boeing 777X.....

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/aviation-and-transport/2013/05/16/Qatar-Airways-wants-to-be-launch-customer-for-Boeing-777X.html

It remains to be seen if Boeing decides that the differences between the 777 and the 777X are sufficient for the 777X to be renamed the 797 (just as the 777 was originally called the 767X).

 

[carsinamerica]

It remains to be seen if Boeing decides that the differences between the 777 and the 777X are sufficient for the 777X to be renamed the 797 (just as the 777 was originally called the 767X).

I don't think it "remains to be seen" at all. The new versions will be called the 777-8 and the 777-9. Boeing has telegraphed that in the naming already. It's the same airplane. A few changes to composites, some wing re-tinkering, but the essence stays the same. Same fuselage (just with a few extra frames in the middle), same cross-section (just with thinner walls), and same inner wing (but with composites). It's still a 777.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

I was reading an article that if the wing of the Boeing 777X is to be assembled to Japan, even if transportation by ship is not cost-effective, it would also be too big to be transported by a Boeing Dreamlifter (http://www.kplu.org/post/analyst-japan-strong-contender-boeing-777x-wing). Would it make sense for Boeing to rent a mothballed C-5 Galaxy to ferry 777X wings to the final assembly plant in Seattle (given that the C-5's fuselage is wide enough to accomodate huge subassemblies).

 

[fightingirish]

Yeah, I just say "Colossal Galaxy" as I am just reading about the 'Colossal Guppy' at OBB's APR blog.

 

[Hobbes]

I was reading an article that if the wing of the Boeing 777X is to be assembled to Japan, even if transportation by ship is not cost-effective, it would also be too big to be transported by a Boeing Dreamlifter (http://www.kplu.org/post/analyst-japan-strong-contender-boeing-777x-wing). Would it make sense for Boeing to rent a mothballed C-5 Galaxy to ferry 777X wings to the final assembly plant in Seattle (given that the C-5's fuselage is wide enough to accomodate huge subassemblies).

The Dreamlifter's fuselage is ~8 m wide, the C-5's cargo hold is 5.8 m wide. Couldn't find internal dimensions for the dreamlifter at short notice, but you can assume that the Dreamlifter is much larger than the C-5.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Yeah, I just say "Colossal Galaxy" as I am just reading about the 'Colossal Guppy' at OBB's APR blog.

Not a bad idea. If the commercial aviation industry decides to increase its appetite for ultra-heavy freight aircraft (cargo capacity >200 tons), then Boeing can form a partnership with Lockheed Martin to develop twin-fuselage freight planes to ferry components for the 777X by using mothballed C-5 airframes. The cost of fitting the Galaxy with a fuselage like that of the Pregnant Guppy and the A300-600ST Beluga, however, would be extremely staggering, which is why I'm in for a twin-fuselage freighter derivative of the C-5 Galaxy when it comes to finding the most cost-effective means of hauling assemblies for the 777X.

 

[aim9xray]

Well, that's not going to happen. The C-5As at the 309th AMARG are slowly being stripped out for parts (engines, landing gear, control surfaces, horizontal stabilizers, not to mention many smaller parts) . I believe that a few stripped hulks have been scrapped.

 

[Hobbes]

a twin-fuselage freighter derivative of the C-5 Galaxy

A twin-fuselage derivative will still have a cargo hold of the same size as the C-5, it'll just have two of them. What you need is a single fuselage large enough to fit a 777 wing in. Or find a way to transport the wing as external cargo, but I'll bet that that gives aerodynamical headaches.

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

All of you may have overlooked this, but if the 777X is under development right now, does this mean that Boeing has deferred development of the Y3 superjumbo, as the Y3 itself is intended to replace the 747 and 777-300? The issue is that Boeing hasn't publicly stated whether the Y3 is the 777X or a separate program for 387-foot span flying wing airliner able to carry 900 passengers.

 

[carsinamerica]

All of you may have overlooked this, but if the 777X is under development right now, does this mean that Boeing has deferred development of the Y3 superjumbo, as the Y3 itself is intended to replace the 747 and 777-300? The issue is that Boeing hasn't publicly stated whether the Y3 is the 777X or a separate program for 387-foot span flying wing airliner able to carry 900 passengers.

I don't think that Y3 is the 777X, since even the -9X won't be able to fully replace the 747, which is part of what Y3 is meant to do. As for your "387-foot span flying wing," that's not going to be Y3, either. Period. I would stake almost anything on that. I'm not sure where the 387 ft figure comes from, since even the largest configuration of the original BWB wasn't that large, and the last configuration studied seriously was a 450-passenger, 249-foot-span variant. Boeing does not believe there is a strong market for one superjumbo, much less two, and they aren't going to propose one nearly twice the size of the A380 that can't fit at most major airports and is completely unconventional in design. Y3 will show up eventually (not until the mid-2020s at this rate), but look for some sort of twin-deck, twin-engine aircraft.

 

[GeorgeA]

Yellowstone was Boeing's product development plan from a decade ago and has been in some ways overtaken by events. Y1 was actually more of a 757 replacement and was essentially shelved in favor of 737 MAX, and the 777X is a stopgap not envisioned at the time. Y3, in the sense of a true 747 replacement, probably won't appear for another decade.


As for a 387-ft span aircraft, is there an airport outside Dubai that could actually handle it? It sounds like it would even exceed the capacity of Group VI facilities.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/07/02/boeing-777x-787-10-show-the-lure-of-the-x-factor/

 

[Triton]

Computer generated image of Boeing 777-9X in Lufthansa livery.

Source:
http://www.bangaloreaviation.com/2013/09/lufthansa-19-billion-order-launches.html
http://www.flugrevue.de/english/lufthansa-group-orders-777-9x-and-a350-900/528950

 

[Grey Havoc]

777X Will be Designed outside Pacific Northwest

Boeing Co. will design its new 777X jetliner with engineers in Russia and five states - a snub to technical staff in the Pacific Northwest
that have been central to creating every major Boeing jetliner over the past 60 years.

Any role by staff at Boeing's facilities in the Puget Sound, Wash, area in designing or building the revamped twin-aisle jet hasn't been
yet decided, the company said in a memo to engineers Wednesday.

The 777X will be designed by engineers in St. Louis; Philadelphia; North Charleston, SC; Huntsville, Ala; and Long Beach, Calif.
Boeing's design center in Moscow will assist in the jet's design.

"The announced structure will allow for a efficient use of resources and enable Boeing to resolve design issues effectively the first time"
Mike Delaney, Boeing's commercial airplane vice president of engineering, and Scoot Fancher, vice president of airplane development,
wrote in the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

A Boeing spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the memo.


The Wall Street Journal, Thursday 7th November 2013

Did Boeing not learn anything from the Dreamliner?!

 

[Triton]

"Boeing and the 777Xtortion"
By Rick Anderson Mon., Nov 11 2013 at 11:09AM

Source:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/949767-129/boeing-billion-tax-inslee-777-break

Encircled by smiling legislators and a gaggle of business leaders at his June 2003 bill-signing ceremony in Olympia, Gov. Gary Locke moved his pen over paper, turning legislation into law and public money into corporate welfare. It was the right thing to do, the governor said. Either give the Boeing Co. a $3 billion tax break or watch the aerospace industry fly away.

He didn’t mention that the fix was in – that the “independent” consulting company he’d hired for $715,000 to study the giveaway was also Boeing’s paid corporate consultant, and would itself benefit from the tax break. And he professed to trust the word of a company with a scarred history of criminal bribery and contractual fraud, confident Boeing would live up to its promise of making Puget Sound the center of its new 787 Dreamliner assembly operation.

By 2005, it was Locke who’d flown away, leaving office after his second term as Boeing began outsourcing jobs elsewhere, including building wings in Japan. By 2009, when Locke landed in D.C. to become Barack Obama’s Commerce Secretary, catering to Boeing’s needs around the world, the Lazy B was opening a second 787 production line – in South Carolina, where it garnered another $1 billion in tax incentives.

Last week it was governor-in-training Jay Inslee offering three times as much to once again keep Boeing from flying away. Despite its annual $85 billion in revenue and $4 billion profit, the needy aerospace giant insisted that Locke’s $3 billion, 20-year tax break had to be replaced by Inslee’s $9 billion, 27-year tax break or it would be forced to make another Carolina-style move.

Over the weekend, the legislature snapped to attention and doled out the huge exemption. Inslee and lawmakers then dissolved into an orgy of backslapping and self-congratulation. To the governor, it wasn’t largess he was giving away to a Fortune 500 behemoth, it was process. Lawmakers, “in very short order,” he said, “did a great job producing a great product.” The legislature had itself become a production line, assembling care packages for America’s No. 1 plane maker.

And Boeing was delighted to take delivery. Taxes – not paying them – is part of the company’s capital strategy. It regularly doesn’t pay any corporate income tax, and in addition to the $9 billion it now won’t be paying Washington state, it gets an estimated $1 billion in other state tax incentives thanks to years of heavy lobbying, campaign donations, and sustained threats to pack up and move. Thus, you can’t blame the conspiring corporate minds at Boeing for taking another plane hostage – this time the 777X, as in Xtortion. Their demand that taxpayers pay a ransom or their plane disappears worked before. And look who they are dealing with: The state went for the newest demand knowing full well that Boeing deceived the government after the first giveaway. Legislators even added language to nullify exemptions should Boeing pull another Carolina. What part of “You can’t legislate morality” don’t they understand?

Boeing’s South Carolina strategy provides another weapon to use on Washington: its non-union operations in North Charleston. The threat of outsourcing local jobs to that far-away plant, and other non-union locales, has emboldened Boeing’s bargaining position here (even if Inslee’s office doesn’t see the harm: “They are just diversifying,” says the governor’s aerospace guy, Alex Pietsch). Workers this week are set to vote on a “piece of crap” offer, as the Machinists Union local leader calls Boeing’s proposal, which seeks to shift health care costs to employees and replace their longtime pension with a savings plan. One tortured Boeing worker, faced with this career Sophie’s Choice, told the Times’ Dominic Gates, “It’s like I’m smiling while I’m being kicked in the balls. But it’s better than being decapitated.”

It’s a groinal sensation taxpayers might be experiencing as well. In the same way that nobody wanted to talk about the 2003 fix, no one seemingly wanted to discuss the possibility this tax break was a fraud. Boeing had demanded that both the legislature and the machinists concede to their demands, and that’s how Inslee saw it. But did the company mislead the governor, or did the cheerleading Inslee, trailed by his legislative pep squad, choose not to interpret the fine print, since union ratification of the contract alone seemed to assure the new plane would be built here? As Boeing’s letter of understanding to the union states, “the Company,” in return for ratification, “agrees to locate the 777X wing fabrication and assembly, and the final assembly of the 777X in Puget Sound.”

Nine billion dollars and a kick in the balls later, “This is a great day for everyone in Washington,” Inslee said. “Winning the 777X will secure tens of thousands of jobs and yield huge economic benefits for generations to come.” It was, almost word for word, pure Gary Locke, wherever he might be.

Journalist and author Rick Anderson writes about crime, money and politics, which tend to be the same thing.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?232387-Boeing-workers-reject-plan-linked-to-777X-in-Washington-D-C

 

[Triton]

From the Seattle Times:

Source:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022257705_boeingreactionxml.html

 

[Steve Pace]

Even a $10,000 signing bonus wasn't enough for a yes vote! -SP

 

[Triton]

And also consider the number of jobs at stake at suppliers and subcontractors located in the Puget Sound area that support Boeing's wide-body airliner manufacturing lines in Everett. The effects of a Boeing move will be felt beyond the membership of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751.

 

[F-14D]

From the Seattle Times:

Despite what the Times, thinks, there's not a prayer of 777X going to California. It makes Washington look like an Businessman's Paradise. The only reason C-17 stayed there was because for the limited numbers of them left to build, it simply wasn't financially feasible to move the line. And now it's going out of production...

 

[malipa]

Since the Boeing 777X could be built at another site, could the skin of the fuselage be friction stirwelded in stead of rivetted? Couldn't that save a lot of weight and get better aerodynamics. And besides, the overlapjoints of the fuselage skins could be removed from the design, which i guess would all help the economics 1 to 3 %, because an aircraft normally flies slightly with a nose up attitude, so the edges at the bottom of the fuselage panels would increase the drag because of the airflow separation at the edges.

 

[fightingirish]

Launch website:
http://www.newairplane.com/777X/


Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fop6Qu2CN0E

The folding wingtips are back.

 

[Hobbes]

Since the Boeing 777X could be built at another site, could the skin of the fuselage be friction stirwelded in stead of rivetted?

You'd have to weld the skin to the underlying frames, and I'm not sure that's possible with friction stir welding. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction_stir_welding, the welding tool moves across the joint, so you're limited to butt joints as opposed to plates stacked on top of each other.

IIRC a big reason that riveting is still used is that any weak points in the structure become visible as cracks around a rivet. For welded construction, you'd have to resort to ultrasonic or radar inspection to find cracks.

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24978226

'Mini-jumbo'. Interesting way to describe the 777X.

 

[JFC Fuller]

'Mini-jumbo'. Interesting way to describe the 777X.

Not sure why, seems like a fairly logical recognition that the big twin jets have eaten the bulk market for for actual Jumbos (747-8 and A380).

 

[Triton]

'Mini-jumbo'. Interesting way to describe the 777X.

Not sure why, seems like a fairly logical recognition that the big twin jets have eaten the bulk market for for actual Jumbos (747-8 and A380).

The phrase is an oxymoron.

 

[Steve Pace]

Whether the 777X is classified as a Jumbo or not it will still be a "heavy" according to Air traffic Controllers. -SP

 

[Triton]

A good day for Boeing with 259 orders and commitments for the 777X. Perhaps not so good for Jet City depending on where the new jets will be built.

"Boeing Launches 777X with Record-Breaking Orders and Commitments"

Source:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2013-11-17-Boeing-Launches-777X-with-Record-Breaking-Orders-and-Commitments

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing [NYSE:BA] today launched the 777X program at the 2013 Dubai Airshow with a record-breaking number of customer orders and commitments for the newest member of its twin-aisle product family. Agreements for 259 airplanes from four customers across Europe and the Middle East provide a strong foundation to support development and production of the airplane.

Representing the largest product launch in commercial jetliner history by dollar value, 777X orders and commitments include Lufthansa with 34 airplanes; Etihad Airways with 25; Qatar Airways with 50 and Emirates with 150 airplanes. The combined value of the agreements is more than $95 billion at list prices.

"We are proud to partner with each of these esteemed airlines to launch the 777X – the largest and most-efficient twin-engine jetliner in the world," said Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Ray Conner. "Its ground-breaking engine technologies and all-new composite wing will deliver unsurpassed value and growth potential to our customers."

The 777X builds on the passenger-preferred and market-leading 777, which today commands 55 percent of market share in its category in terms of backlog, and 71 percent of the in-service fleet worldwide. The 777X family includes the 777-8X and the 777-9X, both designed to respond to market needs and customer preferences.

The 777X builds on the best-in-class dispatch reliability from today's 777, as well as offering more market coverage and revenue capability that surpasses the competition. The 777-8X competes directly with the A350-1000, while the 777-9X is in a class by itself.

Opening new growth opportunities for airlines, the 777-9X offers seating for more than 400 passengers, depending on an airline's configuration choices. With a range of more than 8,200 nautical miles (15,185 km), the airplane will have the lowest operating cost per seat of any commercial airplane.

The second member of the family, the 777-8X, will be the most flexible jet in the world. The airplane will seat 350 passengers and offer an incredible range capability of more than 9,300 nautical miles (17,220 km). In addition, the airplane will have unmatched takeoff and payload capability compared to the competition.

"The airplane will build on the market-leading 777 and will provide superior operating economics," said Conner. "The airplane will be 12 percent more fuel efficient than any competing airplane, necessary in today's competitive environment."

The 777X introduces the latest technologies in multiple places, including the most advanced commercial engine ever – the GE9X by GE Aviation – and an all-new high-efficiency composite wing that has a longer span than today's 777. The airplane's folding, raked wingtip and optimized span deliver greater efficiency, significant fuel savings and complete airport gate compatibility.

Like the 787 Dreamliner which was launched as the 7E7, the 777X will be formally named at a later date. Design of the 777X is underway and suppliers will be named in the coming months. Production is set to begin in 2017, with first delivery targeted for 2020.

 

[Triton]

http://youtu.be/84J_MZVIG7A

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://bloga350.blogspot.com/2013/10/reasons-of-jal-order-787-delays.html

 

[fightingirish]

This time the folding wingtips on the Boeing 777X don't have any flight control surfaces.

 

[Triton]

Source:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/boeing/2013/11/13/what-is-this-777x-you-speak-of-a-quick-orientation-to-the-plane/

 

[malipa]

But the rivets make the structure weaker, because of the stressed holes which are drilled. And i´ve looked up methodes which do allow friction stir welding through multiple layers, you just need to find a way to fill the hole which is left at the end of the proces, but that wouldn´t be the biggest problem i guess.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I just hope Boeing would have learnt from experience with Ducommun Inc, when resorting to outsourcing everything. Stretching an existing airframe by simply inserting more panels in between while probably continuing the same old strategy of the cheapest bidder gets it all, would be a disaster begging to happen in long term run. Not even in a long term run, we are talking here even a short term and distance crash landing. A longer fuselage would surely be more suspect to breaking into 3 pieces like a spaghetti. Well, let`s not jump the gun, I applaud every engineering attempt, even if it has a sour aftertaste of stretching a well aging airframe, not building a brand new one. I wonder why did they need anything to do with engineers in Russia? Just damn, why? Why? When are we going to see juicy real elbowgrease engineering paychecks go to American families? I hope I am needlessly apprehensive, but my instincts are ..what they are. Here is link to Ducommun Inc. scandal-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUlw7BsKCY4