Small correction at 5:59 , low humidity is actually a desirable factor to generate thrust. Also these carriers are all based at sea level which helps a lot with performance (the air is a lot denser). But overall you’re right, hot summer take offs in the UAE at MTOW can be close to the limits
Yes, and no. Humidity can both be beneficial and detrimental. As water is not compressable, ingested into the main air stream, it can produce more thrust because of how much water expands when it turns into steam. Higher pressure in the turbine section creates more thrust. Before high bypass engines were a thing, some airplanes literally had water tanks on board, that would inject water into the engine to produce more thrust during take off. B707 was one. A modern engine produces more thrust on a rainy day than on a sunny day. It's not a massive amount, but measurable and noticable.
Even so, longer runways help a bit. The problem is not a given type of plane being unable to take off. Rather, than in so doing the engines have to be used at full throttle, and that means more rpms and at higher engine heat, which increases maintenance costs and decreases engine life. Actually Emirates chose (before changing their mind) 787-10s, which have substantially poorer field performance.
It worth noting that a lot of these middle eastern aircraft will also be aiming to link their hubs with smaller European airports. High performance will allow for more routes to be created.
@@CerberusTenshi Humidity represents water as a vapour. ie. a gas. Consisting of 2 hydrogen molecules (top left corner of periodic table) plus 1 molecule oxygen, it’s lighter and less dense than the largely nitrogen/ oxygen air. Less density equals less performance. We operated the B747SP with water meth injection. This was injected as a liquid, which is different to humidity. This lowered the EGT (exhaust gas temperatures), thus allowing for more fuel to be added till EGT limits were reached once again, delivering more thrust. Water meth was not as useful at sea level, where engines were torque (design) limited. At high elevation airfields, EGT limits your performance.
I think the A350-1000 has also the reason why it's selling less than the -900, poor timing to replace the 777-300ER, which is obviously not that old. It only replaced the similar-sized Quad-Engined A340-600, which has a reputation for being SUCH a GAS GUZZLER for having 4 engines, and only a HANDFUL of airlines operated the -600, and replaced it with the -1000. And some airlines that also had the aging Non-ER 777-300s also replaced them with the -1000.
I wouldn't agree about the non-ER for now. CX still holds on their -300s, Thai didn't get -1000s, neither did SQ, Korean, ANA. JAL ordered A35Ks to replace 300ER's. Correct me if I'm wrong
In 2019 I flew one of Delta’s 777s ATL-CDG and back. It was fine and when I heard that Delta was retiring their 777s I was puzzled as the one I’d been on had a renovated look.
i find a 777 seats so narrow, unless its only Air France who use the narrow seats, Swiss air i find better with an A340, seats are wider and have more legroom,
My dad ran an aluminum recycling plant back in the early 50’s. They had an aluminum lithium alloy back then. He found that when they had a high lithium content the furnaces would shed all the dross that was stuck to the inside of the reverb furnaces. They didn’t check for lithium so he only found out after talking with others in the industry. The elevated lithium content didn’t seem to affect the properties of the alloys made with it.
@@TheUmbrex I believe the OP meant the Li did not affect the RECYCLED products that were made. If the recycled alloy was going to be made into kid toys and army canteens, the exact Li content was probably irrelevant.
@@drt1605There is enough lithium. CATL is about 50 percent capacity and waiting for EV manufacturers to order. New Li is being found routinely. It also recycles.
I think it has potential as more and more people travel to hot and high destinations like Mexico City. An over engined and over winged plane could be just what the doctor ordered to prevent heat delays from inadequate takeoff performance.
0:00: 🛫 Boeing's new commercial offering, the triple 7-8, is struggling to find buyers despite favorable market conditions. 3:43: 🛫 The Boeing 777X suffers from two major flaws: bad timing and poor airframe optimization. 8:03: 🛫 The Boeing 777X faces challenges due to its weight and competition from the Airbus A350, but its long-range capabilities make it unique. 11:14: 🛫 Boeing's Dash 8 gains popularity as a freighter, while the potential for a stretched Triple 7-10 is explored. Recap by Tammy AI
I machined the front hub for the the GE90-155B & the GE 90-X engines which were smaller but produced more thrust than the GE 155B engines on the Boeing 787 aircraft. My my brother in law was a load master in Illinois who loaded the Boeing 727, ,747 B,-200 .747-400 , & 787, & Airbus cargo aircraft for UPS.
It makes sense that airlines weren't retiring their 777-300s early because they couldn't be converted to freighter, but now that IAI and Mammoth are working on 777 conversion programs, airlines might be more willing to get rid of their older 777s and replace them with the -8 once it comes out.
Jesus Christ is coming back! He wants to save you ❤ God is calling the lost to come to Him. Why? So He can give them everlasting life! We must repent before it’s too late. Accept and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour today! Now is the time, He’s the only way to heaven. God bless you.
It's not happening. I don't understand why anyone would think so. -8 is smaller than -300ER. and got too much range for most operations. They either upgrade to -9 or downgrade to B787-10 HGW.
@@nntflow7058 Yeah the upgrade path for the 777-300 (ER) is the 777-9 and it's a plane that WILL sell great once Boeing is rolling them out because there are certain routes around the world where the 777-300ER dominates. This delay is screwing up Boeing's business. And NO, the 777-8 doesn't have TOO MUCH RANGE. That's laughable. You have to understand the routes that the 777-300ER flies to understand WHY those planes need a lot of range. The 777-9 for instance only adds about 250nm over the 777-300ER. Some of these routes are 7,500 - 8,000 miles so that doesn't leave a big buffer if it tries to land but then has to divert. So, if an airline can get by with a smaller plane the 777-8 would be fine. Otherwise they'll use the 777-9. And these planes are often flying into SE Asia from the US and weather can get bad VERY quickly in their summer time. ALL of these airlines that fly these VERY long flights from the US to Asia or Australia would not mind the extra range. I mean that's part of the reason why they bought the 777-300ER, NOT the 777-300. They seat about the same number of people.
If there were a limited market for that length of fuselage then the best move would be to cut their losses. So long as the freight version is selling it is not a failure. Shame they didn't take the initiative to go for the new alloy but that's how calculated risk works.
True, BUT. Many airlines who hold large amount of slots in LAX or LHR (like BA or AA, United and Delta) actually operated small B767 and A330-200 or B787-8 between those routes. (JFK to LHR). So for them, they would just upgrade those smaller widebodies to B787-9/-10, A350-900/-1000, or A330-300 instead of using B777X or A350-1000.
Heard similar arguments/myths repeatedly upto about 10yrs ago re how 380 sales would improve/ "become popular again" "as space becomes more scare at major hubs like LAX or LHR...."etc. etc.... The inconvenient truth: The hot selling 321XLR narrowbody(I.e. the exact opposite of "bigger capacities planes") busted the myth once again that most long haul travel growth will occur only between major hubs/longhaul gateways.
@@felixli5279 You could say the A321XLR is the bigger capacity version of the A320 family ;) The next area to watch is whether we'll have enough pilots & other aircraft staff
I recently experienced the A350-9 and it’s an amazing aircraft, so futuristic. However I’m a huge fan of the 777s they the best commercial aircrafts ever built in my opinion. I love the size and sheer power of the engines. I hope Boeing doesn’t scrap the 8’s, having a 777 with that range would be a game changer. And of course a 777-10 would be a beast of an aircraft I would like to see.
I agree. The A350 is an amazing aircraft in many ways. However, for long haul international, I think the B777 in general is a better aircraft. The cabin just feels larger, and more solid lol
Jesus Christ is coming back! He wants to save you ❤ God is calling the lost to come to Him. Why? So He can give them everlasting life! We must repent before it’s too late. Accept and confess that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour today! Now is the time, He’s the only way to heaven. God bless you.
Qantas selected the A350-1000 for its "Project Sunrise" - non stop Sydney and Melbourne to London and New York. The other contender was the 777-8. Even the "ludicrous range" did not clinch the deal. Would be good to include a comparison of the range of the A350-1000 and B777-8, as well as payloads, in the video.
778 was not available and would not have been. They were asking Qantas to wait for it till "whenever." the 778 was the superior plane for the route and I expect that Qantas will buy them if/when they see its performance numbers in operation. 35K will operate that route with 230pax or so, down considerably from its brochure capacity. 778 would have carried about 300 on the same mission. 789s are doing 7800nm segments with 235pax and a half ton of cargo on the reg now. ANZ is going to be pushing them to JKF, ORD, etc., from AKL. BA should have offered a 254t 788 - it would have done that route with about as many pax as the 35K.
@@bobjones-bt9bh if you track of the contest even 778 cannot do that with 300 pax! Qantas step down the requirments to 250. So 238 pax for 20h flight is not bad and it left 789 to carry it self to that distance!
Quantas just announced that they will use the A350-1000 for their project Sunrise flights. 777-8 is even not considered for the super long distance routes, which was the only remaining advantage of that flawed aircraft.
It would make an excellent airforce refueller with all that fuel and range. it would have an amazing loiter endurance for AWACS type ops. It’s takeoff performance would be a huge advantage for these type of operations as well. AND because it is designed with traditional materials, heavy modification would be a completely predictable process.
I believe the AWACS successor was annouced last year, the E-7 Wedgetail? There was a major need for speed of development as the E3s are getting very expensive to maintain. I think there was also a desire to get something on market, widely available across nato as the wole nato fleet is in a similar situation. Feels a bit rushed to me.
@jackpowell9276 you are correct and for the future E-7s this will be the E-7B which itself is a Max 7 that has the E-7 B737-700 equipment when will you can tell it apart from a Southwest Airlines Max 7 it's the radar on the back. Turn the B777-X into AEW RAF term for Awacs you would need to put the radar on the middle part which would make it like the E-3 Sentry or the A-50 used by the Russian and Indian militaries.
Id make a small correction, the 787 suffered from the Boeing Partner for Success Program. Had they kept it internally, probably wouldnt even have half as many issues
The -8 is a freighter. :) As for the lighter aluminum, Boeing could just build a few for research out of that material and sell them discounted "for research" If the airlines like and show profit and fuel use improvements in their usage of those 777s that are made that way, go ahead and switch the material on the line. I also think a 777-11 could be made for ultra-long routes. (Capacity of -10 with more fuel tanks for long routes, or increased capacity) :)
Would a 777 built from AL-LI have to be re-certified? I think after the 737-MAX business Boeing cannot rely on a compliant US Certification regime to look the other way.
@@mmm0404 not with same pax count. 778 flies further by an hour or so. to put it in numbers, on the Sunrise route, the 778 would be able to take 300ish pax. Before sunrise was even firmed, I did estimates based on publicly available burn numbers on ULH 35K routes and I projected 230-240pax for Sunrise in A35K. Nailed it. 778 could take 300 over the same mission
@@bobjones-bt9bhYour calculations are way out. You fail to factor fuel burn and that the A350-1000 is 26 TONNES lighter than the 777-8 design. The Project Sunrise version will have 321T MTOW.
Ddi't the A380 suffer from the same problem? The wingbox and wing were designed for a longer fuselage, but only the shortest version was ever ordered and built, so it got stuck looking like a chubby boi.
40 units really isn’t that much, but it all depends on what the breakeven point for the -8 program is. If it only takes the sale of 20 planes to make up for the cost of research/development/labor/manufacturing expenses - then it makes sense to not cancel the program if you have 40 orders.
Yup, and on the flip side, Boeing just was not in a place to take a large risk after their MAX incident. This also seems like a relatively cheap upgrade compared to what it could have been.
Next video should be about the A319NEO, why its' selling so slow compared to it's predecessor (only 70 orders). The main reason is the A220-300, just being too similar & cheaper, but the backlog for the -300 variant is starting to pile-up, meaning extended delivery times.
You also see a similar trend with the 737s. Each generation the most popular variant of the previous generation becomes much less popular. The 200 was by far the biggest seller of the original series, yet the classic equivalent, the 500, sold poorly, with the larger 300 being the main seller. Then with the NGs, the 300 became the 700 and although it did outsell it's previous version, the longer 800 was by far the most successful. The trend for narrowbodies does seem to be to get bigger at each generation. The regional jets getting bigger and better ranges probably plays a role too.
My last 777 flight was American Airlines Rio de Janeiro to New York. The plane felt so futuristic that it reminded me of the movie 2001. I really loved the experience.
@@vincevanderperre8660 I have flown the 380 from New York to Singapore. Excellent experience though I found issue with the engineering. I think on Airbus smaller aircraft the fly by wire system can feel jerky.
Al-Li alloys became famous in the 'sixties when it was used to save weight on fighters, mainly in undercarriage components. Thing were fine until it rained, and the undercarriage collapsed.
The 777er is a lovely aircraft and will be around a long time. When heavy it is limited to lower cruise altitudes. Airport operations limit the wing span of the 777 so the wing is not a perfect match for the heavier models. I am thinking the new wing span of the x will be an overall benefit and allow higher cruise altitudes.
Low humidity does not equate to less dense air, the converse is true. Two variables affect aircraft performance, pressure altitude and density altitude, which is ambient air temperature and elevation of the runway.
Despite intense lobbying from boeing to sell them its 777x, Philippine Airlines decided to replace its aging intercontinental workhorse fleet of 777-300 ERs with 9 A-350-1000s, the first of which will be delivered in the fourth quarter of 2025. it's a much better fit than the 777x. Philippine Airline's longest route (one of the 10 longest in the world) Manila-New York is being flown by an A-350-9. It will be replaced by the A-350-1000.
Was also thinking about the same thing throughout the video. Explains why PAL decided not to go with the 777x. Although,,, they ~could've considered the 779 instead. PAL used to be able to fill entire 747-400s before their 77Ws arrived. I don't think it's a stretch for PAL to be able to properly utilize the -9 even with its extra size compared to the 77W. ((Then again, the 35K really does seem to be the perfect 77W replacement anyway. I think PAL made the right call))
Philippine airlines only has 1 A350 900 as Marcos has taken control of the second one for his world wide party time. Hard to operate any airline with 1 of a type. Philippine airlines is so poorly run to begin with.
@@stevesmoneypit6137 diktajunior really is a huge pain in the ass for Filipino taxpayers. Him comandeering the A350 anytime he likes actually caused a friend of mine to have their premium economy seat (only available on the A350) downgraded to just regular economy when their aircraft got replaced by the 77W for their MNL-JFK flight. PAL even tried to hide it by writing the change in small font in their email to my friend. My friend ultimately got a free business class upgrade but had they not read the fine print, they would've gotten a crappy regular economy seat at a premium economy price.
@@stevesmoneypit6137 Choosing to take up one of the more plentiful older 77W’s would’ve been one small way to help claw back from his family’s horrific reputation. As a signal that the govt is trying at least to not put a bigger dent into the flag carrier’s already super tight operating margins. But of course, true to form …
on that, PAL originally had the 359 at 275t. They had to upgrade to 278 to do JFK-MNL reliably full. That gives some idea of real world ranges of 359s. That's a 7400nm mission.
The larger span of the 777X and the much more efficient GE9X engines are the dominant parameters here. The troubled surface roughness of the AB 350 fuselage is detrimental to the efficiency.
Given the similarities between the -8 and -9 and thus shared component, assembly line, etc. , Boeing can afford to wait an see a market develops for the -8 since there is little cost to do so. The MD-11 may be old but I find it a very good looking airplane. Driving into work you could tell that an MD-11 would soon be coming of the line since the vertical stabilizer would appear on the apron a day or so before the airplane.
Yup. Boeing don’t even have to wait and see how the market looks. They’re the exact same plane rolling off the exact same assembly lines, except one is 19ft longer. Am sure Boeing don’t really care which variant sells (they would if the -8 had smaller wings as is suggested here).
Nice video, but a couple of points... the idea that the 777-8F will take priority over the passenger variant isn't really new. It's not official, but it's been more or less a given since at least a year ago, when the release of the 777-9 was pushed to 2025. Secondly, the 737 MAX didn't make its 14% per-passenger gains SOLELY thanks to the new LEAP-1Bs. The new winglets are worth around 1.5%, and more impressively, the new tailcone and the APU door a whopping 3% (thanks, in part, to the omission of the VGs between the vertical and horizontal stabilizers). So all-in, the engines are 9-10%. Actual % of improvement depends on utilization factors like average range, load etc.
When you buy a car, travel by train or commercial airline, cross a bridge, or ride an elevator - you are depending on the correct design, testing, manufacture/build, maintenance and operation of those items. As an end-user you have little or no insight into the first 4 stages - design, testing, manufacture/build, and maintenance. For that reason, manufacturers and operators need to be routinely checked for maintaining required standards, and held strictly to account for malpractice. Following the 737 MAX, its difficult for me to understand how anybody can assume that any Boeing will do 'what's written on the box'. The drivers of malpractice rarely get jailed, so it continues unabated.
Point No.2 reminds me of the issues with the A380, where the Arabian Gulf state airlines also had a major influence, the Vickers VC-10, which was tailored to the needs of the then BOAC and made it uneconomical for other airlines, and Southwest Airlines influence on the B737 Max
Boeing’s decision to MAX the 737 was influenced by 2 airlines: Southwest and AA. Had Boeing gone clean sheet, it would’ve been interesting to see the reactions of other 737 users at that time like Alaska, Continental, Delta, KLM, Aeromexico, and Westjet.
@@Blank00 I*ll bet Boeing are kicking themselves for closing the 757 production line. This aircraft would have been a lot more suitable for modernisation and re-engining with more modern engines.
I absolutely adore the 747-400, I wish they would reengineer it so the engines where larger and seriously fuel efficient…and perhaps reduce weight through composites..the upper deck is spacious, and the design of this plane is iconic and timeless. It will be missed by many.
It will be out of passenger service completely probably in the next five years. 10 at the most. But there will be 747 freighters flying for another three decades.
The 747 while being legendary did have some space limitations due to its shape. The cargo capacity is low on the 747-400 and the A340-600 and 777-300ER beats it by a healthy margin. The 777-300ER also has its advantage of having a fully circular fuselage, which allowed Boeing to reduce the amount of structure needed for the airframe.
IIRC, Aluminum-Lithium alloys have a non-orthogonal fracture mode. Installing bolts into interference fit holes exposed this issue on the first prototypes. Fortunately, long before the first flight. And all parts using Aluminum-Lithium alloys, including secondary non-structural parts were redesigned to use conventional aluminum alloys.
my question is why didn't boeing just use the same composite fuselage as the 787 if they ironed out the problems already. its much lighter and efficient and would make the plane more tempting over an A350. oh yea the A350 ULR can fly 9700 nm which is almost 1000 more nm than the 777x. Crazy how good the A350-900 ULR is
Pilots have been dealing with that for a long time on the 737-800 and 900 which is incredibly easy to tailstrike. When I transitioned from the 737 to the 777 I felt a huge weight off my shoulders. How much longer would a -10 have to be to even come close to the small tail clearance of the -900 taking off at F1?
Even if Boeing never sell a single dash-8, I can see psychological benefit for them for just offering it. Car companies do it all the time, offering a low sticker price on a model that almost nobody will actually buy. Of course, airlines won't be buying a dash-9 because of alloy wheels or a slightly nicer infotainment package for the pilot, but the reassurance of paying a little more to gain a few extra seats just in case, or avoiding seeing to be the ones to buy the 'budget' option should not be underestimated.
Just one sugesstion , make a deep dive video about the recent P&W 1100G engines and make focussed towards the technical side of the issue arather than the commercial side of the issue,
A couple of corrections. 777X does not have the most powerful engines. Actually some 300ERs have a higher power rating. Which is good news: with better aerodynamics it has to overcome less drag. Secondly, 777-8's range is not in a class of its own. Just about the same as A350-1000s. Which does not count for much. Commercially viable ultra long haul routes are few and far between. They positively require 2 major rich cities that will generate enough traffic volume that also has the purchasing power to pay high ticket prices. SIA's SIN-EWR route with A350-900ULR just carries 170 pax, rather than 310. Besides, such missions require 2 (two) full crews, and carries loads of extra fuel to be burned for the sole purpose of burning more fuel along the way. Hence such routes are necessarily very few. 777-8 is very similar to A330-800 and A319. All are shrunk versions with much bigger wings and engines than needed. This gives all 3 super field performance and very long range. But it does so at a heavy cost. Such designs are only competitive at their upper range limits. In the case of 777-8 at 7,500-8,000NM in still air. But as we saw such routes are tricky, they may or may not work, and a big rise in fuel prices will kill them for sure. Therefore when Qantas evaluated this plane vs A350-1000 it opted for Airbus with closed eyes, in the understanding that it can also be used for other trunk routes to Asia. Consequently having failed at 777-8's dream route, it will be difficult to find other viable options. The only ones would be LAX, SFO and maybe SEA and YVR from the ME3 bases in the Middle East. The freighter version will do fine, just the same as A350F that will sell well. 777-9 just as A350-1000 will sell only moderately. The double wheel and spoke like we had with JFK and LHR is gone for good, never to return. The market tendency today is towards somewhat smaller planes like A350-900 and 787-9&10, that can also cover good distances at competitive prices, and are easier to fill. During high seasons all planes fill up. The problem is during the low demand months.
The GE9x has a lower rated thrust of 105k, yes, but can actually push much higher in terms of max thrust (they set the record for most powerful jet engine a few years back). Another reason why making a -10 will be easy
The 777-200 was never a shrink of the 300. , the 300 is a stretch from the 200. The 332 is a true shrink, the 777-200 was the base model The 777-8 is a stretch from the 200LR. The 777-8 is just a Boeing version of the a350-1000 , and most airlines who have selected the 35K were more interested in its capacity rather than range. According to Boeing the 777-8 should have a 4% lower seat cost that the 35K, the main reason it's not selling is because Boeing has put it in the backburner
I don't know if the range argument is valid. Qantas is finalising plans to fly the longest nonstop routes on the planet in SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK and they are doing it in A350's.
Being didnt use ALI because adopting it means longer development time. That would affect the bonuses of the top executives and share holders quarterly earnings report.
Boeing should have built a 777-8 as a re-engined 777-200/ER/LR and the 777-9 as a re-engined 777-300/ER. Rather than stretching the length of the fuselage and having bigger wings. The 787-10 replacing the the 772s are just dumb due to the 781’s trash range and un-optimized airframe; and perhaps also that the 779’s 747-size is too big for the demand. The 777X should’ve been more simple.
CF saves tons of weight in the wings and allows superior wings. Sorry, you are just wrong. The only thing B did wrong is not use Al-Li for its fuselage. Which probably would only save weight on the rear portion of the fuselage where the rigidity is more problematic.
It has one this going for it that has traditionally been an Airbus selling point: commonality. Operators of other 777 variants will save on operating and training costs by choosing it over the A350-1000 even if the latter is abetter optimised aircraft for its payload in absolute terms. Non-ideal variants of other aircraft have sold in certain quantities for the same reason; operators of A320-family aircraft have bought A318s instead of the biggest CRJs in the around 100 seat market because of the streamlined operations that allows, even though the A318 is ludicrously over-winged and over-engined. Some A320 operators are however now coming round to the A220 now because of that (AF is replacing A318s with A220s)...
I think that the 777-8 will sell if Boeing start to use the AlLi alloy, this will lower the overall weight of the airframe, allowing the plane to fly at higher altitudes and reduce fuel burn. I would also say that the 777-8 could be a good replacement for the -200ER because of crew familiarization and the wider cabin giving airlines more space to be more innovative with their onboard products.
I beg differ, a little. If they switch to AlLi alloy for any version of 777-8, I think they should do the same for later 777-9 productions. I think Boeing 777-9 has a fine balance of capacity and range, but underpowered at the same time. I expect Boeing will do the 777-9ER anytime soon.
@@talesfromunderthemoon The only issue with changing the 777-9 to al-li right now is that the 777-9 is already 5 years delayed and airlines like Emirates and Lufthansa will have a cow if it were to be delayed any further. The 777X would likely have to restart the certification process which would push back deliveries by years not months.
@@cobyexplanes Airbus launched a modernized NPS version of the A350 last year so I see no reason why Boeing can't do the same. It will be expensive in the short term but the potential fuel savings may make the 777X more efficient than the A350 and net them more sales in the long term.
There seems to also be the factor of if you’re going to buy a 777X, then why wouldn’t you just go with the -9, why constrain yourself with the smaller -8 that doesn’t really offer much advantage over the -9.
I am very interested to hear why the E290/95 are you seriously struggling to accumulate new orders, even by those who have good sized E90/95s. Is this because the A220 family, it’s just a Post Superior aircraft, across-the-board?
The original A330-300 didn’t sell shit either, then Airbus released the shortened -200 which was doing pretty well and then the market changed and everybody and it’s grandma all of a sudden wanted a -300. Don’t write off the -8 just yet.
I am exactly the opposite of an expert on this subject, but I seem to recall - at least 20+ years ago that flying on the 767 was not a nice experience, whereas flying on a 777 was always a memorable experience.
The other way of doing things is to go back to the old ways, have a special version for the mid east airlines and another for others. different engines and wings. Boeing used to do that with the 707, a tanker version for the military(narrow fuselage) then the 707, and the 707 came with various range capabilities and also Rolls Royce engines (for the British) or Pratt and Whitney. It is not the cheapest to engineer, but is better than no sales.
This is another great show! Can you discuss more in the future? The A350X versus the triple 7-9x? I still don't understand how the 777-9x can really compete with the A 350X. I understand that some airlines will get big discounts, and some airlines are concerned with fleet optimization. However, I don't understand relying on those elements to sell. What seems to be an inferior product. The 777x does have a slightly bigger cargo capacity but it also has a bigger price tag.
Well, the 777-9 is bigger than both A350 variants, so it's kindof in a class of its own. At this point it probably doesn't make sense for Airbus to further stretch the A350 to compete w the -9 since there isn't a massive market
They have built a modern day VC10, a plane that had considerable better hot and high performance over the 707/DC8 but at the expense of a higher operating cost.
for me the 777-8 is at the same situation with 777-200LR and A330-800. have less seats but very long range flights so it's not suitable with most airliners, some use a smaller aircraft like 787-10 or A330-900, may have less seats but more efficient than 777-8, maybe will have a future orders most likely will BBJ, some privet airlines need long range aircraft but not oversized like 777-9, or if have very bad luck end up like what happened with 767-400ER
Exactly. They are behind with all their latest designs. Didn’t use new techniques or materials… Boeing is a mess. The only thing they can focus on, is on a completely new designed aircraft that flies ways faster, while not using more fuel (efficiency). Like a big Concorde that isn’t drinking fuel like a thirsty lion. This way they will be on top again It’s time for actual new generation aircraft. All current next gen planes are basically the same thing… with more efficient engines and lighter materials.
I couldn't agree more. The 777-200LR had much more range potential than the 777-300ER. Apparently the airlines decided that more seats trumped longer range. I expect that the final best seller of the 777X series is a -9 with longer range. Why would anyone chose the 777X over the A350? With the 777 you get GE engines.
The 777 9x isn't getting delivered until at least 2025. Also: the size of the 777-9 during the size comparison demo @ 12:09 shows it to be a -8. otherwise, thanks for posting!
AL-Li is a bad idea. I remember years ago working for a company that was thinking about switching their skins to it. It turns out, it is much more brittle and the damage tolerance tradeoff isn't worth it. It is a nice science project, but it doesn't seem like it is truly a viable alternative.
It's easy for a company's image to take a hit, especially when the disaster surrounding the 737 Max was only four years ago. We all heard back then the stories about that concerns were ignored. Has the company addressed these accusations and recovered and improved safety in that short time?
Does the 777-8 have the potential to replace the 757? One application would be to replace the 757s that are used for the U.S. President and Vice President to fly into smaller airports with shorter runways. If it can replace the 757 (with comparable engine thrust and lift), despite it being a wide-body, couldn't that open up a possible market? I feel as though I am unintentionally missing a big piece of my overall thoughts here.
I'd think the 737 Max 10 would be a better replacement for the Boeing C-32 (USAF POTUS transport based on the 757) It's almost as big and has the same range with the same passenger capacity. The other way to go would be a 787-8, even though the 787 is twice the weight of the 757 and has MUCH longer range).
Not really, the a350-1000 is just fortunate to be available in the market and the 777-8 is not. Actually the delays with the 777-8 have benefited the a350-1000 the most, since it doesn't have a direct competitor.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the reasons I'm not buying one are: 1. I can't afford to buy and run one 2. I have nowhere to park it 3. I don't have a pilots license
@CobyExplanes could you make a video about why the 737 classic series had the shortest production run compared to the other three generations of the 737 family? The classic series just like the 777x family had significant performance improvements compared to the 737-100/200 but yet had short production runs.
