Talk:Boeing 777/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

Lots of photos

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

Does anyone have an image of the 777 in Boeing house colors? That would be quite fitting for the infobox IMHO. Enigma3542002 07:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also would a cabin image be ok? Enigma3542002 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I try and get some photos

--Hornet94 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

This sounds scary! One engine, for 5,5 hours? That gives a small, but still unacceptably high probability for loss of the second engine, resulting in a no survivor crash. Airbus was right with the A340, yes, having 3- or 4-engined planes cross the oceans is the only safe way. Due to its very large size, the 517kN GE-90 is too cutting edge to be trusted with such long high seas routes, where reliability is the only thing that matters. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.247.247.238 (talk • contribs)

Look at about 1/3 down the page on this link (picture of girl in engine) [2] - IceCAPPED74.97.119.63 06:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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: [[3]]). 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 [4] vs. a maximum of 204,600 lb per strut carried by heavier variants of the 747 [5]. 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)

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

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.

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)

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)

As far as I know, the A320 was the first 100% CAD (computer aided design) aircraft, and was only 50% CAM (computer aided manufacturing), while the 777 is 100% CAD/CAM. So the 777 was not the first airliner designed by computer, it was the first to have full CAM. Mgw89 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)

Could the pilots have been referring to the ability of the 777 to resist air anomalies, such as turbulence during the flight, hence make it appear that the 777 "resists" this buffetting? The 777 has an active flight stabilization system that constantly and actively moves inbound flaps to keep the aircraft stable at cruising speed.Later 737s also have this technology, although the larger size of the 777 allwos a smoother flightMaccess 07:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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'.

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

The A340 page states that the A340-600 is in fact more fuel efficient than the 777-300, but its operating costs are 8-10% higher due to the additional engines. Mgw89 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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 [6] i made based on your input. —Fudoreaper 05:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


What to consider an incident?

Since the 777 has never suffered a hull-loss, what should we consider an accident? There have been numerous smaller incidents that are too numerous to list. Bok269 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the guidelines in Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format as a starting point. Basically an incident has to be notable for inclusion - most incidents are not notable. MilborneOne 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say an incident is one that results in a) slight damage to an aircraft that results in either collateral damage or the implementation of emergency procedures b) injury to passengers and/or crew requiring hospitalization, or resulting in a fatality. c) sufficiently newsworthy to have been carried by a local or international newsservice. I've flown several times in a 777 and can personally say that the aircraft's avionics actively correct for turbulence through trim flaps (they're always moving-like the suspension of a car), which could explain why it's a very safe aircraft to be in during severe turbulence.Maccess 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I have an issue "On August 24, 2004, A Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-312 had an engine explode on takeoff at Melbourne airport. This was due to erosion of the high pressure compression liners in the Rolls-Royce engines. [43]"

IT SHOULD STATE CORROSION NOT EROSION LAST TIME I CHECK ITS NOT A PIECE OF LAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrosion is chemistry attack on the surface, while erosion is a mechanical attack. For example a sandstorm could erode a jet engine's blades very badly, in fact this abrasive deterioration causes a high rate of failure in M1 Abrams tanks occupying Iraq (these tanks are powered by an 1500 bhp helicopter turbine unit instead of the usual V-12 diesel engine). 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Mulally is the designer??

AFAIK he was the program manager. How meaningful is it to attribute a project like the 777 to a single designer anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.236 (talk • contribs)

  • The reference AV Week article says he was Chief Engineer of the 777 program. It's a good article, but I don't think it really supports him being in the "Designed by" box. -Fnlayson 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed him from the "designer" field per discussion on Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Designer. If it continues to be a problem, we can just delete the field from the 777's infobox. - BillCJ 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Mulally been listed there since Jan. Never thought much about it. Anyway, I don't think it'll be a problem. -Fnlayson 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruise Speed Inconsistency

Hey, this says that cruise speed is 570 mph (Mach 0.84 at 35,000 ft), but in Boeing 747 it mentions that cruise speed is 567 mph (Mach 0.855 at 35,000 ft). Could someone take a look at this and correct it appropriately? Is it that one is measured in knots and the other in statute miles?

Thanks. 11:11, 24 May 2007 (PDT)

Interesting. It could be that there was some mix up of parameters or the multiplier used to compute mach speed. The Mach speed multiplier varies with altitude because it is the ratio to the speed of sound, which varies with altitude. Either one could have used an incorrect multiplier.Maccess 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I honestly think we should just use the mach number. Thats it. Mach .84 is different at 30,000 feet and 40,000 feet and everything in between. Mach is the standard measurement. I know Boeing on some models gives us the miles and kilometers per hour but we should use mach on wikipedia for consistency on all commercial aircraft articles.Marcus --Bangabalunga 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be a problem with slower commercial aircraft? e.g. prop aircraft and specialized STOL commercial aircraft that travel at Mach 0.6 or less. Won't we be depriving the readers of a means of comparison between, say the lockheed electra and a modern 777? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccess (talk • contribs)
It should also be considered that Mach is meaningless for civilian air traffic. The only thing that matters is how fast Mr. John Doe himself or Ms. Jane Doe's parcel can arrive at XYZ if starting from ABC (like "I had to sit a damned 18 hours in one go to do LA-Singapore. That amounts to cruel and unusual punishment".) This is strictly deterimied by the km/h value, not by Mach number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Range values

  • The -300ER range is currently listed at 7,930 nautical miles.[7] The Spec table lists 7,880 nm. So eventually there's been an increase. Also, the Spec table has a rows for Range fully loaded and Max Payload Range. That reads like the same. Is there a difference? -Fnlayson 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are correct Jeff. Its just I saw Aston2012 going to A350 changing ranges, A340 changing ranges, and now 777 and I thought he was vandalizing. I checked with Boeing website but I guess my cache prevented me from seeing the update. There is a difference between the two and I was hoping it never came to that. I propose getting rid of the max payload range as it will confuse readers. It goes back to the MTOW and landing weight limits of aircraft. No other article has max payload range and having it here will open up a whole new discussion. I dont mind explaining it and I am sure the pilots on here like Akradeki or EricG will confirm what I write but at the same time your gonna get random guys coming in putting Citation Needed everywhere and in some ways wrecking it. The best is to withdraw and take that out. Same can be said with fuel burn on the 747 article. Liters per km is so so so wrong. You cannot measure fuel burn on an aircraft like you do a car.--Bangabalunga 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I get it. Both ranges are at MTOW, but one is max payload (low fuel). So Range fully loaded must be at a typical passenger load (light payload) and is closer to max fuel. I have no idea when the 300ER range was increased. It's not mentioned in 300ER press releases over the last few months. -Fnlayson 20:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hull loss comment

Need a cite for the hull loss comment:

As of July 2007, the Boeing 777 is the only major airliner never to have suffered a hull loss accident.

Pretty sure the Boeing 717 has never suffered a hull loss accident either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.11 (talk • contribs)

  • That's seems right on the 717 and probably others too. I reworded statement to remove the 'only' claim. -Fnlayson 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Some might have been considering the 717 as a part of the extended DC-9/MD-80/90 family, of which there have been hull losses. THe 777 is a wholly new design, while the 717 is not. - BillCJ 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • PS - these were not lost due to navigational error! :) - BillCJ 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair point on 717. But the statement is also covering all major airliners. I hate those navigational lost ones.. :) -Fnlayson 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

THE 717 wasnt a major airliner because only around 120 where made. Ontop of it it was based off of a DC9 /md80/MD90 all really the same plane. which had several accidents. The 717 is to the DC9 what the MD11 is to the DC10 its just an improvement. In fact they are still building the DC9 in china —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Canada no longer 777F launch customer

Air Canada is no longer getting the 777F it originally agreed to. I believe it converted those orders to passenger versions. I'm having trouble finding a link stating it though, but its true. If someone could find one, it would be great. 142.161.177.186 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

KC-777

This was/is a proposed tanker version of the 777. See Boeing's Nov. 2006 "Ready to Fill 'er Up", article and KC-767 & KC-777 image Boeing went with the KC-767 for the USAF's KC-X competition, but may use the 777 for later competitions (KC-Y, Z, etc) depending on requirements. -Fnlayson 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

abbreviation for nautical mile

Abbreviations in use for the nautical mile include M, nmi, nm and NM. I recently changed occurrences of nm on this page (along with general edits linking units to their definitions) to nmi to avoid confusion with the SI symbol for the nanometre. Following a recent discussion on the B-2 Spirit talk page I now think that NM may have been a better choice. So, I now propose converting from nmi to NM on this page. Any thoughts? Thunderbird2 18:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore/Emirates

Let's just leave the infobox image on Singapore Airlines until Emirates becomes the largest customer, okay?--Father Goose 17:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(Not addressed to Father Goose, as I believe you're trying to help solve this problem) Ideally, the Infobox image/Lead image should be the best available image of the aircraft. It's usually an in-flight image, including take-off or landing shot, and one that shows the aircrft from an angle that gives a good overall view. What airline livery the image is is should have NOTHING to do with what image is displayed, other than how attractive the livery is, of course. - BillCJ 17:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think going by the better image would be preferable to who has the most. I think the Emirates is a better view (in-flight, angle), but the Singapore one is better quality. Overall, I'd raet them equal. -Fnlayson 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's about my opinion of the photos as well. So for me "biggest customer" is a reasonable tie-breaker. Separately it appears to me that the editor favoring the Emirates picture favors it on the basis of the airline, not the photo, which makes me inclined to disfavor it on an WP:NPOV basis. But if/when Emirates becomes the largest customer, I would support the switch, assuming the Emirates photo is as good as any other we have available.--Father Goose 19:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Changing "American" in the introduction?

The 777 has significant foreign content. Should the introduction be changed to remove the word American but insert that final assembly of the aircraft is in the United States? Archtransit 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dont think it should be changed, the aircraft is still American - a lot of aircraft have large bits made in different countries but in the case of the United States it is where it was designed, were it is finally built and flown from and in legal terms it is a product of the United States. MilborneOne 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It should keep American. Its design and its final assembly is all Done in the USA. suggesting its not an american plane is wrong since with that frame of mind Most Chinese cars could be considered American since we supply china with most of its raw steel /stevefazek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.127.19 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The description "American" is correct, but not important enough that it needs to be mentioned in the first sentance of the article. I think the placement of the word is awkward. Removing the word detracts nothing from the article. 121.44.11.237 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree it is important to tell the reader the country of origin of the subject, fairly standard in aircraft articles to describe the country of origin in the intro sentence. It is simple one word description the subject is an American airliner otherwise you end up with awkard statements like designed and built in the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not saying that the fact is unimportant, but "long-range", "wide-body" and "twin-engine" actually tell you something about what the aircraft is like. My point is that "American" is of absolutely no use in describing the aircraft, and from that perspective, in a short summary at the introduction of the article, it is awkward. 121.44.11.237 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Have to agree to disagree - I dont agree that American is absolutely no use as it describes exactly the country of origin of the aircraft with the minimum of words. Still dont understand why it awkward you could use the same argument for twin-engined long-range and wide-body. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Sud Aviation Caravelle page doesn't state that it's a French product until the second clause of the Lead sentence, while the de Havilland Comet page doesn't state that it's British until the second clause of the second sentence. I think including "American" in a part of the paragraph like that would improve the flow. Even if one thinks the flow is OK now, I think these pages show that it could be improved for the better. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Dont disagree with your point BillCJ I think the multiple descriptors (wide-body, twin-engine airliner) make the first sentence lumpy to read with or without the American. Anybody want to try to redo the first few sentences to make it flow better! MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.158.38 (talk • contribs)

More than 93% of world population cares none about anglo-saxon units of measurement. In fact, all yankee and briton units ARE now officially just derivates of the metric units (SI) per decree of their own governments! Wikipedia should be all SI and put there some customary units in brackets only where it is really needed. Alternatively you could spell out the plane's fuel economy in hogheads to the furlong! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So? Note talk pages are for improving article, not forum discussions. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nautical miles are the standard for aerospace, as pointed out. Our source data is therefore in nautical miles and should be primary. ericg ✈ 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Heathrow Incident

Just wrecked one from China on London touchdown, luckily no deaths, but hull is write-off with wheels, engines littered all around. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I read only 12 minor and 1 serious injured in the official report, are you sure about 17 minor injured? and "collapsed" for the undercarriadge is a little bit understated, isn't ?Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The text is referenced. So check references 52 and 53 54 and 55. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fnlayson, in both documents there are 1 serious and 12 minor injured. No document states 1+17. This is why I'm asking. For the landing gear: " the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root." or " Part of the main landing gear was torn off and another part was jammed up into the wing. " For me this is a litle more than "collapsed", don't you think?. Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep, you're right. I missed where you got that from the report. The text there has changed a lot since the 17th. A BBC reference stated the 17. The landing gear collapsed on first contact then separated on the roll. Fixed now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks! Cirrocumulus (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure, thanks for point out the errors. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference 58 hyperlink is now broken. --Dwlegg (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Updated linked. Good catch. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne incident

I am fairly certain from media reports at the time, that the engine explosion incident with a 777 on the 24th August 2004, involved an Emirates aircraft, NOT Singapore airlines.

Any confirmation of this from somebody? Evansgd 19th January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansgd (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're right, the the ATSB make a mistake in there report in calling it a Singapore-regitered aircraft, or else Emirates registered that 777 in Singapore. This article backs up the Singapore airlines' claim. - BillCJ (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne airport seems to be bad for turbine blow-ups! The Singapore airlines 777 incident WAS correct on 24th August 2004. The aircraft had just taken off, and had to return after the engine caught fire. The incident I was thinking of actually happened in 2001, (30th January), when an Emirates 777 had to abort a take-off when an engine blew. Evansgd 19th January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "engine explosion" should not be used to describe this incident. The technical term for this is engine surge. With the cause being determined to be HPC abradable seal erosion (as referenced in the referring report) this further justifies the use of the term surge.Gt8917b (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BA 28 vs. 777

In the list of 777 incidents in this article, there are only two British Airways 777 incidents listed. However, the article about British Airways Flight 28 (17 JAN 2008) lists that incident as the 3rd BA incident involving the 777. Which is correct?

Srajan01 (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the United Kingdom AAIB reports you will find most of the quoted incidents are minor and not notable. Some range from sick co-pilots to injuries from turbulence. I would suggest leaving it as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. Only notable incidents and accidents are listed here. The section could easily double or triple in length due to minor incidents if they were included. (Making sure this is clear for future reference.) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

General Electric probes power loss on 3 recent 777 flights

flightglobal.com is reporting "An unusual rash of engine shutdowns since early December has temporarily stranded three of the normally reliable General Electric-powered Boeing 777-300ERs."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/05/221329/general-electric-probes-power-loss-on-3-recent-777-flights.html

M100 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sack of Fly-by pilot

  • (Changed heading - "Fly-by-Sack" sounds like an attempt to counter fly-by-wire or fly-by-light by the Smovairans! - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I didn't write this text, but some else did, and yet someone else removed it:

On 25 February 2008, it was confirmed that the chief Boeing-777 pilot for Cathay Pacific, Captain Ian Wilkinson, was sacked for performing an unauthorised low-level flypast at at Boeing Everett Factory at the start of a 30 January delivery flight of a Boeing 777-300ER[1].

I think it's notable ... can anyone try to incorporate it in the article. It doesn't have to be this one, but maybe in the Cathay Pacific article, perhaps? Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true, but I don't think it's notable. The video's on youtube - [8] :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 08:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It could have been any plane. The fact that it was a 777 is incidental, so it doesn't really add anything to the Boeing 777 article.--Father Goose (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I added it, I see it as notable to the 777 article because the pilot was the chief pilot of this type for his airline, the flyby occured with approval from the boeing tower, and the implication behind his sacking is that he did something dangerous that he was not qualified to risk-asses, in clear contradiction to the above two points. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
All of that is highly significant to Ian Wilkinson, and maybe of some significance to Cathay Pacific. If the story were extensively publicized -- which it wasn't: it didn't even hit the 24-hour news cycle -- then maybe it would have lent some notoriety to the 777.--Father Goose (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How many chief pilots have been sacked for doing a fly-by on picking up a new plane at Boeing field? And it certainly hit the news because that's how it came to my attention, in fact there is speculation as to whether he would have been sacked at all had this not made it to youtube. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's notable to the airline and the pilot articles, but not to the 777 - as stated, it could just have weel been any aircraft being picked up. Now if the plane had been damaged or had crashed during or as a result of the fly-by, or caused damage to a near-by aircraft in some way (like "blowing" a Cessna into the ground!), then that would have been of more significance to the 777. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This has been added to the Incidents and accidents section. Maybe it qualifies as a Incident to the FAA, but it is still is not a notable in any event. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly has the FAA characterized it as an incident? On Youtube?--Father Goose (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm advocating mentioning this, er, event in Cathay Pacific#Incidents and accidents. The fact that one of Cathay's lead pilots did it is not so incidental; the fact that he did it in a Boeing plane is more so.--Father Goose (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Pilot sacked after fly-by stunt BBC News
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_777/Archive_1&oldid=390329941"