[searchingheaven]

The Boeing 777 is a long range, twin aisle, twin-engine jet manufactured by Boeing. Often referred to as the “Triple Seven”, it was the world’s first commercial aircraft entirely designed by computer. Its distinguishing features include enormous engines, a six-wheel landing gear and a circular fuselage cross section, along with a blade like tail cone.

It was introduced in 1994, and has since been highly successful, bagging a total of 1590 orders. However, this will be replaced by the 777X by around 2019-2020, which will compete with the new Airbus A350-1000. This is a pilot's review of the Boeing 777, specifically the 777-300ER model.

Note: The 777 is directly comparable only to the Airbus A330/A340. But it's extremely long range and high payload has allowed operators to replace the B747 and A380 routes with the B777, having multiple flights to a destination on the same day instead of one. Hence, you might find comparisons to the A380/B747 as well.

What you'll like:

• A very well rounded aircraft, having comparable range and comfort to the A380 and the 747, but with 2 less engines.
• Filled upto the brim with high technology. Arguably, the first Fly-by-wire aircraft from the Boeing stable.
• ETOPS 330 certified, meaning that it can fly for 330 mins on just one engine.
• Available in 5 variants, seating 301-368 people in a 3 class configuration.
• Range of 9469 kms to 16316 kms depending on variant, a range that is almost just as good as the Boeing 747's. Allows for flexibility in operating routes.
• Withstands turbulence better than the Airbus 330/340 because of rigid and sturdier wings.
• Has lower fuel cost/seat/mile compared to its direct competitor, the Airbus A330(for 777-200) and the A340-600(competitor to 777-300ER).
• Has folding wingtips as options, to help accommodate the 777 in smaller airports. But I have only heard of some cargo operators purchasing this option.

What you won't:

• The big one: It has killed the Jumbo Jet, the iconic 747.
• Airbus is providing higher discounts of 58% on their A330 range of products compared to the 52% provided by Boeing, which combined with the lower list price for the A330 results in a substantially lower cost.
• It's old now and will be replaced by the 777X, which will be twin engined but with capacity and range like the 747.
• Not as quiet as the A380.
• Air quality, for some reason, is better on the A380.

[searchingheaven]

This review is going to consist of the following sections. Feel free to jump around as and when needed.

1. Introduction
2. Design, development and production
3. Engines and basic technical specifications
4. Introduction to the cockpit and layout
5. Autopilot Flight Director System
6. Passenger's view of the 777
7. Safety Record & Accidents
8. Comparison with other aircrafts
9. How does the future look for the 777?
10. Disclaimers & Sources

While reviewing, I have taken care to ensure that technical terms have been properly explained. Even so, if you do not understand any term/acronym etc, please feel free to ask. My fellow pilots and I will try to answer questions as & when possible. To Jeroen, RVD and ifly, I am gonna need your help with this.

NOTE: Click any picture to open a larger higher-resolution version in a new window.

[searchingheaven]

Design, development, production and entry into service

The rivalry between Airbus and Boeing has been going on for many years now, and is seen by some as one of the most engaging and interesting duopolies out there in any industry. Back in the 1980’s, Airbus had weakened Boeing's share substantially. In response, Boeing tried developing a bigger & stretched version of the 767. But nobody was interested. Also troubling were the trade tensions between the United States and the European Union surrounding the subsidized entry of the A-300 in the early 1970s. The rivalry intensified considerably after Airbus introduced the narrow-body A320. By 1989, Boeing knew that a completely new aircraft was the only way out. And so the 777 was born.

However, there was a problem. Boeing was running behind the competition. McDonnell-Douglas was already producing its MD-11 and Airbus was working on the A330/A340 family. The A330 had two engines, but the long-range A340 had four engines, which was the standard on transatlantic flights. Also important to note is the fact that the FAA had placed stringent restrictions on how far two engine aircrafts could fly from an airport where it could land if one engine failed. So it was very important for Boeing to ensure that the first 777 would have ETOPS certification to fly transatlantic as soon as it entered service. Four-engine aircrafts cost more to maintain than twin-jets, so that certification gave the 777 an edge over the comparably sized quad-jet A340 and the tri-jet MD-11.

Design collaboration
A big difference between B777 and other aircrafts produced before was that Boeing had called United and other operators to the drawing table, as well as people from Boeing's production teams. It was the first time that Boeing had involved the customers themselves in the design process. At the first group meeting in January 1990, a survey was distributed to the airlines, asking what each wanted in the design. Boeing and the airlines finally decided upon a basic design configuration: a cabin cross-section close to the 747's, capacity up to 325 passengers, flexible interiors, a glass cockpit, fly-by-wire controls, and 10 percent better seat-mile costs than the A330 and MD-11. The 777 was Boeing's first fly-by-wire airplane and used more composite material — about 12 percent of the plane — than any previous jetliner.

The taste of success
Even in the 90's, the 777 wasn't a very revolutionary airliner. Instead, it was the versatility and the reliability that took the 777 to where it is today. Also a very important factor that amplified the success of the 777 was the lack of direct competition. By 1995, McDonnell-Douglas' MD-11 had flopped. It hadn't lived up to what the company had promised to customers. Airbus stuck with its four-engine A340, but it was a losing battle. The program ended production in 2012. The company's smaller A330 has done well, booking almost as many orders as the 777. However, that plane is closer in size to Boeing's 767. Two 777 variants helped cement its lead in the twin-jet market. Boeing introduced the 777-200ER — or extended range — in 1997. That plane led the program in orders until it was superseded by the 777-300ER, which was first delivered in 2004.

[searchingheaven]

Basic technical details
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Dimensions
  When Boeing first started development work on the 777, it was thought that the very aerodynamic fuselage of the 767 should be the starting point. Some of the airlines, especially the Japanese and other Asia carriers pushed for a wide body similar to the 747. They won and the 777 was designed within 4 inches of the 747 width. The 777 is the first Boeing jet airliner to have a completely circular fuselage. The engines on the 777, especially the GE90 on the 300 model are gigantic. The front fan alone is 10 ft. 4in. wide and together with the fan casing and the engine nacelle, these engines and the typical looking wide body twin layout tends to make the 777 look smaller than it is especially from a distance. Even so, the 777 is only slightly smaller than the 747. Dimensions and size comparisons with the 747 are shown below.
  
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Weight & Payload summary
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Engines The part we all love to discuss.
  
  GE90-115B
  This monster of an engine delivers 115,300 lbf of thrust & powers the longer-range Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter aircraft. Measuring 216 inches long and 135 inches wide with a 128-inch-diameter fan, the -115B weighs a stout 8340 kgs. Surprisingly, despite the -115B's size, it is also the most efficient wide-body engine in service today. It utilizes a 10-stage air compressor, driven by the engine's two-stage turbine to generate a 23:1 pressure ratio turbocharger. The whole unit is wider than the fuselage of the 707, 727, 737 and 757 narrow bodied airliners.
  
  GE90-94B
  Rated at 94,000 lbs. of thrust, the GE90-94B engine powers the Boeing 777-200 and 777-300 aircraft.
  
  Figure 1: The GE90-115B on an Emirates 777-300ER. And yes, the 115B is wider in diameter than the fuselage of a 737.
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Air Conditioning systems
  The air conditioning system supplies conditioned bleed air* and recirculated cabin air at a controlled temperature throughout the airplane. The system supplies conditioned air to the flight deck shoulder heaters for the pilots. It also supplies ventilation for the passenger cabin lavatories, galleys, individual passenger seat gaspers & the overhead crew rest compartments. Pack control, zone temperature control, cabin air recirculation, fault detection, and overheat protection are all automatic. Backup system control modes operate automatically in the event of system failures. The airplane is divided into seven temperature zones: the flight deck and six passenger cabin zones.
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Communication
  
  The communication systems include:
  
  • Cockpit voice recorder system
  The cockpit voice recorder records any transmitted or received flight deck audio as selected on the audio control panels. It also records flight deck area conversations using an area microphone.
  
  • Radio communication system
  The normal HF & VHF radios for ATC comms.
  
  • SELCAL system
  The SELCAL system monitors the three VHF radios and the two HF radios. When the system receives a call from a ground station, the crew is alerted through the communication crew alerting system. The use of SELCAL allows an aircraft crew to be notified of incoming communications even when the aircraft's radio has been muted.
  
  • SATCOM system
  The SATCOM system provides both data and voice communications. The system is managed by the satellite data unit. Flight deck voice calls are controlled using the CDUs and audio control panels. The SATCOM control pages are displayed by selecting SAT on the FMC menu page. Directories of airline-defined numbers are selectable or numbers may be manually entered if function is enabled by the operator.
  
  • Communication Crew Alerting System
  The communication crew alerting system provides aural(chimes) and visual alerts for normal operations requiring crew awareness that may require crew action.
  
  • Interphone communication system
  The interphone communication system includes the flight interphone, service interphone, and PA systems are normally operated through the audio control panel.
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Electricals
  
  The electrical system generates and distributes AC and DC power to other airplane systems, and is comprised of the main AC power, backup power, DC power, standby power, and flight controls power. System operation is automatic. Electrical faults are automatically detected and isolated.
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Fuel
  
  The fuel system supplies fuel to the engines and the APU. The fuel is contained in a center tank, and left and right main tanks. Fuel quantity is measured by sensors in each tank. Total fuel quantity is displayed on the primary EICAS display. Tank quantities and total fuel quantity are
  displayed on the FUEL synoptic display, which can be selected by pressing FUEL button on the right side of the MCP. Each fuel tank contains two AC–powered fuel pumps. A single pump can supply sufficient fuel to operate one engine under all conditions.
  
  An example of fuel required for the 777-300ER for Dubai to LAX.
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Hydraulics
  
  The airplane has three independent hydraulic systems: left, right, and center. The hydraulic systems power the flight controls, slats, flaps, landing gear, brakes, nose wheel steering, & the thrust reversers. Flight control system components are distributed so that any one hydraulic system can provide adequate airplane controllability. Hydraulic fluid is supplied to each hydraulic pump from the associated system reservoir. The reservoirs are pressurized by the bleed air system.
  
  
  
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• Landing gear
  
  The 777 has two main landing gear and a single nose gear. The nose gear is a conventional steerable two–wheel unit. Each main gear has six wheels in tandem pairs. To improve turning radius, the aft axle of each main gear is steerable. Hydraulic power for retraction, extension, and steering is supplied by the center hydraulic system. An alternate extension system is also provided.
  
  
  
  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Bleed Air : Bleed air produced by gas turbine engines is compressed air that is taken from the compressor stage of those engines, which is upstream of the fuel-burning sections.

[searchingheaven]

Introduction to the cockpit and layout

This is the cockpit of the Boeing 777.


The layout of the cockpit is explained in the image below.


The two main displays in front of the pilot are the PFD (primary flight display; left) and ND (navigational display; right). The pilot and copilot each have a set, and there is a pair of shared DUs (display units) in the center (arranged top-and-bottom).

The information shown on the PFD is explained in the picture below.


The Boeing 777 has a ground maneuvering camera system (GMCS). It provides pilots with real-time views of the landing gear, ground conditions and proximity to the pavement edge during taxi maneuvers using cameras mounted behind the nose gear and in both leading edges of the horizontal stabilizer. The images appear on a three-way, split screen, flight deck video display.



The MFD(Multifunction display) in the Boeing 777 allows us to request data using SATCOM. This data is directly displayed onto the MFD and can also be printed on paper using a small printer.


The other use of the MFD is for ECHKL i.e the electronic checklist. This is one thing that I really like on the 777. No more hassles of paper etc. Also, the software automatically checks off items which have been completed. For e.g if I have already pulled up the gear and then open the after takeoff checklist, the GEAR UP item will already be ticked. Here it is in action. Sorry for the really bad quality of pictures here.


The 757 was infamous for having 31 dimmer switches to lower the lights in the cockpit. On the 777, everything is well thought out, including the single knob to reduce the cockpit lighting level. The MASTER BRIGHT switch also visible.


Shown here are the switches for the heater and display brightness adjustment.

[searchingheaven]

The Autopilot/AFDS of the 777 is a delight to use and deserves an exclusive post. I will be going into the details here, so please feel free to ask questions.

Autopilot Flight Director System

The AFDS consists of three autopilot flight director computers (AFDCs) and the Mode control Panel. The MCP provides control of the autopilot, flight director, altitude alert, and autothrottle systems. The MCP is used to select and activate AFDS modes, and establish altitudes, speeds, and climb/descent profiles.

The MCP looks like this.


Don't get confused by looking at it. Yes, there are a lot of buttons. But I will explain the function of each & every one below.

• LNAV
  As the name suggests, LNAV provides lateral guidance to the aircraft. It's all transparent to the pilot, as he enters his route as specified in the clearance and flight plan into the FMS (Flight Management System). The route shows up as a magenta line on the lower flight display, and as long as the autopilot is engaged in the LNAV mode, it will follow that line across the ground. LNAV however does not tell the plane what altitude to fly.
• TRK HOLD/SEL & HDG HOLD/SEL
  HOLD button will cause the plane to keep it’s heading (or track). Pressing SEL allows you to select the heading – the plane will turn to the heading dialed on the screen above. The important difference between HOLD and SEL is in how the plane behaves when heading selector knob is being turned. In HOLD mode – it will hold your heading. In SEL mode – it will turn as you turn the knob.
• LOC
  lateral mode used for flying localizer and ILS approaches.
  
• VNAV
  Vertical navigation. Similar to the LNAV – it’s fully automated mode that follows altitude profile programmed in FMC. Additionally – it takes over the autothrottle and controls your speed. VNAV is activated at 400 ft over terrain (or more). On the ground, it's only armed. When you are in VNAV – the AP will climb and descent according to altitudes programmed in FMC but you have to “allow” for the climb or descent by setting the altitude on MCP and pushing the selector button.
• FLCH
  Flight level change. As the name suggests – vertical mode allowing for changes in altitude while keeping the speed of the aircraft constant at the set value. This is the most used mode while adjusting altitude during cruise.
• VS/FPA
  Vertical speed modes. The plane will keep selected vertical speed or flight path angle.
• Altitude Hold
  Press it and the plane will hold it’s current altitude. Really simple.
• APP
  APP – activates LOC as lateral mode and intercepts glide slope (G/S) of ILS approach.

This is a photo of the FMC(Flight Management computer). This is the brain of the aircraft and tells the autopilot where to go, how to go, how fast to go, and what altitude to go at. When LNAV and VNAV are active, the FMC provides the data to the AFDS. Note that the MCP is the higher authority in case of a conflict. For eg. at DTY waypoint, the forecasted altitude is FL195. But let's say that ATC has cleared you only upto 15000 ft. So you will enter 15000 ft into the altitude window on the MCP. The 777 CAN NOT and WILL NOT cross 15000 ft(i.e the altitude dialled in the MCP).



This is the EFIS(electronic flight instrument system) control panel. It is also visible at the extreme left of the MCP photo. In simple terms, the controls on this panel select display range and mode (for example, map or compass rose) and enter data (such as selected heading). It also has 2 additional knobs. The left one sets the minimums altitude(height) callout. This is the height at which the we must have adequate visual reference to the landing environment (i.e. approach or runway lighting) to decide whether to continue landing; or go around. The right one sets the barometric pressure for the baro altimeter. The buttons at the bottom are for displaying/hiding specific details for eg. Airports/Weather/Terrain/Stations/Position etc.



The Autopilot has to control three parameters to fly the plane. Its speed(throttle), its bank angle & its pitch. The roll(bank angle) is controlled by LNAV or HDG/TRK Hold/Select or LOC mode. The pitch is controlled using VNAV, FLCH, V/S, HOLD, or APP mode.

The autothrottle modes can be any of the following

• THR – The autothrottle applies thrust to maintain the vertical speed required by the pitch mode.
• THR REF – Thrust is set to the selected thrust limit displayed on EICAS.
• IDLE – Displayed while the autothrottle moves the thrust levers to idle; IDLE mode is followed by HOLD mode.
• HOLD – The thrust lever autothrottle servos are inhibited. The pilot can set the thrust levers manually.
• SPD – The autothrottle maintains the selected speed displayed on the PFD. Speed can be set by the MCP IAS/MACH selector or by the FMC, as shown on the FMC. The autothrottle will not exceed the operating speed limits or the thrust limits displayed on the EICAS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two important points:

What does armed/active mean?

When the mode is armed – it will activate automatically when certain conditions are met. Usually when the plane is in such position that the armed mode can take over. Armed mode is indicated by white text on primary flight display. Active mode is indicated by green text.

This figure illustrates the difference between armed & active.


Difference between heading and Track

Heading is where the nose of the aircraft points, while track is the ACTUAL path traveled over ground - just like a set of tracks I would leave behind in the snow or sand, relative to North.

[searchingheaven]

Passenger's view of the 777

Now, I haven't travelled as a passenger in a 777 for an extended period of time. So I am not going to review this section personally. Keep in mind also that the experience, even on the same aircraft, can differ wildly by operator.

The general seat configurations are 3-4-3 in the economy/coach class, 2-3-2 in business and 2-2 in first class. From a global perspective, the 10-abreast cabin in economy class does appear to be a growing trend, especially among European and Middle Eastern carriers. To my surprise, Qatar Airways has also started to introduce the 10-abreast cabin. The legroom varies from operator to operator, from airplane to airplane and even from seat to seat on the same airplane. They range from 31 to 34 inches in the coach or economy section. On American Airlines Boeing 777 planes crossing the Atlantic, most of the cabin seat have 34 inches of legroom but the seat in the middle cabin have only 33 inches. However, British Airways and Continental have a leg room of 31 inches. Delta, 31-33 inches and United Airlines with 31-32 inches.

Safety Record & Incidents

The 777 is one of the safest airplanes in the world. It has had a total of 5 hull loss crashes. And at least two of those three fatal crashes had nothing to do with the airplane itself.

• MS667: Fire due to electrical fault or short circuit resulted in electrical heating of flexible hoses in the flight crew oxygen system. 0 fatalities.
  
• BAW38: Ice crystals from the fuel system clogging the fuel-oil heat exchanger. 0 fatalities. Heat exchanger was redesigned.
  
• Asiana 214: Attributed by a National Transportation Safety Board investigation to poor airmanship by the crew. 3 fatalities.
  
• MH17: The Malaysia Airlines MH17 shootdown was an act of war unrelated to the plane’s performance. 298 fatalities.
  
• MH370: The disappearance of MH370 in March with 239 people, is still unresolved, but may have been due to pilot suicide or hijacking. The possibility of a malfunction has not been ruled out, which would make it the only 777 fatal accident caused directly by a fault with the airplane.

[searchingheaven]

Comparison with other aircrafts & the future for Boeing 777

If the 777 story tells us anything, it's that the guy with the biggest twin jet wins. The 777's range, reliability and fuel efficiency have made it a popular choice for international routes. But the Boeing 777-300ER and 200LR are now 20 years old and will have to be replaced by the 777X by 2020.

For now, the A350-1000 is head-to-head with the 777-300ER, as the following picture shows. [Last line is cost/seat/mile]. The problem however is that the A350-1000 will be delivered by 2020, by which time the 777X will be here. Then, the A350-1000 will compete with the 777X and will find it very difficult to hold its own.



There is another problem as well. For the 777X, Boeing had to meet the specifications of the big gulf carriers. These carriers needed a plane with a big wing and very powerful engines in order to take off fully loaded during the summer. By adhering to these criteria, Boeing secured 235 orders for the 777X from these three carriers, mainly for the larger 777-9 variant. However, the 777X's big wing and powerful engines add weight, which hurts its fuel efficiency on shorter flights.

Airbus has an edge with fuel efficiency since it is lighter, but it loses out in capacity to the 777-9X. If Airbus optimizes a stretched A350 for the European carriers, it will get the capacity but sacrifice the range. The problem is that most airlines want to simplify their fleets. The A350-8000(stretched version of A350-1000 having same capacity as the 777X). would be able to cover most long-haul airline routes, but most airlines do operate some flights beyond its likely range. If they need the 777-9's range for some routes, they might be willing to sacrifice some fuel efficiency rather than buying two planes in the same size segment.

777/A350 vs the double deckers

If there is one thing that these twin jets have surely done, it's sounding the death knell of the quad-jets. The 747 was the queen of the skies for a very long time. As the world's first wide-body airliner, the Boeing 747 went on to change not only aviation but the entire tourism industry. But today, the industry has moved toward twin-engine planes such as the Boeing 777 and the Airbus A330. The 747 is essentially a dead man walking at this point. There comes a time when you have to decide between turning the page & closing the book. For the 747, if not for the A380, the time has probably come. Sad, though. It was the first aircraft that I really loved from the bottom my heart.

The A380 has been a huge disappointment for Airbus so far. Like Boeing bet on the 747 in the 1970's, Airbus bet hugely on one aircraft, i.e the A380 - and lost. Sales, though initially strong, have slowed down in recent years. So far this year, Airbus has sold a grand total of zero A380s. And in spite of denials from the European manufacturer's top brass, speculation continues to mount about whether it can continue to produce this giant of the skies.

The following table from Leeham Co., an aviation consultancy shows how the 7779X fares against the big birds. And no prizes for guessing who comes out smiling.

[searchingheaven]

DISCLAIMER: The information in this review is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights. While every caution has been taken to provide my readers with most accurate information and honest analysis, please use your discretion before taking any decisions based on the information in this review. This review does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my employer. I do not own any stocks in any of the companies mentioned above and do not intend to influence your decisions. It is solely my opinion. Feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I’m completely nuts.

IMAGE SOURCES: Most of the images are my own. The rest of the shots(for eg. the introductory one) are taken from the Boeing company. Any other source than that is mentioned explicitly. Image have been edited wherever required to hide my operator name or the aircraft registration number.

[GTO]

Thread moved out from the Assembly Line! Rating review a full 5 stars

[turbospooler]

Thanks searchingheaven for the informative post. Also, more thanks for the format of the thread (separate posts for each section without overloading each section).
To summarize, Boeing's acquisition cost is higher compared to Airbus but the running costs are much lower.
The TCO approach means Boeing will win consistently.
Surprised to see this as Indian aerospace has so many Airbus aircrafts. Maybe, in the single aisle segment, Airbus is more economical. Also, as India has an ecosystem of Airbus, the MRO network is more established leading to the preference to Airbus.

[phoenixash]

Have been an ardent fan of the 777-300ER ever since my first flight on one, aboard Singapore Airlines' flight to Singapore from Mumbai. This is the Rolls Royce (or Bentley if you prefer that) of airplanes, having killed the A340 family (which Airbus discontinued post the rise in oil prices in 2008/09) and also Boeing's own B747.

While the A380 holds the distinction for the largest plane, the 777 has the most powerful engines ever built. I look forward to flights on the 777, and have actually booked tickets on airlines which fly this over the 747 / A330 given the superior comfort levels.

Singapore Airlines has arguably the most comfortable configurations, with a 3-3-3 set-up in Economy for it's trans-Atlantic flights (to San Francisco) which leads to an extremely comfortable cabin with good legroom and seat width. Was also lucky enough to fly on SQ's business product from Singapore - San Francisco, with a 1-2-1 set-up. No other airline has such a spacious and lavish layout.

My most recent flight was aboard Turkish Airlines brand new 777-300ER to Istanbul, which was also excellent. I'm not a fan of Emirates' cattle-class layout of 3-4-3 in economy which is pretty tight seating and constant elbow-clashing with your neighbour.

Can't wait to see what Boeing does with the 777X! I also flew Air India's 787-900 a few months back, which is also an excellent product and due to the carbon fibre fuselage, the airline is able to maintain higher humidity levels in the cabin which leads to less exhaustion after a long flight.

[arvind71181]

Wow what a treasure trove of information!! Finished the thread completely. Great attention to detail sir. Finally I know (somewhat) what all those buttons do in the cockpit.

[phoenixash]

Originally Posted by turbospooler

Surprised to see this as Indian aerospace has so many Airbus aircrafts. Maybe, in the single aisle segment, Airbus is more economical. Also, as India has an ecosystem of Airbus, the MRO network is more established leading to the preference to Airbus.

I think in the single aisle segment, the A320 (especially the new generation A320neo) is much more efficient than the Boeing 737 family. If memory serves me right, I believe the A320 family can also seat more passengers in the A321 variant than the 737-900 can. Airbus also came out with the A320neo much before Boeing introduced its 737NG, capturing the market away from Boeing. It's still a closely fought battle though.

In the Indian context, I believe Jet's fleet is majority 737s, which Indigo exclusively flies the A320. Air India is partial to the Airbus family as well.

[sai_ace]

I have done only one international travel and that had me travelling from BLR to LHR in a BA 747 and then from LHR to ATL in a BA777.

While I loved the 747 (who wouldnt?) I was impressed by the 777 as a economy passenger. Starting with the 3-4-3 config vs the 3-3-3. And also the interiors were so much better, not just in age but in design. Later came back and read up all about the 777. That engine is just so impressive!

Thank you for such an informative post!

[speedguy]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further. We request you to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[RJ411]

Brilliant article

Have travelled in this many times but never bothered to learn about it. I think the glamour around A380 is definitely hiding the practicality of this B777's.

If I am not wrong in India we can land A380 only in Delhi and not in other airports. This might also work in favour of B777.

[NiInJa]

Wow, the time couldn't have been so perfect for a aeroplane review on team-bhp. My wife is travelling today and its going to be one Boeing 777.

I haven't had the opportunity to travel in a 777 so far, but I like Boeing's designs as they are less bulbous and sharp nosed compared to Airbus.

Haven't read the whole post since I'm in office, will do it when at home and wife not around

[Tanveer_2558]

Amazing article there, Loved every bit of it, Mighty impressed how technology has evolved with Aircrafts. Always wondered why are there hundred's of button's in the cockpit, Got to know what some of them do.

Thanks again for such an amazing post, I am going to read it all over again in the night peacefully.

[Dieseltuned]

Originally Posted by RJ411

Brilliant article

Have travelled in this many times but never bothered to learn about it. I think the glamour around A380 is definitely hiding the practicality of this B777's.

If I am not wrong in India we can land A380 only in Delhi and not in other airports. This might also work in favour of B777.

SQ operates Mumbai Singapore service with an A380. also emurates is introducing an A380 on Mumbai-Dubai sector

Regards
Dieseltuned

[vgsr]

Thank you for very informative post. Have traveled on all these aircrafts except for a 380. Hopefully it will happen soon as I am booked on one in August.
I have found the leg space in the 777 and the 340s to be very comfortable even on long flights. 340s are a tad better, in the seat pitch, I feel.
I find that the seats in the rearmost part f the aircraft are much noisier than those even slightly ahead. Can you explain why ? Is that the reason the the business and the first class are towards the front?

[vgsr]

Originally Posted by RJ411

Brilliant article

Have travelled in this many times but never bothered to learn about it. I think the glamour around A380 is definitely hiding the practicality of this B777's.

If I am not wrong in India we can land A380 only in Delhi and not in other airports. This might also work in favour of B777.

No. Mumbai is set to recieve the first Dubai Mumbai flight by Emirates . I believe Bangalore may follow soon .

[AkMar]

First of all, wonderful thread. Rating a fully deserved 5 stars!

Originally Posted by vgsr

No. Mumbai is set to recieve the first Dubai Mumbai flight by Emirates . I believe Bangalore may follow soon .

Mumbai already has A380 by Emirates & Singapore airlines since some time. Abu Dhabi based Etihad started A380 ops a couple of weeks ago.

[quickdraw]

Before I say anything searchingheaven thank you for starting this thread. There are many of us who are aviation enthusiasts but for some stupid reason its hard to be a plane lover in India. No special viewing areas near airports and because of the stringent rules or understanding by authorities the culture will not flourish and mostly people enjoy it alone.

I've been a Boeing lover for a while, I have loads of their merchandise as-well. And always am happier to travel in Boeing v/s Airbuses. Because of my love for airplanes I believe I have more knowledge on aircraft than regular people and have had lovely interactions with Pilots. I always compliment smooth landings on the way out. Heck I have a stupid ritual too, when stepping onboard any aircraft I try and touch the airframe and acquaint myself. Even though I'm a mere passenger.

I have a bunch of silly questions for you which I would like to get a Pilot's perspective on.

• Why are the cockpit systems proprietary and not standardised? Won't this help in the longer run?
• Why use hydraulic systems? Won't electric w/ redunancy be easier?
• Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?
• As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuative. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.
• Is Boeing's strategy with the dreamliner working? (For others Airbus launched A380 which carries a large amount of people to hubs who take flights from there to destination vs Boeing who has a mid size plane which takes people directly to destinations).
• What do you love about Boeing planes vs Airbus?
• Why are pilots against recording everything in the cockpit? Most of the unexplained crashes will only remain theories because of absence of this.
• If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Ok this is enough for now, don't want to swamp you.

[govindremesh]

Wonderful post! I've been in love with the 777 since I took my first journey on an Emirates 777-300ER (and flew on it 7 times!)

Originally Posted by quickdraw

• Why are the cockpit systems proprietary and not standardised? Won't this help in the longer run?
• Why use hydraulic systems? Won't electric w/ redunancy be easier?
• Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?
• As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuative. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.
• Is Boeing's strategy with the dreamliner working? (For others Airbus launched A380 which carries a large amount of people to hubs who take flights from there to destination vs Boeing who has a mid size plane which takes people directly to destinations).
• What do you love about Boeing planes vs Airbus?
• Why are pilots against recording everything in the cockpit? Most of the unexplained crashes will only remain theories because of absence of this.
• If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Ok this is enough for now, don't want to swamp you.

I'm not a pilot, but as an aviation enthusiasts, let me try to answer those:

1.I believe it has to do with the fly by wire philosophy of Airbus vs Boeing . Airbus trusts the computer , Boeing the pilot. This is a very short and vague description and I'll leave it to the experts to clarify the same.

2. Boeing 787 uses electrical and bleedless systems

3 and 4: Experts to reply !

5: Yes, the airline industry is moving away from the hub and spoke theory to the point to point to point theory where they want to get people to their final destination without stopover. Less fatigue for the flyers!

6. I asked a pilot the same. It depends on personal preferences

7. FAA has started a progam of allowing airlines to install videocamera in the cockpit. It was voluntary when I last heard about it. I don't know the current status.

8. They do relay critical information. In Airbus, it's known as ACARS. That's how Air France first knew that their Flight 447 (A330) was in trouble before it crashed!

Typing from mobile, so please excuse mistakes !

Originally Posted by RJ411

If I am not wrong in India we can land A380 only in Delhi and not in other airports. This might also work in favour of B777.

Etihad recently started their A380 service to Mumbai I bet there are other airports in India capable of handling the A380.

http://www.etihad.com/en-us/about-us...vice-to-india/

[vw19d]

This is going to be one of the best threads on TBHP! Given my flair for airplanes, I'm sure of going to know a lot from this.

However, my personal favorite is the mammoth A380. Have flown SQ A380 to Melbourne a few times & love the upper deck economy seats. 2-3-2 config on such a spacious plane is damn convenient.

[sriramr9]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

The Autopilot has to control three parameters to fly the plane. Its speed(throttle), its bank angle & its pitch. The roll(bank angle) is controlled by LNAV or HDG/TRK Hold/Select or LOC mode. The pitch is controlled using VNAV, FLCH, V/S, HOLD, or APP mode.

In the event of a loss of ground speed, is there a way of over riding the above systems and still fly the plane manually without endangering the plane from stall.

Read that pitots were blocked in one A330 and the air france 447 inexperienced officers were unable to override and bring the air craft under control upon its auto pilot going into shutdown mode due to lack of ground speed,

If one has to avoid stall and fly manually what is the procedure, have you encountered pitot probe icing incidents in 777 how have the officers mitigated the problem and still flied without endangering the air craft/passengers?


Request to provide more insight on the make of the Attitude indicators if possible with screenshots of interior and how it works, is it full digital or a mix of both ?

[THE-U-]

Thanks for the posts. Very informative. The 3-4-3 seating in the economy class is one of the worst developments. I used to think the earlier 2-5-2 configuration was the worst, but the 3-4-3 is extremely uncomfortable. Thank heavens United switched to the 3-3-3 configuration. The 787s are much much better not only because of the 3-3-3 seating, but due to humidity control.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

• GE90-115B
  <snip> The whole unit is wider than the fuselage of the 707, 727, 737 and 757 narrow bodied airliners.

I am not sure this is quite accurate but they are comparable though. It seems fuselage dimensions of all of the above single aisle aircraft are a few inches or so wider (~144in) than the GE90-115B (135in).

[karan561]

Hey Fantastic content there, Thank you for sharing all this information with us

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

[*]Landing gear

The 777 has two main landing gear and a single nose gear. The nose gear is a conventional steerable two–wheel unit. Each main gear has six wheels in tandem pairs. To improve turning radius, the aft axle of each main gear is steerable. Hydraulic power for retraction, extension, and steering is supplied by the center hydraulic system. An alternate extension system is also provided.

I had a question regarding landing gear i.e. What tyres / brands are used ? Is it the regular Michelin, Good Year etc ? Or some other companies manufacture it ?

Have you faced a puncture /loss of air anytime ? If Yes then can the tyre be re-used after a puncture or is scrapped for a new one ?

Also are these tubeless, with tube or run flat type ?

Whats the size ?

Also do the pilots have an option to upsize ?

[RJ411]

Originally Posted by Dieseltuned

SQ operates Mumbai Singapore service with an A380. also emurates is introducing an A380 on Mumbai-Dubai sector

Regards
Dieseltuned

Originally Posted by vgsr

No. Mumbai is set to recieve the first Dubai Mumbai flight by Emirates . I believe Bangalore may follow soon .

Originally Posted by govindremesh

Etihad recently started their A380 service to Mumbai I bet there are other airports in India capable of handling the A380.

http://www.etihad.com/en-us/about-us...vice-to-india/

Thanks for updates. Good to know that we have the airports to handle those Jumbo's. I have traveled in one of those once, and have always liked it.

I live close to Heathrow here in London and I see a lot of them daily. Every time when I hear a flight would just pop the head up to see if its an A380.

The childhood curiosity never dies in certain aspects

[searchingheaven]

Originally Posted by vgsr

I find that the seats in the rearmost part f the aircraft are much noisier than those even slightly ahead. Can you explain why ? Is that the reason the the business and the first class are towards the front?

Engine noise is louder behind the engines, as you might expect. The 777 is one of the quieter planes and engine noise is not bad behind the wing. Even so, noise is higher at the back than at the front. Also, the sensation of severe turbulence is far more pronounced at the rear end of the aircraft than in cabins ahead of the wings. As for business/first being in the front of the aircraft, there are a variety of reasons.

• First In, First Out: They are given preference during boarding and deboarding.
  
• Quieter Environment: For reasons stated above, first class is quieter.
  
• Little Turbulence: Turbulence at the front of the plane is lower than the back.
• Seating Arrangement: First & business passengers feel that they should be in the front or on the upper deck (747 or A380), when available.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why use hydraulic systems? Won't electric w/ redundancy be easier?

The reason to use hydraulics is because they are able to transmit a very high pressure or force with a small volume of fluid (hydraulic oil). Hydraulic systems are very reliable, its fluid is virtually incompressible and is able to transmit high pressures. And it's economical.

For electrical systems, there are 3 major issues.

• Weight. An electric motor capable of raising a 4,000 pound main landing gear would be extremely heavy and you would need two.
  
• Speed/Reaction Time. All-electric actuators do not currently have the power density or speed needed to operate an aircraft’s flight surfaces effectively. If a pilot finds himself heading toward a thunderstorm, he expects a powerful and immediate response from the aircraft the moment he inputs a command.
  
• Efficiency: Electric is inefficient, lots of friction losses at each gear/ bearing stage <75%.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?

1. First off, a lot of those switches you see are circuit breakers. Electrical failures and troubleshooting have to be handled while still flying the plane. These circuit breaker isolate a specific subsystem in case it fails.
   
   
2. When you're in a aluminum tube at 35000 ft with 300 people as your responsibility, the last thing you want to do is rely on a computer having 100% control over ANYTHING. The cockpit has manual controls and redundant systems for almost all subsystems onboard. About 60% of the switches never need to be flipped, but you want to have absolute control over everything for any sort of "just in case" moment, because at 35,000 ft. you don't have any other options if something goes wrong. Redundant controls also increase the complexity but add to the safety.
   
   eg. A perfect example of this is the RAT(Ram Air Turbine). It is a small turbine that is connected to a hydraulic pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft and used as a power source. In case of the loss of both primary and auxiliary power sources the RAT will power vital systems (flight controls, linked hydraulics and also flight-critical instrumentation). On 5 flights till now, RAT has proved to be a savior, providing flight control when both engines have failed or power sources have failed.
   
   A 777-300ER landing with the RAT deployed.
   
   
   
3. The reason an aircraft's cockpit seems complicated is because there are a number of systems working at one time to keep an aircraft in flight safely while monitoring all the flight data. There are MANY systems working together and each system has its own set of switches and redundant backup systems with their own switches. It looks confusing and it can be when you're new to the field but once you start to learn systems readily used in an aircraft it all starts to make sense. You could probably put a blindfold on most pilot's eyes and they would start a 777 simply by the feel and engine sound.(Sound because the fuel cutoff switches have to be set to RUN at specific N1%).

Originally Posted by quickdraw

As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuitive. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.

As I said, it is because of your non familiarity with the aircraft systems. I am a pilot, and I find cockpits to be very well thought out and ergonomically designed. Everything that is important is there in front of your eyes at eye level(PFD + ND + MCP).

As a small example, my father works on a software called Android Studio or something like that. I find that software absolutely horrendous to even understand. For you guys, it probably is very easy to understand. It's just because of my non-familiarity with it.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Is Boeing's strategy with the dreamliner working? (For others Airbus launched A380 which carries a large amount of people to hubs who take flights from there to destination vs Boeing who has a mid size plane which takes people directly to destinations).

The 787 has seating for 242 passengers and a range of 7,850 nautical miles. The 787 takes less fuel, it flies higher and it's more efficient. That fuel efficiency, combined with the right number of seats, makes new routes profitable that weren't before. However, it would be a mistake to assume that the 787 was about enabling point-to-point long-haul flights. Rather, the A380 was a hub-to-hub tool, whereas the 787 was a hub-to-small-spoke tool. And at least for now, the A380 has lost the battle.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

What do you love about Boeing planes vs Airbus?

No comments. The only thing I can say is that both are very safe, versatile and comparable in terms of range, quality, speed and capacity. Both sides have their supporters and there is a lot of competition. Depending on who you ask, you will get a different answer as to who won these “wars”. Therefore, it’s hard to tell what airline actually provided the better service – with only very limited independent, un-sourced analysis providing any kind of legitimacy to the debate.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

Why are pilots against recording everything in the cockpit? Most of the unexplained crashes will only remain theories because of absence of this.

Privacy concerns, obviously. Technically, these can be accessed only after an accident and must be heard only by investigators. But those safeguards don't always hold up. In the past, recordings have leaked to the public. For airlines looking to monitor pilots, it's a tempting way to see what's going on in the cockpit. Also, 2 hrs of data prior to the crash is more than enough to determine the cause of the same and take corrective action.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Well, we don't access whatsapp at 35000 ft. , but we surely do relay important data from the aircraft to the ground using ACARS.

A sample ACARS transmission.

Originally Posted by sriramr9

In the event of a loss of ground speed, is there a way of over riding the above systems and still fly the plane manually without endangering the plane from stall. If one has to avoid stall and fly manually what is the procedure. Read that pitots were blocked in one A330 and the air france 447 inexperienced officers were unable to override and bring the air craft under control upon its auto pilot going into shutdown mode due to lack of ground speed. Have you encountered pitot probe icing incidents in 777 how have the officers mitigated the problem and still flied without endangering the aircraft/passengers?

Stall recovery

Stall recovery is something we practise regularly on our simulators. And at altitudes as low as 1500 ft. The key factor in recovery from a stall is regaining positive control of the aircraft by reducing the angle of attack. At the first indication of a stall, the wing angle of attack must be decreased to allow the wings to regain lift. Every aircraft in upright flight may require a different amount of forward pressure to regain lift. It should be noted that too much forward pressure could hinder recovery by imposing a negative load on the wing. The next step in recovering from a stall is to smoothly apply maximum allowable power to increase the airspeed and minimize the loss of altitude. As airspeed increases and the recovery is completed, power should be adjusted to return the aeroplane to the desired flight condition. Straight and level flight should then be established with full co-ordinated use of the controls. The airspeed indicator or tachometer, if installed, should never be allowed to reach their high-speed red lines at anytime during a practice stall.

Stall warning is considered to be a warning readily identifiable by the pilot, either initial buffet or artificial (stick shaker). During initial stages of stall, local airflow separation results in buffeting (initial buffet), giving natural warning of an approach to stall. At cruise Mach numbers, stick shaker activation occurs just after reaching initial buffet. When the speed decreases approximately half way through the amber band, the AIRSPEED LOW caution message appears. The autothrottle wakes up, automatically engages in the SPD mode and returns the airplane to minimum maneuvering speed. The airplane can be trimmed down to an airspeed approximately equal to the minimum maneuver speed. Below this airspeed, nose up trim is inhibited.

Unreliable Airspeed due to Pitot Heat loss

Unreliable airspeed indications can result from blocking or freezing of the pitot/static system or a severely damaged or missing radome. This could mean increasing indicated airspeed in climb, decreasing indicated airspeed in descent, or unpredictable indicated airspeed in cruise. Unreliable airspeed may cause noticeable effects in the normal speed stability of the airplane since the normal pitch control law uses indicated airspeed. If the indicated airspeed falls below 50 knots, the flight control system changes to the secondary mode, which does not depend on airspeed. The autothrottle system also uses indicated airspeed and should be turned off. When the abnormal airspeed is recognized, we consult the Flight With Unreliable Airspeed table in the manual for the correct attitude, thrust settings, and V/S for actual airplane gross weight and altitude. Ground speed information is available from the FMC and on the instrument displays. These indications can be used as a cross check. Many air traffic control radars can also measure ground speed.

PS: Read this article on the AF447. Link to Vanity Fair article on AF447

Originally Posted by sriramr9

Request to provide more insight on the make of the Attitude indicators if possible with screenshots of interior and how it works, is it full digital or a mix of both ?

I don't think I got your question properly. Do you want the internal working of the Attitude indicator or how it works in flight?

Originally Posted by THE-U-

I am not sure this is quite accurate but they are comparable though. It seems fuselage dimensions of all of the above single aisle aircraft are a few inches or so wider (~144in) than the GE90-115B (135in).

According to Boeing, the internal cabin diameter of the newer 737 models is 11 ft 7 in (3.53 m). GE-90-115B is 11 ft 3 in (3.43 m) in diameter. Add the fan casing and you will probably get the figures.

Originally Posted by karan561

I had a question regarding landing gear i.e. What tyres / brands are used ? Is it the regular Michelin, Good Year etc ? Or some other companies manufacture it ? Also are these tubeless, with tube or run flat type ?
:

Bridgestones for the model I fly on.

Specifications: 52 X 21 R 22, 36 PR

52 inches diameter.
21 inches width
R- Radial
22 rim diameter
Ply Rating 36
Speed Rating (MPH): 235
Rated Load Lbs. 44,500
Tire Weight Avg. Lbs. 156.0

My captain was telling me yesterday that Goodyear has won the bid for the 777x tires.

[carmayogi]

This is why Emirates, with 140 A380 orders, wants a new-engined A380. To be fair, if the big bird can get A320neo/A330neo upgrades, it will compete on seat cost and be justified for heavy trunk routes such as DXB-LHR, DXB-JFK or even BOM-JFK(EWR currently), where airport capacity constrains your number of flights. It's a truly fascinating battle.

I see the following thing happening: Airbus wins the A330 sized market, loses the 777 size market and wins the A380 market.

Further, there's news of a few A380 orders so it may not be dead yet.

I believe that these two airplane manufacturers need to be more flexible with their designs. It's sensible for the 747-8i to have 787 engines and similarly Airbus needs to have this flexibility to keep costs down and let their big bird survive.

In short - there is a market for the A380 still with no direct competition while the 777-X will probably be the mainstay of the less-than-jumbo size segment, just like the current 777-300ER is.

A side note though: Should there be any sudden economic downturn globally, we may see the end of the jumbo era and potentially some other collateral damage.

[AppyS]

Voted a well deserved 5* thread. I am a sucker for these big birds and sometimes literally dream of them in my sleep. I was not so excited to be in Paris once but instead of having the chance to see the Concorde displayed at the airport. Loved the engine caption and comparison with the single aisle brethren. Its easy to notice how small the 737's and A320's are in front of these mighty birds. Very informative and detailed explanation there Sir for the 777 dash. Yours must be an awesome job to be in.

[Sip]

Thank you searchingheaven for such spectacular topic and superb write up! You have just made a successful effort in introducing an often uncharted territory to most of people.

The only thing I didn't like about this aircraft is that it has killed B-747! The aircraft had its own awe and ruled an era. Its unbelievable that it can fly on single engine for 5.5 hrs!! Commendable effort towards safety.

[govindremesh]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

The reason to use hydraulics is because they are able to transmit a very high pressure or force with a small volume of fluid (hydraulic oil). Hydraulic systems are very reliable, its fluid is virtually incompressible and is able to transmit high pressures. And it's economical.

For electrical systems, there are 3 major issues.

• Weight. An electric motor capable of raising a 4,000 pound main landing gear would be extremely heavy and you would need two.
  
• Speed/Reaction Time. All-electric actuators do not currently have the power density or speed needed to operate an aircraft’s flight surfaces effectively. If a pilot finds himself heading toward a thunderstorm, he expects a powerful and immediate response from the aircraft the moment he inputs a command.
  
• Efficiency: Electric is inefficient, lots of friction losses at each gear/ bearing stage <75%.

This is a new information to me! But I read in one of the technical documents of the B787 that much of its hydraulic systems have been replaced with electronic ones and the engine now employs bleedless configuration (to make it quiter). Further , it stated that the cabin pressurization is also handled by electronics .

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Couple of questions as a passenger:

1. I'm flying in and out of Bangalore every month from Kuwait. I've noticed that the landing at Bangalore is very hard. This was common across the Emirates B777-300ER (this one bounced on landing) and the Oman Air B737-800 (2 Landings with this one, felt like it fell out of the sky!). Is there something wrong with the approach or runway at Bangalore, or was I unlucky to get a hard landing in all the three instances ?

2. I've felt that the A320 lands more smoothly than a B737. Is it just my perception or does the fly by wire of the A320 have to do something with this?

3. Why do interiors judder for a few seconds when the aircraft lifts off the ground?

[petrolhead_neel]

Wow Sir! This is some seriously great stuff you've put up here. Hats off to you for compiling so much data and putting them together for us mere mortals. Will be reading multiple times and I'm sure will have a lot of questions to ask you by then.

Keep flyin'
Neel

[gauravdgr8]

This is my aircraft of choice to either JFK or Chicago by Air India. Now eligible for upgrades, but when I did travel economy, just loved the leg space compared to the ones on United. Plus the economy has a 3-3-3 setup.

[maddy42]

Awesome thread. Few issues i have with airlines are listed:
Economy class seats are terrible with leg space, Volvo airavathas or long distance buses in india have better comfortable seat. How hard is it to improve it? Seats in economy is like a bench in school.
Business class and first class are usually about 4 times to 10 times more expensive so out of reach of many.
Infotainment system is not keeping up with time. The touch is terrible.
Passenger comfort is the least of the worry of most airline, who just care for butt on seats.

The heightened security has just contributed to increasing costs and airports are a money spinner is what i feel.

Maddy

[coolboy007]

Originally Posted by govindremesh

2. I've felt that the A320 lands more smoothly than a B737. Is it just my perception or does the fly by wire of the A320 have to do something with this?

I do not think that there is any thing with fly by wire that would give a smooth landing with the 320. Landing is a bit tougher with 320's since you do not have any feel with fly by wire, at 50 ft when the aircraft enters flare mode, the computers give an automatic nose down authority to compel the pilots to naturally flare the aircraft, then it is upto the pilots if they make a smooth landing or not. I had read a phrase some where "any landing from which you walk away alive is a good landing"
777 is also a fly by wire aircraft with flight envelope protections, Boeing's first if am not wrong. It does take a little time to get used to the side stick since in all our training with single and multi engines, we are used to typical yoke controls which Boeing uses.

I personally love the side stick, in normal law, you just give what pitch, bank you want, leave the stick and the aircraft keeps flying and you can take your hands off (this is with auto pilot off), you get much more free real estate between your legs and that tray table is very handy while eating or doing approach/performance calculations.

There are so many factors when landing an aircraft, crosswinds, glide slope angle, runway length available for landing etc so depends, one can be a pilot with thousands of hours but it does not guarantee that you will always get a smooth touchdown. In wet conditions, airbus itself recommends to avoid aiming for a very smooth landing and the pilots should have a firm touchdown.

As for interiors juddering, i had asked my instructor about it and he told me that once the aircraft is off the ground, the main landing gear wheels keep rotating at a high speed and if they are unbalanced, they may transmit vibrations to the aircraft, it is for a very small time.

[shivshanker]

[quote=searchingheaven;3971472]Basic technical details
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Weight & Payload summary
  
  Attachment 1506425
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did 9W543 yesterday and have the following observations, does my logic have any logic to it at all.?


1. The No load weight of an 737-800 Aircarft is 41, 145 Kgs
2. The Max Take off weight for an 737-800 Aircraft is 70,535 Kgs
3. Fuel required to support 168 Pax and 12 Crew for 2.5 hrs would be atleast = 6,859 Kgs
4. Weight of PAX + 28 Kgs Checked in Luggage + 15Kgs Hand Luggage is atleast 22,152 Kgs
5. The total of all of the above is at 70,156 Kgs or 99.45% of the Max Take Off Weight.

In my example shown above there is only 379 Kgs room for error!

[Jeroen]

Excellent thread, very informative with some very good pictures! Thanks very much.

I have travelled extensively across the globe on just about every aircraft. My personal favourite remains the 747-400 as I’m just most familiar with it and have had the pleasure of flying it myself (albeit on Lufthansa/Cargolux training school Simulators). But from a creature comfort point of view newer planes such as the 777 and A380 are really a huge improvement. I flew the A380 on eight different legs last year around the world. I flew Lufthansa business class and once on San Francisco to Frankfurt they bumped me up to first, overall the best experience I have ever had.

KLM has just put its new Dreamliner 787 on the Delhi Amsterdam run and I have flown that on Economy Comfort and again very nice. My very last trip out of India, returning home the Netherlands will be business class on the KLM 787, looking forward to that.

You just can’t compare them with the older planes, no matter how many times they get upgraded over the years. I’ll comment some more on the interiors further down.

Originally Posted by sai_ace

While I loved the 747 (who wouldnt?) I was impressed by the 777 as a economy passenger. Starting with the 3-4-3 config vs the 3-3-3. And also the interiors were so much better, not just in age but in design.

Whereas each aircraft cabin is limited, of course, by its physical dimensions, a lot of the big carriers do the actual lay-out themselves. You buy your plane, completely fitted with all seats, galley etc. I had the pleasure of being invited by some KLM pilots to come and see the arrival of what at the time turned out to be KLM’s last 747-400. They pick it up at the Boeing Field, Everett near Seattle and fly it to the KLM home base at Amsterdam Airport.

Apparently, for legal reason the plane has to be fitted out with all its seats So KLM used to order the cheapest and most minimalistic interior Boeing would offer. Once the plane landed at Amsterdam, they rip everything out! And put their own KLM interior, seats, panelling, galley’s etc in. It was actually the same in the cockpit. I visited about 48 hours after the plane had arrived at Amsterdam. You would not believe the internals of that plane, everything had come out, many cockpit instruments had been taken out as well.

So carriers do customise the cabin heavily themselves.

Originally Posted by quickdraw

[*]Why are the cockpit systems proprietary and not standardised? Won't this help in the longer run?[*]Why are there so many switches for everything, wont it make sense to have fewer switches with modular capabilities?[*]As a product designer, I am aghast at the UI/UX of Aircraft systems. Why does everything have to be so horrid and non-intuative. I understand legibility is important but I'm sure there are many better ways to communicate information to pilots other than green on black etc.[*]If I can access whatsapp over the north pole, why can't every plane in the world relay its information in real time to a central database?

Searchhaven has already answered all your question, but let me add a few of my thoughts and some ‘nerdy’ facts.

Cockpit system are not really proprietary in the sense they are all built around commercially available subsystems. What is true that the layout of a Boeing is very different from an Airbus. A large part of that has to do with a different design philosophy. And some very fundamentals such as a Boeing traditional yoke over the Airbus side stick. Even the way a Boeing fly by wire system works is very different from an Airbus fly by wire.

Aircraft manufacturers do try to standardised the layouts of their own cockpits for all the obvious reasons. Also, it allows easier and shorter re-training if crews move from one type to the next.

The number of switches, dials, knobs etc has come down dramatically over the years. Remember that we used to have flight engineers with very complicated panels with hundreds of dials, switches and levels. With the introduction of two pilots cockpits, all of that has been automated and has just about disappeared.

Check out this old 747 cockpit:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Mahan...f8d86da4b71a28

versus the 747-400

http://www.nicksprints.com/aircraft/h218BF4D8#h218bf4d8

Also note that the 747-400 cockpit in lay-out is very similar to the 777. Of course when it comes to engines it is 4 against 2, but just about everything else is pretty much the same. The MCP panel is near identical. Also the Honeywell Flight Management Computer and System is very similar in terms of use and functionality.

Some of my KLM 747-400 pilot friends have transitioned to the 777 over the years and I have visited the KLM 777 simulators a few times. Although I did not take to the controls myself, just watched these guys sweat it out on their check ride, the familiarity with the 744 was striking. All the 744 drivers that have moved on to the 777 will tell you the same thing. They adore their 744, Queen of the skies, but from a pilot’s point of view they love the 777!

If you want to explore the 777 cockpit some more, have a look at this website, move your cursor around and get lots of detailled information!

http://meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/fd-777.html

Originally Posted by sriramr9

In the event of a loss of ground speed, is there a way of over riding the above systems and still fly the plane manually without endangering the plane from stall.

Read that pitots were blocked in one A330 and the air france 447 inexperienced officers were unable to override and bring the air craft under control upon its auto pilot going into shutdown mode due to lack of ground speed,

Note that ground speed isn’t really that relevant for pilots in terms of flying. Ground speed is relevant, of course, in terms of how fast you get from A to B. Flying is all about air speed. Loss of airspeed is what leads to a stall. On any plane under all circumstances pilots can take manual control. What that manual control actually entails and how the plane behaves under manual control is something very different. In fly by wire it’s still a bunch of computers actually controlling the plane and the pilot via a yoke or a side stick is telling the computers what to do.

Here a not to technical story on the AF447;

http://www.airfrance447.com

Here is the official accident report for those that want to read the full thing:

https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-c...p090601.en.pdf

The AF co-pilot in the right seat (pilot flying) had 3000 hours, 800 on type. Left seat had another co-pilot (pilot monitoring) with more then double the hours and the captain has close to 11.000. Between the three of them they could not figure out what was going on!

So even the right seat copilot was not inexperienced from an hours point of view.

However, contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely no correlation between number of hours flown and fatal accidents. To put it differently, statistically speaking you are as likely to have a fatal accidents with a pilot who just passed his/her first type check ride as with an old hand pilot the day before he retires with 20.000 under his belt.

Originally Posted by karan561

I had a question regarding landing gear i.e. What tyres / brands are used ? Is it the regular Michelin, Good Year etc ? Or some other companies manufacture it ?

Recently some aircraft tire has been in the news. Not sure what brand, not sure it would be good PR either. Have a look at this square tire:

http://avherald.com/h?article=498050d8

The same thing happened not to long ago to a 777 too

Jeroen

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by coolboy007

I do not think that there is any thing with fly by wire that would give a smooth landing with the 320. Landing is a bit tougher with 320's since you do not have any feel with fly by wire, at 50 ft when the aircraft enters flare mode, the computers give an automatic nose down authority to compel the pilots to naturally flare the aircraft, then it is upto the pilots if they make a smooth landing

I personally love the side stick, in normal law, you just give what pitch, bank you want, leave the stick and the aircraft keeps flying and you can take your hands off (this is with auto pilot off), you get much more free real estate between your legs and that tray table is very handy while eating or doing approach/performance calculations.

There are so many factors when landing an aircraft, crosswinds, glide slope angle, runway length available for landing etc so depends, one can be a pilot with thousands of hours but it does not guarantee that you will always get a smooth touchdown. In wet conditions, airbus itself recommends to avoid aiming for a very smooth landing and the pilots should have a firm touchdown.

.

Are you saying that in an Airbus during a manual landing the computers does nose down during flare? That sounds odd. On most planes the flare means you put the nose up a few degrees higher then the attitude you were flying during the final approach. The flare reduces your vertical speed and gets you into ground effect. You want to shorten that, but nose down?

The side stick behaviour you describe is, as I understand it, specific to Airbus fly by wire. Boeing fly by wire, from how it feels is essentially like an ordinary system with cables and links. It does provide all the various protection modes but it flies as a regular plane. The Airbus is more about vectoring. Your side stick indicates the vector/direction where you want to go. The computers figure out how to go about it.

So I think the 777 or the 747-800 would behave differently if you take your hands of the yoke. I think it would start to wonder off a bit, just like any other non fly by wire plane.
Essentially these plane feel and behave to a Cessna until you start pushing the envelope, then the computers kick in.
Of course it's computers controlling the plane all the time but they are set up to provide normal flying feel and behaviour

Landing remains one of the most challenging manoeuvres and yes, you can get it right a thousand time, the next time you might not get it completely right.

Passengers like smooth landings, but from a pilot and or maintenance point of view they are not necessarily better.

Smooth landings means you find yourself longer in between that phase between flying and rolling down the runway. It's a bit more difficult to control, so you really don't want to stretch it. Planting your wheels firmly and decisively is what I was taught, minimise ground effect. You just eat up runway with a smooth landing. Safe piloting is all about ensuring you have multiple options. Late or smooth touch downs can seem fine, but the more runway you have in front of you the safer if anything goes wrong.

Flying my little planes I was often offered by ATC to cut in front of big planes or just use an earlier entry into the runway. I never do. Even on very long runways. If I take of in my Cirrus or Diamond on a 4500 ft runway I will be airborn after about 1200 feet or so depending on weight. If I get an engine failure at 500 feet I can still land on that same runway. If I had used an early intersection I might not have that option.

I know GA aircraft and commercial jets do it all the time. They do the take off planning calculations accordingly, the FMS knows how to handle it. So all very safe. Still, it now and then adds to confusion and sometimes to errors. It might be my inexperience as a pilot, but I just prefer to do everything as safely as I can do it. So no long drawn out landings for me. That doesn't mean I have not found myself floating down the runway hundreds of feet before my little plane gear touched down. But that was never intentional. I plan to put down reasonably firmly at a specific point in the runway .

http://avherald.com/h?article=49832451&opt=0

The other thing is tire wear. A lot of research has been done into soft versus hard landings. As I understand it planting the wheels firmly, spinning up the wheels in a very short time, is preferred to long drawn out landings where it takes longer to spin up tires, thus more wear overall apparently

Jeroen

Tire wear is a function of

[harpreetkanwar]

Post deleted by the Team-BHP Support : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum.

Please read our rules before proceeding any further. We request you to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[Jeroen]

@ harpreetkanwar

Sure you can get leather in the cockpit, but you have to downgrade from the airbus and Boeings to my kind of planes:

http://cirrusaircraft.com/whats-new-in-2016/

Note the Bluetooth connectivity!? Bring you iPod or iPhone.

Jeroen

[ISO]

Excellent review.

I have few questions.

1. Why cabin lights are switched off during takeoff maneuver?

2. Why seats should be in upright position during takeoff and landing?

3. Takeoff should be against wind direction. But what to do if there is cross wind to the direction of takeoff.

4. During pre-landing maneuver, how speed is reduced (breaking) in the air?

5. What are main responsibility of Pilot and co-pilot?