The 777X Has a "Tesla Problem"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2021
- Help support me on Patreon: / cobyexplanes
Thanks so much to my "First Class" patrons Vicky Bagwalla, Sebastian Dimond, and Timothy Franklin To learn more about Vicky's company Cloud Managed Networks, check out the links below!
Cloud Managed: cloudmanaged.ca/
Thanks so much to my videographer friends for generously providing excellent B-roll for this video. Go check out and subscribe to their channels for more A+ plane spotting content
@FRAproductions
@PlanesWeekly
@BrunoLevionnois
@miraviation
___________________________________________________________________________
There are many ways to describe the 787 Dreamliner. It’s quiet, it’s efficient, and it is very sleek. But Boeing investors prefer a different descriptor: to them, the plane is a cash cow. The 787 has sold extremely well, and for good reason: it’s about 25% more efficient than the aircraft it’s designed to replace. And much of that improvement can be tied to the jet's widespread use of composites, which makes it extremely light for its size.
So, when Boeing set out to design the 777x just a few years later, it seemed like they’d at least consider building it from composites, as well. After all, the jetmaker poured tons of resources into developing and maturing their composite technology. But after much deliberation, they took a more conservative approach; while the plane’s new wings would be built from composites, the rest of the fuselage would not. And in the years since then, we’ve seen the jet struggle to sell. So, did Boeing make a mistake here - should they have built the 777x entirely to composites? Let me explain…
#777X #Boeing - เกม
When the world need him most, he Explanes😉
The Intro looks professional tho👍
He is a professional explaner.
If Boeing had built the 777X's fuselage from composites it would just have been the same as building an all new airplane so the plane would not have been classified as a next generation 777 but as an all new airplane making the plane very expensive both for Boeing and its customers
This is the answer I was waiting for for the entire video. It would require a whole TCDS.
@@jahredt yep. It’s the same reason you still find ashtrays on the 737 ng. Altering the design, even in little ways, risks having the aircraft type certification revoked, causing the costs of production to shoot right up.
@@mikemontgomery2654 actually the ashtrays are an FAA regulation still. Even the 787 that was designed long after the smoking ban has them
@@jahredt I’m going to go looking for that now. Last time I was on a Dreamliner, I saw not one on the plane.
This may be an additional headache they avoided: th-cam.com/video/z7bHiHjGdR0/w-d-xo.html
Good analysis, just forgot to factor fuel price. If fuel price remains low, no reason to buy a very expensive very efficient all composite 777X. If fuel price remains high, then it could make more sense but question is “how high should fuel price be to make an all composite 777X worth buying ? …. if long haul air traffic goes back to pre pandemic level of course”
Fuel burn is but one of many variables that goes into the decision to choose an aircraft.
@@johniii8147 indeed that is why this a factor which can’t be ignored among all the others.
That...and higher fuel efficiency w lower carbon footprints will be mandated by governments around the world . I'm sure Boeing has a plan B future.
@@scottmoseley5122 tbf carbon footprinting has become rlly political lately so it'll be interesting to see how the sales do.
Also keep in mind that fuel price often lags as an impacting cost factor for airlines since they lock-in contractual set prices for long periods of time.
You know it’s a good day when coby uploads!
Both of You infact💓
Yeah
Actually, certification costs would sink a HUGE chunk into the R & D funds for the production of a full-composite fuselage 777X. The 777X certification piggy-backs off the current 777-200LR/300ER type certification. A NEW composite fuselage would require a completely new type certification with the requisite testing. This would drive the costs way up, even with the much more stringent FAA requirements and oversight that have come up since the 737Max certification.
I thought that the 787 and 777 shared a type rating. When a pilot gets their endorsement for the type rating in a 777 it will show up as 777/787 and likewise the other way around.
@@tuckntruck_ while they do share a type rating, I believe a pilot still needs to go through differences training to fly either/both. I believe B757/767 is the same.
Engineer: Hey, should we build the new 777 out of composites?
Boeing: Sounds great, airlines love more MPG, right?
Engineer: Sure, we'll just to get the FAA to re-cer.....
Boeing: FA.....whaaaat?
Boeing 777X just came at the wrong time like A380. Engine delays, 737 Max case, COVID-19 pandemic, much more times required for testing and validation, and another delays related to flight behavior just make Boeing 777X sales worst than expected. It's a shame because i really like the design of the plane and eager to see it in an airport. Hopefully boeing can survive and more airlines will buy this aircraft. A freighter variant of this aircraft will be very interesting.
You're wrong here.
COVID-19 was the perfect thing for the B777X as it stands.
Firstly, it gives Boeing more time to iron out the kinks in it before they start falling behind Airbus here.
Secondly, it's an aircraft that was built to replace it's predecessors, so initially it won't sell good since the previous models aren't retired. The older models also have more time now since COVID-19 reduced their usage meaning less cycles.
I expect when travels returns to normal a year or two later, the B777 would begin retiring and the B777X would take its place.
@@declannewton2556
I agree with that.
It will be in top form when flying levels balloon again, and they will, and 380, and 747 production has stopped.
777x will be the new queen of the sky.
@@declannewton2556 I wonder if the 777XF will be a little late after the A350F and lose market share as a result.
@@alhanes5803 Not long for the end of the 747, A380 is already done. The 777XF seems like the most logical choice IMO, cargo airlines like FedEx will most probably be very happy
@hit sensors
Yeah you're right.
Look at all the 380 freighters.
Oh wait,,,,
The problem is that there is a plane in that category with a full composite body. The Airbus 350.
Would have been worth to mention that here. As that's also the #1 competition for the 777X
It saves them zero weight. Coby is misinformed about CF vrs aluminum. Only place in a fuselage where you save weight using CF is in the FORWARD section of the fuselage and its skin. The rear section is lighter if you use aluminum and in the wing box where often they use titanium/stainless steel but here $$$ is a major factor. a350 did get the EASA to allow them load alleviation in the critical 2G+ wind up turn which did allow them to make a lighter fuselage and why Boeing was PISSED when this was NOT allowed on 787 by the FAA. So, assuming load alleviation is allowed via FBW, CF could be lighter by a little bit, but not much. So, until a HYBRID Aluminum/CF structure is built, CF by itself is in general, not lighter unless in VERY high TENSILE load applications.
Now if they can use more honeycomb structures on lighter sections, then CF IS lighter and actually CHEAPER. Why you see small regional jets going with CF and being lighter as making the CF honeycomb in rounded shapes is CHEAPER than trying to make aluminum honeycomb structures and they bypass having to use as many longerons, bulkheads etc which makes the build SIMPLER to make. None of this is true on a big jet like a 787/350/777
@@w8stral A full composite frame can definitely be overrated. The biggest bang for the buck is in the engine and wings and Boeing did that.
@@w8stral I'm not contesting but I'm a little surprised by what you're saying. Why would composite only save weight on the forward section of the skin and not the middle or rear ? I really fail to see the scientific reason for that ?
If a given material is inherently lighter than another it wouldn't matter where it's located.
And I'm pretty sure the same thickness / resistance is required on the fuselage's skin whether it's the front, middle or aft ?
So, how do you come to the conclusion that it's only saving weight in the forward section compared to aluminum ?
I'm very interested in that.
Thanks.
@@KyrilPG Hoo boy... you displayed you do not know the basics of Mechanical engineering course where you learn what stress strain, elasticity, poisons ratio, and deflection along with density mean. Yet you want me to teach you everything in a YT post regarding basic structures.... Typical
TLDR: CF deflects too much as its matrix(epoxy) is very weak regarding rigidity which means the wings are twisting one direction and the tail another is why CF fuselage between these two bodies does not save you weight. Forward fuselage has less stress in wind up turn and therefore less deflection which avoids the shear problems of CF laminates.
It is why the holy grail of CFRP or any FRP is stitched construction which will eliminate the shear problems(mostly). The ultimate of this would be to use Silicon carbide nanotubes in aluminum. THis would cut the weight at least in half.
@@w8stral Wow, you're reading way much more in my comment than what's in it. I wasn't the least bit dismissive nor aggressive in my message and it wasn't implied either. It was a genuine question, not an attack, not even a contradiction and not a request for you to "teach me everything".
I simply displayed interest in what you were saying and had questions.
I'm pretty sure you could have answered my questions in just as many words as you used in your reply without being obnoxious.
I asked reasonable questions, respectfully.
I even said I wasn't contesting and asking because I was surprised by what you said about forward fuselage vs aft.
I didn't ask for a full lesson on advanced engineering.
Just how can the forward fuselage skin could be that different from the aft fuselage skin.
And you could have replied a simple answer or started a short conversation, the civil way, like I asked my questions.
But instead you turned arrogant, dismissive and borderline insulting ("typical") without knowing anything about me, just assuming what I must be because I was surprised by your affirmation.
Instead of trying to give me a simple answer to my questions (I used several question marks) you listed what you're sure I must be ignorant of and went on to discarding my entire comment and questions as a cry for basic education.
Kudos, what a great way to make a point : being dismissive and discard any question by screaming ignorance while not answering any question !
If my comment and questions were not worth your time, and explaining in a few words for the benefit of all readers was below your standing, just don't answer them at all.
Cause answering genuine polite questions with a dismissive reply, void of any useful info, just makes your entire point irrelevant.
You must have a very high opinion of yourself in a very lonely world.
I think the B777X, will pick up more momentum as the decade goes on as more triple 7s reach retirement age.
I agree, as long as the companies with the older 777
want to stay with Boeing and not go for the more readily available A350.
That's not true. Most airlines replaces B777-200/-ER with either B787-9/-10 and or A350-900.
Most B777-300ER is extremely young. Many are only 3-4 years old. By the time they are retired, it would be 2035. B777X would be extremely inefficient by then.
@@nntflow7058 Boeing made the plane too early, much early, they should have known this since they got so many orders on the 77W, there are some that isn't even delivered yet, some airlines are waiting for their 77W and boeings telling them to buy a whole lot more expensive 779.
I love the way you explain everything so clearly. Awesome content man keep it up
Loving the animations in this video I feel you’ve really stepped up your game there
I see a logic error in the fuselage weight at 5:05
With this dry mass the fuselage would weigh 43,000 kg if the plane would be constructed with just aluminium. The weight distribution is calculated with the same material being used for the whole plane. But since the wings are lighter then usual because of being build with carbon material, the fuselage must be heavier then 43,000 kg. So the weight savings would be even stronger
OTOH fuselage isn't built only from aluminum. There's the paneling, seats, windows, paint, all sort of machinery and electronics, safety equipment, cabling, the entire APU which is a smaller jet engine, and so on. Most of that stuff either already isn't made from aluminum, or can't be swapped for composites.
Great video Coby. The challenge I have is the 777x is 45 tonne heavier dry than A350-1000. Yes there’s a slight difference in passenger numbers. I’m always amazed how Boeing is more short-term in its thinking vs what’s right for the planet, customers and us. Not sure where you get the expense blowout price wise for 777X composite and with the FAA approval process it will be as intense as an all new plane.
Excellent analysis and conclusions. Keep them coming!
Good analogy with the cars.
In summary, economics always wins. Thanks for the explanation. Makes so much sense.
Airlines that operate Airbus and Boeing will look at which plane best matches the route. That is the one which will run nearest full and better yet if you can earn a bit more on cargo.
Great explanation, excellent presentation! 🙏
Interesting about how different the 787 is called within different groups. In airline maintenance we describe the 787 as an unreliable p.o.s. But luckily a lot is covered under warranty.
Tell me more, please! What sorts of things break down? I was under the impression that the all-composite fuselage and other structures were lower-maintenance, since they don't corrode. Of course I'm not in the industry, hence why I'm probably wrong about this and many other things.
You might also consider airframe maintenance. MRO and structural inspection for the 777 is well established and probably a pretty important factor. Wings are a bit easier to change the process for.
I like your channel very much Coby. The videos are a great source of entertainment and provide a distraction from the stress I've been dealing with for the past year and a half. Also, as an aviation enthusiast, the information you share on these videos gives me more of an understanding of the process of flight, the industry standards, subtle affectations, the logic behind the decisions that are made by aircraft manufacturers and what to look for in so far as upcoming industry developments. Great videos! You have earned another subscriber. Keep em' coming.
Glad you’re enjoying!!
Given the manufacturing snafus of the composite parts in the 787, I'd be skeptical that somehow the 777X would be delivered to airline customers with the quantity they expect.
And the 787 gap and surface finish, and the 'alleged' A350 composite paint problem.
Your explanations are among the best on TH-cam, besides the videos of professional pilots like Mentour or 74 Gear.
Apart from measuring how high fuel prices need to go before composite makes sense for 777X, you could probably do another video explaining why is the 777X so expensive in the first place. In the video, you explained all the reasons that should lower costs, but not reasons that would justify the high price.
Start will all that carbon fiber already on the plane.
This is one of the best and most informed aviation channels
You made a good point with the Tesla and Prius example
And by the time the Tesla pays itself off the batter will need a replacement again eating into what you saved on fuel.
Something most people don't fully realize Or they know and will sell the Tesla after the warranty expires and battery dies.
It's been a while since your last video. Thanks for the new video!
Love this stuff!
Coby, you’re GOOD, young man.
This is why I think the A350-1000 will beat the 777X in the long run. Clean sheet vs refresh. The A350-1000 is just a more reasonable size. Also it's smaller sibling is not a niche ULR. The only real selling point of the 777x is its commonality with older 777s. The only thing keeping the A350-1000 down is the COVID pandemic and all the existing brand new 777-300ERs. The A350-1000 will be a late bloomer like the A321.
i flew the a350-1000 2 months ago and i gotta say the passenger experience is incredible
There are also potential disasters with airlines furiously complaining about what initially seems to be a cosmetic issue, but is in fact, turning out to likely be a sign of serious galvanic corrosion of fasteners and/or lightning dissipation structures, either one of which could lead to disaster.
A HGW 787-10 and the a359 will beat the a350-1000 in the long run . The truth is the a350-1000 was ment as a direct replacement of the 777-300ER ...
Atleast 70-80% of current 777-300Er owners will either downsize to 787/a359 or upsize to the 777-9.
Most airlines will not replace their fleets 1 to 1 . The a350-1000 will do nothing to the 777-9 . Lol
Not first and amazing video, cant wait to see more productions.
Seems a good assessment. Boeing has a tremendous amount invested in current 777 production facilities, jigs etc. Just being able to manufacture on the same floor space as the existing line would be a huge money saver.
I would not count the 777x out yet. Covid has had a huge impact on the wide body market. Let's see what happens as travel rebounds.
The difference between boeing and tesla is that tesla would’ve made the full
composite 777x but would have improved their production system so that costs wouldn’t skyrocket. Unfortunately boeing is ran by accountants and not by engineers
And tesla doesn’t have to deal with pathological unions
I have been thinking about this since Boeing talked about their new virtual design space. Not sure on their name.
What Boeing needs to do is work on a product and production line that takes mistake making bored people out of the picture.
Finally, a good intro
also congrats on the job
Having gone to composite wings, a composite wingbox-wheel well would have been next - lots of weight saving and cost savings, but also development costs.
Hmm, I'm not convinced they went in the right direction. Why spend gazillions on the dev and build of their state-of-the-art Dreamliner - to then not use that tech and learnings on the next-gen of aviation. It feels a lot like the 737-Max approach and I wonder if that doesn't fill buyers with confidence? Will be interesting to see how it pans out and of course I want to fly on a 777X variant :) Congrats on your new job!
They actually did use a lot of the 787 tech in terms of wings, cockpit, engines etc. It would have more than doubled the already high development cost to go with a full on composite fuselage. A new facility would have had to be constructed for assembling the plane and additional autoclaves. Probably not worth the investment for a lower volume aircraft. I'm not a big Boeing fan anymore given all the mismanagement, but in this case probably made the right call.
@@johniii8147 i respect the fact that you are an non boeing fan that doesnt instantly say: Boeing bad
@@apotato5563 They just did it to themselves with now years of bad program management, quality control, cost cutting to boost stock price, etc etc. They are now paying the price for that and it was a long time coming.
@@johniii8147 yeah boeing really isnt doing well. Very sad such an iconic builder
My thoughts exactly. Another frankenplane. 787 tech should have been used for a clean sheet design for both the 737 the 777.
This 737max has weakened Boeings position in the industry and they are stuck with it for at least 20 years. Such a shame.
Excellent video
I think it was just at the wrong time as many airlines have 777s that are still in service for years to come
I disagree.
It's like the A330neo; a replacement plane waiting for its predecessors to retire.
@@declannewton2556 so i see.
here is the progress chart thingy idk:
a330neo awaits for old a330s to retire.
777x awaits for 777s to retire, but WAIT,
the a350 has already replaced the old 777-200s.
777x now waits for 777-300ers to retire, but they're too young.
777x will need to wait a long ass time
The biggest issue with the 777x is the constant delays
Solar panels are pretty much the same. Yes, you'd save money on your monthly electric bill but the cost of installing them on your roof may take years to recover the cost. By that time, you may have moved into another house.
It adds to home value. But true. I sell solar and how long you're going to be in the house factors into the decision. It's always one of the first questions I ask.
And like Tesla, there are cheaper EVs so they are not the only option
@@129aslamnurfikrir4 Most people don't buy a car to save money, they buy because they like the way it looks, or its performance or safety features. Otherwise hybrids would be far more popular.
Great video......It would be fascinating to get your analysis of how composites are used on the A350 and whether they made it cost much more too.
FYI the link to cloudmanged in the description doesn't work.
loving that new intro!
Great video!
Given the current times, it seems the only real mistake Boeing made was not understanding what they're really good at, and consequently convert their production lines from aircraft to anvils.
Great analyses. Would have loved a comparison with the 777x main competitor, the A350
One big problem with composites is that it can't be combined with aluminum due to galvanic corrosion. The parts would need to be changed for titanium. The remaining parts would be way heavier, offsetting some of the gains.
Though building it from composites would have made it much more efficient, it would not improve the marketing side. At this point I don't really care what it is made from, as long as it is at least a more efficient and works well. I just want to see it in the skies ASAP.
Is buying a pair of 787s better than having a 777x
@@jirehla-ab1671 It depends. If you are flying into a hub with expensive gates it would be better to have 1 big aircraft. Also, the 777X would be useful for long-haul and potentially ultra-long-haul routes, as the 787 doesn't have as big of a range as the 777X. However, if you are just flying into a smaller hub with cheaper gates, the 787s would be better for that.
@@Agent44996 Still for any 777 operators they'd always have an 1-to-1 alternative called A350, and granted trip cost is lower.
Or if it's 772 then 789/78J could make it in some cases, and most case even cheaper than A350.
789 and all A350s fly much further than 779. 778 is the furthest but its economy isn’t favourable.
Anyone who order 777X would only be those who can
1. take advantage of larger aircraft. But do note that 77W/351 are already very large in today's standard.
2. build large 777/787 fleet after replacement.
@@Agent44996 The 787-9 has much if not more range than the 777-9. The choice between the two isn't range, it's how much capacity you need on a given route.
I agree with your explanation regarding the reason for sticking to Aluminum fuselage rather than composites as no carrier would ever pay such huge price tag.
Love the video and also Love the new logo dude!!!
I agree the 777X out of composites would be revolutionary and more efficient in the long term, but it would sell worse especially as airlines now a days are thinking more about short term gains rather than thinking long term…
I’d also love to see United order the 777X like you described in your other video I think United ordering the 777X would just make sense! So to sum up I’d love to see United 🇺🇸, American 🇺🇸, Alitalia 🇮🇹, Air New Zealand 🇳🇿, Aeromexico 🇲🇽, Oman Air 🇴🇲, Japan Air Lines {JAL} 🇯🇵, Thai Airways 🇹🇭 and possibly Air India 🇮🇳 order the 777X
It would be interesting to see someone do the exact math. My rough math comes up with fully composite would save something like ~$60 million over the life of the plane over what they did with the 777X. However going fully composite once all is said and done would probably add over $100 million to the price tag, especially as you basically have a brand new plane to design and certify.
Maybe another way to think about why you would want to go fully composite is to increase fuel capacity. So say you want to connect all of the most distant routes with non stop flights, a fully composite variant could carry the extra fuel load to make the distance. Maybe even raise the service ceiling with the extra strong haul and burn even less fuel as the tanks empty out. For an ultra long hauler you may need the extra space so people can stretch out and sleep more comfortably. But then again how many ultra long haulers do you think you can really sell?
Great points on the 777X.
Great video
Definitely happy to become a patron 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Good explanation
Imagine a full composite 747-800. Someone would have to do the math on how much lighter it would be, but the real question is, can it be done needing only 2 engines? Preferably the GE9X's.
Actually the 747 sold all this time only because its size allowed it to have much more range. If a smaller plane can go further, you bet that airlines would switch.
you described what a full composite 777X is, and a 787 would still be better
I think, this video should be watched by the famous airlines in the world
Love the intro.
Will you do patron-only flight sim livestreams? Know you’ve started simming recently
Thanks as always . I would be interested in a video about the 787’s deferred development costs . I take it that there is now serious per unit profit but how more many are likely to be built and how would a ‘whole of project’ review look like ? Phew there’s a lot of words not seeking comments or replies just curious from the ‘cash cow’ remark
At 1120 aircraft built, the 787 program has still not recouped the cost of development. I believe that point is at number 1240.
Boeing is down $19 billion on the program (another billion was rolled into the pile recently). It will not break even, they will take a charge
@@jahredt No. Not even close. They have $19 billion to recoup
@@frankpinmtl So where are they making their money as it's obviously not from the 737MAX either. Thought the 787 was becoming a cash cow but as you point out, perhaps not yet.
@@wholiveswhere Defence and global services. But by using program accounting, they can kick the losses down the road - as long as they have the cash to keep the lights on.
Thanks!
I’m liking that new intro
Congrats on getting the new job! I can't say I'm complaining... I am getting overwhelmed by all the different aviation channels TBH....😅
The plane is already expensive in aluminium, i don't think price is the only reason ...
Coby you should not change the way you present your channel. It’s you and your style that people like. Keep doing what you’re doing.
I would have loved to see a 777X in Northwest livery, but sadly that flight departed forever in 2008.
good video
First up, welcome back Coby✈😅
Now for the video on my favorite airplane.
I think the no.1 reason 777X sales are sluggish is the delay in the program and alongside the covid pandemic means some airlines evaluation orders went on the backfoot
Though as the certification approaches nearer and all the major issues (cough*737MAX,GE*cough) are clearing up, airlines like Ethiopian Airlines, Korean Air, Thai Airways, United(🤞),Air New Zealand( because their ER's are on their way out and they focus a lot on long haul), KLM, Saudia etc might show some interest in the jet. In fact, many of the names I mentioned were vocal about their interests with the jet
So, we need to wait for travel to fully recover and the 777X to be certified for more orders to pour in.
That's what I think, would love to hear ur views too
A major trouble is that designing a complex structure in an optimal fashion is highly depending on the type of material. You can’t just build the same fuselage, just changing metals for composites. You basically need to redesign and resize the whole structure, also taking into account the manufacturing processes for composite parts, which have their specific constraints, very different from metals that can be machined for example. So it would imply development and industrial tooling costs much as if it were an entirely new type of aircraft. On the contrary, the 777X is meant to be an improved 777, but no more. Entirely different from the 787 and A350, which were both designed from a white sheet of paper.
What happens to composite aircrafts when they die ?
Are there anything recyclable other than the engines, landing gear etc ... ?
Mostly no.. we know how to disolve to resin. The glas, Armid or carbon fiber is either burnt or melted. There are no minerals in them. The total raw material cost for the component in a aircraft is a few thousand dollar or less. Glas fiber is made out of sand, carbon fiber out of coal or natrual gas, and Amid is made of hydrocarbond. What makes the material expsive is the process of making fiber of it. The fibers cant be reused for several reason.
The ressin can is its thermo set, and theoretically if its thermo hardend.
The next thing that makes it expensive is tooling. So you have to have really high flow.. or rather, just then right anount.
Typicallt a maximum of 2 units a Day would be made from a tool, so say 250 days a year, that would be 500 a year. Got to stick close to that number. Making 50 a year will not do. (This is true for autoclaved fiber, not spray formed one)
@@matsv201 I was going to say that the people who are working on recycling wind turbine blades might figure out how to recycle composite airplanes.
@@danharold3087 yea.. dong belive everything you read. That is largely a subsidy scam
@@matsv201 Not saying your wrong as we have seen this in the past. But there are quite a number of groups working on it. I have people telling me the EV batteries can't be recycled. So much pressure from clueless people with agendas.
Bombardier arrived at a similar technical material choice as the 77X when they started CSeries(now A220) program development 5years b4 the the 77X program launch: metallic fuselage combined with CFRP wings.
Though the CSeries' aluminum-lithium alloy fuselage material
is a bit more advanced than the 77X's majority aluminum.
First! Finally new content ☺️ thank you so much :) still waiting for your flight reviews and a flight with lufhansa's 747
Actually, I Identify as being First... Identifying is more important than reality... I win !!!
Mike
LOL so true though! People these days can identify as whatever they want and get away with it!
@@Agent44996 Yep !!! They can pretty much do anything they want and everyone else just bows down to them. lol
@@Haywood-Jablomie It's so ridiculous
@@Agent44996 The word "Ridiculous" offends me... any word that has an R, C and an L are offensive to me... please edit your post or I'll scream
Looking at the plane from a passenger perspective is only half the equation. Freight is a huge business. There isn’t a freight version of the 787, Airbus is just now catching up with a freighter A350. If cargo companies want the most advanced cargo plane the 777X is the only option right now. Another factor is commercial to freighter conversions. It is much more difficult to get install the cargo doors into a composite fuselage aircraft than an aluminum one. Boeing is banking on converting passenger 777X’s into freighter ones in the future.
You can't do a PtF on a 787. The composite fuselage is integral to the strength of the design. It has to be designed from scratch
Update: they did
There was also the consideration of the size of the autoclave needed to cure a composite body the size of a 777.
It would have been made in several sections like the 787. Kawasaki already built the largest autoclave in the world to manufacture 787 fuselage parts. With a 9m diameter it will hold 777 size components with 2.8 meters to allow tooling/jigs. The 777 fuselage is only about a foot greater in diameter than the 787.
Sorry, that is outdated info. The largest autoclave is in South Carolina at Boeing's plant. It has 15,000 ft³ more than Kawasaki's
@@jahredt Perhaps I was not as specific as I could have been. Autoclaves can and have been built large enough. Boeing built two massive autoclaves for the 777x wings in Everett. Boeing has previously stated, in addition to the facts presented in this video, that their decision not to build a composite fuselage for the 777x was partially due to the size of the autoclave needed. They didn’t not say it couldn’t be done.
@@flantc fair point. Also, that large of a modification I believe would have disqualified it as being an new generation 777. It may have essentially been a clean sheet aircraft.
Thank you.
I love my 777s in general second to the older 747-400s.
Boeing also made a mistake in closely tailoring the aircraft to the specifications of mainly the ME3 airlines. Specifically Emirates. So it does not have that flexibility that other airlines may want. It will do better as a freighter.
Please explain what those specifications are, and why they are different from other airlines. I'm very interested in these kinds of details, and they are not easily found on TH-cam.
The 777X with its heavier metal fuselage would not have had a chance against the lighter a350 if I was to compete heard to heard
Airbus themselves avoided competing directly with the 787 and it worked , the a350 sold well. If they tried competing directly with the 787 they would have been destroyed.
Smart move from Boeing , even if the 777X can sell around 500 to 600 jets it will be considered a success ..
The 777X9 is almost identical in length to the 747-8, with almost identical fuselage diameter. So the essential comparison between the two is that the 777 is a two-engine jumbo without an upper deck. The 777X9 continues the evolution of materials and control law engineering that began with the original 777. Where carriers find a need for a large, high-capacity plane, they can choose the 777X. Where airlines need medium capacity, long-range aircraft, they have the 787. For single-aisle capacity, with moderate to long-ish range, they have the MAX airplanes. The composite 777X isn't necessary yet.
Corby..WHY did Boeing focus on the SMALL jumbo market when the 737 & 757 markets were BIGGER & MORE overdue for clean sheets than the 777? They knew the MAX was inferior to the a220 & 321 years ago, right?
i think it's fault at boeing because they assume hub-spoke concept will still grow years after they released 787 but it didn't happen.
I love your content Coby 👍👍 Waiting for your next video, can you cover something about
1) Air India
2) Jet Airways
or 3) Indigo
OR
something about SpiceJet and the 737 MAX
Hoping for something from India soon ! ☺️☺️
Question: if the fuselage were to be done with composites, wouldn't it throw out of balance the weight distribution of the whole plane itself? (4:49 section)
How do you search for new airlines coming on the market?
What kind of range would a fully composite 777 have?
Boeing is still testing the 777X weekly from Seattle to Moses Lake, WA (MWH).
I saw an article on composite aircraft having some problems with deterioration on the fuselage and this causing fragments dislodging. Boeing may have inadvertently avoided this dilemma by staying with aluminum fuselages....
Hey Cody FYI comPOSite is the verb, the noun is COMposite
new intro is nice
The 787 didn’t just gut the a380 market. It also brought about an amazing competing product
the 'a330 to 777' range
The freight market was a huge factor too. Freighters get banged up, and aluminum is easy to repair.
Yes it's quiet. I flew Bangkok to Tokyo on a 787 and on to California on a 777-300. The difference in the sound level was noticeable.
Sounds like u flew ANA via their NRT or HND hub....
@@felixli5279 JAL
not to mention they done test when lightning strikes at storms and composites did not fare well compared to its metal counterparts and also the discovered that composites react aluminum over a long time when they exposed to the elements but they've mitigated those challenges.
To make the fuselage out of composites probably would have required a new type certificate and all the associated costs that would have to be passed to the airlines. The bottom line for the airlines is total cost of ownership.
I wish American, Delta and United would all buy the X! 😁😁😁
Another problem with composite could be a further delay in the program, which already is a problem.
Another reason could be the 70% restriction, in short if they change more then 70% of the aircraft it will need to get recertifications for a new fleet type as it’ll no longer be recognized as a 777, this is why Boeing and Airbus often include a lot of the future developments in the previous generation, and still make major changes without reaching this point. An example would the last few 737NG had a a lot of the 737-8 Max system and functions incorporated in them, thus allowing them further alterations for the next generation.
In addition a recertification is not ideal for their goal of 777-x, as it would mean a new Maintenance training program and certification, pilot, FA, and so on, this would drive up the cost for airlines, thus pushing them away.
Sounds compelling at 42% but I believe the actual weight saving figure is more like 10% cf vs al.
For all composite It all depends on fuel prices, emission policy in future. The stiffness of the wing in wing is more well distributed so landings would be much softer since deflect much easier and act like shock absorbers at touchdown. This also means lower landing gear maintenance. The problem with composites is that they break or crack during impact from tail strikes unlike metals that deform. So all composites would make a plane more zippy and more fun.
Wings acting as shock absorber at touchdown ? What are you smoking ? The wings weight almost nothing at touchdown because one second before touchdown they were producing enought lift for the whole damned airplane to not fall out from the sky.
@@12345fowler i said they act like shock absorbers. I did not say they are shock absorbers. What I mean to say is that the vertical component of inertia is reduced and the total inertia is spread over time, so the impact on the wheels becomes gradual soft landing since the wings absorb the vertical force/reaction from the ground during touchdown and deflect at that instant.
Love to see Air Canada buy the 777X someday
ayy new intro nice
I'm convinced they should have gone all composite. Then every single plane from there on out would have been all composite. You need to do the big upfront investment to pay off in the long run. So if every single airplane Boeing made was all composite they would have a huge lead in the market. Then you could also stretch the cost over many different styles of plane.
Airlines simply go by cost per seat-mile and if you look at chart of those cost historically you will see that the aquisitiom cost has become a very small part of the overall cost of a commercial airliner over it's lifetime. There are definitely other reasons why Boeing chose a metal fuselage.
Up front cost and running cost? What about end of life cost? Aluminium can be melted down and reused but how do you recycle a composite structure economically or ecologically?
Boeing engineers probably weighed the benefits of a composite fuselage as this: it's more susceptible to cracking, as the fuselage undergoes compression/decompression cycles far greater than the wings' G-load stress cycles. Given the airplanes have a stated number of working hours in their service lives, they couldn't massage the numbers, without introducing fatal flaws...as was seen in the MCAS - an apparent decision to overlook safety redundancy in exchange for faster-to-market, and cheaper-to-market initiatives...sometimes, you can't put a price on quality.
Furthermore, if you want more proof, compare composite baseball bats vs. aluminum bats...you will see the fatigue in a composite bat much sooner. Cracking becomes visible soon after first impact. I have seen aluminum bats crack - but usually it's from very high, consistent physical loads over longer periods. Engineers tend to design the structures so as to minimize costs - within the lifespan of the product.
Interesting thesis.