777x. It’s just another mash up of an old tube. Gimmicks like folding wings will not hack it. New engines on a 1950s airframe did wonders for the 737. Count the corpses.
I think the 777x and A350-1000's major competitors will be the next size down airplanes with very long distance capabilities, like the 787. I don't see the 777x and A350-1000 having the sales that the original 777 used to have due to the addition of the smaller competitors. A 777-8 cargo carrier? With those big engines and exceptional wings? That sounds like a big winner to me.
Big winner? While the Boeing figures are not all totally clear or official so far, the officially published MTOWs of the A350F and 777-8F will be 319 t and 365 t respectively. So indeed - Boeing wins! At the same time, Airbus announced an improved payload of 111 t for the A350F. The 777-8F was claimed in Boeing press releases to provide 118 t of "structural payload", which raises the question if this is really the useable payload. Some sources assign a payload of only 112 t to the 777-8F. If true, this would mean that the B-customer would have to fuel and lift 46 tons of incremental weight to move 1 additional ton of cargo.
What is not mentioned here is the airlines that do not need the ultra long haul ability of the 777x are converting their fleets to 787’s for greater efficiency and fleet commonality as in the recent case of United’s 110 plane 787 order where they plan on replacing their 757/767 and 777-200’s with 787-8/9’s.
@@wadehiggins1114It’s a no brainer that airlines will opt A350s over any Boeing equivalent as long as Boeing doesn’t severely undercut on price. Airbus is simply just the better aircraft manufacturer currently.
@@FLAMEalan Emirates just ordered 90 777X, including 35 of the smaller -8 variant, instead of the 35 A350-1000 it had planned to order. CEO Sir Tim Clark complained about its Rolls Royce engine not having enough thrust for EK's hot desert operations AND having too few hours on the wing before major maintenance was needed.
:49 "most potent turbofan" Not really. It is less thrust than the prior model because the new model is lighter not requiring as much thrust as designed.
I am not satisfied. The clip only ‚explains‘ why the -8 is supposed to fail, but the -9 has a glorious future. neither a dreamliner nor an A350-1000 can get over 400 passengers airborn.
@@FLAMEalan partly true. It's true that a B777X cannot compete with a B787 or an A350 regarding their passenger fuel efficiency number, which is the main criterion for a passenger airplane nowadays. For airlines, it's even cheaper to operate two 787-3 than one superjumbo. so far, you are right. However, there is a justification for large jets even in the future: airlines who have limited starting and landing slots on their homebases (like british airways in Heathrow or singapore airlines in Changi) can only extend their passenger numbers with big planes. this is also the reason why these airlines did not fleet out their A380's.
To say that the 777-X is failing is in my opinion clickbait sensationalism at its finest. For me as soon as I read a aviation headline that reads of opinion( which is absolutely fine)…rather than a understanding of facts. I gets annoying because to have an opinion is terrific, just don’t disguise it as fact.
United have just placed a large order with Airbus for the a350. If a long term Boeing customer like United is switching to Airbus, it underlines how much trouble the 777x is in.
Just wait until Emirates cancel the New ( old ) 777x. Boeing can’t fool Clark.
777x. It’s just another mash up of an old tube. Gimmicks like folding wings will not hack it. New engines on a 1950s airframe did wonders for the 737. Count the corpses.
If Boeing can certify the 777 before obsolescence....
I think the 777x and A350-1000's major competitors will be the next size down airplanes with very long distance capabilities, like the 787. I don't see the 777x and A350-1000 having the sales that the original 777 used to have due to the addition of the smaller competitors.
A 777-8 cargo carrier? With those big engines and exceptional wings? That sounds like a big winner to me.
Big winner?
While the Boeing figures are not all totally clear or official so far, the officially published MTOWs of the A350F and 777-8F will be 319 t and 365 t respectively. So indeed - Boeing wins!
At the same time, Airbus announced an improved payload of 111 t for the A350F. The 777-8F was claimed in Boeing press releases to provide 118 t of "structural payload", which raises the question if this is really the useable payload. Some sources assign a payload of only 112 t to the 777-8F. If true, this would mean that the B-customer would have to fuel and lift 46 tons of incremental weight to move 1 additional ton of cargo.
What is not mentioned here is the airlines that do not need the ultra long haul ability of the 777x are converting their fleets to 787’s for greater efficiency and fleet commonality as in the recent case of United’s 110 plane 787 order where they plan on replacing their 757/767 and 777-200’s with 787-8/9’s.
United have just ordered a lot of a350s from Airbus.
@@zeddekathey did? Where did you get this information?
@@wadehiggins1114It’s a no brainer that airlines will opt A350s over any Boeing equivalent as long as Boeing doesn’t severely undercut on price. Airbus is simply just the better aircraft manufacturer currently.
@@FLAMEalan yes, they are.
@@FLAMEalan Emirates just ordered 90 777X, including 35 of the smaller -8 variant, instead of the 35 A350-1000 it had planned to order. CEO Sir Tim Clark complained about its Rolls Royce engine not having enough thrust for EK's hot desert operations AND having too few hours on the wing before major maintenance was needed.
No mention of delays?? No mention of production or certification issues? Is this a Boeing promotion or just a poorly researched grab?
The latter.
The 777X isn't failing...it's Boeing's Board and management that's having the most trouble. Some of the suppliers aren't helping either.
:49 "most potent turbofan" Not really. It is less thrust than the prior model because the new model is lighter not requiring as much thrust as designed.
I am not satisfied. The clip only ‚explains‘ why the -8 is supposed to fail, but the -9 has a glorious future. neither a dreamliner nor an A350-1000 can get over 400 passengers airborn.
But airliners don’t need to get over 400 passengers airborne anymore.
@@FLAMEalan partly true. It's true that a B777X cannot compete with a B787 or an A350 regarding their passenger fuel efficiency number, which is the main criterion for a passenger airplane nowadays. For airlines, it's even cheaper to operate two 787-3 than one superjumbo. so far, you are right.
However, there is a justification for large jets even in the future: airlines who have limited starting and landing slots on their homebases (like british airways in Heathrow or singapore airlines in Changi) can only extend their passenger numbers with big planes. this is also the reason why these airlines did not fleet out their A380's.
@@FLAMEalan Emirates Airline disagrees.
Those are probably guys hired by airbus
I am going to build a new airliner that can vtol. Any tips?
Yes
Dont do it
Good luck, tell me how it goes
It can only be good if you especially have a lack of understanding of engineering and physics.
The wing is the thing,flexible wing that blend perfectly with air stream that is why it fly smóthly and as a result it is fuel efficient.
Why you made Boeing 777-9?
To say that the 777-X is failing is in my opinion clickbait sensationalism at its finest. For me as soon as I read a aviation headline that reads of opinion( which is absolutely fine)…rather than a understanding of facts. I gets annoying because to have an opinion is terrific, just don’t disguise it as fact.
United have just placed a large order with Airbus for the a350. If a long term Boeing customer like United is switching to Airbus, it underlines how much trouble the 777x is in.
No they didnt. United placed the A350 order in 2010 and have deferred it 4 times and may cancel it. It was recently deferred to 2031.
@@dmcr9525they keep doing that
Second
First
This is a disgrace for a old design. A decade. Disgusting. A 300ER new engine stretch and 300ERF would have been better
u dont have any idea of this plane
@@prasenjittripura4691A350 on top
This IS essentially a -300ER stretch WITH a new engine, like you want and a freighter about as big as a -300ER like you want.