Boeing's 777X Takes Off Nearly Vertically at Farnborough Airshow 2022 - AIN
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- Visit www.ainonline.com for all the latest on the aviation industry.
The Boeing 777X is impressing attendees of the Farnborough Airshow in the UK with its maximum performance capabilities during the show’s daily aerial display. The wide-body airliner has accumulated over 2,000 flight test hours, and is set to enter service in 2025, although it was originally scheduled for certification in 2020.
If you’ve enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs-up, share it, and subscribe to our channel.
#aviation, #flying, #airplane
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Those GE9X engines are real Powerhouses
GE engines are the best in the industry.
Yes they have the highest thrust power
The fuel burn rates of this aircraft.....well let's just say airlines are going to love it😁🥃
Heck yeah GE power!
what a beautiful plane
Thanks for sharing, it's very comfortable watching the airshow from the comfort of my air conditioned house. And on another note, those giant GE engines are quite a sight, even though I think Rolls-Royce engines have the best sound, I assume GE was going for "quieter".
3:15 even though it wasn't high up, I thought it was going to do the infamous 707 roll just then ;)
Wow!!! Amazing hope it's get into market soon and passengers enjoyed the flight
impressive, Great job! Thank you:)
Wooowooo lovely plan 777
Any info on what the actual maximum pitch angle & climb rate was?
naw foal
To give you some scale of the 777X, each engine is the diameter of a 737 fuselage.
WTF
737**
What's the maximum pitch angle reached in the demonstration?. Thank you.
No gas for Spain
Looks roughly to reach a 45 degree climb at most and around 90 degrees of bank at one point
Love that footage. What they can do without passengers, luggage and lots of fuel is awesome. But I was pretty hungry after watching that with all the catering noise in the background :)
Magnifico
Beautiful 🤩
The performance box of the 777X seems to be a little larger than the box of the C-17 demonstrations that I have seen at air shows. (And that C-17 box was small for a large plane.) To see a 777X fly a similar routine as a C-17 and within a similar size box would be jaw-dropping. I wish I was there.
That obnoxious echoing PA though
This thing is such a BEAST. I love it. What I’d do to be able to ride along in one of those experimental test planes…😩
I see a lot of Airbus fans in the comments for just under 100 orders lmao
Now let's try that with cargo weight
Best!
Whoaaaaaaa 😲
Mesin general electrik top dah
Beats landing nearly vertically.
That's crazy!!! So quiet I swear I can hear the silverware and glasses clinking!!!
That wasn't on the plane.
@@johniii8147 💀
Damn
Show off! ;-)
So in over a hundred years of flight the newest innovation is longer wing tips and more powerful enginines of 80 years old technology?
The gain is in efficiency. At this point a “jet engine” is more of an idea… jets from 60-70 years ago aren’t even the same concept as a modern turbofan.
Boeing 777 series only aircraft i love and have trust on their engineering. i hope they won't destroy it too.
Boeing is cutting corners everywhere these days. Difficult to believe they won’t screw up after the 787 / 737max
The sound of the engines remind me on the sounds of an old, asthmatic man. It sounds like it is fighting for air.
Your hearing must be pressed off center
@@brkitdwn 💀
Well they’re the most powerful and largest engines in the world sooooo
Not a big deal. A big deal would be when it actually enters service. It was supposed to start deliveries in 2019 lol
So they've essentially put giant 787 wings on this 777X plane.
yup
The 787 doesn't have folding wing tips
@@brkitdwn exaclty, it needs them because they are giant
Now if you had just settled into your seat & were about to enjoy your soup during take-off...............
(I know, I know! They don't serve soup before take off. Please no comments)
If 30 degrees is near vertical then, well, whatever.
45 actually. Boeing actually does way better demos than the very conservative airbus displays
Ancora un po' stalla!!!
hard landing
The 777X has stolen the show,
Orders@Buy&Fly Plane Shop
RAF Cosford
Alternatively you can contact Audley End House , Essex.
Why would any airline want such a big plane? Isn't the 787 the size and shape of things to come? It's almost in the same league as the A380 and we all know what happened to that.
The Airbus A380 experienced short lived success for only 15 years. It’s a design that came too soon and too late for its time, which is why Airbus pulled the plug on its manufacturing and production back in 2019. Aerospace companies nowadays are mainly focused longer mileage, speed, composite material, structural reliability, fuel efficiency, and most of all flight safety and comfort. Commercial planes like the 787 Dreamliner, A350 XWB, and 777 fleets happen to fulfill all five of these categories.
A380 is a luxury tool. This is something new.
Silly. Who really cares about it? It’s not a military plan, doesn’t have to take off “almost vertically”
No it did not take off "nearly vertically". WHat nonsense.
Should have been built instead of 787 ... in the early 2000's ... to replace the 747 and to compete with the A380.
The 757 & 767 should have had NG & X versions back then as well.
But Boeing completely messed up in the early 80's not building the 757 to replace the 737 for the mall Jet market ... and leave the 767 for the medium market.
Its all fun until you remember this (and almost all) modern aircraft have a development time of 15+ years. on the early 2000's the 777-300ER was just introduced as well as de GE90-115B. This 777x and GE9X couldn't have been developed at that time...
@@RafiquiLP94 Again. Boeing completely screwed themselves way back in the late 70's developing the 757 & 767 for the medium Jet market with the 757 have the same sized fuselage as the 737, 707, & 727.
The 757 should have been future proofed for the small jet market to replace the 737, with optimized versions touching parts of the medium Jet market.
Likewise the 767 should have been future proofed for the medium Jet market with optimized versions touching the large Jet market.
And the 777 developed in the 90's should have be future proofed for the large Jet market with optimized version competing with the 747 and the A380 that would come in the mid 2000s.
Boeing should have been moving to only Twin Jets with four models: small( 757), medium(767), large ( 777) with the a new regional Jet becoming the 737.
Twin Jets were always the future with less by bigger high bypass expensive engines, better fuel economy and range. How long did Boeing know Airbus was developing the A320 with its tall landing gear & high bypass engines and stick control digital flybywire?
Boeing saw how Airbus future proofed the A320 for the the small plane market ... but never future proofed the 777 for the large plane market but had it in the medium & large plane market ... because Boeign never future proofed the the 767 for the medium market.
Again. Boeing first started with a variant fo the 747 then quickly gave up offering an alternative for the A380 ... and considered the Sonic Cruiser ... before finally settling on the 787 ... when they had the 767 which has had zero major upgrades & improvements ( ie NG, Max, X).
The billions they spent on the 787 should have been spent on developing the 737 replacement and continuously upgrading & improve the 767, 777 for range & economy.
Boeing would still be king if simply developed the 757 to replace the 737, make the 737 a regional Jet, and design the 767 to meet all the needs to the medium market. And then when they decided to make the 777 it will be for the large jet market and won't encroach on the 767's turf.
@@abelincoln8885 first of all, you cannot "future proof" anything because you don't know how the future will be. On the 80s the industry tried to "future proof" the engines efficiency because of the rising oil prices, and invested in the Open fan development, then suddenly the prices went down again and all those developments were not implemented. Now they have been resumed, but addressing an environmental issue trying to reduce the carbon emissions.
The aircraft you are comparing can't be compared. Boeing can't future proof a plane that is not selling that much on the first place, if the airlines are no buying 757s why invest more money on them? The 737 is more versatile, one of it's greatest features was how low it is to the ground, making it more accessible and serviceable, giving the opportunity to operate and give mantainance without needing additional support equipment. The 757 does not have this, if you can give the airlines the opportunity to have a 737 with the same seats than a 757, they will likely choose the 737 over the 757. Additionally, the 737 is too big to be a regional jet, therefore the success of smaller airplanes like the E-jets, CRJs and C-Series. You don't need to fix something that is not broken. Saying Boeing should have use the 757 to replace the 737 is like saying Toyota should have invested on the Prius to replace the Corolla...
The 767 has not have mayor upgrades? That plane had a 20 year development on upgrades, from the first flight on 1981 with the -200 to the introduction of the -400ER with 7 civil variants (even more if we coun the military applications). And not only that, that plane is still on production after 40 years and Boeing is evaluating the 767-xf with GEnx engines to make a "cheap" 787 competition and compete with the a330neo. None of this can be said about the a310, that made its first flight months after the 767 did and was only produced 15 years. If one of the planes you mentioned is future proofed, is the 767...
We are literally having this discussion on a 777x video. This new version is being certified almost 30 years after it's first flight, we are seeing the introduction of the future of 90s. If new variants are selling and being certified 30 years later, I think that is another "future proofed" aircraft.
Another thing is that sure, all industry should be moving to only twins, that is why the a380 is considered a failure with the 747-8i. They were designed on a time where the future looked like we were going to need big planes an have big connection hauls. That never happened an this planes were left behind. However the 747-8F had a better future as the freight does not behave as passengers (another reason the 767F is still on high demand).
@@RafiquiLP94 Wrong. Airbus did future proof the A320 and the A350 whereby they immediately dominated their market with a superior product and with continuous enhancements & improvements they can challenge larger plans (eg 757 & 777) in other markets.
The 737 was a late 60's design. The A320 was an 80's "small plane" design ... with slightly larger fuselage, latest glass cockpit & digital flybywire and the tall landing gear to accommodate the high bypass turbo fan engines. The Engines were clearly getting bigger for range & efficiency ... and so Airbus "future proofed" the A320 to immediately outperform the 737 Classic for the start to firmly establish the make over the next 10 years ... forcing Boeing to finally make the 737 NG in the late 90's.
Again. The 757 began development in the late 70's and has the same size fuselage as the 707 & 737 .. and was being developed alongside the widebody 767 ... for the medium jet market. Boeing screwed up developing the 757 for the medium market along with the 767. Only wide body planes should be for medium & large plane markets. The 757 should have been designed as a small plane to replace the 737 .. with the latest technology and the tall landing gears to accommodate the latest high bypass turbofan engine ... for the smaller plane. Boeing never future proofed the 767 for the medium jet market nor continuously improve the design so that it could cover routes provided by the 747. And because of these failures with the 767 Boeing makes the 777 to cover for the smaller jet and to cover routes by the 747. smh.
If Boding had been smart way back in the late 70's ... they should have planned long term ... to only make twin jets .. and have 4 models "future proofed" for their market:
737 ( regional jet), 757 ( small), 767 ( medium) and 777 (Large).
How long had Boeing known the Engines were getting bigger requiring tall landing gears, and Airbus was planning to make the A320 to compete with the 737?
It was obvious from the success of the A300 which Boeing eventually made their version with the 767 over 10 years later ... that Airbus would target the small plane market and compete with the 737 ... with the latest tech, trends and what they learned from their wide body twin jet.
The 737 has short landing gear so it need to be replaced with a "future proofed" design especially with Airbus designing & making the A320.
And what did Boeing do? Why make the 757 a medium jet of course with the same ratings with the wide body 767 ... and leave the 737 a sitting duck for the arrival of the A320 in the late 80's.
What is happening with the 777X ... 737Max ... 787 ... and the original 767 & 777 is all bad decisions and catch up Boeing Execs. But the biggest mistake of all is what Boeing decided to do with the 757, knowing Airbus planned to compete with the 737. There was no way in hell Airbus was going to copy the 737 designed in the late 80's and especially the short landing gear.
How long did Boeing know big High bypass turbo fan engines is the future ... and twin jets?
@@RafiquiLP94 And I said a new designed regional Jet should be rebranded as the 737 ... with the "small" 757 replacing the 737 Classic in the early 80's.
Again. Boeing knew the engines were getting bigger, twin jets is the future ... and ... Airbus was about to make the A320 to compete with the 737 designed in the late 60's with short landing gear.
The 757 has the same size fuselage as the 737 and has tall landing gear to accommodate the larger engines ... but .. was stupidly design to the medium plane market along side the 767 especially for shorter takeoffs & higher altitude airports
The 757 should have been designed as a future proof replacement for he 737 in the early 80's .. in anticipation of the bigger better engines and the inevitable competition from Airbus. Boeing made the 767 because of the success of the A300 from the early 70's. Boeing made the 777 because they knew wide body twins is the future, to cover the market between the 767 & 747 ... and ... because they knew Airbus was making the A330/40.
Again. Boeing knew by the late 70's twin jets are the FUTURE .. engines are getting bigger ... and .. Airbus wants to compete with the 737 which was designed in the late 60's with short landing gear. Boeing began design of the 757 which has the same size fuselage as the 737 .. in the late 70's.
This is what I mean by by "future proof" design.
Do you actually know what a vertical take off is?
are you illiterate? the title literally says "NEARLY vertical".
@@richardhammock You clearly fail to understand the difference between vertical take off and a steep climb out, recommend you take your offensive remark elsewhere.
talk about desperation
Why does the airliner has to do this maneuver in the airshow?
What for?!
It doesn't HAVE to.
Show off the capabilities
Why is it a problem? They want to show off what the new jet is capable of
...to showcase its capabilities? what kind of a shitty question is this?
To Wijak Sa: the aircraft is demonstrating its capabilities, far beyond what is required for normal airline operation, and the pilot is 'putting it through its paces.' In order to lighten the airframe for maximum performance, it will be carrying only the minimum volume of fuel required; it will not have passenger seats and galley equipment installed; and of course it will not be carrying any passengers.