B777-300ER

[DarrenL]

Hello

I'll be flying soon on the B77-300ER- I know absolutely nothing about planes, so I was hoping the collective PH knowledge bank would be able to tell me what its like and the type of experience I can expect?

P.S i'll be flying with Singapore Airlines!

[Eric Mc]

They are just big busses.

Big and boring.

(I like planes but I find modern airliners very samey and characterless - with the odd exception).

[williamp]

Dont sit on the left hand aide of the place. Centre or right is fine. But avoid the left hand side

Hope this helps

[IforB]

They are awesome machines. Massively powerful and all the people I know who fly them absolutely lve them to bits. They aren't dull at all, they are quite simply astonishing pieces of engineering. They've got the most powerful aero engines ever built at a staggering 115,000lbs of thrust each (A Spitfire produces around 600-800lbs of thrust!)and have an enviable safety record.

How can that be boring?

[mrloudly]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+1

Emirates have I believe the worlds largest fleet. I love 'em. Taxy at idle always pleases me :-)

Edited by mrloudly on Tuesday 26th October 14:30

[DarrenL]

Eric- all planes are big busses

Willamp- that was a bit cryptic, can you eloberate?

All the rest- thanks for the input, i'm looking forward to my trip even more! (esp after the enviable safety record!)

[dafeller]

Singapore Airlines could fly coffee cans with cardboard wings on them and it would be a wonderful travel experience.

[Eric Mc]

IforB said:

They are awesome machines. Massively powerful and all the people I know who fly them absolutely lve them to bits. They aren't dull at all, they are quite simply astonishing pieces of engineering. They've got the most powerful aero engines ever built at a staggering 115,000lbs of thrust each (A Spitfire produces around 600-800lbs of thrust!)and have an enviable safety record.

How can that be boring?

I think if you are intimately involved with them and au fait with the engineering and operational side of things, you can appreciate what goes into them. But from a passenger's point of view I think a lot of modern airliners are sterile, uninspiring artefacts with the charisma of a Van Hool coach.

In a way, their very dullness is the point of their design. Make flying as unexiting as possible for the passenger and you have made a good airliner. Indeed, try and engineer out any rememant of the sensation of flying and you have achieved your aim.

[Eric Mc]

DarrenL said:

Eric- all planes are big busses

I presume you mean "airliners".

On that presumption, I would beg to differ.

Airliners have become very homogenous in shape and styling these days. Most lack any external distinguishing features and once esconced inside them you are hard pushed to notice what type of aircraft you are in.

[Glosphil]

I think Emirates have a different seat layout to other ailines on their 777s - 3-4-3 instead of the usual 2-5-2. So narrower seats but more leg room provided. I have flown on Emirate 777s from Birmingham to Singapore via Dubai in 'cattle class' and at almost 6' was more comfortable than on any other plane I have flown on.

[IforB]

Eric Mc said:

IforB said:

They are awesome machines. Massively powerful and all the people I know who fly them absolutely lve them to bits. They aren't dull at all, they are quite simply astonishing pieces of engineering. They've got the most powerful aero engines ever built at a staggering 115,000lbs of thrust each (A Spitfire produces around 600-800lbs of thrust!)and have an enviable safety record.

How can that be boring?

I think if you are intimately involved with them and au fait with the engineering and operational side of things, you can appreciate what goes into them. But from a passenger's point of view I think a lot of modern airliners are sterile, uninspiring artefacts with the charisma of a Van Hool coach.

In a way, their very dullness is the point of their design. Make flying as unexiting as possible for the passenger and you have made a good airliner. Indeed, try and engineer out any rememant of the sensation of flying and you have achieved your aim.

But there is nothing dull about them. They offer a great experience for the passenger, but they and all modern airliners are mind-boggling really. Of course they aren't Concorde, but they do their job with amazing ability.

If you fly, then you soon realise what astonishing machines these are. They might not be as sexy as a fast jet, but to call them dull is cruel in the extreme. As a passenger I want as dull as an experience as possible and as someone who loves aviation, then the last thing I want to see is high tech marvels that are a bit edgy. Of course I want to see fleets of beautiful supersonic machines screaming around the globe, but that ain't going to happen anytime soon, so we'll have to d with wonderful machines.

[mrloudly]

Glosphil said:

I think Emirates have a different seat layout to other ailines on their 777s - 3-4-3 instead of the usual 2-5-2. So narrower seats but more leg room provided. I have flown on Emirate 777s from Birmingham to Singapore via Dubai in 'cattle class' and at almost 6' was more comfortable than on any other plane I have flown on.

Even nicer with the horizontal beds in club ;-)

They're IMHO a good airline

Andy M

[Glosphil]

mrloudly said:

Glosphil said:

I think Emirates have a different seat layout to other ailines on their 777s - 3-4-3 instead of the usual 2-5-2. So narrower seats but more leg room provided. I have flown on Emirate 777s from Birmingham to Singapore via Dubai in 'cattle class' and at almost 6' was more comfortable than on any other plane I have flown on.

Even nicer with the horizontal beds in club ;-)

They're IMHO a good airline

Andy M

The extra cost of Club class would have required me to exit the aircraft somewhere over the Indian Ocean (on the way out to Singapore) as my money ran out.

[Eric Mc]

IforB said:

Eric Mc said:

IforB said:

They are awesome machines. Massively powerful and all the people I know who fly them absolutely lve them to bits. They aren't dull at all, they are quite simply astonishing pieces of engineering. They've got the most powerful aero engines ever built at a staggering 115,000lbs of thrust each (A Spitfire produces around 600-800lbs of thrust!)and have an enviable safety record.

How can that be boring?

I think if you are intimately involved with them and au fait with the engineering and operational side of things, you can appreciate what goes into them. But from a passenger's point of view I think a lot of modern airliners are sterile, uninspiring artefacts with the charisma of a Van Hool coach.

In a way, their very dullness is the point of their design. Make flying as unexiting as possible for the passenger and you have made a good airliner. Indeed, try and engineer out any rememant of the sensation of flying and you have achieved your aim.

But there is nothing dull about them. They offer a great experience for the passenger, but they and all modern airliners are mind-boggling really. Of course they aren't Concorde, but they do their job with amazing ability.

If you fly, then you soon realise what astonishing machines these are. They might not be as sexy as a fast jet, but to call them dull is cruel in the extreme. As a passenger I want as dull as an experience as possible and as someone who loves aviation, then the last thing I want to see is high tech marvels that are a bit edgy. Of course I want to see fleets of beautiful supersonic machines screaming around the globe, but that ain't going to happen anytime soon, so we'll have to d with wonderful machines.

So you agree - dullness is the aim

I appreciate what goes into these machines - but they don't inspire me in any great way. Possibly it's just that I am getting old and not as impressionable as I once was.

Give me a smokey VC-10 or a Caravelle stopping with the aid of a drag chute.

[Nicholas Blair]

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Singapore_Air/Sin...

[Mr Dave]

Eric Mc said:

DarrenL said:

Eric- all planes are big busses

I presume you mean "airliners".

On that presumption, I would beg to differ.

Airliners have become very homogenous in shape and styling these days. Most lack any external distinguishing features and once esconced inside them you are hard pushed to notice what type of aircraft you are in.

I think the most popular airliners of any "generation" are very homogenous in shape and styling.

Apart from the Caravelle admittedly, that was a bit unusual.

[Eric Mc]

Hmm - many designs today are essentially moderate sweepback, with twin engines underslung in pods under the wing. That seems to be the default design for virtually anything carrying from 100 to about 400 passengers.

I think you will find that between 1950 to about 1970 the designs were many and varied - engines buried in wing, engines in underwing pods (two or four), engines mounted on the tail (two, three or four) or a mixture of engines under the wing AND on the tail (like the DC-10 or L1011). Sweepback varied from the fairly modest sweepback on the Comet and Caravelle to 37 degrees on a 747.
Tailplanes could high, low or mid set depending on the engine configurations.
There was even one design with the engines mounted in pods ABOVE the wing (the VFW 614).

So, I just think that there was a bit more variety compared to today. I suppose we are now looking at a fairly mature technical field where all the engineering and aerodynamic issues of high subsonic flight are know very well understood and there is now far les experimentation. The main innovations now are in automated and digital flight control and improved engine performance.

I'm glad I was around when things were more interesting.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 26th October 18:24

[shakotan]

Eric Mc said:

Hmm - many designs today are essentially moderate sweepback, with twin engines underslung in pods under the wing. That seems to be the default design for virtually anything carrying from 100 to about 400 passengers.

I think you will find that between 1950 to about 1970 the designs were many and varied - engines buried in wing, engines in underwing pods (two or four), engines mounted on the tail (two, three or four) or a mixture of engines under the wing AND on the tail (like the DC-10 or L1011). Sweepback varied from the fairly modest sweepback on the Comet and Caravelle to 37 degrees on a 747.
Tailplanes could high, low or mid set depending on the engine configurations.
There was even one design with the engines mounted in pods ABOVE the wing (the VFW 614).

So, I just think that there was a bit more variety compared to today. I suppose we are now looking at a fairly mature technical field where all the engineering and aerodynamic issues of high subsonic flight are know very well understood and there is now far les experimentation. The main innovations now are in automated and digital flight control and improved engine performance.

I'm glad I was around when things were more interesting.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 26th October 18:24

Automobile designer messed around with pedal location and control systems back in the very early days, until a conventional layout was settled upon.

Perhaps this 'settle' in the design of current aeroplanes is deemed the most efficient in terms of construction vs cost vs performance?

[LeeME3]

Eric Mc said:

Hmm - many designs today are essentially moderate sweepback, with twin engines underslung in pods under the wing. That seems to be the default design for virtually anything carrying from 100 to about 400 passengers.

I think you will find that between 1950 to about 1970 the designs were many and varied - engines buried in wing, engines in underwing pods (two or four), engines mounted on the tail (two, three or four) or a mixture of engines under the wing AND on the tail (like the DC-10 or L1011). Sweepback varied from the fairly modest sweepback on the Comet and Caravelle to 37 degrees on a 747.
Tailplanes could high, low or mid set depending on the engine configurations.
There was even one design with the engines mounted in pods ABOVE the wing (the VFW 614).

So, I just think that there was a bit more variety compared to today. I suppose we are now looking at a fairly mature technical field where all the engineering and aerodynamic issues of high subsonic flight are know very well understood and there is now far les experimentation. The main innovations now are in automated and digital flight control and improved engine performance.

I'm glad I was around when things were more interesting.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 26th October 18:24

Well from my office window I can see VC10s, L1011 derivative, Comet derivative, Global Express derivative (all in daily flying condition) plus every variant of modern Airbus and Boeing you can think of (well, except A380). That covers pretty much the whole gamut of airliner design...

[IforB]

shakotan said:

Eric Mc said:

Hmm - many designs today are essentially moderate sweepback, with twin engines underslung in pods under the wing. That seems to be the default design for virtually anything carrying from 100 to about 400 passengers.

I think you will find that between 1950 to about 1970 the designs were many and varied - engines buried in wing, engines in underwing pods (two or four), engines mounted on the tail (two, three or four) or a mixture of engines under the wing AND on the tail (like the DC-10 or L1011). Sweepback varied from the fairly modest sweepback on the Comet and Caravelle to 37 degrees on a 747.
Tailplanes could high, low or mid set depending on the engine configurations.
There was even one design with the engines mounted in pods ABOVE the wing (the VFW 614).

So, I just think that there was a bit more variety compared to today. I suppose we are now looking at a fairly mature technical field where all the engineering and aerodynamic issues of high subsonic flight are know very well understood and there is now far les experimentation. The main innovations now are in automated and digital flight control and improved engine performance.

I'm glad I was around when things were more interesting.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 26th October 18:24

Automobile designer messed around with pedal location and control systems back in the very early days, until a conventional layout was settled upon.

Perhaps this 'settle' in the design of current aeroplanes is deemed the most efficient in terms of construction vs cost vs performance?

There is an element of conservatism in large aircraft design today, there has to be. With the amount of money that a new design costs, then it simply isn't feasible for big companies to go all Howard Hughes anymore, which is a crying shame.

They do come up with wonderful concepts, such as the blended wing bodies like this of course.



However, I think we'll se the innovation being driven in the UAV field and this will then trickle down to commercail stuff. The days of airliner manufacturers taking vast risks are past.

Mind you, the new 787 is seen as a risky piece of it in some areas (happily helped along by Aibus's marketing department of course...) mainly because of the materials that are used in it.

Edited by IforB on Wednesday 27th October 09:05