The Boeing Triple 7

[Jay Honeck]

....is simply an awesome aircraft.

With 9 rows across (2+5+2) in an aircraft as long as a 747 -- but with only
two gigantic engines -- modern materials, an excellent sound system, and
little video screens in the seat backs, I was absolutely astounded at the
comfort and ride of this plane.

I've flown first and second-generation jet airliners (707s, DC-9s, 727s,
DC-10s, L-1011s, MD-80s) and was always annoyed at one thing or another,
usually the whiny noise level and air handling systems. Boeing has
addressed both issues in the 777, and in the three different aircraft we
rode in the noise level was almost unnaturally low -- and the air was fresh
without being overly dry.

And having a moving-map GPS display right in front of me was very cool, too!
(612 mph was our top ground speed -- at 35,000 feet.)

The new 787 Dreamliner is supposed to incorporate all the breakthroughs from
the 777, plus take advantage of the lightness and strength of composite
materials. Having just toured the immense plant where it is to be built,
let's hope Boeing has another winner in the wings...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rod Madsen]

Did you take a trip to somewhere in the 777?

Rod

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Cg5le.7245$PS3.6886@attbi_s22...
> ...is simply an awesome aircraft.
>
> With 9 rows across (2+5+2) in an aircraft as long as a 747 -- but with
> only two gigantic engines -- modern materials, an excellent sound system,
> and little video screens in the seat backs, I was absolutely astounded at
> the comfort and ride of this plane.
>
> I've flown first and second-generation jet airliners (707s, DC-9s, 727s,
> DC-10s, L-1011s, MD-80s) and was always annoyed at one thing or another,
> usually the whiny noise level and air handling systems. Boeing has
> addressed both issues in the 777, and in the three different aircraft we
> rode in the noise level was almost unnaturally low -- and the air was
> fresh without being overly dry.
>

The 777 is not that good. Having crossed the Atlantic many times in it, it
is my least liked aircraft. It has a reputation for being very dry. Try it
on an 11 hour flight. Last month I got through three litres of water during
a flight from Beijing to London

The A330 on the other hand is neat. They go one better than gps moving map
and have two camera views available. The first looks down giving a view
directly beneath the plane.

The other give a pilots view. Its pretty cool watching the landing in real
time.

[Jay Honeck]

> The 777 is not that good. Having crossed the Atlantic many times in it,
> it is my least liked aircraft. It has a reputation for being very dry. Try
> it on an 11 hour flight. Last month I got through three litres of water
> during a flight from Beijing to London

Hmm. I wonder if it's where you're seated, cuz we didn't find this to be
the case at all. Usually I'm totally desiccated after an airline flight,
but not on this bird.

> The other give a pilots view. Its pretty cool watching the landing in real
> time.

Now THAT is cool!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you take a trip to somewhere in the 777?

Chicago-Seattle-Denver-Chicago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Chris wrote:
>
> The other give a pilots view. Its pretty cool watching the landing in real
> time.

That beats United's radio feed hands down!

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> ...is simply an awesome aircraft.
>
> With 9 rows across (2+5+2) in an aircraft as long as a 747 -- but with only
> two gigantic engines -- modern materials, an excellent sound system, and
> little video screens in the seat backs, I was absolutely astounded at the
> comfort and ride of this plane.
>
> I've flown first and second-generation jet airliners (707s, DC-9s, 727s,
> DC-10s, L-1011s, MD-80s) and was always annoyed at one thing or another,
> usually the whiny noise level and air handling systems. Boeing has
> addressed both issues in the 777, and in the three different aircraft we
> rode in the noise level was almost unnaturally low -- and the air was fresh
> without being overly dry.
>
> And having a moving-map GPS display right in front of me was very cool, too!
> (612 mph was our top ground speed -- at 35,000 feet.)
>
> The new 787 Dreamliner is supposed to incorporate all the breakthroughs from
> the 777, plus take advantage of the lightness and strength of composite
> materials. Having just toured the immense plant where it is to be built,
> let's hope Boeing has another winner in the wings...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Hi Jay,

Glad you like "my" airplane. I worked in the LCD technology team that
developed the LCDs for the 777 Flight Deck. It was the first airplane
in the world to utilize LCD Displays for an EFIS system. When we
started, active-matrix LCDs were ugly as sin, but we pushed hard on the
manufacturers to rise to our standards, and much of what was developed
for the 777 is now incorporated in LCDs for laptops and TVs.

I also worked on the project team for the AIMS Display function. AIMS
stands for Airplane Information Management System which is an
integrated avionics suite that forms the brain of the 777. I spent a
year on-site at Honeywell's Deer Valley facility in Phoenix AZ while
AIMS was being designed. Working on that project was a real kick in
the pants.

I also architected the Master Brightness Control system for the 777
which puts all of the displays and lightplates under the control of a
single knob located on the overhead panel. I organized a demo with the
help of a couple of other engineers in the 757 simulator and convinced
John Cashman that we should put this system in the 777. He gave us the
go ahead and we made it work.

It was a fantastic experience and I got to work with a lot of
world-class engineers, many of whom I am still friends with. I now
live in Idaho, but recently I have been looking hard at possible going
back to Seattle to work on the 787. Boeing wants me back, but my
family and I are now pretty established here so it is a hard decision
to make. My former lead engineer is now the Chief Systems Engineer for
the 787 program... I always wonder where I might have wound up if I had
stayed instead of leaving during the 1995 layoffs. Of course, then I
wouldn't have met my wife, so I think I made the right choice.

Did you get a chance to peek in the flight deck?

Best Regards,

Dean Wilkinson
http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/airplan/index.htm

[[email protected]]

The 777-300 also has cameras since it is a stretch version and they are
useful for ground handling, and depending on the airline, you can view
the images from the cameras on the 777 as well...

[[email protected]]

Hi Jay,

I forgot to include a link to some photos from my days working on the
777. They are on my website at http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/777.htm

Dean Wilkinson

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:8_9le.6357$IC6.755@attbi_s72...
>> The 777 is not that good. Having crossed the Atlantic many times in it,
>> it is my least liked aircraft. It has a reputation for being very dry.
>> Try it on an 11 hour flight. Last month I got through three litres of
>> water during a flight from Beijing to London
>
> Hmm. I wonder if it's where you're seated, cuz we didn't find this to be
> the case at all. Usually I'm totally desiccated after an airline flight,
> but not on this bird.

Living in Seattle, I have several friends who are employed as engineers for
the various Boeing jets. One explained to me that jets have no humidifiers
at all. The air is humidified strictly from the passengers (respiration and
perspiration).

Given that, the idea that a particular jet "has a reputation for being very
dry" seems ludicrous to me. For a given altitude and cabin pressure, there
will be a given air "turn-over", and for a given air "turn-over" and a given
exterior humidity (always extremely low at airliner altitudes), there will
be a certain amount of moisture extracted from the passengers. That amount
of moisture is always considerable, regardless of aircraft make or model.

Note that nowhere in that chain of events is the design of the jet
pertinent. The only way I can see for a jet to have "a reputation for being
very dry" is for the jet to be equipped with a DEhumidifier. Which, of
course, they aren't.

Pete

[G. Sylvester]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Did you take a trip to somewhere in the 777?
> Chicago-Seattle-Denver-Chicago.

did you trade-in the pathfinder? ;-)

Gerald

[G. Sylvester]

Chris wrote:
> The 777 is not that good.

in coach it is abysmal (sp?). It is absolutely great
in business. Never been in first. Damn I miss being
a 1K. Although now I fly myself much of the time but
on the bad side don't travel that much.

> The A330 on the other hand is neat. They go one better than gps moving map
> and have two camera views available. The first looks down giving a view
> directly beneath the plane.

the interiors of most commercial aircraft are determined
by the airline. One airline's 777 might be great inside
and the other horrible. Just depends on the airline.

> The other give a pilots view. Its pretty cool watching the landing in real
> time.

agreed. They had this on a SAS flight with the camera on the nose
wheel. Pretty cool. I wonder what the passengers reaction would
be on an approach with a nasty crosswind to Cat I minimums. :)

Gerald

[Hilton]

Peter Duniho wrote:
[zap]
> Note that nowhere in that chain of events is the design of the jet
> pertinent. The only way I can see for a jet to have "a reputation for
being
> very dry" is for the jet to be equipped with a DEhumidifier. Which, of
> course, they aren't.

Aren't you forgetting the pressurization, heating, and cooling systems?

Hilton

[Jay Honeck]

> Did you get a chance to peek in the flight deck?

Nah, Dean -- that door never opened.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I forgot to include a link to some photos from my days working on the
> 777. They are on my website at http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/777.htm

That's cool!

What sorts of, er, "surplus" displays do you have in *your* plane now, Dean?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave S]

> Aren't you forgetting the pressurization, heating, and cooling systems?
>
> Hilton

Probably not. Bleed air is hot and dry. It goes through air handlers
that make it cool and dry. It still does not pick up moisture in this
process. It then goes into the cabin, dessicates your passenger, then
escapes through existing leaks in the pressure vessel, or through
outflow valves.

Also, at altitude, the system is DEFINITELY in the heat mode, as the
outside air temp is well below 0*F.

The longer you fly, the drier you get. Again, to agree, saying a
particular plane is drier is peculiar. The only thing I can think that
would explain that is IF the amount of air being exchanged is greater
than in comparison to other aircraft. (i.e. greater leak out, so greater
flow in of dry air, which then escapes sooner, increasing the "dry"
effect).

A benefit (if this indeed exists) is that the air is less stale/more
fresh and perhaps less likely to contribute to airborne disease
transmission.. but that is pure speculation on my part.

Dave

[Paul kgyy]

The 777 is awesome for its size but slow for international trips - flew
on one to England a couple years ago and en route saw a 747 overhauling
us easily - might have cut an hour off the travel time.

[Jay Honeck]

> The 777 is awesome for its size but slow for international trips - flew
> on one to England a couple years ago and en route saw a 747 overhauling
> us easily - might have cut an hour off the travel time.

???

Boeing lists the cruising speed for both the 777 and 747 as .84 mach at
35,000 feet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Hi Jay,

Just in a club right now... one of these days I hope to own an
airplane! I have a friend with an RV-6, and another with a series 7
Kitfox. I am planning on developing a little panel mount moving map
system that I am going to put in their planes. I may even put it out
to the experimental marketplace as a product...

Dean

[[email protected]]

Yep, this is true... I suspect that he was just in a situation where
the 747 captain was trying to make up time at the expense of fuel
economy. Airliners can go faster than its typical cruise speed, but
you pay for it in higher fuel burn. There is a sweet spot for long
distance cruise, and most airlines operate at that point.

Dean

[Paul kgyy]

Well, IIRC, it was a Lufthansa 747 overhauling an American 777, so
maybe it was a matter of economics. I think it was in the days when
American was removing olives from the salads to save money.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <Cg5le.7245$PS3.6886@attbi_s22>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> little video screens in the seat backs, I was absolutely astounded at the
> comfort and ride of this plane.

BA are now using them on the London -> Houston run (they used to use
B747-400s on this route). Continental are using them on the same run
(they were using the DC10-10).

Out of these, the DC10 was by far the worst (but also the oldest). I'm
not a fan of the 2+5+2 seating arrangement - always travelling alone
means they put me in the middle of that bay of 5, usually between two
screaming children. (I can usually get a non-middle-seat on BA though,
which helps). The B747 wasn't bad, but the seats still felt like
concrete after 4 hours. The 777 is the only one that I can be
comfortable in the whole trip.

Last time I went to Houston I'd done something aggravating to my lower
back. The B777 seat was the *only* seat I'd sat in for at least a month
where I could be comfortable in. I was dreading the airline flight but
it ended up being the only time I had managed to sit down and not be in
pain for hours.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> The only way I can see for a jet to have "a reputation for being
> very dry" is for the jet to be equipped with a DEhumidifier. Which, of
> course, they aren't.

Both heating and air conditioning systems are dehumidifiers.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Dave S wrote:
>
> Again, to agree, saying a
> particular plane is drier is peculiar. The only thing I can think that
> would explain that is IF the amount of air being exchanged is greater
> than in comparison to other aircraft. (i.e. greater leak out, so greater
> flow in of dry air, which then escapes sooner, increasing the "dry"
> effect).

Perhaps some aircraft are equipped with humidifiers for the inside air?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Allen]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
> salads to save money.
>

And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives free
Mercedes cars.

Allen

[William W. Plummer]

Allen wrote:
> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
>>salads to save money.
>>
>
>
> And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives free
> Mercedes cars.

The attendants are free to find other employment.

[Peter Duniho]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Aren't you forgetting the pressurization, heating, and cooling systems?

No, I'm not. At what point in those systems would your hypothetical
dehumidifier exist? Why would it exist?

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:tdmle.264$zb.121@trndny04...
> Perhaps some aircraft are equipped with humidifiers for the inside air?

A humidifier would require the carriage of water; beyond that already
required for the galley and lavatories, of course.

I'm not aware of any jet with a humidifier. Certainly, my friend at Boeing
claims that no commonly used commercial airliner has a humidifier.

Pete

[Matt Barrow]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Allen wrote:
> > "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >> I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
> >>salads to save money.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives
free
> > Mercedes cars.
>
> The attendants are free to find other employment.

A good executive can save a dying company (Nelson at UPS, Louis-Dreyfus at
Adidas, Bethune at Continental, Bonsignore at Honeywell, Welch at GE...),
attendants can only **** up a company -- doing their job is "normal". MOF,
most unions have done much, through work restrictions, to kill entire
industries, let alone single companies.

And, yes, even being honest, an executive can **** up a company royally (HP,
Diebold, Apple, DEC...)

[Allen]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
>> "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>> I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
>>> salads to save money.
>>>
>>
> Allen wrote:
>> And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives
>> free Mercedes cars.
>
> The attendants are free to find other employment.

That's correct! Who would want to work for a company that is crying poverty
and warning it's employee's that if they do not give wage concessions the
company will go bankrupt, then turn around and in the same month give away a
million dollars worth of cars (to suits who each are paid what 30 flight
attendants make). Sounds a lot like Enron conduct to me.

Allen

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kbmle.263$zb.134@trndny04...
> Both heating and air conditioning systems are dehumidifiers.

How so?

When cooling air below ambient, an air conditioner does dehumidify. But the
net temperature change in an airliner is positive, and it's heated before
it's cooled. No loss of moisture there. Heating air does lower the
*relative* humidity, but that doesn't mean that moisture has actually been
removed (which is what dehumidifying is). No loss of moisture there either.

At what point is it that you believe moisture is actually *removed* from the
cabin air in an airliner?

Pete

[Allen]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Allen wrote:
>> > "Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >
>> >> I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
>> >>salads to save money.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives
> free
>> > Mercedes cars.
>>
>> The attendants are free to find other employment.
>
> A good executive can save a dying company (Nelson at UPS, Louis-Dreyfus at
> Adidas, Bethune at Continental, Bonsignore at Honeywell, Welch at GE...),
> attendants can only **** up a company -- doing their job is "normal".

What good executive, knowing that disgruntled employees can only "**** up" a
company, would not at least put on the show of appeasement?

[Ray]

I recently attended a seminar given by one of the 777 engineers about the
777 design process. Couple things I found particularly interesting:
apparently one of the primary reasons that the 777 was developed as a "new"
aircraft (instead of just a new version of the 767 as originally planned)
was because of all the problems with the 747-400 when it came out. The
airlines were getting sick of having to sort through all the bugs on new
aircraft, so one of Boeings primary objectives with the 777 was to have a
plane that was ready to fly right from the start.

The other interesting thing was that the 777 was originally designed with
folding wing (like some navy jets) in order to be able to fit into smaller
gates. None of the airliners wanted anything to do with the folding wing,
but apparently, until recently, the folding wing was still listed as an
option in the 777 catalog.

- Ray



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Cg5le.7245$PS3.6886@attbi_s22...
> ...is simply an awesome aircraft.
>
> With 9 rows across (2+5+2) in an aircraft as long as a 747 -- but with
only
> two gigantic engines -- modern materials, an excellent sound system, and
> little video screens in the seat backs, I was absolutely astounded at the
> comfort and ride of this plane.
>
> I've flown first and second-generation jet airliners (707s, DC-9s, 727s,
> DC-10s, L-1011s, MD-80s) and was always annoyed at one thing or another,
> usually the whiny noise level and air handling systems. Boeing has
> addressed both issues in the 777, and in the three different aircraft we
> rode in the noise level was almost unnaturally low -- and the air was
fresh
> without being overly dry.
>
> And having a moving-map GPS display right in front of me was very cool,
too!
> (612 mph was our top ground speed -- at 35,000 feet.)
>
> The new 787 Dreamliner is supposed to incorporate all the breakthroughs
from
> the 777, plus take advantage of the lightness and strength of composite
> materials. Having just toured the immense plant where it is to be built,
> let's hope Boeing has another winner in the wings...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dean Wilkinson]

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
> I recently attended a seminar given by one of the 777 engineers about the
> 777 design process. Couple things I found particularly interesting:
> apparently one of the primary reasons that the 777 was developed as a
"new"
> aircraft (instead of just a new version of the 767 as originally planned)
> was because of all the problems with the 747-400 when it came out. The
> airlines were getting sick of having to sort through all the bugs on new
> aircraft, so one of Boeings primary objectives with the 777 was to have a
> plane that was ready to fly right from the start.
>
> The other interesting thing was that the 777 was originally designed with
> folding wing (like some navy jets) in order to be able to fit into smaller
> gates. None of the airliners wanted anything to do with the folding wing,
> but apparently, until recently, the folding wing was still listed as an
> option in the 777 catalog.
>
> - Ray
>

Hi Ray,

Yes, the folding wing is still a design option that was never adopted. It
was thought that some airports would require it to allow the 777 to berth at
gates that couldn't handle its wing span. That turned out to be a non-issue
in most cases.

The 747-400 was a problem child for Boeing. It was sold as a "light touch"
upgrade to the 747 but was very much a new version all the way around. Too
much work with too little committed resources led to some real problems. In
engineering circles, every time we hear our management talk about a product
generation update as being "light touch" we cringe...

Dean

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>>
>> The only way I can see for a jet to have "a reputation for being very
>> dry" is for the jet to be equipped with a DEhumidifier. Which, of
>> course, they aren't.
>
>
> Both heating and air conditioning systems are dehumidifiers.

Yes, but one affects only RH, while the other actually removes water
from the air.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ray wrote:

>>the 777, plus take advantage of the lightness and strength of composite
>>materials. Having just toured the immense plant where it is to be built,
>>let's hope Boeing has another winner in the wings...

Kind of like the tails on some Airbus models? :-)


Matt

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:8_9le.6357$IC6.755@attbi_s72...
>> The 777 is not that good. Having crossed the Atlantic many times in it,
>> it is my least liked aircraft. It has a reputation for being very dry.
>> Try it on an 11 hour flight. Last month I got through three litres of
>> water during a flight from Beijing to London
>
> Hmm. I wonder if it's where you're seated, cuz we didn't find this to be
> the case at all. Usually I'm totally desiccated after an airline flight,
> but not on this bird.
>

Done it in coach and business still the same. Flight attendants complain
about it all the time and I suppose they are probably a better judge than
anyone.

Seen all those wizened old wreck flight attendants that look as though they
are 90 years old. Unique to the 777. In truth they are only 25. FAs look
much younger on other aircraft.

I heard a story from the BA crew I travelled back from Beijing with that in
their stopover hotel was a US airline crew with a 80 year old flight
attendant in the crew.

[Morgans]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Jay,
>
> I forgot to include a link to some photos from my days working on the
> 777. They are on my website at http://www.razorsedgesoft.com/777.htm

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL OFFICE ! ! !

It seems so uncluttered. The overhead seems to be so less cluttered, than
most overheads I have seen. Is there any LCD stuff up there, or just
transparent overlays, making all of the lines? Are the lines linking
systems, and functions?

Great photography. I suppose that was a professional sales photo? I wonder
how many planes had to go around, while the plane sat at the end of the
runway for the photo shoot. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:28:43 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"George Patterson" > wrote in message
>news:tdmle.264$zb.121@trndny04...
>> Perhaps some aircraft are equipped with humidifiers for the inside air?
>
>A humidifier would require the carriage of water; beyond that already
>required for the galley and lavatories, of course.
>
>I'm not aware of any jet with a humidifier. Certainly, my friend at Boeing
>claims that no commonly used commercial airliner has a humidifier.

The 744 had humidifiers as a carrier option. Most didn't opt for it,
or disabled them when they turned out to be more aggravation than they
were worth.

[Bob Moore]

"Peter Duniho" wrote

> At what point is it that you believe moisture is actually *removed*
> from the cabin air in an airliner?

Qouting from my B-707 and B-727 Flight Manuals:

WATER SEPARATOR
A water separator is installed in the Air Cycle Machine turbine
output duct to remove water by centrifugal action from the cold
air.
ANTI-ICING CONTROL VALVE
An anti-icing control valve is installed to automatically route
warm air from the Primary Heat Exchanger into the water separator
to prevent icing when airflow temperature drops below 40 degrees.


When the water separator valve does ice-up, it starts snowing
from the air conditioning vents in the cabin.

Bob Moore
17 years in the Boeing 707
PanAm (retired)

[B. Jensen]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>I'm not aware of any jet with a humidifier. Certainly, my friend at Boeing
>claims that no commonly used commercial airliner has a humidifier.
>
I'm told the B787 will have "some sort of" humidifier in it. I'm not
sure what the Boeing engineers have come up with, but I hope it works.
Guess I'll have to wait until August of 2008 to find out. (looking
forward to flying it!!)

BJ
NWA

[William W. Plummer]

Allen wrote:
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
>>>>salads to save money.
>>>>
>>>
>>Allen wrote:
>>
>>>And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives
>>>free Mercedes cars.
>>
>>The attendants are free to find other employment.
>
>
> That's correct! Who would want to work for a company that is crying poverty
> and warning it's employee's that if they do not give wage concessions the
> company will go bankrupt, then turn around and in the same month give away a
> million dollars worth of cars (to suits who each are paid what 30 flight
> attendants make). Sounds a lot like Enron conduct to me.

Regardless of your opinion, the flight attendants are not hired to
comment on management policies. It is a free market and they are free
to quit. Nobody is tasked with making them happy.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Qouting from my B-707 and B-727 Flight Manuals: [...]

Perhaps I should clarify that my question pertains to cruise flight at
altitude, since that's the issue here. I would be surprised if the systems
you're describing are needed at FL390.

[John]

Chris wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:8_9le.6357$IC6.755@attbi_s72...
> >> The 777 is not that good. Having crossed the Atlantic many times in it,
> >> it is my least liked aircraft. It has a reputation for being very dry.
> >> Try it on an 11 hour flight. Last month I got through three litres of
> >> water during a flight from Beijing to London
> >
> > Hmm. I wonder if it's where you're seated, cuz we didn't find this to be
> > the case at all. Usually I'm totally desiccated after an airline flight,
> > but not on this bird.
> >
>
> Done it in coach and business still the same. Flight attendants complain
> about it all the time and I suppose they are probably a better judge than
> anyone.
>
> Seen all those wizened old wreck flight attendants that look as though they
> are 90 years old. Unique to the 777. In truth they are only 25. FAs look
> much younger on other aircraft.
>
> I heard a story from the BA crew I travelled back from Beijing with that in
> their stopover hotel was a US airline crew with a 80 year old flight
> attendant in the crew.

Wow so 777s make air drier (somehow; defies phyics) and also makes 25 yr old
flight attendants look 90. What an amazing super plane. Congradulations for
Boeing for such magicical features.

[Big John]

Paul

A lot of Airlines cut back on the cruising speed to save fuel (save
money).

Difference in block time of an hour doesn't mean anything in the real
world. If you know the ETA then you can schedule any connection based
on that with no problem. I'd rather fly a little slower and have the
ticket cost less.

And yes I have flown on the Concorde.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````````````````````

On 26 May 2005 06:36:30 -0700, "Paul kgyy" >
wrote:

>The 777 is awesome for its size but slow for international trips - flew
>on one to England a couple years ago and en route saw a 747 overhauling
>us easily - might have cut an hour off the travel time.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:27:03 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Hilton" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> Aren't you forgetting the pressurization, heating, and cooling systems?
>
>No, I'm not. At what point in those systems would your hypothetical
>dehumidifier exist? Why would it exist?
>

Not sure of your definition of a "hypothetical dehumidifier". Most
pressurization/cooling systems that I am familiar with have a
coalescer "sock" with a corresponding drain hose. Typically, the water
collected is routed to spray on a heat exchanger elsewhere in the
system.

Not sure if the sock really sees much/any moisture at altitude, but
have had personal experience with them freezing during TO & climb.

A shop air compressor tank is filled with hot high-pressure air, yet
it gradually fills with water during use...

http://www.b737.org.uk/airconditioning.htm

[Allen]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Allen wrote:
> > "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I think it was in the days when American was removing olives from the
> >>>>salads to save money.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>Allen wrote:
> >>
> >>>And cutting their flight attendant's pay while giving their executives
> >>>free Mercedes cars.
> >>
> >>The attendants are free to find other employment.
> >
> >
> > That's correct! Who would want to work for a company that is crying
poverty
> > and warning it's employee's that if they do not give wage concessions
the
> > company will go bankrupt, then turn around and in the same month give
away a
> > million dollars worth of cars (to suits who each are paid what 30 flight
> > attendants make). Sounds a lot like Enron conduct to me.
>
> Regardless of your opinion, the flight attendants are not hired to
> comment on management policies. It is a free market and they are free
> to quit. Nobody is tasked with making them happy.

I have already agreed with you on that point, are you dense or just stupid?
Look around you. When you see a company with happy employees it is
thriving. When management beats the workforce into the ground the company
is soon to follow.

[Jay Honeck]

> I have already agreed with you on that point, are you dense or just
> stupid?
> Look around you. When you see a company with happy employees it is
> thriving. When management beats the workforce into the ground the company
> is soon to follow.

I fervently wish that were true, but I've worked for some very successful
corporations who abused (and continue to abuse) their employees mercilessly.

Whenever I hear about "management" trying to "make their employees happy" --
I cringe. We used to call these actions "bonuses" -- as in "bone-us!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I fervently wish that were true, but I've worked for some very successful
> corporations who abused (and continue to abuse) their employees mercilessly.

"Our employees are our greatest asset. I say we sell them."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[John Gaquin]

"Chris" > wrote in message
>>
>
> The 777.... has a reputation for being very dry. Try it on an 11 hour
> flight. Last month I got through three litres of water during a flight
> from Beijing to London

That's actually a little on the low side. When I was flying the 747-100
and -200, we'd each drink about 4-5 litres on a 7-8 hour flight. Maybe the
777 is not so dry as you think.

[John Gaquin]

"Dave S" > wrote in message news:GCjle.47
>
> Also, at altitude, the system is DEFINITELY in the heat mode, as the
> outside air temp is well below 0*F.

OAT will run about -50 to -55F at altitude. Surprisingly, though, with a
near full airplane, you don't have to pump as much heat as you'd think.
Body heat from 400 folks @98.6 builds up fast in a closed tube.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Not sure if the sock really sees much/any moisture at altitude, but
> have had personal experience with them freezing during TO & climb.

That's what I'm saying. For a jet to have any noticeable difference in
"dryness" from another jet, the difference would have to exist during
cruise. Yes, it can be quite humid down near the ground, but a) the air in
the cabin doesn't get dehumidified that much (hardly at all compared to what
happens at altitude, just through the naturally low humidity up there) and
b) the plane (and thus the passengers) spend very little time in that
environment.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
> And, yes, even being honest, an executive can **** up a company royally (HP,
> Diebold, Apple, DEC...)

Actually, Apple is a great example of this. Compare the difference
between Apple's fortunes under John Sculley and more recently under
Steve Jobs. It's like night and day.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[[email protected]]

Hi Jim,

The lightplates on the overhead have transflective lightpipes with
lettering that is lit up at night by LEDs. The 777 was the first
Boeing airplane to utilize LED lighting instead of incandescent bulbs
for the lightplates. The lines you see represent power busses,
hydraulic lines, and the like. The large pushbuttons are used to
connect power busses, fuel systems, and hydraulic systems together (or
separate them) as needed.

The photo(s) were taken by the Boeing photography staff. The flight
deck was shot in one of the simulators, and the photo of the runway at
Boeing field was then photoshopped together with the simulator photo to
create the final image. You can buy this poster at the Boeing gift
shop online if you want it. I think Sportys also carries it...

Dean

[Chris]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
>>>
>>
>> The 777.... has a reputation for being very dry. Try it on an 11 hour
>> flight. Last month I got through three litres of water during a flight
>> from Beijing to London
>
> That's actually a little on the low side. When I was flying the 747-100
> and -200, we'd each drink about 4-5 litres on a 7-8 hour flight. Maybe
> the 777 is not so dry as you think.

I slept for 7 hours of the 11.

[Mike Schumann]

The interesting thing is that Steve Jobs isn't drawing a salary, whereas Mr.
Sculley was paid handsomely.

A huge issue in whether or not a company is successful is the attitude and
esprit des corps of the employees. When the executives are getting bonuses
for successfully cutting the employees salaries, you're headed for a death
spiral.

Mike Schumann

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Matt Barrow wrote:
>> And, yes, even being honest, an executive can **** up a company royally
>> (HP,
>> Diebold, Apple, DEC...)
>
> Actually, Apple is a great example of this. Compare the difference
> between Apple's fortunes under John Sculley and more recently under
> Steve Jobs. It's like night and day.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Don Hammer]

>Boeing lists the cruising speed for both the 777 and 747 as .84 mach at
>35,000 feet.

The 747SP cruises at .86

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Don Hammer]

>
>Also, at altitude, the system is DEFINITELY in the heat mode, as the
>outside air temp is well below 0*F.
>

The air going into the air-cycle system from the engines runs about
600 degrees from compression no matter what altitude. In other words,
they are DEFINITELY ALWAYS cooling.

Since the air cycle machines are such great coolers, hot air has to be
introduced down stream of their outlet to keep everything from
freezing up. They also have a water separator that centrifuges any
water out so you don't get ice in the cabin ducts.

At normal cruise altitudes the temperature is -57C and the humidity
runs less than 1%. At those altitudes, the water separator is just
along for the ride as it has nothing to do. A large aircraft flows
about 120 ppm from the air system and out the leaks and outflow
valves, so I doubt very much that people respiration changes the
humidity much at all.

Bombardier attempted to put a humidifier in the Global Express, a
corporate aircraft that can fly M.86 for 14 hours. In the aft
equipment bay was a boiler device heated by bleed air and water from
the normal water system did the trick. The only problem was the
moisture in the air froze all over the structure that was touching
that -57C temp outside. No problem until decent when the ice melts
and rains water all over the interior materials and ruins them. They
are all de-activated now.

By the way, the ozone at altitude is very high, so modern jets have
cat converters installed to get rid of it. The air from the engines
is hot enough to make them work. After that it goes through
pre-coolers and the air cycle system.


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Arketip]

Don Hammer wrote:
>
> Bombardier attempted to put a humidifier in the Global Express, a
> corporate aircraft that can fly M.86 for 14 hours. In the aft
> equipment bay was a boiler device heated by bleed air and water from
> the normal water system did the trick. The only problem was the
> moisture in the air froze all over the structure that was touching
> that -57C temp outside. No problem until decent when the ice melts
> and rains water all over the interior materials and ruins them. They
> are all de-activated now.
>

The problem was that were not used as per manual, they had to be
switched on after a certain flight time and switched of a prescribed
time before descent.
When that was not done properly you had rain and Bombardier worried
about corrosion.
Most were deactivated, but now can be reactivated.
In the new XRS humidifiers are standard equipment.

[John Gaquin]

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message

> The 777 is awesome for its size but slow for international trips - flew
> on one to England a couple years ago and en route saw a 747 overhauling
> us easily - might have cut an hour off the travel time.

Highly unlikely on both counts. More likely an illusion.

Vertical and horizontal spacing requirements and the mode of operation in
the NATrack system make it highly unlikely that one aircraft will overtake
another, and if it will happen, the separation will be such that visual
perception will be unreliable. It is possible that you saw another aircraft
in the distance that happened to be enjoying a substantially higher tailwind
component. When operating to Europe, you would generally be assigned a
track route, altitude, AND an in-trail mach number, thus ensuring lateral
and longitudinal separation while out of radar coverage.

Both the 747 and the 777 have a nominal best cruise speed, expressed in M,
but both are capable of operating within a range of speeds to accomodate
traffic requirements. When I flew the 747 (--100s and -200s), we had tables
to cover speeds from M.80 to M.85. Although I have no first-hand knowledge
of the 777, that cruise speed range is pretty representative of most
sub-sonic jet transports. The actual speed difference between M.80 and M.85
is only about 40 kt or so (slightly variable). That difference over an
entire 2700 nm trip would only yield an advantage of about 25 minutes, max.

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> At what point is it that you believe moisture is actually *removed* from the
> cabin air in an airliner?

If you're near the ground, in the A/C units. Higher up, it's removed in the
atmosphere. Cold air won't hold much moisture, and it precipitates out. The
heater doesn't add any.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Peter Duniho]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:yV5me.13466$Ib.2690@trndny03...
> If you're near the ground, in the A/C units. Higher up, it's removed in
> the atmosphere.

Well, that's my point. Climb and descent aren't long enough to affect
whether one jet is "drier" than another or not. Whatever effect exists, it
would have to happen during cruise. I see no way for such an effect to
exist.

Pete

[John Gaquin]

"Chris" > wrote in message
>
> I slept for 7 hours of the 11.

Well, I guess you weren't overly bothered by dehydration then, were you?
Makes no difference anyway -- asleep or awake, in a dry environment you will
dehydrate.