The Boeing Triple 7

....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"

Did you take a trip to somewhere in the 777?

Rod

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"

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

did you trade-in the pathfinder? ;-)

Gerald

"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.

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" 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

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

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

"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?