Doesn't seem possible that world's first triple 7 going to a museum

Lots of interesting photos in article.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
...after nearly quarter of a century of flying, the first ever 777 has made its final flight -- to an aerospace museum in Arizona, where it'll see out its retirement as a top attraction.

The prototype 777-200, call sign B-HNL, rolled off the production line in 1994, eventually entering commercial service for Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific airline in 2000.

Over the years it's clocked up 20,519 flights for Cathay. That's a whopping 49,687 hours of flying time.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cathay-pacific-boeing-777-aviation-museum/index.html

 

Avg flight cycle only 2.5 hrs, and >3 flts/day avg. Cathay used it as a big 737.

and 20500 FC and 50000hrs is not whopping

 

I still think of the 777 as a "new" airplane, only to consider that it's been in service nearly a quarter-century.....

 

I still think that about 757s and they’ve been around since 83. We need some new blood, current planes are getting boring.

 

I do, too, Jim. That was the most enjoyable and exciting and challenging program on which I worked in my 48 years of association with The Kite Factory. We produced a great airplane!

 

To me, they all look like they came out of a 737 cookie cutter- big, medium, and small.

 

That’s it precisely. They used to have all these radical designs...L1011, convair 880/990, dc-9 series etc etc. now they are pretty much all twin jets with just different sizes. Although the 787 and a350 do look kinda cool but that’s just because the nose sections are interesting.

 

The ongoing output of airliners , and for some time, are variations on a theme, set forth by the Boeing 367-80 in 1952 (when the design was set). If one is close to subsequent iterations of it they will see many of the variations but the basic concept is still the rule.

 

The only difference between then and now is the number of engines. Back then, 13,000 pounds of thrust was the most that could be reliably gotten from the available engines, so four were necessary. As engines gained in power, three was sometimes the optimal number. Now that engines are available at over 100,000 pounds of thrust, with greater efficiency and less noise and smoke, two is adequate for all sizes of jet, which is why the A340 was a failure and the 747 is on the way out. And consider that today's 737 uses the same fuselage and nose as the first production 707!

 

They also needed 3 engines for ETOPS, for a while, I think.

 

They needed 3+ until FAA and ICAO allowed ETOPS (Extended Operations, Extended-range Oparations, Extended-range Twin-engine Operations, Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards, take your choice). Note even the 747-8 has an ETOPS number of 330 minutes, although it only applied to twins at one point.

 

Ya' got it wrong, Taz. It's Engines Turn Or People Swim.

 

Everyone understands that Bob... thanks.

 

I know. I just had to do it.