Boeing 002 experimental returning home after chasing weather.

[-]

ItsReallyLebron@reddit

Whats the point of the folded wing tips if they are only used in the ground for parking reasons lol

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

They have less thrust than the GE90’s they replaced.

[-]

C4-621-Raven@reddit

The GE9X max recorded thrust is 134,300 lbf (597 kN) compared to the GE90’s 127,900 lbf (569 kN)

It’s just downrated in service to extend the engine’s lifespan.

[-]

dtdowntime@reddit

They are around 10% more efficient, and its just rated thrust, in theory they could rate them higher in the future once more have been produced

[-]

rsta223@reddit

Less rated thrust, but higher demonstrated thrust in testing.

[-]

cresser1985@reddit

Didn't know the tips folding in was part of the procedure after touchdown. Automated?

[-]

Coomb@reddit

Automatic at 50 knots ground speed after touchdown. Extension is manual.

https://theaircurrent.com/technology/how-the-777xs-folding-wing-tips-work/

[-]

FunniestSphinx9@reddit

What if there's a go-around? Do pilots have to extend it again manually before setting thrust to TO/GA?

[-]

C4-621-Raven@reddit

If you’re at 50kt ground speed you’re not going around anymore. At that point you’re fully committed to landing.

[-]

PinkShoelaces@reddit

If they have to extend them manually we can start the betting now on when the first crash caused by trying to go around without them extended will be

[-]

The-TDawg@reddit

If you're going around at 50 knots you've got bigger problems than the wing tips!

[-]

euanmorse@reddit

Would be an interesting go around if called at <50 knots…

[-]

BadMofoWallet@reddit

You’re not going around going 50 knots along the ground

[-]

FlatwormNo3937@reddit

You wouldn’t slow down to 50 knots in a go around situation

[-]

Slice5755@reddit

I wonder how takeoff and flight performance is in the case that the pilots forget to extend it or it fails and can't be extended.

[-]

I’m sure I’ve read that if you try to take off with it not in the correct position you get an error. The plane says it’s not in the correct configuration for take off. Take off configuration warnings for example.

I imagine that if it they cant extend, then it’s a no go and the flight isn’t going anywhere. Too many flight and performance characteristics will change.

[-]

sneijder@reddit

There’s road cars that use GPS to unlock / derestrict when you’re at a racetrack … you’d think air aircraft would alert when you approach a runway in ‘apron’ configuration … and not wait until you make the error ?!

[-]

jstknwn@reddit

For sure it would sound the takeoff config warning horn as it’s a performance parameter

[-]

biggsteve81@reddit

I believe it won't let you advance the thrust levers to takeoff power without them being extended and locked

[-]

HotRecommendation283@reddit

If Southwest owned these puppies they would never come down 😂

[-]

nednoble@reddit

Extension is not always manual, they can be set to auto open after entering the active runway.

Source: got to fly the sim as a Boeing intern.

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

I stand corrected. Excellent. Thank you!

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

Not entirely sure. I believe it is a manual procedure.

[-]

flightwatcher45@reddit

They are manually extended for takeoff as there are too many variables from gate to runway that make it too tricky to automate, for now at least!

[-]

MemeEndevour@reddit

Semi-Automated. I think I saw something that they are manually unfolded on the runway right before takeoff, but automatically fold up on landing after slowing down to a certain speed. (This is all so they aren’t too wide while taxiing, not just at the gate). There is a switch for them to be manually controlled.

[-]

CrossBamboAtTen@reddit

This is correct.

[-]

Conradical314@reddit

I got to spend some time with a MAX in this livery while it was doing testing, loved it. This was before any crashes of course.

Would be so cool to get up close and personal with these

[-]

windas_98@reddit

Sexy bird loves experimenting with her wide intakes.

[-]

vitothelegend@reddit

DId you manage to get any pictures of it by any chance?

[-]

Prize_Tension7528@reddit

Could it fly with the wing tips up? Just not as efficient?

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

It can't. It has a system that prevents takeoff (software will not allow power to be set) in case there is a configuration error, specifically with the folding winglets. It is not tested nor certificated for flight without the folding winglets in the correct configuration.

[-]

Jazzlike_Climate4189@reddit

If the system failed, I’m sure it would still fly right? Since it’s a relatively small portion of the wing area

[-]

euanmorse@reddit

It could probably still fly, but wouldn’t. It’s not tested and therefore not certified to fly with out them, so it would be a ‘no-go’.

[-]

TheScrote1@reddit

What if you bypassed the system though? Would they just rip off?

[-]

Independent-Mix-5796@reddit

I don’t really know how to put this but you really can’t, at least not without some serious fuckery that would result in a lot of trouble.

[-]

TigerUSA20@reddit

I think the original question was more about the aerodynamics of it all, not the mechanics. Assuming somehow the wingtips were up, what is the overall impact on flight?

[-]

donkeykink420@reddit

probably as simple as less lift and maybe worse drag, and therefor worse fuel economy. i don't have the brain to do the maths here but i'd guess for takeoff you'd say need an extra 5-10% runway and range would drop by a couple hundred miles, maybe more. Doubt it'd turn the plane into a low performance and very inefficient plane, just not up to modern expectations. maybe as efficient as the early widebodies?

[-]

Independent-Mix-5796@reddit

Everything I’ve heard and read suggests that the aircraft would remain flyable, albeit in a degraded state. But again, there’s a ton of stuff built into the plane to make sure that the wingtips don’t fold up unless it’s absolutely OK to do so.

[-]

MarshallKrivatach@reddit

Doubt it given their aspect does not really change.

[-]

HeReddItNotMe@reddit

No-go item if it fails to ‘extend’ right at the start of the runway then.

[-]

277330128@reddit

Surely they must test for this - what if whatever mechanism that locks them down fails in flight?

[-]

GREG_FABBOTT@reddit

It's Boeing. Take a guess.

[-]

Ancient_Narwhal_9524@reddit

If you can prove the locking system is sufficiently reliable you don’t have to flight test a system failure.

[-]

Turkstache@reddit

They have knowledge from the F-18. If the tech is remotely similar, there are two protections. One is the extend retract mechanism is aerodynamically very difficult if not impossible to overpower. The other is locking pins that prevent retraction when aerodynamically loaded.

[-]

Traditional_Panic251@reddit

where is this - Everett ? :D super cool

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

KBFI, Boeing Field.

[-]

somesunnyspud@reddit

Was this yesterday? I saw it flying low around 7pm.

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

It was. It landed at about that time.

[-]

Existing_Reaction_88@reddit

Yay! I’m the 1000th like!

[-]

trickyjustin083106@reddit

It’s quite cool and cooler every time I see it

[-]

CPNZ@reddit

Nice plane - looking forward to traveling in it once it is with the airlines.

[-]

RealJembaJemba@reddit

So why the folding winglets? Obviously saves space on the ground but wouldn’t just keeping them static like on other models help with the drag from wingtip vortices? Just seems like a ton of maintenance and cost, does the extra wingspan really add that much?

[-]

mrbubbles916@reddit

Boeing (at the least) is moving away from traditional winglets and towards the raked wingtips. See the 787. Has to be due to advances in CFD modeling and testing. So I'm sure they are doing this because the new designs are better and more fuel efficient than traditional winglets.

[-]

mexicoke@reddit

77LR, 77W, and 764 have raked wingtips too.

It's more efficient in cruise and the weight penalty matters less on longer flights. Winglets save space on the ground.

The P8 has raked wingtips but none of the 737s do. The 737 fits into an ICAO C while the P8 is a D. That seriously matters for airlines and gate usage.

[-]

RealJembaJemba@reddit

Exactly what I was wondering. I figured that they must’ve made a new design with the 787, I guess I’m really just curious if having that extra 2’ is really worth the cost but I guess they ran the numbers and figured it was. Pretty cool either way

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

The winglets do add significant aerodynamic advantages (+2% / +5% fuel efficiency). The issue with such a large wingspan is airport compatibility. Above a certain wingspan, certain airports no longer have the ability to fit the plane on taxiways, gates and certain runways (MMMX stands out).

The folding wingtip solution allows it to fit in the same airport infrastructure as the earlier 777 variants. This reduces the expenditures necessary to adapt infrastructure and increases the options on where to deploy the plane.

[-]

noncongruent@reddit

The A380 has 26'-5" more wingspan and no folding tips. I assume the folding tips are so it can fit into more airports than the A380 can?

[-]

Luna_Parvulus@reddit

Yes. Before the A380 there were no (or very few) passenger gates wide enough to accommodate it. Airports had to build new gates specifically for the A380, which cost a lot. And means you can really only operate A380s at those airports.

[-]

ChillFratBro@reddit

They're each 11 feet long, the plane is deceptively large.

Also, winglets were added to 737s because the original 737 had a blunter end. Modern planes like the A350 and 787 (and now 777) tend to pull back to a sharp point to get similar vortex shedding.

[-]

RodediahK@reddit

The 777x is too wide when they're down to navigate airports using existing 777 routes if the wings didn't fold it would have to use 747 taxiing. The original 777 has a class e wingspan less than 65m, ~64m. But the x has a 71m wingspan making it a class f if they didn't fold. Folding them brings it back to 64 and the don't have to make a new procedure for navigating an airport with a 777x.

[-]

Deathrial@reddit

You got the Patriots plane in the background of one of your shots!

[-]

aphtirbyrnir@reddit

Which day was this?

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

Just yesterday.

[-]

I-LOVE-TURTLES666@reddit

Those engines are massive got damn son

[-]

telaftw39@reddit

"chasing weather"?

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

The testing program needs to validate performance under certain weather conditions (crosswinds, temperatures, visibility, pressure, or any combination thereoff).

Sometimes, the specific combination is not found at the home airport so they have to fly to specific locations where those weather requirements are forecasted to exist.

In this particular case, I think they went to Wisconsin and back.

[-]

telaftw39@reddit

makes total sense. thanks for the explanation!

[-]

nbdevops@reddit

We have a whole bunch of these sitting unpainted on the ramp at KPAE where they're built. I remember the first time I was driving by on the Boeing Freeway and saw one; I thought "man, those wingtips aren't nearly as small as they look in photos." Beautiful, gargantuan aircraft.

[-]

mencival@reddit

Trying to find the differences between pictures 11 & 12 😄

Kidding aside, nice pics

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

Thank you! Much appreciated.

[-]

MichiganRedWing@reddit

That 2nd Pic is nuts lol. Perfect shot!

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

Thank you.

[-]

edtoit@reddit (OP)

KBFI, Boeing Field.

[-]