Boeing 777-200LR Worldliner Certified to Carry Passengers Around the World

Boeing.com ^ | Feb. 02, 2006 | Staff

[DesScorp]

"I ain't going over any pond with only two engines. Period. I betcha the gas mileage is good though."

You aint kidding. I've worked with aircraft all my life, and I'll never get on an airplane crossing an ocean with only two engines. If you lose one, you lose 50 percent of your power.

That's Boeing and airline stupidity, period. Lets risk the lives of our passengers to save a few bucks per trip.

[Skibane]

The circumference of the earth at its widest point is about 25,000 miles, or a jet needs about a 12,500 range to fly half-way around the earth. However, many international flights go over the North Pole, e.g., to shorten the distance.

Ah, but there's a little bit of optimistic specmanship going on here: The distance to a city that is exactly half-way around the world is the same, North Pole route or not.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Why would anyone want to fly around the world? You end up where you started.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Why would anyone want to fly around the world? You end up where you started.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Besides distance, you are also dealing with prevailing winds and other considerations.

[Calvin Locke]

I ain't going over any pond with only two engines.

I went to CH via DeGaul on 767 within a few months of the FAA allowing twin engine flights. Must have been around 1985.

IIRC, they had to fly further North to be within X amount of time of land at any given time.

[RJL]

There are planes on the drawing board that could take off from St. Louis and land back in St. Louis in less than 10 minutes.

When I was very new to flying I could land, take off, land, take off, land, take off and finally land, all if a very few seconds!

[RayChuang88]

The arrival of the 777-200LR in airline service means that we are very close to QANTAS flying between Sydney and London non-stop using this plane.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

heehee Thats quicker than 10 minutes!

[paul51]

There are planes on the drawing board that could take off from St. Louis and land back in St. Louis in less than 10 minutes

Why would anyone want to go from St Louis to St Louis?

[Denver Ditdat]

<g>

[Paleo Conservative]

Why would anyone want to fly around the world? You end up where you started.

I don't right the headlines. I just ridicule them.

[JOE6PAK]

Thanks for the map site. Thats cool!

[operation clinton cleanup]

Maybe they could install a rotary ALCM launcher and sell some B-777's!

[TalonDJ]

And in reality it would need to go a few hundred extra miles up and then back down to get out of the atmosphere. Unless the plane can handle er... like mach 180 at sea level? That speed will vaporize all know materials and kill millions with the shockwave.

[PAR35]

According to engineers - more engines means more probablity something will go wrong with an engine.

The let's pass laws prohibiting planes from having any engines. Then flying will be completely safe.

That being said, I've crossed the Atlantic on planes with 2, 3 and 4 engines. (707, DC-8, 747, A-340; L-1011; 767, 777.) Anything that's going to cause 2 engines to fail is probably going to cause all of the engines to fail.

[CALawyer]

"But doesn't it only have the range to go a little less than half way around the world?"

For Boeing, all that matters for now is that the plane can fly from Sydney to London and back, non-stop, at all times of the year, and with a profitable load. The 777-200LR may be coming up a bit short for now, but Boeing will find a way to meet this goal for Qantas and British Airways.

[DuncanWaring]

The -200LR has already done "Hong Kong to London" non-stop.

Looking at a map, the distances seem roughly equivalent.

[driftdiver]

It may be able to take off and land in less than 10 mins but it still takes you 3 hours to get through security.

[LonghornFreeper]

Lol, I have a remote control airplane that can do that...