I would love a -200ER with all the engine variants.

Definitely would fly it more than the LR.

On 4/5/2016 at 7:06 PM, jcalder said:

From an operational standpoint what's the difference between the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR?

From the seat in the cockpit does it make any real difference whether it's an ER or LR?  Other than maybe an EPR gauge depending on engine type?

Quickly put...
Visually: Wings, Engines.

Internally: LR-  Fuel tanks hold slightly more fuel, thats pretty much it.

Performance: Since the LR has the -300ER wings and a more powerful GE90, it's MTOW is higher than the ER.
 

On 7/27/2015 at 6:58 AM, scandinavian13 said:

(search for the two letter IDs: PW, RR, GE). That might not seem significant, but getting the data to play nicely with the sim, and then making the tweaks to the systems is much more involved than you'd think.

And this is the part that people don't get. FDE's are a pain in the tail to get right.

On 6/14/2013 at 4:47 PM, pilottj said:

If folks can already stretch reality by not flying airliners with FO, Cabin Crew, Ground Crew, Dispatcher, no ATP certification and so on, I don't think folks will find it too hard to stretch reality just a wee bit further and give in to the 777-200LR regardless if their favorite airline flies it or not.. 

Except that the GE90-115B and the PW4084 are two completely different engines.

On 11/3/2013 at 9:43 AM, scandinavian13 said:

...or you could read the intro manual and note they've already committed to it 

Which you'd only have access to if you actually purchased the 777-200LR. Otherwise, for those like me who held out, they'd have no idea. In any case, good to know.

On 4/5/2016 at 8:06 PM, jcalder said:

From an operational standpoint what's the difference between the 777-200ER and the 777-200LR?

From the seat in the cockpit does it make any real difference whether it's an ER or LR?  Other than maybe an EPR gauge depending on engine type?

Yes, you have different engines with different thrust ratings. Also, all three engines sound different.

On 4/8/2017 at 11:00 PM, CaptainGabe said:

And this is the part that people don't get. FDE's are a pain in the tail to get right.

This is certainly true.

On 4/9/2017 at 5:00 AM, CaptainGabe said:

And this is the part that people don't get. FDE's are a pain in the tail to get right.

I do get it. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to do it for free. But I'd like the -200ER version(s) too. 

The -200LR is not doing too much flying these days if you don't fly the freighter version. For pax, mostly -300ER  and -200ER out there.

I would fly a 200 or 200ER. Most of the east Asian airlines have these and fly them on short international or domestic routes that are busy enough to make the upgrade from a 737 or A320 - it's nice to be able to fly a heavy on a 1-3 hour short flight.

I disagree that the 200LR is not flying much these days though. Many airlines in landlocked countries and countries in the middle of the ocean are using them. The 787 has taken a bite out of their market share but for routes busy enough to need them, they're perfect. Toronto-Hong Kong etc.

Couldn't you also say that the 747 isn't flying much as a Pax hauler these days too?  However like the 777-200LRF, it is a mainstay freighter.  Don't discount freight flying as some small fringe part of the aviation industry...it is a 'YUGE' industry, of which the Queen, 777LRF, and MD still all have big roles...even the DC-6 to some extent.   

Also if it takes 3 years or so of development time, (maybe more with other projects going concurrently, lets say 2025 PMDG is able to release early variants of 777.  In 2025, how many early generation 777s will still be in Pax service?  Won't most of those have been replaced by 787s?

Listen, I'd love the early 777 too, I lived in Nagoya Japan in the early 90s where a lot of students at my school were from Boeing parents working with Mitsubishi during T7's development.  I remember how big a deal it was back then.  It was a time when Boeing was still run by engineers and not bean counters as it is now.  However considering development time for PMDG, I just think such a huge investment for something 95% similar to something already made is not a wise use of manpower.  Diversity of projects is the most important.  

That being said, if PMDG does indeed go for early 777s, I'll be happy for everyone.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

9 hours ago, paradoxbox said:

I would fly a 200 or 200ER. Most of the east Asian airlines have these and fly them on short international or domestic routes that are busy enough to make the upgrade from a 737 or A320 - it's nice to be able to fly a heavy on a 1-3 hour short flight.

I disagree that the 200LR is not flying much these days though. Many airlines in landlocked countries and countries in the middle of the ocean are using them. The 787 has taken a bite out of their market share but for routes busy enough to need them, they're perfect. Toronto-Hong Kong etc.

I didn't say the LR wasn't flying at all, but compared to the number of ER's, their number is quite small. Sure, there are some airlines that do monster legs like Delta from/to Johannesburg, or Qatar from/to Doha, or Emirates from/to Dubai. Also, some more exotic airlines like Turkmenistan Airlines fly them.

Still, it appears that the LR has never gained real traction with the airlines, which directly jumped to the -300ER as soon as it was available. Fire up Flightradar24 or something like that and you'll occasionally find a LR among the masses of -200/300ER's and 200F's.

I love the -200LR. But it's a waste flying them on legs a 200/300ER can do, and the airlines appear to think the same.

Yes please. 

I'd love the -200ER, my favourite 777 variant. It's a pity PMDG decided not to make it.

Ask yourself this, why do you like flying the Queen?  Certainly not because it is in common pax service, because it isn't anymore.  You fly it because it is an aviation legend, a milestone in aviation history.  If you love airplanes and flying, who wouldn't want to fly a legend like the Queen.

By the same token, the 777-200LR is also a big achievement in aviation history, the first airliner that can connect any two points on earth...a major milestone  So the reason to fly that is for the same reason as the Queen, it is a major achievement in aviation history.  Same goes for planes like the DC-3, Connie...etc.

Of what is released so far, only the NGX and the 777-300ER are 'common' in pax service.  The others are quite common in freight service.  So if you are a freight dog, you really have quite a nice PMDG fleet to choose from. 

So what are you left with that is 'common' pax service, what will still be in service by the time PMDG could theoretically release one of these 'common' planes.  1st gen 777s will be on their way out, many of the ERs will be on the latter half of their service life as are many 757/767s.   787s, Next gen 777s, 737s are the future if you are looking at it strictly from what is and will be common in the near future perspective.

Wouldn't that mean the desire to fly older 777s is just like the Queen?...for sentimental and historical reasons.  Nothing wrong with that at all, we all love to fly what left an impression with us.  Bottom line is enjoy what PMDG makes, the 777LR may not have been as common as the 200ER, but performance wise it is the best one, which is certainly a good reason to enjoy it.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

10 hours ago, pilottj said:

Ask yourself this, why do you like flying the Queen?  Certainly not because it is in common pax service, because it isn't anymore.  You fly it because it is an aviation legend, a milestone in aviation history.  If you love airplanes and flying, who wouldn't want to fly a legend like the Queen.

(...)

I get your point, but that's exactly the reason why I an NOT too interested in flying the Queen.

Different simmers have different motivations. Some like to go for contemporary realism.

10 hours ago, pilottj said:

Ask yourself this, why do you like flying the Queen?  Certainly not because it is in common pax service, because it isn't anymore.  You fly it because it is an aviation legend, a milestone in aviation history.  If you love airplanes and flying, who wouldn't want to fly a legend like the Queen.

By the same token, the 777-200LR is also a big achievement in aviation history, the first airliner that can connect any two points on earth...a major milestone  So the reason to fly that is for the same reason as the Queen, it is a major achievement in aviation history.  Same goes for planes like the DC-3, Connie...etc.

Of what is released so far, only the NGX and the 777-300ER are 'common' in pax service.  The others are quite common in freight service.  So if you are a freight dog, you really have quite a nice PMDG fleet to choose from. 

So what are you left with that is 'common' pax service, what will still be in service by the time PMDG could theoretically release one of these 'common' planes.  1st gen 777s will be on their way out, many of the ERs will be on the latter half of their service life as are many 757/767s.   787s, Next gen 777s, 737s are the future if you are looking at it strictly from what is and will be common in the near future perspective.

Wouldn't that mean the desire to fly older 777s is just like the Queen?...for sentimental and historical reasons.  Nothing wrong with that at all, we all love to fly what left an impression with us.  Bottom line is enjoy what PMDG makes, the 777LR may not have been as common as the 200ER, but performance wise it is the best one, which is certainly a good reason to enjoy it.

 

Cheers

TJ

 

There are far more 744s in service then 77Ls. BA operates a huge fleet of 744s and 777-200ERs so the argument of today’s pax service is invalid. 

With everyone I work along side with, they all are EAGERLY waiting for the 747 to exit their fleets. They're a nuisance compared to even the 20 year old 772/ER. The only thing keeping 747 alive right now is airlines are still waiting delivery of A350, 787's and 77W to replace them.

Passenger count is one factor that greatly comes into play, but comparing a 747 and 777 are two different ball games.

The reason why the 77L isn't used amongst airlines is because they want what will bring them the most profit... the more people and cargo that you can cram in a plane, the better. The 77W allows passengers+cargo+maximum performance loads that 747's and 772/ER could never come close. 
 

Each plane (747,772/ER,77L,77W respectfully) has something that cancels the other out. It may be because I work with it, but the 77W has everything and more that a airline could possibly want. 

Back on topic: I pays for 772/ER happy.

22 minutes ago, CaptainGabe said:

With everyone I work along side with, they all are EAGERLY waiting for the 747 to exit their fleets. They're a nuisance compared to even the 20 year old 772/ER. The only thing keeping 747 alive right now is airlines are still waiting delivery of A350, 787's and 77W to replace them.

Sorry I have to disagree with this, BA aren't planning to retire their 747s any time soon, they're still a core part of the fleet and they don't have the orders in place to replace them with 787s/A380s/77Ws/A350s. I'm sure BA will slowly phase them out but they still operate 36 I believe, and they don't have the orders in place to replace the capacity of those aircraft. Not to mention the numerous cargo operators world wide.

22 minutes ago, CaptainGabe said:

Passenger count is one factor that greatly comes into play, but comparing a 747 and 777 are two different ball games.

The reason why the 77L isn't used amongst airlines is because they want what will bring them the most profit... the more people and cargo that you can cram in a plane, the better. The 77W allows passengers+cargo+maximum performance loads that 747's and 772/ER could never come close. 

77L allows airlines to connect two cities direct that are unreachable with the 77W/A380/747 etc. Especially through the middle east (which explains why it's biggest operators are in the middle east). I agree that the 77W is a lot more attractive to airlines than the 77L and ER.