As some of you may be aware, as of line number 1162, a Saudi Arabian -300ER HZ-AK22, the -300ER does no longer have a tailskid.

 

I also understand FBW software was further modified. (FBW software already "helped" prevent tail strikes up to line number 1161, but would not fully prevent them ). Anyone in the know if can completely prevent them from happening now?

 

This being a additional and rather simple weight saving measure. Just like the removal of the clocks (now located on the PFD),

 

 

Any idea what PMDG is going to do? Will the -300ER have the tailskid? or will it be a selectable option.

Any source for this? Looking at some pictures on Airliners.net, looks like this aircraft along with several planes after still have the tail skid.

 

 

Any idea what PMDG is going to do? Will the -300ER have the tailskid? or will it be a selectable option.

 

Anything is possible....

I don't know what you have seen but I can clearly see the Tail Skid.  Anyway I would like to see your source.

 

 

 

*Edit:Wow, you're right. HZ-AK22 has the Tail Skid but the newest -300ER the British Airways G-STBJ doesn't have one.  :smile:

Emirates too! http://m.flickr.com/lightbox.gne?id=12412344505

Very interesting! I still wonder though if the computer will react fast enough. It would have to really reduce rotation rate pretty fast to avoid this, although maybe it is more to do with statistics showing that there has never been (or few) strikes on the older skid-equipped 77W and so the risk-benefit equation gets rid of the skid.

So typical. Make a post, and 3/5 posts qestion it. FACTs,

This may just be my opinion, but if you make a post without showing "evidence", in my eyes people have every right to question it.

Also,removing the tailskid on a plane as long as the 77W is not really something that's evident, hence why people question it.

Of course, going by the statistics, I'd say the 77W is far less likely to have a tailstrike than say a 737-800, so Boeing must have done something right ;-)

I doubt the software revision completely prevent's the tail strike (would likely cause other issues) . Anyway, it is  FBW, if Boeing wanted to they could.  

 

Will have a look into this, Qatar will likely have the software updates.

A6-ENO too http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernieleighton/13045900365/

It is confirmed that the latest batch of 77W won't have tail skid which saves quite a bit of weight. Not sure how it work yet, I would assume that just like the 340-600 (A346 doesn't have a tail skid if I remember correctly) or the latest 330 the FBW it would simply prevent rotation or to slow down rotation rate pass the tail strike pitch attitude (~8-9.5 deg depends on type ) under certain condition I.e speed stagnation due to sudden change to tail wind or windshear at or after just passing Vr etc.

 

Of the entire 777 family the 777-300 is the easiest one to get a tail strike because 1) it does not have the semi-lever landing gear which locks the main gear tilt during take off like the 773ER does. 2) the thrust to weight ratio is a bit lower than the 777-200, 773ER and 772LR thus a bit harder for it to power itself out from a wind change.

 

Whether or not the New FBW can completely avoid tail strike, just rotate slowly especially in gusty wind condition it takes about 7-8 sec from the nose wheel lift off to the initial target pitch 12.5 deg then follow the Flight director. If in doubt take F20 for take off to maximize tail strike margin.

So typical. Make a post, and 3/5 posts qestion it. FACTs,

 

To be honest, with so many simmers coming into aviation forums spouting off how things are flat out wrong, having no supporting evidence or knowledge to back that up, it's simply a natural reaction by anyone who's been in the community for more than a little while.

 

Oddly enough, for somone who ends their point with "FACTs," you didn't do a good job of bringing them.  Both of your points (that it would no longer have a skid, and that FBW would prevent strikes) lacked any clear sourcing to prove that they were true, or even made with informed understanding.  As such, people's doubt was merited.

 

There are several threads in this subforum alone asserting that the aircraft isn't doing something right when it's simply the operator not knowing what they're doing.  If we believed everyone simply because they made an assertion, we'd all be swimming in ignorance and lack of true facts.

 

I'm writh Thomas:

 

 

This may just be my opinion, but if you make a post without showing "evidence", in my eyes people have every right to question it.

I do generally agree with you Kyle. In fairness to the op, he gave line number , airline delivered and registration

 

Not really a case of 'I saw x pilot eye DVD' or Here's a fuzzy airliner net picture.

So typical. Make a post, and 3/5 posts qestion it. FACTs,

Well, you said starting with Line 1162, the aircraft didn't have it. Me being curious, I decided to look into it and discovered that not only did the aircraft that you mentioned still have a tail skid, 1163, 1164, and 1165 did as well. I didn't look any further past that. It wasn't until somebody posted the British Airways picture that I saw it for myself, and that was line 1182. Yes, I know I didn't look that far ahead. Since I obviously didn't see what you were seeing, naturally, I would like to know as well, and I was also curious as to why they did that.

 

This may just be my opinion, but if you make a post without showing "evidence", in my eyes people have every right to question it.

Also,removing the tailskid on a plane as long as the 77W is not really something that's evident, hence why people question it.

Pretty much.

 

I do generally agree with you Kyle. In fairness to the op, he gave line number , airline delivered and registration

 

Not really a case of 'I saw x pilot eye DVD' or Here's a fuzzy airliner net picture.

Yes, he did give the line number and the registration, but when I looked, that aircraft along with several others afterwards still had it as well, hence my original question.

I do generally agree with you Kyle. In fairness to the op, he gave line number , airline delivered and registration

 

Not really a case of 'I saw x pilot eye DVD' or Here's a fuzzy airliner net picture.

 

I agree.  He gave info that could be verified, but not to the level where you wouldn't expect some doubt by people.  If it were me, I would've at least linked to something.  That might just be my own history of writing creeping into the mix, though. What I write (at work) is all factual, but without references its factual nature is questioned regarless of its actual accuracy.  It's all about verifying your own information for people versus making them verify it for themselves.

 

People are lazy.  Don't expect them to believe you if you don't make the effort to provide verification for them.

 

There's a big difference between the perception of:

"On average, the Boston TRACON is only about 59% compliant on corridor compliance when using Runway 27 for jet departures from 2007 to 2008."

 

 

...and:

"On average, the Boston TRACON is only about 59% compliant on corridor compliance when using Runway 27 for jet departures from 2007 to 2008."

(http://www.faa.gov/airports/new_england/environmental/logan_documents/media/bos_runway_27_ongoing_compliance_reporting_0508.pdf)