View Full Version : 777 to get folding wings...
FlightPathOBN
6th Nov 2012, 22:01
Originally patented in 1995 for the 777, the 777X may have folding wings for airport access...
add that to pre-flight checklist...:ok:
http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2012/11/05/2019614345.gif
White Knight
6th Nov 2012, 22:21
Well that would be stupid and pointless. The 380 has an UNFOLDED and UNFOLDABLE wingspan of 261ft plus........................... And it seems to fit into many airports now.
I'd rather 'folding wings' was NOT in my checklist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gemini Twin
6th Nov 2012, 22:27
emmm... what's the count on 380 wing dings at the moment?
If it's a light load, could they be used as winglets???
:}
FlightPathOBN
6th Nov 2012, 22:39
BN2A,
If they have optimized the wingspan, winglets are even more worthless...
There was a concept A330 that had permanent 3/4 bent wings...not sure what happened with that.
WN...its about access...few airports routinely handle the A380...
White Knight
6th Nov 2012, 23:09
WN...its about access...few airports routinely handle the A380...
Thanks my dear chap... I know ALL about the access. I am a 380 Captain:D:D:D
And it's WK.... NOT WN...
emmm... what's the count on 380 wing dings at the moment?
emmmm. Two..... Both by the Frogs.................
What's the count on overuns, LOC, stupidity by idiots?????????????
Wizofoz
6th Nov 2012, 23:13
WK,
Then you know there are gates the A380 can't use, but the 777 can.
The new 777 will actually have a significantly longer wing than the current one- I think they're talking 72 odd meters.
White Knight
6th Nov 2012, 23:21
Well Wiz - the OP posts a diagram showing 233' for the 77X. Will you Boing guys make your minds up:D:D:D
And the 380's wingspan is 79.75m! Significantly MORE than the 72 odd metres you come up with!
sky jet
6th Nov 2012, 23:37
Stahp! :=
If you guys keep this up we will be subjected to the size of you watches, billfolds and willys by page two of this thread.
FlightPathOBN
6th Nov 2012, 23:42
WN,
What is your point?
yoyonow
7th Nov 2012, 01:22
His point is, he's a 380 Captain......
Wizofoz
7th Nov 2012, 01:35
Yeah, what IS your point, WK?
That they should build a new 777 that can't park many places old ones can?
Or is any where the A380 can't go not worth going to??
Intruder
7th Nov 2012, 03:06
Back in the late 80s, Boeing built a replacement wing (carbon fiber, instead of the original aluminum) for the A-6 Intruder, which included a new wingfold mechanism. IIRC, Grumman wouldn't let them use the original design...
I wonder if this would be a similar design?
empacher48
7th Nov 2012, 05:04
I do seem to remember the original 777 design did have the folding wingtips as an option, but wasn't taken up.
Lightning Mate
7th Nov 2012, 08:35
This reminds me of the old adage "if something can go wrong, then sooner or later it will".
I waited for sixteen years, and it went horribly wrong.
Kerosene Kraut
7th Nov 2012, 08:55
So you include carbon fibre to make it more lightweight first and then you add heavy joins and structure to make it foldable - for just ten feet gain on each side? Not likely to happen.
bear in mind the original Boeing 777 idea was to continue using smaller airport gates which saves money . Plenty of airports with parking for big wings but they charge you more for the privelige , but if you dont need a 747/380 gate you save money. the other issue is the length of the aircraft which is more restrictive in a lot of places than the wingspan !
criticalmass
7th Nov 2012, 09:10
I'll start worrying when Boeing add the launch-bar on the nose-gear for EMALS/catapult launches! ;)
Kerosene Kraut
7th Nov 2012, 09:14
Not a single airline ordered the folding wing option on the old 777 that got actually developed and offered by Boeing back then (For KLGA's gates IIRC).
Boeing used the wing volume and space for more fuel instead and created the -300ER.
cameltruck
7th Nov 2012, 09:32
Why extend, why not just stick another one on top. Think of the extra fuel/weight you could carry. Call it the 777XX.
111boy
7th Nov 2012, 09:46
how do you know there is an A380 pilot in the room....he'll tell you
DaveReidUK
7th Nov 2012, 09:49
the other issue is the length of the aircraft which is more restrictive in a lot of places than the wingspan
That will be covered in the next patent application ...
http://www.airpixbycaz.co.uk/cazsite/galleries/airports/1970s-lgw02/70lgw204.jpg
Kerosene Kraut
7th Nov 2012, 09:53
Boeing should (and will) be able to fit any aerodynamic and range performance needed within any given span requirement without using folding wings.
Makes you wonder what their range plans are for any future X with all that span?
Thought expensive oil killed ULR flights? Maybe not?
Intruder
7th Nov 2012, 16:55
Boeing already has the swingtail 747, so no need for another patent.
Boeing: Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Successfully Tests Swing Tail (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061023b_pr.html)
DaveReidUK
7th Nov 2012, 18:49
Oops, clean forgot about that one. :\
http://www.telovation.com/photos/boeing-dreamlifter-cargo-bay-open.jpg
FlightPathOBN
7th Nov 2012, 20:15
Russians have the patent on Ugly...
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f2043d5ecad04ef6a000056-900/the-lun-class-ekranoplane-was-used-by-the-soviet-navy-from-1987-to-the-late-1990s.jpg
FlightPathOBN
7th Nov 2012, 20:17
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4f2043c669bedd1069000018-900/the-vessel-carried-six-p-270-moskit-guided-missiles-armed-with-nuclear-warheads.jpg
Smilin_Ed
7th Nov 2012, 21:00
I'll start worrying when Boeing add the launch-bar on the nose-gear for EMALS/catapult launches! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
What's to worry about? A catapult launch capability and a hook for landings would make it possible to use much shorter fields with lower landing fees. :O
FlightPathOBN
7th Nov 2012, 22:26
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8458/sujoikr8602rj9.jpg
5 4 3 2 1.......
Thunderbirds are GO!!!!!
:eek:
Why not make them swing-wing instead? Save space on the ground and look like Concorde in flight. Bonus!
The 71.1m wing would also push the 777 from ICAO Code E airport classification to Code F standards, the same category occupied by the 747-8 and A380. Under study is a revival of the original 777-200 wing-fold concept, which would have tilted upward a 6.9m (22ft 6in) portion of the wing that included the outer two leading edge slats and outboard aileron to accommodate McDonnell Douglas DC-10-sized gates.
Boeing's current concept scales back the weight and complexity of the design by folding only the raked wingtip, which is understood to be a 3.4m (11ft) portion of the wing, and does not house any wing control surfaces.
In short, Boeing would maintain Code E standards on the ramp and taxiway, up to 65m (213ft 4in), in line with today's 777-300ER, and shift to a Code F classification upon entering the runway.
DaveReidUK
9th Nov 2012, 10:27
and shift to a Code F classification upon entering the runway
Yes, that would be one checklist item you really wouldn't want to overlook. :O
let's hope they will put a nice fancy alarm when throttles will be advanced when their 11ft winglets are present
Well that would be stupid and pointless. The 380 has an UNFOLDED and UNFOLDABLE wingspan of 261ft plus........................... And it seems to fit into many airports now.
Seems that a few people don't understand the problems the A380 has caused and is still causing. At LAX for example. The A380 causes a lot of congestion when this aircraft moves about this airport, because of wingspan. Unfortunately, not all the grumblings are evident on the pilot/ATC airwaves.
The amount of infrastructure changes required for smaller airports such as Sydney can be prohibitively expensive: New aerobridges, greater spacing between gates, taxiway widening (and subsequent repositioning of roads on the margins of taxiways), new servicing vehicles to be able to reach the A380's upper deck doors (catering on 747s is often done via the main deck doors, with the Upper Deck being serviced by the aircraft's cart elevator), etc.
Lord Bracken
9th Nov 2012, 20:53
I do seem to remember the original 777 design did have the folding wingtips as an option, but wasn't taken up.
Yes, Boeing developed it as part of the 'Working Together'* framework after a request from American. The idea would be that AA would use the 777 on DC-10 sized domestic gates.
From then on, AA declined to be a launch customer of the 777, but eventually ordered it quite some time later - without winglets.
(*Incidentally, as part of WT, a certain Big Airline based in north-west Europe was very keen that the 777 have a sidestick and not a yoke.)
yes , considering the USA introduced the sidestick to the world via the F16 , Boeing couldnt because the 'good old boys ' couldnt accept it from the big airlines. Remember Boeing had to put a flight engineers station on the 767 for one outfit......
Peter47
10th Nov 2012, 19:30
As a matter of interest what kind of weight penalty are we talking about for a pair of folding wings?
ECAM_Actions
12th Nov 2012, 12:28
About 700 nm. :}
They should make the wings like gliders wings - have a crew at the runway slot them in before takeoff and take them out after landing - much easier. Wingspan at the gate would be zero. Don't worry about the engines - got a tug for that. :} Aircraft can share wings. Reduced engine count and reduced costs. :}:}
nitpicker330
13th Nov 2012, 04:55
I'd be worried if AB were planning a folding wing.....
Torquelink
15th Nov 2012, 12:49
History seems to indicate that, in the end, the airports adapt to the aircraft rather than vice versa. Maybe apocryphal but legend had it that on instruction from BOAC Vickers designed the VC10 with a big high-lift wing and lots of power in order to operate into short runways at high elevations in east Africa. Boeing and Douglas, meanwhile, designed the 707/DC8 to meet the majority of major airport runway lengths and consequently gave their aircraft better economics than the VC10. Of course, in time, the east African airports just extended their runways in order to accommodate the 707and DC8 and the rest, as they say, is history (Super VC10 notwithstanding).
Given that the 777X is 8 -10 years away from service entry, I suspect the airports have enough time make adjustments to accommodate "hingeless" aircraft.
MurphyWasRight
15th Nov 2012, 15:23
Quote:
and shift to a Code F classification upon entering the runway
Yes, that would be one checklist item you really wouldn't want to overlook. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif
A while ago I read in Naval Aviation News (published by US Navy as I recall) that at the time the Navy had (inadvertantly of course) launched at least one of every folding wing aircraft type they had ever used with the wings still folded.
This despite assigning crew members to explicitly check before launch. (Naturally same story applies for wheels up landings)
A surprising percentage were able to unfold and recover after launch.