Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7492 times:
One has to remember that 777-300LR is a fuel limited airplane and as such at the design range and payload is not at certificated MTOW. There is headroom to add more payload or fuel and adding fuel would increase range. If Boeing were to say add one 1850USG belly tank and increase MTOW to 780,000lbs then range could be increased another 3-400nm without reducing design payload (seats).
Potentially this would satisfy a few customers at the expense of cargo volume which in the case of 777-300ER, some operators are seeing an average of 30t or more on various sectors utilizing max practical volume...Everything is a tradeoff.
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7256 times:
Range would be equal to todays B777-300ER. Pax config depends on the stretch for sure, but assuming around 5-6m in length could result in around 40 add pax in a 3-class layout.
This program was studied by Boeing, but stopped due to the B748I-Development.That was the reason for my big IF in my post...
But time will tell, if the airlines could be interested in it again.The B777-family will have to find its place in the new Boeing-Range with big B787-versions, so a further stretch could be an option together with improved and increased wings and engines.The possible launch of such a family -400X, 300F and 300LR is strongly related to the success of the B748-pax version.