Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6939 times:
It seems to me perfectly natural to further stretch the 777 from the current size of the 773ER all the way to the stretch version of the A380 in order to compete with that version; what is that, another 20 feet of constant-fuselage cross-section?
Slap on some 7E7 flavored GE90's (call them GE90-130E) with an increased MTOW of 850,000-lbs, similar range to the previous stretch, strengthen the main landing gears (increase tires from 2x3 to 2x4) and wings (increase spane by 10 feet) with a slightly higher takeoff speed (maybe another 10 knots) resulting in the new Boeing 777-400, which could enter service at the same time as A388.
Any airport or airline that has a 777 would know how to deal with a larger version, a 774 may not require so many changes like with the A380's double-decks.
Good idea, bad idea or useless endevor?
If Boeing took this idea seriously, I'd back them up, it would seem easier and maybe even cheaper than 7E7 project...
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Skibo777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6812 times:
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11306 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6721 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
It would be half good and half bad. Good reason is Airlines that operate the B777 and have the A380 on order like SQ could cancel the A380 order and order the 774 and only operate the 777s for long haul due to the same flight deck which means that say a pilot is flying the 772ER one day then the next day he could fly the 774 will basically NO new training. Bad reason is, well there is two bad reasons that I can think of: More risk of having a tail strike if the level of attack is too high and there might be problems with the weight of the aircraft EG the same problem that the A346 is having.
The more logical idea is to extend the upper deck of the 744 to the tail and keep the fuslage length as it currently is on the 744 and introduce the same flight deck that is on the 777 then airlines that operate the 777 and have A380s on order can cancel their order and order the new 747
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6678 times:
I think that Boeing should come up with a 4 engine 777 like how the A343/2 and the 332/3 are. Also Boeing should make the 4 engine 777 aircraft have on heck of a long range. Like 12000NM
Baw2198 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 637 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6623 times:
I agree with tail strike idea, being that long, the 774 might have to use rwy's that are the same size as DEN's new one ( I think its somewhere near 16000ft).
You might do better with a MD-11 thats stretched and put the GE90-115's on it for fuel economy.
"And remember, Keep your stick on the ice"--->Red Green
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6597 times:
its a good idea may i point out the following things...
#1. Is it seriously possible to have A380 capacity on 2 engines?
#2. I smell tail strike.
#3. Would the design take the wieght and if so would it be economical?
#4. making a 4 holer would be making an aircraft that isnt a 777.
#5. With the A380 AND the 774, would the airlines really need that many seats at once?
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6349 times:
Lehpron - an interesting idea, but perhaps the biggest problem is that a further stretch would make the aircraft very long. As has been mentioned, this would cause a tail-strike problem, though with fly-by-wire, and a computer control system, this could possibly be avoided. However, the extra length could well cause problems with airport handling, particularly as it would put the aircraft outside the much touted 80mx80m box. I would also be concerned about the efficiency of an aircraft that long in respect to the width of its cabin. I believe there is a ratio, above which the aerodynamic efficiency begins to drop off somewhat. I would suspect there would also be issues with the strength of such a long structure...
All of these things are probably overcomable (is that a word?). I think the big nixer would be that Boeing simply doesn't believe there is a market for 500+ seat aircraft. What little market there is, it feels it can serve with the 777-300 and -300ER, and possibly the 747. Unless Boeing decides its market forecasts are wrong, I don't see them racing to stretch the 777 any further.
V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6204 times:
Boeing has toyed around with the idea of stretching the 777 one more time, but I don't think it will happen. IMO, I think the best idea is for a reintroduction of the 747-500/600 with 7E7 technology incorporated into it.
ORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6024 times:
The 777 would simply be too long. Friends of mine were on a LHR-ORD AA 777 flight. For some reason the 2L door would not open. They were going to back the plane up to use the 1L. Then they were told that they could not do that as the tail of the plane would be in the taxiway! So needles to say the 777-400 would not be able to used at ORD T5 which is a very important market for the 777 with AA/UA/KE just to name a few that utilize the 777 here. I'm sure that it would probably be an even bigger problem at airports with even older and tighter space constraints than the 12 year old T5.
Santhosh From India, joined Sep 2001, 542 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5927 times:
As they try to increase the length of the aircraft.It might stuff in more people in it,but then will that aircraft be aerodynamically effeciant as the 777-300?I think the current length and the twin large engine config is the best for the aircraft.Any more structural alterations might no make the aircraft as effectiant.
Korg747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 549 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5854 times:
777ER,
"The A332/3 only have two engines."
What I meant with the comment about the A340s and the A330S, Is that they are -almost- using the same Fueslage just different engines and may be wings. I'm sure thats saving Airbus a lot of money by just using one fueslage type and toying with it comparing to the time and money to manufacturer lets say a 747 and then a whole different aircraft(777/767/757) which got nothing in common with the 747 at all...Do you get my point?
"That would be like around the world 1 1/2 times. Just think of all the DVT casses brought against the airline!."
Well a 4 engine 777(stretched alittile bit) with 12000NM could also end the "how many bags and what weight should they have" issues, I mean more cargo or the aircrat can take more weight now of course. Come to think of it, 774 would make an excellent cargo aircraft don't you think?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5715 times:
A 777 with more than two engines would be a complete waste of Boeing's time and resources.... not to mention, it would have to be a whole new aircraft; which Boeing has no interest whatsoever in currently due to 7E7 development.
RiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5700 times:
Why not stretch it so that the nose is in the origin and the tail is in the destination, and the pax can just walk it, no engines required!
Spaceman From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 534 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5695 times:
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 50 Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5662 times:
In regards to tailstrikes...
the A346, with a length of 247 feet, is just 4'8" longer than the 773. It may just be me, but the A346 [and all A340 models, for that matter], seem to get off the ground almost instantaneously after the nose wheel is lifted. On Boeing aircraft, it doesn't take much longer but you can definately notice that it takes a bit longer for the main gear to become airborne.
If you stuck an extra 20 feeton the 773, as Lephron suggests, and called it the 777-400, and gave it whatever makes Airbus planes get off the runway, it may just work.
What does make the A340 series seem to pop off the runway?
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 50 Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5568 times:
What makes the Airbus A340 'pop' off the runway, that will be the wings and the trust from the engine
shaddap...i knew that lol
is that all, though? seems as if the A340 seems to be able to get off with a really low angle of attack [<--that's the word...AOA.]
Zak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5537 times:
it actually has to do with the AOA(angle of attack) to the wing whilst on the runway. a330 and 340 do have a significantly higher negative AOA on the ground compared with 777 or 747 aircraft. the wing on the airbus has a negative aoa till the nosewheel leaves the ground and then in a very short amount of time the created lift increases thus popping it off the ground.
on the 777 where the aoa on the ground is almost neutral the lift buildup is more gradual which lets the plane leave terra firma in a more linear way in comparison with the airbus types.
these two pictures give a decent comparison of this:
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5418 times:
Lehpron, you've a very active imagination which is not at all a bad thing. An editorial a long while back in Aviation Week advocated this very idea as an alternative to the 747X which Boeing was then touting. The idea was to offer a version with 85% of the capacity of the A380 and try to market it as a twin-engine alternative to the superjumbo. I agree, however, with most opinions here that it's a bad idea due to the danger of tail strike. Boeing could in theory have stretched the 777 more than they did but they wanted to keep a good margin of safety for takeoff rotation. As it is, the -300/300ER use semi-articulated landing gear that keep the wheels on the runway longer at takeoff, something not needed on even the 747. And I think Airbus is pushing their luck a bit with the A346 length, not that they had any choice if they wanted to match 773 capacity. I wouldn't be at all be surprised to hear of an occasional tail strike with that airplane, even though its' FBW software is certainly tweaked to deal with the extra-length. So, no 777-400, Boeing is better off trying to rejuvenate the 747 with 7E7 engines and systems. And as ConcordeBoy pointed out, a 4-engine 777 would have to be so extensively redesigned, it wouldn't make sense; the airplane was created specifically to be only a twin-it's wing was optimized to carry only two engines so it would be efficient in that configuration only. The common A330/340 wing made great economic sense since Airbus wanted to bring both a quad and twin version of the same design to market at the same time-I believe I read it saved them about $1.5 billion (in USD) over coming up with unique-winged versions, however, it entails a slight performance penalty, the reason the A330/340 cruise slightly slower than the 777.
Korg747, a seriously doubt the world needs a 12,000 nm range airplane, the A345 is a niche market airplane while the 772LR has only sold a few airframes as of yet.
And Solnabo, you appear lately to be bucking to be the de facto sucessor to the late (in this forum, anyway) and unlamented Hkgspotter1, "Troll Extraordinare", as I call him. You might want to consider posting more intelligent comments instead of mindless cheap shots like the example here. We all know you have an anti-Boeing agenda which is fine in itself, however some of your recent posts paint you as an obnoxious adolescent, not the 36-45 year old bracket your profile claims. Maybe you don't care about a respect rating but being compared to Hong Kong based Darryl is certainly no complement. Just a little friendly advice, Mr. Hermanson
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 89 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5401 times:
12000nm is hardly around the world and half again, for whoever said that.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5332 times:
About the tailstrikes, I knew it could happen that is why I suggested an increase in wing area coupled with an increase in rotation speed, this should elliminate the need to a high AoA. By the time the plane's wing develop enough lift to gradually raise the plane until there is enough clearance, then the plane would pitch up, sort of like an MD-80.
In addition to the issue of tailstrikes, would the same problem not occur with A388?
As someone suggested, this plane might have to use a large runway, unless it was able to accelerate fast enough to use relatively shorter runways. In addition to increasing weight, that was the purpose or idea I had in mind with increasing the engine thrust -- not like Concorde, but faster than usual.
What is it now with 773ER, a one quarter-gravity of lateral acceleration? Give 774 a one third-gravity of lateral acceleration.
Another idea may be to consider with larger engines, have them merge into the wing so that some thrust can become blown off the flaps like the C-17, reducing ground roll distance for takeoff and landing altogether.
I don't think a 4-holer 777 would be a good idea, I see the wings breaking at the gate!
Speaking of gates, aren't longer planes positioned closer to the heart of an airport as opposed to the ends of the terminals to prevent them from having their tail stick out so far into the taxiway?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Nudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 20 Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5323 times:
Easier: gilve a 773 to LH and they out their coach seat pitch in it...You will see, how more pax can be stuffed in a regular, unchanged, 777 body than a 380 would swallow...
Putana da Seatbeltz!
25 Korg747: Nudelhirsch, My friend it's already been done!.....the Japanese carries do have 773s with over 500 seats. Lehpron "I don't think a 4-holer 777 would b
26 Nudelhirsch: My friend it's already been done!.....the Japanese carries do have 773s with over 500 seats Holy cow...than LHs 380 will probably be the first airline
27 Sv11: I wonder if Boeing can put a second deck in the 777. They seem to have put crew rest areas (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/osu.html). L
28 AvObserver: "Looking at the 777 cross section I think a second deck with 3 across economy seating in the middle may be possible?" But the airplane crew is willing
29 Sv11: if you look at the 777 cross section on boeing's web site, there appears to be adequate space over the center section to may be put 3 seats there. the
30 Thrust: Don't see why not. Boeing certainly should focus on the 777, considering it is one of the most efficient and flexible jetliners of its time. Still, I
31 Planemaker: Just a note to some of the fantasizers, every change has a ramification on the rest of the design. For example: If, as mentioned in the above post, yo
32 Jet-lagged: SV11. That's a neat idea. Put beds up there for high paying first or business class passengers, and perhaps they won't mind the stooping. I wouldn't.
33 RayChuang: I don't think Boeing will want to stretch the 777 any more. Two reasons: 1) structural integrity of such a long fuselage and 2) it would exceed 80 met
34 Lehpron: "Two reasons: 1) structural integrity of such a long fuselage and 2) it would exceed 80 meters in length, which means it wouldn't fit in the 80 x 80 "
36 AMM744: I reckon that the 747 will get a revamp, IHA 747X as planned way back in 1997. Boeing are just playing a waiting game to see how the A380 pans out, th
37 RamerinianAir: How would you board a streched 773? It would take forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38 Airways6max: A better idea, if Boeing wants to provide a competitor to the A380 would be to take the basic 777 design, or adapt the 7E7 design, make it two stories
39 Dw747400: As mentioned above, in order to put a 777-300 into the same seating class as the A380, you would need an aircraft that is approaching 300 feet in leng
40 Sv11: I don't think Boeing will go head to head with the A380-the market is too small for both. Remember the costly Douglas/Lockheed battle over the not big
41 Dw747400: Sv, Its a good idea, but keep in mind that the space over the cabin is not only arguably too small, but also full of equipment. I don't have a technic
42 Sv11: Dw747400, If you go to this webpage http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html and click on Technical Specs and then Interiors and t
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11306 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3371 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 783 posts, 
From India, joined Sep 2001, 542 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
