Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If... A 777-400ER Existed  
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9663 times:

Can or should Boeing develop a 777 variant (lets call it the 400ER for grins and giggle sake) with say 40 more seats and the same range as the 300ER?

What potential impact would such an aircraft have with sales of the new 747-8I?

Open topic...all opinions welcome.


One Nation Under God
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2306 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9540 times:

The 777-300ER is at its wing load limit, (or it is very close to the wing load limit). So, the payload and range of the 777-400ER would be very limited.

Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
What potential impact would such an aircraft have with sales of the new 747-8I?

None. As you said, the 777-400ER would seat roughly 400. The 747-8 seats roughly 460. The A380 seats roughly 550. Huge gap between all 3 of those aircraft (big enough seat gap for them to be in their own markets).


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9527 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 1):
The 777-300ER is at its wing load limit, (or it is very close to the wing load limit). So, the payload and range of the 777-400ER would be very limited.

Or an entirely new aircraft would be needed then I guess.

Is there demand in this size category, or is the 350-xwb looking to that size?



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2306 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9494 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2):
Is there demand in this size category, or is the 350-xwb looking to that size?

The A350-1000 is an A340-600 replacement and a 777-300ER competitor. So, there is a gap between the 360 seat 777-300ER and the 460 seat 747-8. But that gap doesn't look like it needs to be filled. At least the 747-8 is filling the 200 seat gap between 777-300ER and A380.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29686 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-300ER is already pushing the edge of the gate at 74m length and 65m width. As such, you can't really stretch her any more then she already is.

What would be interesting is to know if Boeing could put galley storage space (if not galleys themselves) into the crown area as they are offering on the 747-8I. The 777 already can take crew rest seats in the crown area, so if they could move more up there, they could free up even more floorspace for seats.

Whether or not the structural costs of doing so would balance out, I cannot say.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3186 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9443 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
Can or should Boeing develop a 777 variant (lets call it the 400ER for grins and giggle sake) with say 40 more seats and the same range as the 300ER?

I don't believe they will. That seating range will likely fall into Y3 territory.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9390 times:

Thanks all. I just wondered if it were practicle. Sounds like a no except for the galley storage space idea....


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9340 times:

To properly do it, it would in effect be a whole new aircraft. You would need a new wing. New wing box. New landing gear. New tail.

So you get to carry over the basic tube structure, and the cockpit. The basic tube is the "easy part" as it were, and the cockpit is already carried over from the 767 in basic structure, so might be time for a new one there.

My guess is Y3 will be a 11abreast single deck in Y class with a modest hump for a raised cockpit, and more equipment designed into the crown instead of the underfloor areas. I also guess that the 777 is done for major updates like the 777-300ER/777-200LR program.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1491 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9328 times:

I thought I read that the 777 was stretched to its maximum with the 300 derivative. In fact, didn't Boeing install a tail strik to prevent damage to the rear of the aircraft on takeoff due to the length of the fuselage? If so, I don't see where Boeing could add another fuselage plug without making it impossible for the plane to rotate.

Can the fuselage be stretched further?


User currently offlineRaffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1707 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9138 times:

Like an A321-300?
I think it is better for the airline manufacturers to split aircraft into different models rather than one extension after another.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9113 times:

I think the 777 is a cash cow for Boeing right now. Spending money on a new version would likely only sell a few airframes, and likely not have a decent return on investment especially with Y3 coming down the pike. Best to keep it as is.

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9011 times:

Such an aircraft would not fit in the 80m-box anymore, so very unpractical. And it would be a stretch too much in terms of being very tailstrike-prone besides being totally off balance visually. A 774 would look like a wiener with wings. This stretch, streeetch, streeeetch-fashion nowadays creates ugly things, although beancounters (who are naturally blind for everthing further away than their computer screen) like them.

User currently offlineEvilForce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8990 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 11):
This stretch, streeetch, streeeetch-fashion nowadays creates ugly things, although beancounters (who are naturally blind for everthing further away than their computer screen) like them.

Commercial aircraft are capital equipment. Nothing more. An airline doesn't, nor shouldn't care about how a plane looks any more than it cares about how a tug looks, or fleet of company trucks are style like.


User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8965 times:

I do not know if it can be searched, but a stretched 777-300ER was discussed a few years ago. An Asian carrier (not named, and, no, I do not think it was Emirates), wanted a few more rows and the range to fly from their home city to London. It would have been a one for one replacement of 747-400, since the 777-300ER is about 90% of the seating capacity of 744.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 11):
Such an aircraft would not fit in the 80m-box anymore

The speculation on the 777-400er was a 777 that was a hair under 80m.

and the last thing airlines care about is looks, as long as it looks safe to the customers.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 8):
Can the fuselage be stretched further?

It sure could. Boeing performed an industrial trade study of a hypothetical 777-400 and conclude it WAS possible to stretch the 777-300 to the limit of the 80 meter box. However, it wasn't considered a viable commercial product and never came close to leaving the realm of hypothetical.

Quoting NA (Reply 11):
Such an aircraft would not fit in the 80m-box anymore, so very unpractical.

The 777-300ER is 73.9 meters. That's 6 meters of possible stretching room before hitting the 80 meter box, which would allow several additional seat rows.

Quoting NA (Reply 11):
And it would be a stretch too much in terms of being very tailstrike-prone besides being totally off balance visually.

No more so than the A346, which is both longer and thinner than the 773ER. Besides, the 777 already has electronic tail-strike protection incorporated into the FBW system.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 8):
In fact, didn't Boeing install a tail strik to prevent damage to the rear of the aircraft on takeoff due to the length of the fuselage?

The tail strike protection is a preventative measure, the aircraft can rotate just fine. The 777-300 flew for years without tail-strike protection before it was implemented in the 773ER.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
Quoting NA (Reply 11):Such an aircraft would not fit in the 80m-box anymore, so very unpractical.
The 777-300ER is 73.9 meters. That's 6 meters of possible stretching room before hitting the 80 meter box, which would allow several additional seat rows.

Right, I have to agree, didn´t have the exact length of the 773 in my mind. But a hypothetic 774 would be damn close indeed.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
No more so than the A346, which is both longer and thinner than the 773ER. Besides, the 777 already has electronic tail-strike protection incorporated into the FBW system.

I won´t deny that and I didn´t mention a certain manufacturer.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
The tail strike protection is a preventative measure, the aircraft can rotate just fine. The 777-300 flew for years without tail-strike protection before it was implemented in the 773ER.

Yeah, but with a 774 it would most likely become a problem unless they´make its legs longer.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8790 times:

Quoting EvilForce (Reply 12):
Quoting NA (Reply 11):This stretch, streeetch, streeeetch-fashion nowadays creates ugly things, although beancounters (who are naturally blind for everthing further away than their computer screen) like them.
Commercial aircraft are capital equipment. Nothing more. An airline doesn't, nor shouldn't care about how a plane looks any more than it cares about how a tug looks, or fleet of company trucks are style like.

A deep sigh in the name of every true aviation enthusiast. Beancounters rule, thats why we have 773s and A346s, and 99% of cruiseships look like a block of hoilday flats (three cheers here to the 747-8I and the Cunard Line).


User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8694 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
The 777-300ER is 73.9 meters. That's 6 meters of possible stretching room before hitting the 80 meter box, which would allow several additional seat rows.

Open question.....

To look at this from a different perspective, IF they did do the stretch to the 80m box, and got an extra 6m of length, how much would be usuable space for seats?

As you increase the number of passengers they would need to consider the number of toilets, room for meal preperation, emergency exits etc. Surely some of that space would be gained but then lost to non revenue generating functions? Which maybe when the numbers are run makes the plane less appealing and you jump to a 74x?

Though, in doing a stretch, maybe a slight reconfiguration of the facilities could allow for everything that is required without stealing much of the new space?


User currently offlineFridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1441 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A little off-topic but, wouldn't using composite parts on the 777 series reduce weight, increase range and possibly open up some more routes?

Please keep in mind I'm not in the Aviation Industry.

Thanks,

Marc



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineNW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8352 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter):
Can or should Boeing develop a 777 variant (lets call it the 400ER for grins and giggle sake) with say 40 more seats and the same range as the 300ER?

What potential impact would such an aircraft have with sales of the new 747-8I?

Open topic...all opinions welcome.

Sigh...how many times is someone going to bring this up?? It seems like this question is asked every other month. Please Please PLEASE conduct a search the next time. This has been discussed to death.


User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8262 times:

A 747 can be outfitted for up to, or over 500 pax, but you still have airlines that want the 4 engines. Personally id reather see them drop the 767 line now and convert to 777 and have a military version refueler with it instead of the 767.

I guess they could stretch it but would probably have to be like the a340 and have stairs down to the lavs Big grin
With this 787 coming into the market boeing is going to have a lot of aircraft close or similar to the same number of seats
But since the military is locked in on the 767,s I would imagine the 777,s will go by the wayside when the 787 is out.. and you know they wont stop makeing 747,s for another 40 years They should have left the 757,s alone



i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 8203 times:

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 18):
To look at this from a different perspective, IF they did do the stretch to the 80m box, and got an extra 6m of length, how much would be usuable space for seats?

Assuming that the 6 meter stretch would fully translate into 6 meters of additional cabin length, you would gain about 35 SM or about 375 SF.

That would approximately correlate to your choice of the following:

- (7) 32" rows @ 9-abreast econ = 63 seats
- (8) 30" rows @ 9-abreast econ = 72 seats
- (2) 58" rows @ 6-abreast biz/first + (3) 32" rows @ 9-abreast econ = 39 seats

And don't forget cargo:

- 8 LD3 containers
- 4 LD11 pallets

All in all, just a little less than your typical incremental stretch. But really, an impractical aircraft from logistic standpoints even though it could hypothetically fit into the standard 80 meter box.


User currently offlineMauilono From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8182 times:

.

Quoting NW727251ADV (Reply 20):
Sigh...how many times is someone going to bring this up?? It seems like this question is asked every other month. Please Please PLEASE conduct a search the next time. This has been discussed to death.

I, for one, don't mind if some topics are re-posted. I forget about some subjects from time to time and when a new person brings it back up, it also adds fresh ideas and opinions to them. I like to bring up the forum page and see what's being discussed now, not what has been discussed some time ago. Just my opinion Smile

Stretching any aircraft is fine with me. It adds capacity to a proven airframe and keeps "like" aircraft in a company's fleet. Just like my company's B737s, -200C, -400, -400C, -700, -800 and -900. All stretched and improved, all filling their roles in our network.


User currently offlineTjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2380 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6310 times:

Wow!


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Joe Perez
Template © Steve Dreier




Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
25 DAYflyer : Ah, so it HAS been studied then. A lack of interest by the airlines then doomed any such project. Was it a lack of range that made it unviable? It wo
26 A342 : IMO the stretch wouldn't need that much range. It could be interesting for Japanese carriers as it could finally reach the 744D's capacity. Even if it
27 Stitch : The 773D can hold 550 folks in an all-Economy config, which is pretty close to the 568 the 744D carries.
28 A342 : I thought the 744D can carry 624 or 630 in all-eco config ? Maybe the 568 seats figure is for a two-class layout.
29 XT6Wagon : I don't have the exact number but the 744 was limited to 560-570 passengers by the number and size of the emergency exits. This will likely hold for
30 Jfk777 : How much bigger does the 777 have to be, given all the pacific airlines using 773ER to replace 744's. Given the twin engine efficiency of the 773ER, i
31 NA : Indeed, a hot contender "ugliest plane of the new millennium"-competition.
32 Post contains images DAYflyer : Holy sardine can, batman.
33 JAM747 : I believe that a 777-400 was considered when Boeing was considering the 747-8 launch. From what I recall there were some isues such as the availabilit
34 Burkhard : Boeing once went to this -400 stretch on the 767, and that wasn't a success story. I still do not really understand why the 764 failed so completely.
35 Stitch : It offered similar passenger capacity to the A330-200, but less range and less underfloor cargo storage. Also, the 777-200ER was a better "step-up" f
36 NA : Definitely so.
37 Andz : Hardly a "nowadays fashion", remember a certain aircraft called the DC-8? Fuselages ranged from around 45 to 57 metres in length. That was a 27% stre
38 Strathpeffer : I'm pretty sure the 767-400 was developed to meet the needs of Continental and Delta, as a replacement for their L1011s and DC-10s. It was never expe
39 SP90 : Let assume for a moment Boeing did decide to make a 400 version, would the current generation of engines be enough to get it off the ground? Would we
40 Stitch : Depends on how much extra MTOW two GE90-115B's can lift, as well as how much more one can in an engine-out situation at V2.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If Alitalia Merged With Olympic? posted Sun Jan 28 2007 22:36:46 by Wingedarrow
What If AA Let Me Board Without A Visa? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 18:07:30 by Super80
DC Market: What If...? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 23:52:04 by Cactus742
Crazy Talk: What If Southwest Bid For USAirways? posted Fri Nov 17 2006 17:37:42 by LawnDart
What If! (Supersonic Transports) posted Wed Nov 15 2006 02:28:34 by Bringiton
What If DL Merged With Pan Am? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 03:00:43 by AeroMaxx
What If LM Produced Commercial Aircraft posted Mon Sep 18 2006 05:27:39 by KSUpilot
What If LHR, LGW, STN & LTN Combined? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 12:31:43 by 8herveg
What If: NW, AMFA, And CHAOS... posted Mon Aug 14 2006 07:34:06 by SHUPirate1
What If DFW Was Still A DL Hub posted Mon Jul 24 2006 21:19:34 by Belizexp