Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was This An Improved 764?  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

Big version: Width: 445 Height: 283 File size: 86kb


17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that the 7E7 was sized somewhere between the 763 and 764 and had better performance than the 763 and 764, so it is "improved" over them.

But no in that the look is just the look of a tube with wings in the Boeing livery of the time. The plane in that drawing was not based on a 767, but a clean sheet design. After that design was established., they handed the design off to their design school graduates, who designed a 'sexy' unworkable design meant to get airlines excited about it.

Ultimately, the design ended up looking like something between the most 'practical' design shown above, and the 'unworkable' design from the touchy-feely department. Plus they got a new, wavy livery to hide the fact the plane really was just a tube with wings...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8508 times:

To me, that does not look like a B-767 nose. But the engines and raked wing do give it that B-767-400 look, there are no saw tooth trailing edges to the nacelles.

But, the B-7E7 program was never going to be an improved, or follow-on to the B-767-400 program.


User currently offlineThepilot From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 8347 times:

The 7E7 is the former name of the 787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7E7



From YVR
User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6538 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 8316 times:

Quoting Thepilot (Reply 3):
The 7E7 is the former name of the 787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7E7

Thanks for the info, but I think just about everyone on this board knew that.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 8249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

No, it was a very different craft.

The improved 764 was the 767-400ERX, which would have improved the range of the 767-400 to 6150nm. However, only Kenya Airways placed an order - for three planes - so Boeing canceled the model.

The 767-400ERX featured:

  • Seating for 245 passengers in three classes - the same as the 767-400ER.
  • Maximum takeoff weight of 465,000 pounds (210,920 kg) - an increase of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) more than the 767-400ER.
  • Range of more than 6,150 nautical miles (11,390 km) an increase of more than 525 nautical miles (950 km) over the 767-400ER.
  • Improved takeoff field length - the 767-400ERX would need just 9,650 feet (2,940 m) of runway.
  • Higher thrust engines - maximum thrust levels would be 72,000 pounds (32,659 kg).
  • Increased fuel volume without compromising cargo capacity. The additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.
  • Strengthened wing, fuselage and landing gear.

Boeing had signed an agreement with Rolls-Royce to provide engines for the new 767-400ERX and was working with GE and P&W.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000726b.html


User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 8010 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
he additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.

What? Has that been done in any airliner before? Also, CoG issues seem like they'd be amplified with fuel in the tail...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7973 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 6):
What? Has that been done in any airliner before?

The 747-400ER stores 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizers...


User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7794 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 6):
he additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.

What? Has that been done in any airliner before? Also, CoG issues seem like they'd be amplified with fuel in the tail...

Actually you want an aircraft that is tail heavy; within limits of course, the more rear the CG is the higher the cruising speed and the lower the fuel burn.

AN aft CG reduces the need for tail down force, so the horizontal stabilizer does not need to generate as much "lift" therefore it produces less induced drag.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 747-400ER stores 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizers...

The regular 747-400 and 400F can as well, although depending on the frame it may be inop due to an AD.

Slightly less range on all 744s, but that is better than going boom.

NS


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
The regular 747-400 and 400F can as well, although depending on the frame it may be inop due to an AD.

Makes sense, as all the Boeing info on the 744ER(F) noted the two optional cargo hold fuel tanks and not the HS tanks.


User currently offlineTribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7477 times:

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the A330 and MD-11 are able to carry fuel in the tail as well...

User currently offlineSkyGazer From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6165 times:

This article talks about the original design of 787, it even refers to the design in your picture.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...w-different-is-the-boeing-787.html

Interesting how the shark tail turned out, as it wasn't due to "aerodynamic" inefficiencies as people thought.



Types flown: B738, B772ER, B773, B77W, B744, A310, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A388
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

The 7E7 was always, from it's earliest beginnings, an all-new airplane. The entire purpose of the Yellowstone study that bred the 7E7 was to evaluate all-new airplanes to replace and consolidate Boeing's ~1999 product line. The baseline technologies were never compatible with the 767.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1407 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

The 7E7 was a clean sheet.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 14):
The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

They are both clean sheet designs. The 777 Boeing built shares nothing more than a nose with the 767.

NS


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting SkyGazer (Reply 12):
Interesting how the shark tail turned out, as it wasn't due to "aerodynamic" inefficiencies as people thought.

Well, just because they say that, doesn't mean that it's really true. I say this because the change came from not being able to design and control the movable surfaces of the fin correctly, which, last time I checked, were aerodynamic necessities. So maybe statically it was fine, but as a dynamic surface, the shape got in the way...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15):
Quoting ADent (Reply 14):
The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

They are both clean sheet designs. The 777 Boeing built shares nothing more than a nose with the 767.

The 777 *started* as an improved 767. It wasn't until they really got into it and decided what the market wanted was beyond what they could do with the 767 that they switched and made it a clean-sheet.

Tom.


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...
How Close Was This? posted Tue Sep 4 2007 05:52:21 by Hmmmm...
Why Was This CO Flight 15 Hours Late? posted Sun Jul 8 2007 19:54:10 by Klwright69
Why Was This CO Flight Cancelled Today? posted Thu Mar 8 2007 22:18:39 by Nycfuturepilot
Is This An A320 Or A319? posted Thu Aug 24 2006 17:22:37 by Newyork355
Was This *actually* Northwest's Colour Scheme?!?! posted Thu Jun 22 2006 18:40:26 by Lhrmaccoll
Was This *actually* Northwest's Colour Scheme?!?! posted Thu Jun 22 2006 18:39:21 by Lhrmaccoll
Is This An Airbus Beluga? posted Mon Jun 5 2006 18:58:15 by BenThePlaneHen
What Film Was This Plane Used In? posted Fri May 19 2006 22:46:17 by Springbok295
How Long Ago Was This? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 14:58:18 by SAS330GOT
Why Was This Landing So Terrible? (video) posted Sat Jan 14 2006 22:51:41 by Alberchico