Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3601 times:
Quite a while ago I read that the 777 has an option available to fold up its wings to save space at the gates. I also read that no one ordered this extra feature.
Nevertheless, I have a few questions:
-how were the wings supposed to be folded up? Was there a motor installed just for that purpose?
-Was that plane heavier / did it have less range, or was it just more expensive? If no - why did no one buy this option?
-has a prototype with that feature been built?
-Are there any photos of a 777 folding its wings?
-Is this version still on offer? Is it also possible for the newer variants?
-was it available on -200 and -300 or just one of these?
-are there any other planes offering this feature?
Ampropilot2b From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3491 times:
No one has ordered this feature on any planes so far, at least not to my knowledge. I think when the plane was being designed, some people were worried about how much space the huge/efficient wing would require. However, the 777 was designed to replace the dc-10 and early 747s. These planes took about the same area or more than a 777.
Yes, I think purchase price, maintainance costs, more weight, and lack of need have prevented any airlines from acquiring this option.
It would be neat to see a plane with its wing folded up though. Maybe the blended wing thing will require it?
Aa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
When the plane came out it was supposed to replace the DC-10 which has a shorter wing. Airlines feared that the 777 wouldn't be able to fit into DC-10 gates. THe folding wings adds extra weight to the plane, and I think limits the amount of fuel that can be stored in the wing. These cause the feature to be too expensive for airlines.
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3350 times:
Boeing still has this option available, but, as stated earlier, it adds some weight and reduces range and fuel capacity. Transatlantic and bread-and-butter transpacific flights are still possible with it, but ultra-long-haul flights are pretty sketchy.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 7105 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3308 times:
Folding wings are not an option on the new long range versions. The space, which would have been reserved for the folding mechanism etc, is used for fuel tanks on the long range versions.
The extra weight of the folding mechanism would in any case seriously hamper range, so it would be more or less meaningless to fit it on a special long range version.
BTW the 767 was also initially offered with folding wing tips which should make it able to use any gate fit for a 727. But as far as I know it was never ordered.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
NUair From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
I have no idea how you came up with the idea that the 777 is smaller then any DC-10 or 747 aircraft. Aside from the 747-400 and A340 it has the widest wing span and is currently the longest aircraft in Commercial service including the future A380 the only aircraft that will be longer will be the A340-600.
But since were talking about span not length here are some figures (meters):
Believe me when you are talking about gate classification the difference between a MD-11 and a DC10-30 compared to a 777 is huge and the impact on operations is unreal. And then you have to consider taxi distance, cat3, wieght restrictions, ground servicing placement, passenger bridges, etc. Infact if you ask anyone in the airport industry the 773 and A340-600 are a much bigger problem then the A380 and 747x. due to the fact they are replacing smaller a/c and are so much longer. I would love to see the folding wind design but even that can be a headache to pax bridge operations since most bridges (at least in Europe) contain over the wing connections for larger a/c. I always wondered how a fuel tank would operate is it disconnected in the middle or what happens when the wing folds? I think since airlines could really care less about the effect of new a/c on airport operations they would not consider sacraficing distance or paying more for the sake of making life easier for us at airport ops...
nice idea though,
"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
B767-400er From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3110 times:
Are you saying the B777-300 is not a passenger aircraft??? The B777s are infact only passenger(no frighters, yet ) I think the 340-600 looks good, just like the 757-300 except it's a wide-body . The 773 also looks nice along with 772.