Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why 764 Over Shortened 772?  
User currently offlineDTA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 927 times:

Why did Boeing stretch the 763, rather than shorten the 772? A shortened 772 would carry more cargo than the 764 because it is wider. It would be more spacious inside. It would have FBW and wouldn't need new a new interior or cockpit systems. Did the 772 not favor being shortened? Or did Boeing assume operators of the 764-size aircraft would already have the 763 in their fleets, and so would welcome the commonality?

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 901 times:

The secret lies in the wing design - Boeing's wings are designed for extra performance and they make excelent streches. If the A/C is shrinked, it will be too heavy and will have very high operating costs.

Airbus, on the other hand, optimises their wings for maximum efficiency (lower fuel burn, etc.), so when they shrink their A/C the results are excellent range and performance (319, 332).

JC


User currently offlineDTA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 899 times:

Thanks.

But around '96 wasn't there a rumor of a 777-100 flying around? (No pun intended)


User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 891 times:

Yes, there was such an idea (NWA was very interested, as well as SQ), but Boeing dropped it in favor of the 764ERX. Apparently the 771 economics were very poor.

JC


User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 879 times:

A 777-100 would have a too heavy wing, and be uneconomical. As far as I know, Boeing have made one attempt to shrink an airliner, the 747SP. It prooved to be great for some airlines, but never became a succes.

GOT



Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
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...
Montréal: Why YUL Over YMX? posted Sun Aug 21 2005 22:07:32 by N328KF
Why Turbulence Over NC? posted Tue Apr 26 2005 08:18:19 by Mark777300
CO 764 & DL 772 Due In FLL Sat Pm posted Sat Apr 2 2005 22:38:44 by Falcon flyer
Why 764's? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 03:38:47 by Flybynight
Why Stay Over Land? posted Wed May 14 2003 18:30:15 by Sleekjet
What Can A 764 Do That A 772 Cant? posted Fri Aug 10 2001 19:34:23 by LGW
Why BWI Over Iad? posted Fri Apr 13 2001 01:29:17 by Aio86
AI 772 In CDG Today 03/12, Why No 747? (pics) posted Sat Dec 2 2006 17:18:14 by Stevens91
Why Do News Channels Over-react?! posted Sat Nov 11 2006 17:24:05 by A320ajm
Why Did OasisHongKong Choose Gatwick Over Stansted posted Sat Oct 21 2006 16:38:50 by 8herveg