Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 4285 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7563 times:
It was originally an option that an airline (I want to say AA?) wanted so that it fit in gates designed for DC-10s. No 777 with folding wings were ever built or ordered however, and Boeing dropped the option long ago. The idea has been revived as a possibility on the 777-X, although I doubt it will be on the final product.
hOmsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 7504 times:
I remember once watching a documentary on the 777, and the narrator was describing the first revenue flight of the UA 777 back in the 1990s. One of the lines was something along the lines of "the plane is parked at the gate with its wings neatly folded."
I just remember thinking, did anybody who wrote that script actually look at the plane or read anything about its design? Or did they just write the script four years before the plane actually went into service, and then never revised it?
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 860 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter): I have however never seen it for real in photos. Are there any other aircrafts that offer this feature?
Some light sports aircraft do have this feature (easier for towing on roads).
The overwhelmingly vast majority of carrier-borne plane are so designed so as to save deck space, and more importantly able to fit onto the elevators to transport them to the hangers below.
Google "aircraft carrier" for the images and have a field day.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33960 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6126 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5): Wonder if it was carried out... the mechanism to the folding wing would have added weight and complications...this would not have offset the benefits gained though.
It certainly would have impacted the amount of fuel that could be carried in the wings, which would have impacted the range. Once Boeing formally dropped the option, they were able to extend the fuel tanks farther up the wing and strengthen the entire wing to support a greater fuel load by weight.
Hence my believed that id the 777X has folding wings, it will only fold the part beyond the tanks so as to not impact the available fuel load.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 29192 posts, RR: 73
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5941 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): However, there was insufficient interest to go forward and by not offering the option, Boeing was able to increase the fuel load for the 777-200ER.
Yep - helpful unintended circumstances. Same with the development of the 787 from the Sonic Cruiser.
Quoting Polot (Reply 2): It was originally an option that an airline (I want to say AA?) wanted so that it fit in gates designed for DC-10s.
It was more driven by DL - sort of like with the 764. It was to fit into LGA, which can only accommodate 767/L1011-type wingspans. Of course, airline realities, combined with the waste of weight/fuel changed things. The development of the 764 also did.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2740 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5292 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 9): Is fuel capacity a significant constraint on wing design?
More or less nobody in their right mind would build fuselage tanks if there were room in the wing instead. Carrying fuel in the wings is more efficient structurally, and doesn't take up space you could use for revenue generating cargo.
That being said, some aircraft, the 772, for example, have enough wing tank that it's actually hard to get them filled and leave much take-off-mass for payload.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3986 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5237 times:
This was a feature really intended to let the 777 fly out of LGA, as the DC-10 and 767 had. So fuel penalties weren't really a consideration because this would have been for domestic and short-haul international flights under 1,500 miles.
Obviously it was kind of a niche feature even in intent, and no airline wanted it because by that time, airlines were downsizing their planes, including planes flying out of LGA.
Somewhere online there is actually a feasibility study of the 777 at LGA with folding wings... though good luck finding it, I have no idea where I read it 4 or 5 years ago.
[Edited 2013-01-26 23:17:13]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 79
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4159 times:
Quoting rutankrd (Reply 3): Was an original design proposal and is again under consideration with the 77NG project to allow for increased wing span whilst maintaining existing terminal ground parking clearances
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 11): This was a feature really intended to let the 777 fly out of LGA, as the DC-10 and 767 had. So fuel penalties weren't really a consideration because this would have been for domestic and short-haul international flights under 1,500 miles.
Actually, while LGA was a consideration, ATL was the main driver.
They didn't have parking for the 777 or MD-11 at A, B or C, it could only be worked at E and the end gate at T. As a result, they needed a different plane.
This was the main reason why DL didn't end up with a fleet of 777As similar to what United opted for.
Tristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4008 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): Once Boeing formally dropped the option, they were able to extend the fuel tanks farther up the wing and strengthen the entire wing to support a greater fuel load by weight
The B777-200 and 200ER have the same wing tanks. These run from Rib 8 out to Rib 32. Outboard of this is 11 empty bays where the wing would have folded. Rib 1 to 8 (inboard) is part of the centre tank. (all the centre tank on a -200).
On the 777-200LR/300ER the wing tanks are extended . They now run from Rib 8 out to 37. There are still 8 empty bays outboard of this.