gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2878 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4547 times:
Might sound a weird question...
But on Microsoft Flight Simulator, I have noticed one or two of the Boeing 777 models you can download and fly, have the option to fold the wings when on the ground...
Is this a real feature or just something someone has dream't up in the Simulator game?
In some respects it makes sense, as would make parking the aircraft in spaces more practical or when they need to be in the hangars.
I have however never seen it for real in photos. Are there any other aircrafts that offer this feature?
Polot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4523 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.
rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4525 times:
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
hOmsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 797 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4464 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?
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3646 times:
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.
neutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 345 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3267 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, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3086 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, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2901 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
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
Aside from fuel capacity issues, would such a system be a net positive (in light of the weight penalty) if it allowed OEMs to increase the wing's aspect ratio?
Is fuel capacity a significant constraint on wing design?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1984 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2252 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, 3246 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2197 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!
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
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.
It would probably only permit closer parking......
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 89 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1119 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, 3687 posts, RR: 34 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 968 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2878 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2012, 345 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3687 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
