Guest

Why 764 Over Shortened 772?

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:05 am

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?
 
JumboClassic
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 4:37 am

RE: Why 764 Over Shortened 772?

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:17 am

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
 
Guest

RE: Why 764 Over Shortened 772?

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:19 am

Thanks.

But around '96 wasn't there a rumor of a 777-100 flying around? (No pun intended)
 
JumboClassic
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 4:37 am

RE: Why 764 Over Shortened 772?

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:27 am

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
 
GOT
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:44 am

RE: Why 764 Over Shortened 772?

Fri Aug 10, 2001 1:41 am

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!

Who is online