dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:10 pm

I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?
Big version: Width: 445 Height: 283 File size: 86kb
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:25 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

Well, yes and no. Yes, in that the 7E7 was sized somewhere between the 763 and 764 and had better performance than the 763 and 764, so it is "improved" over them.

But no in that the look is just the look of a tube with wings in the Boeing livery of the time. The plane in that drawing was not based on a 767, but a clean sheet design. After that design was established., they handed the design off to their design school graduates, who designed a 'sexy' unworkable design meant to get airlines excited about it.

Ultimately, the design ended up looking like something between the most 'practical' design shown above, and the 'unworkable' design from the touchy-feely department. Plus they got a new, wavy livery to hide the fact the plane really was just a tube with wings...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:25 pm

To me, that does not look like a B-767 nose. But the engines and raked wing do give it that B-767-400 look, there are no saw tooth trailing edges to the nacelles.

But, the B-7E7 program was never going to be an improved, or follow-on to the B-767-400 program.
 
thepilot
Posts: 1191
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:34 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:42 pm

The 7E7 is the former name of the 787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7E7
From YVR
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:47 pm

Quoting Thepilot (Reply 3):
The 7E7 is the former name of the 787.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_7E7

Thanks for the info, but I think just about everyone on this board knew that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

No, it was a very different craft.

The improved 764 was the 767-400ERX, which would have improved the range of the 767-400 to 6150nm. However, only Kenya Airways placed an order - for three planes - so Boeing canceled the model.

The 767-400ERX featured:

  • Seating for 245 passengers in three classes - the same as the 767-400ER.
  • Maximum takeoff weight of 465,000 pounds (210,920 kg) - an increase of 15,000 pounds (6,800 kg) more than the 767-400ER.
  • Range of more than 6,150 nautical miles (11,390 km) an increase of more than 525 nautical miles (950 km) over the 767-400ER.
  • Improved takeoff field length - the 767-400ERX would need just 9,650 feet (2,940 m) of runway.
  • Higher thrust engines - maximum thrust levels would be 72,000 pounds (32,659 kg).
  • Increased fuel volume without compromising cargo capacity. The additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.
  • Strengthened wing, fuselage and landing gear.

Boeing had signed an agreement with Rolls-Royce to provide engines for the new 767-400ERX and was working with GE and P&W.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000726b.html
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:59 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
he additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.

What? Has that been done in any airliner before? Also, CoG issues seem like they'd be amplified with fuel in the tail...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:09 pm

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 6):
What? Has that been done in any airliner before?

The 747-400ER stores 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizers...
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:55 am

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 6):
he additional 2,145 gallons (8,120 l) more fuel than the 767-400ER would be carried in the airplane's horizontal tail.

What? Has that been done in any airliner before? Also, CoG issues seem like they'd be amplified with fuel in the tail...

Actually you want an aircraft that is tail heavy; within limits of course, the more rear the CG is the higher the cruising speed and the lower the fuel burn.

AN aft CG reduces the need for tail down force, so the horizontal stabilizer does not need to generate as much "lift" therefore it produces less induced drag.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 747-400ER stores 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizers...

The regular 747-400 and 400F can as well, although depending on the frame it may be inop due to an AD.

Slightly less range on all 744s, but that is better than going boom.

NS
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
The regular 747-400 and 400F can as well, although depending on the frame it may be inop due to an AD.

Makes sense, as all the Boeing info on the 744ER(F) noted the two optional cargo hold fuel tanks and not the HS tanks.
 
tribird1011
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:53 am

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the A330 and MD-11 are able to carry fuel in the tail as well...
 
SkyGazer
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:28 pm

This article talks about the original design of 787, it even refers to the design in your picture.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...w-different-is-the-boeing-787.html

Interesting how the shark tail turned out, as it wasn't due to "aerodynamic" inefficiencies as people thought.
Types flown: B738, B772ER, B773, B77W, B744, A310, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A388
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8549
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:36 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
I was looking at flightglobal.com and saw this picture of the "7E7" and it looks just like a 767-400. So was the original 7E7 just an improved 764?

The 7E7 was always, from it's earliest beginnings, an all-new airplane. The entire purpose of the Yellowstone study that bred the 7E7 was to evaluate all-new airplanes to replace and consolidate Boeing's ~1999 product line. The baseline technologies were never compatible with the 767.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:14 pm

The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

The 7E7 was a clean sheet.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:20 pm

Quoting ADent (Reply 14):
The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

They are both clean sheet designs. The 777 Boeing built shares nothing more than a nose with the 767.

NS
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting SkyGazer (Reply 12):
Interesting how the shark tail turned out, as it wasn't due to "aerodynamic" inefficiencies as people thought.

Well, just because they say that, doesn't mean that it's really true. I say this because the change came from not being able to design and control the movable surfaces of the fin correctly, which, last time I checked, were aerodynamic necessities. So maybe statically it was fine, but as a dynamic surface, the shape got in the way...  Wink
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Was This An Improved 764?

Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:02 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 15):
Quoting ADent (Reply 14):
The 777 started out as an improved 767 (aka 767-X)

They are both clean sheet designs. The 777 Boeing built shares nothing more than a nose with the 767.

The 777 *started* as an improved 767. It wasn't until they really got into it and decided what the market wanted was beyond what they could do with the 767 that they switched and made it a clean-sheet.

Tom.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aal151heavy, Google Adsense [Bot], jetwet1, MGA86, msycajun, UAinAUS, Waldo, Yahoo [Bot] and 185 guests