A380 - the best is yet to come

[KenV]

Originally Posted by bnt

Rather than a folding wing, why not a partial swing-wing, say one that swings at approx 2/3 of the way out? Fully forward for landing, swung partly back for cruise, all the way back at the gate? I know it would mean extra weight, though.

For the same reason that only one carrier aircraft used swing-wing oversweep to reduce aircraft shadow on the ground and all the rest used folding wings. It's very complex and adds lots of weight and cost. The swingwing oversweep only made sense because the Tomcat already had swing wings for entirely other reasons.

[Kerosene Kraut]

The engines are installed inside at the final position. They are the most expensive parts so it pays to wait until the final moment. Only some neo's -as an exemption- got forwarded through the process without engines as they need to wait for the upgraded ones.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by parabellum

If it ever gets off the ground, (excuse the pun), it will surely have a lock-out system whereby either both work or neither work? A simple dynamic pressure sensor, in the leading edge of the tip, could lock-out any tip movement whilst the aircraft is doing more than, say, forty knots? If the dynamic sensing on one side fails then the asymmetric lock-out function should operate?

Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

[Volume]

Boeing has already received 326 orders for the 777X.

Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the past. Currently the 777X is selling inferior to the 77W. Which may have a lot of good reasons.
210 out of those 326 have been ordered by ME3 carriers (roughly 2/3), around half by only a single one... One blow to their economy and the 777X is far below break-even.
Just like Airbus for the A380, Boeing is betting the project on a single customer... Which once paid off for the 747, so it may work again.

There were over 830 777-300ER ordered, so a pretty large market.

Why should we assume that those large aircraft will be replaced with new large aircraft? Many 77W may be replaced by two Dreamliners each... Many airlines replaced their 747s with dreamliners, and not with 747-8 (or with A380, considering the growth in the market). There is absolutely no rule that an aircraft has to be replaced with a similar or larger one.

No need to change either the final assembly area or the flight line to accommodate 777X. And maybe why the folding wingtip is standard and not an option.

I think this is because of the current ICAO standards. Airbus decided for the A380 to stick to it, Boeing decided for the 777 to work around it.
(ICAO Annex 14, Category F is the currently largest existing, and it is "65 m up to but not including 80 m ")
The other option would be to create a category G (Gigantic). Airports will love it, longer piers at the airport means more shopping/restaurant area to rent out for profit...

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Volume

Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the past

The 777-300ER is far and away the best seller of the 777 series. 777X has sold more at this stage of its development than 777-300ER at the same stage of development.

Why should we assume that those large aircraft will be replaced with new large aircraft?

No one is assuming that. Just pointing out that there is an obvious large market and Boeing builds two aircraft that can address it, one at the bottom end of the market and one at the top end. A380 cannot really address that market at all.

I think this is because of the current ICAO standards. Airbus decided for the A380 to stick to it, Boeing decided for the 777 to work around it.
(ICAO Annex 14, Category F is the currently largest existing, and it is "65 m up to but not including 80 m ") The other option would be to create a category G (Gigantic). Airports will love it, longer piers at the airport means more shopping/restaurant area to rent out for profit...

The 777X without folding wingtips has LESS span than A380 (71.8m vs 79.8m) so it would never venture into category G territory. With folding wingtips 777X is in the same category as 777 and classic 747, which is to say category E (or design group V in the FAA system.). Which is the whole point of the folding wingtip. Unlike A380 and 747-8, airports and operators don't have to change anything for the 777X. Indeed, if 747-8 could fold its raked wingtip, it would have a category E wingspan also, just like the classic 747.

[tdracer]

Which is less than the number of "conventional" 777 which have been ordered in the same timeframe in the past. Currently the 777X is selling inferior to the 77W. Which may have a lot of good reasons.

Not only bizarre, but demonstrably wrong. The 777X has ~3 times the number of orders at this point it's development (the original 777 had a little over 100 orders prior to first flight, and oh by the way those orders were dominated by just a few operators). Orders picked up after the aircraft was certified - not surprising since Boeing then had hard fuel burn and operating cost data to show potential customers, not estimates.
If some of you had your way, we never would have gone to retractable landing gear (a far more complex arrangement than the 777X folding wingtip). And which would be worse - loosing ~10 ft. off a 210 ft. wingspan, or a wheels up landing?

[4runner]

Originally Posted by KenV

Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

ive flown a 737 on a ferry flight with a broken winglet.

[4runner]

380’s will be resigned to beer cans and hajj flights from Bangladesh and sun-Saharan afrika. They’ll smell and look brand new after 10 years and will be parked for “long term storage” next to the L10-11 at Entebbe. Afterwards, Sierra Leon will restart a national airline with the honorable grand air Marshall general minister of aviation and national air defense Pierre Obochombo and purchase these aircraft for the grand revival of the flag carrier and newest rendition of Air Afrique.

[donpizmeov]

Originally Posted by 4runner

380’s will be resigned to beer cans and hajj flights from Bangladesh and sun-Saharan afrika. They’ll smell and look brand new after 10 years and will be parked for “long term storage” next to the L10-11 at Entebbe. Afterwards, Sierra Leon will restart a national airline with the honorable grand air Marshall general minister of aviation and national air defense Pierre Obochombo and purchase these aircraft for the grand revival of the flag carrier and newest rendition of Air Afrique.

i knew if I waited long enough I would see a post in a 380 thread that wasn't about a 777.

[glofish]

.... as is just yours now Don 😂 and as was your previous on this thread ....
But at least you're joining the club makin an argument against the behemouths and for twins:

You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?

[donpizmeov]

Twins are fantastic until you want to cart a large load a long way . There is only one aeroplane on the market that can carry 520 pax and 10t of cargo over 7000nm or 500 pax over 7500nm . Can even do it from DXB in summer .
Now how many airlines need such a capability ? Not many. This is the same problem the 77X will have. The 773ER is an incredible aeroplane with performance that is right in the middle of the sweet spot for the majority of its operators . The cost of the new version for a capability that is not required by most operators will have a flow onto its sales. Good news for the 787 and 350 though. Not too many airlines seem keen to drop half a billion dollars on a depreciating asset. Be it a airbus or a John deer.

[West Coast]

Originally Posted by KenV

Absolutely no need. The wingtips are unfolded BEFORE takeoff. If there is a jam or other problem that prevents the wingtip from locking down it will be caught before takeoff and you simply don't takeoff.

Further, remember it is the raked wingTIP that is folded. Asymmetry is not really much of an issue. For example, suppose the winglet on one side of a 737 or A320 broke off? What would be the flight impact? Controllability wise, it would be almost a non issue.

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by West Coast

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?

There will be a secret CB that no one knows about so the crew can't trip it to stop the annoying horn...

[tdracer]

This is the same problem the 77X will have. The 773ER is an incredible aeroplane with performance that is right in the middle of the sweet spot for the majority of its operators .

The 777-8X is nearly the same size as the 777-300ER, but with much better fuel burn and longer range....

[Volume]

Not only bizarre, but demonstrably wrong. The 777X has ~3 times the number of orders at this point it's development (the original 777 had a little over 100 orders prior to first flight, and oh by the way those orders were dominated by just a few operators).

It depends how you interpret the numbers. The 787 has set a ridiculous benchmark for the number of orders received even before roll-out. If you compare how many orders Boeing received for the "conventional" 777 familiy in the last 3 years (around 150) and how many 777X orders they received in the last 3 years (30) it looks like airlines are not especially keen to buy the new, larger model... Yes, there is a solid backlock from the program start phase and a few operators, but there is no continuous strong demand from the world community. The number of operators interested in high capacity aircraft might be fading.
In the last 10 years, around 600 77W were ordered at a relative constant rate, in the last 5 years 326 777X have been ordered with only 10% of those in the last 3 years. It might be a general change in airline policy (back to realistic numbers for an aircraft which has not even been rolled out...), but it clearly is not selling "3 times better" than the conventional 777 so far.

This may be a duplication of the A380 sales, 190 were ordered by the time of the first delivery, only another 140 were ordered in the 10 years after. So for the 777X we may see another 200 ordered after first flight for the few high capacity routes, while we may see thousands of 787 and A350 ordered for all the routes where a higher frequency with smaller aircraft suits the end-customer needs and airport capabilities much more.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by West Coast

You're absolute in your belief that it would be caught?

Hmmmm. Tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that a landing gear failing to extend would be caught before landing. That gear is MUCH more complex, and the consequences of a failed gear MUCH more severe than a folding wingtip.

Similarly, tens of thousands of pilots are quite "absolute in their belief" that an assymetric flap extension would be caught and prevented before aircraft upset. The flap system is MUCH more complex and the consequences of a failed flap extension much more severe than a folding wingtip.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Volume

It depends how you interpret the numbers. The 787 has set a ridiculous benchmark for the number of orders received even before roll-out. If you compare how many orders Boeing received for the "conventional" 777 family in the last 3 years (around 150) and how many 777X orders they received in the last 3 years (30) it looks like airlines are not especially keen to buy the new, larger model.

Larger? The 777-8X is SMALLER than the 777-300ER (229 ft length vs 242 ft), but much more efficient. The -9X is larger than 300ER (251ft vs 242ft).

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by glofish

.... as is just yours now Don 😂 and as was your previous on this thread ....
But at least you're joining the club makin an argument against the behemouths and for twins:

You can get almost 3 787s for the price of one 77X or a 380. The lesser lease/capital cost mean bean counters are able to make far larger bonuses from these smaller aeroplanes. Why would they not want to buy them?

If your statement were true on prices you would be correct. List price on a 777-900 is around 425 million verses 285 million for a 787-9. Large airlines often see 50% discounts leaving actual prices around 212 million verses 142 million.

[TURIN]

Originally Posted by KenV

Look more closely at that video. Those are wing mounted landing gear retracting into the area between the wings. Both the 747 and the A380 have four main gear legs: two mounted on the wings (like the 777) plus two mounted on the fuselage. Those body gear eat into the cargo hold volume. The 777 does not have such body gear which gives it an advantage in hauling belly freight.

I understand what you are saying about body gear. However, the wing gear does not retract into the ctr wing box it is an area behind the ctr wing box fuel tank. It still cuts the size of the cargo hold.

[KenV]

Originally Posted by TURIN

I understand what you are saying about body gear. However, the wing gear does not retract into the ctr wing box it is an area behind the ctr wing box fuel tank. It still cuts the size of the cargo hold.

Indeed. And there's lots of other stuff that "cuts the size of the cargo hold" (like many of the environmental system components behind the wing box.) I never stated nor implied that the 777-300 belly is devoid of anything that reduces its cargo capacity. I DID say that the lack of body gear gives it a significant advantage in cargo hold volume relative to the A380 despite the A380 being a significantly larger aircraft. And this cargo volume advantage relative to the A380 gives it an advantage in generating revenue for its owner. And generating revenue is the entire reason for the existence of an airliner.