777 to get folding wings...
the other issue is the length of the aircraft which is more restrictive in a lot of places than the wingspan
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing should (and will) be able to fit any aerodynamic and range performance needed within any given span requirement without using folding wings.
Makes you wonder what their range plans are for any future X with all that span?
Thought expensive oil killed ULR flights? Maybe not?
Makes you wonder what their range plans are for any future X with all that span?
Thought expensive oil killed ULR flights? Maybe not?
Last edited by Kerosene Kraut; 7th Nov 2012 at 10:23.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing already has the swingtail 747, so no need for another patent.
Boeing: Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Successfully Tests Swing Tail
Boeing: Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Successfully Tests Swing Tail
I'll start worrying when Boeing add the launch-bar on the nose-gear for EMALS/catapult launches! 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: old continent
Age: 46
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 71.1m wing would also push the 777 from ICAO Code E airport classification to Code F standards, the same category occupied by the 747-8 and A380. Under study is a revival of the original 777-200 wing-fold concept, which would have tilted upward a 6.9m (22ft 6in) portion of the wing that included the outer two leading edge slats and outboard aileron to accommodate McDonnell Douglas DC-10-sized gates.
Boeing's current concept scales back the weight and complexity of the design by folding only the raked wingtip, which is understood to be a 3.4m (11ft) portion of the wing, and does not house any wing control surfaces.
In short, Boeing would maintain Code E standards on the ramp and taxiway, up to 65m (213ft 4in), in line with today's 777-300ER, and shift to a Code F classification upon entering the runway.
Boeing's current concept scales back the weight and complexity of the design by folding only the raked wingtip, which is understood to be a 3.4m (11ft) portion of the wing, and does not house any wing control surfaces.
In short, Boeing would maintain Code E standards on the ramp and taxiway, up to 65m (213ft 4in), in line with today's 777-300ER, and shift to a Code F classification upon entering the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that would be stupid and pointless. The 380 has an UNFOLDED and UNFOLDABLE wingspan of 261ft plus........................... And it seems to fit into many airports now.
The amount of infrastructure changes required for smaller airports such as Sydney can be prohibitively expensive: New aerobridges, greater spacing between gates, taxiway widening (and subsequent repositioning of roads on the margins of taxiways), new servicing vehicles to be able to reach the A380's upper deck doors (catering on 747s is often done via the main deck doors, with the Upper Deck being serviced by the aircraft's cart elevator), etc.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do seem to remember the original 777 design did have the folding wingtips as an option, but wasn't taken up.
From then on, AA declined to be a launch customer of the 777, but eventually ordered it quite some time later - without winglets.
(*Incidentally, as part of WT, a certain Big Airline based in north-west Europe was very keen that the 777 have a sidestick and not a yoke.)
yes , considering the USA introduced the sidestick to the world via the F16 , Boeing couldnt because the 'good old boys ' couldnt accept it from the big airlines. Remember Boeing had to put a flight engineers station on the 767 for one outfit......
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 700 nm. 
They should make the wings like gliders wings - have a crew at the runway slot them in before takeoff and take them out after landing - much easier. Wingspan at the gate would be zero. Don't worry about the engines - got a tug for that. Aircraft can share wings. Reduced engine count and reduced costs.
They should make the wings like gliders wings - have a crew at the runway slot them in before takeoff and take them out after landing - much easier. Wingspan at the gate would be zero. Don't worry about the engines - got a tug for that.
Aircraft can share wings. Reduced engine count and reduced costs.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 12th Nov 2012 at 12:31.