reminds me of the new adage
 

how do you know there is an A380 pilot in the room....he'll tell you

That will be covered in the next patent application ...

http://www.airpixbycaz.co.uk/cazsite...2/70lgw204.jpg

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?

Boeing already has the swingtail 747, so no need for another patent.
Boeing: Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter Successfully Tests Swing Tail

Oops, clean forgot about that one. :\

http://www.telovation.com/photos/boe...o-bay-open.jpg

Russians have the patent on Ugly...

http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...late-1990s.jpg

What's to worry about? A catapult launch capability and a hook for landings would make it possible to use much shorter fields with lower landing fees. :O

5 4 3 2 1.......

Thunderbirds are GO!!!!!

:eek:

Why not make them swing-wing instead? Save space on the ground and look like Concorde in flight. Bonus!

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.

Yes, that would be one checklist item you really wouldn't want to overlook. :O

let's hope they will put a nice fancy alarm when throttles will be advanced when their 11ft winglets are present

Seems that a few people don't understand the problems the A380 has caused and is still causing. At LAX for example. The A380 causes a lot of congestion when this aircraft moves about this airport, because of wingspan. Unfortunately, not all the grumblings are evident on the pilot/ATC airwaves.

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.

Yes, Boeing developed it as part of the 'Working Together'* framework after a request from American. The idea would be that AA would use the 777 on DC-10 sized domestic gates.

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......

As a matter of interest what kind of weight penalty are we talking about for a pair of folding wings?

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. :}:}

I'd be worried if AB were planning a folding wing.....