Boeing planning larger 777 to knock out A380

[Flying Fox]

An interesting article -

Boeing planning larger 777 to knock out the Airbus A380

The proposed model would carry about 450 travellers, sharpening its rivalry with the A380, two of the people said. To do so, Boeing would stretch the frame of its 777-9 to squeeze in about four extra rows of seats.

 

[samh004]

Interesting idea... but why can't they re-imagine the 747 with two engines (compare the 777 engines to that of the 747) or perhaps 3 engines, bringing back one in the tail?

There's something to be said for two decks, and I think an even longer 777 is just too long, even if it only adds 4 more rows.

 

[TomVexille]

Unfortunately for us (the pax), I don't think the A380 has a big future.

As for the 777-9X+ carrying 450 pax, that's a conservative Boeing number. Some airlines already squeeze more then 450 into the 77W. Like AF with their high density Caribbean config which has 468 seats.

 

[Himeno]

Interesting idea... but why can't they re-imagine the 747 with two engines (compare the 777 engines to that of the 747) or perhaps 3 engines, bringing back one in the tail?

There's something to be said for two decks, and I think an even longer 777 is just too long, even if it only adds 4 more rows.

That (re doing a 747 model with 2 engines) would be nice. Most airlines don't want aircraft with full engines in the tails, makes it too hard to remove that 3rd engine for maintenance. Maybe a 747-9 model with 777 type engines would work.

Isn't the A340 the longest pax aircraft made to date? How does the 777 compare to the A340 size?

 

[petercr]

Longest versions according to Wikipedia...

A346 = 75.36m (247ft 3" in oldspeak)
773ER = 73.9m (242ft 4")
779x = 76.5m (250ft 11")

For comparison
748 = 76.3m
A388 = 72.72m

Searching on Google suggests a 777-10x would be 79.6m

 

[juddles]

The linked ariticle said that the new variants would be the first to breach the twin-engine 400+ pax level?? Do they even know anything about the aviation industry now??

....Isn't the A340 the longest pax aircraft made to date?...

It got kicked off that pedestal by the 747-8 a few years back

 

[TomVexille]

The linked ariticle said that the new variants would be the first to breach the twin-engine 400+ pax level?? Do they even know anything about the aviation industry now??

Not in the slightest. And neither do a majority of the "experts" they roll out.

 

[jb747]

Not in the slightest. And neither do a majority of the "experts" they roll out.

So true...especially the CNN experts.

 

[Himeno]

Longest versions according to Wikipedia...

A346 = 75.36m (247ft 3" in oldspeak)
773ER = 73.9m (242ft 4")
779x = 76.5m (250ft 11")

For comparison
748 = 76.3m
A388 = 72.72m

Searching on Google suggests a 777-10x would be 79.6m

Wouldn't they be running into the box size issues for gate spaces? They had that issue with the wing width for the A380.

 

[TomVexille]

Wouldn't they be running into the box size issues for gate spaces? They had that issue with the wing width for the A380.

Which is why they were playing with the idea of the folding wing

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

will be interesting to see how the economics stack up.

could be the future though with the way some major hubs are slot constrained.

i'd hoped the ability to fly long thin routes by the new generation of planes would reduce the need for these large capacity planes.

just not looking forward to a future of 16 inc wide and 30 ' pitch seating for a 15 hour flight.

maybe we need to be protected from ourselves some times and have a minimum space requirement.

 

[TomVexille]

Boeing are claiming that the 777X will have a wider cabin cross section than the current 777s allowing for 18in seats at 10 abreast

 

[trooper]

Stretching existing designs is a standard improvement these days... but widening the fuselage?

Isnt that basically a NEW design?

 

[Quickstatus]

Apparently the external width dimension will be the same but the ribs and insulations will be redesigned so that the internal cross sectional dimension will be larger. Perhaps also re-sculpting the cabin walls and repositioning the main deck floor.

 

[TomVexille]

Apparently the external width dimension will be the same but the ribs and insulations will be redesigned so that the internal cross sectional dimension will be larger. Perhaps also re-sculpting the cabin walls and repositioning the main deck floor.

What they said.

 

[Buzzard]

Longest versions according to Wikipedia...

A346 = 75.36m (247ft 3" in oldspeak)
773ER = 73.9m (242ft 4")
779x = 76.5m (250ft 11")

For comparison
748 = 76.3m
A388 = 72.72m

Searching on Google suggests a 777-10x would be 79.6m

I always thought the 747-8 was the longest pax aircraft.

 

[TomVexille]

I always thought the 747-8 was the longest pax aircraft.

It still is at the moment

 

[RAM]

Interesting idea... but why can't they re-imagine the 747 with two engines (compare the 777 engines to that of the 747) or perhaps 3 engines, bringing back one in the tail?

There's something to be said for two decks, and I think an even longer 777 is just too long, even if it only adds 4 more rows.

I posted a picture of the B747-400 test bed a few weeks back which showed it with one of the new B777 test engines mounted on it.


The difference is quite stark.

For a one-off required dedicated test plane they have spent enormous sums specially modifying the wings with extra reinforcing (spars, cross spars etc) as well as reinforcing the box joints for the wing/fuselage.

This piece gives you some idea of what's required just for the 747-8 stretch

Boeing Joins 747-8 Wing Box to Center Section | Aerospace News ...

www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/.../boeing-joins-747-8-wing-box-center-section


Jun 29, 2009 - Boeing announced today that it has joined the first 747-8's wing box to the airplane's 40-foot-long center fuselage section in the final assembly ...

For one engine per wing they would have to completely redesign:

• the wing (inside and out) including the engine placement being moved from the existing mounting positions
• the undercarriage - making it longer to provide ground clearance. Remember those photos show the plane with only a serviceable fuel load, no passengers no cargo.
• the undercarriage housing and hydraulics.
• the Wing Box (which is a very long section of the entire fuselage
• Emergency exit locations

and that's just for a start.

Begins to sound like not much different to a totally new aircraft.

Given the 747-8 demise effectively 80% due to the B777 and 20% A380 IMHO - financially it could never stack up.

Boeing basically have said you can have a 4 engine B747-8 or a 2 engine redesigned B747-7 otherwise known as the B777.

 

[Flying Fox]

It's amazing how little ground clearance that engine has with the ground!

 

[RAM]

It's amazing how little ground clearance that engine has with the ground!

You can imagine what may have been going through the flight crew's minds:

• Are we absolutely at the minimum fuel load possible for these tests?
• There better not be any crosswinds when we come in to land
• My next landing better be one of the smoothest ever
• How much additional ground clearance do I gain from the fuel used for the flight?

I would like to see just how stripped out the interior of that aircraft is. I would suspect that it has a very large open space where seats are normally located of if an ex-freighter - all cargo related strengthening, restraints etc removed and replace with mountings for a back of computers, minimal seats for them and storage for a number of parachutes.

Test pilots may be able to have 'fun' sometimes but their jobs must rank as potentially the most lethal (especially before super-computer simulation technology came into being).