Re: 777 folding wing (was: Delta dumps the L1011)

From:         rna@sphinx.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Date:         10 Nov 1995 13:49:43 -0800
Organization: Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
References:   1 2
Followups:    1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <4809l2$3db@kragar.kei.com>,
Richard A. Muirden <richard@rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>I think very little has been said about the 777 folding wing option. Is
>it perhaps because of the weight cost that makes it not such a nice
>option? Does anyone know if Boeing is even offering the option with the -300
>or -100 ? I'm sure if it worked wonderfully it would sure save a lot of
>gate reconfiguration at airports. Perhaps such a fleet could be used on
>more domestic routes, or say to Hawaii where the weight issue shouldn't
>totally affect range. I'm sure any Japanese variant would look good to
>crowded gates at NRT, etc.
>
>Did Boeing's WA001 have the option installed? I don't think so, but it
>would have been nice to see it in production use.

None of them have had the option so far.

The folding wing design has another implication for range.  Because of
the option, there is no provision for fuel in the last 20 feet of wing.
This means that the ranges of future versions of the 777 could be even
longer than they already are, especially since Boeing could also put fuel
in the horizontal stabilizer.  Of course everything has to be consistent
with gross-weight limits and so forth.

Imagine a 9000 mile B777.  Eat your heart out Airbus.

RNA
-- 
*********************************************************************
Great moments in Newspeak:

  "I do not like this word 'bomb'. It is not a bomb.  It is a device
   which is exploding."

---Jacques Le Blanc, French Ambassador to New Zealand, on the tests of
   nuclear "exploding devices" in French Polynesia.