Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's...

Date:         09 May 97 03:28:59 
From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2 3 4
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.1039@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
M Carling  <> wrote:
>1) Such a 777-400X would have a length of 83.8 meters, just about 1.5
>meters short of the maximum length an aircraft can be and still turn
>around between existing terminals.

I belive ICAO "recommends" (sorry, I can't think of a better word to
use) 80m by 80m.  The proposed B747-700X was more than 80m long (it's
not a typo; I'm not talking about the -600X).  In fact, Airbus has
emphasized numerous times that its A3XX-200 would fit in the 80m by 80m
box.  Nevertheless, an 80m long B777 will still be able to carry nearly
450 passengers in three classes.  This will be an ideal B747-500X
substitute, at least size-wise.  This will also be a lot cheaper to
develop than the B747-500X even if a new wing is needed (because many
airlines wanted commonalities between the B747X and the B777).  My
guess is the engine thrust needed will be around 110,000 lb.  It's
probably doable for GE and R-R.  However, the PW4000 may have reached
its peak at 98K.

>6) A 777-400X would almost certainly require a fifth door on each side.

I believe the -300 already has ten doors.  That's why the maximum
allowable capacity of the -300 is 550.  I think, if there is a
-400X, it will have twelve doors.

I think the B777-400X may have a great potential.  Since almost all
major Pacific Rim airlines already have the B777 on order, the -400X
will make a lot of sense for regional operations.  In a regional
configuration, it can easily carry over 500 passengers.  It
definitely can be an effective A3XX competitor at the low end if
both the A3XX and B777-400X are launched.  Nevertheless, I have not
seen any solid hint that Boeing is seriously considering stretching
the B777-300.  So, it's a pure speculation on my part.