Date: 04 May 98 02:20:33 From: email@example.com (Malcolm Weir) Organization: Little to None References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 26 Apr 98 03:44:05 , David Lednicer <firstname.lastname@example.org> caused to appear as if it was written: >> The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport >> operations and far too heavy. > Interestingly enough, John Roundhill made an AIAA dinner meeting >presentation back in the early days of the 777 and showed that the >folding wings were essential. Without them, the 777 could not use many >existing gates and would have trouble using certain taxiways at older >airports, like LaGuardia. I would imagine that the 777 without the >folding wings is now locked out of many gates. This leads to the >question: how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at >LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? The short answer, as Karl wrote, is not to use the 777 out of airports where it's wingspan prohibit them! The larger answer is to observe that the current thinking is that it is easier and, in the long run, cheaper to fix the ground installations than it is to fly the excess weight. Part of this thinking comes from the observation that ground facilities will have to expand in order to handle the demand for air travel from a larger and more mobile global population. Given that you are now building new terminals and gates, they can be built to accomodate the new, larger wings. Regarding taxiways, this becomes a cross that the ground controllers just have to bear! For example, I believe that BA's 747 service into SAN is limited by the taxiways that it can accomodate... against which, that single movement carries more people than several smaller aircraft, so the added "pain" of reduced mobility is offset by the "gain" of more efficient use of ground resources. This whole issue is of particular relevance to discussions of A3XX and 747-derivatives, for obvious reasons... >David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Malc.