Hey Monkey-boy! You think I am going to tell you where my secret spot is at EWR? Hell no! You might bring some DAC goons and ruin my lunch... POW!!PING!!KICK!! (But your first guess is a little too close for comfort)
Sitting here before the LCD demon having my usual after a long hard day, I got to thinking how much I hate the nutless wonders running things in Seatt... I mean Chicago. Case in point, the absolute sheer stupidity of the 767-400. This plane makes about as much sense as letting a sleep deprived, crossbow armed Ted Nugent loose in a petting zoo.
Although, the 747SP was by most accounts a dismal failure, it still proved the viability of certain city pairs and held airlines over until more efficient equipment became available (Tristar 500, MD-11, etc.).
Those unfortunate souls among us who have had the distinction of flying on Delta's 764s may understand part of my gripe. On paper Delta has replaced their L1011 fleet in terms of available seats, but in terms of comfort they have replaced the L-1011 with an Afghani Refugee Camp. The thing is just too damn narrow - a flight more than three hours long constitutes a violation of the Geneva code of conduct for the treatment of POWs.
The part that really burns me up is the fact Boeing already had a plane in its stable that could have easily answered the question Delta and Continental were asking - and not only that, a question many other airlines were asking. This plane doesn't officially exist in its inventory, but Boeing should have produced the 777-100. The 777-100 you ask!?!? Yes, a shortened version with slightly de-rated engines and options appropriate for either domestic or international (really long and really thin) operations. I could easily see this bird running into LaGuardia or National with the folding wingtips (my secret 777 fantasy), just as I can see American making some use of their recent purchase and flying between St. Louis and Sydney. Let's not forget all the European I.T. operators such as Monarch and JMCair using them as conveyor belts moving drunk Brits (gotta love 'em!) to various sunny locations throughout the Med.
Bottom line, and tell me what you think, the 777-100 would have the girth the girls love and the efficiency those grey little bean counters can only dream of.
I really think Boeing missed the boat on this one - but maybe there is still time left and at least two or three airlines that haven't filled the gap with plastic A330-200s.
Location: About a 40 minute drive from Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,586
I think the reason that Boeing did not build the 777-100 is because of the powerful engines which (depending on what engine you choose) can have a thrust rating of 80,000 to 100,000 pounds of thrust. Now, the 767-400's engines have about 60,000 pounds of thrust. So I believe unless Boeing could drastically reduce the amount of power from those engines (which they probably couldn't), they would be burning alot of unnecessary fuel.
I'm not an engineer, but isn't it a general convention that stretching a given design is more efficient than downsizing?
Shortening the fuselage may require extensive engineering to "lighten" the structure to achieve the lowest weight.
Boeing miniaturized to render the following: 747SP, 720, 737-500. As the father indicates, the SP successfully linked "long and thin" routes, and was quickly supplanted by the 744. The 720 was a dismal commercial failure, and the 735 probably broke even. I fly the 737-300/500 and can attest to the short version being a pain in the a$$. It has a takeoff gross weight and landing weight of 7500 and 4000 pounds less, respectively. Passenger loads of the -500 are only 8 or 12 less than the -300 depending on configuration. Bottom line is the mini-guppy is seriously compromised on flights from ORD to the west coast of the U.S. It can also prevent the carriage of significant "ferry fuel" to minimize turnaround time on short legs. And to think WN was the launch customer!!
Hmmm, so far interesting and informative.... While there seems to be a "curse" on airframes that are shortened (A319/A330-200 notwithstanding), I guess I should have been a little more specific.
I don't envision the 777-100 being drastically smaller than the 200, but rather taking the 200 down to just slightly above the 764's capacity. While I am no engineer, this would probably shorten the 777-200 by about 15 feet overall (10 feet in front of the wing and 5 feet aft), and development costs would be relatively minimal.
There are enough airlines clamoring for this size of an aircraft to make it profitable for Boeing (Singapore and JAL come to mind) and economical for the airlines. I know one thing hindering the 764 sales (besides the width of the cabin) is Boeing's reluctance to increase the thrust. Just ask Monarch. So, I would imagine it would be more than possible to de-rate the engines just enough to make this a more than viable DC-10-30/40 or L-1011 replacement.
Also, I just have a very base desire and possibly a misdirected one to see the 777 a little shorter. What can I say, I love my 762s, 735s 736s, L1011-500s and 747SPs. Outcasts all!!
If there is to be a 777-100 and is there any possible that it can be consider as a "semi-concorde" in the between of the speed of an 747 to Concorde? Can the frame withstand such the pressures?
If it can go 800 mph and burn the same amount of fuel as 777-200 and 777-300 would which will save airliner some labor cost. I think it doesnt make any difference.
Hell, why not! And while yer at it, why not put four GE 90s at a 110,000 pounds of thrust on the short little s--t and sell it as Sultan of Brunei's sub orbital love shack...
Regarding the reluctance of Boeing to increase 767-400 thrust; I recall 2 novel concepts considered to modify either the 767 or 777 (don't recall which airframe) One would replace the tail-mounted APU with a medium thrust turbofan. It would function during ground ops as would the conventional APU and provide significant thrust increase during takeoff - with all the pertinent gains of gross weight. The second would add a hydraulic system to the main gear bogeys to forcibly assist rotation toward flight - I believe this aim is to reduce runway length requirements. Both were printed in Aviation Week and Space Tech several months ago. Didn't the Hawker-Siddely Trident utilize a similar concept in the tail above the #2 engine with a rocket for assist?
re: the Trident (-3 version).
It was essentially a `5-engined' airliner.
3 main engines, a booster jet, and the APU.
And it still had the nickname: `The Gripper'
__________________
---- BWIA West Indies 1:400/200 final livery MD-83; oldest liveries: Viscount, Viking, DC-3; sandy livery: A321, DC-9-30, -80, 727, 720, 707-138, -220, 73G 1:250 scale? No, thank you. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am an engineer. I presently work for Boeing and have for the past 15 years. I worked on the development of the 777 and 764 just to name a few. Scott has it right when it comes to shrinking an aircraft.
We did study the 777 "Shrink". It was even shown to the airlines but it just didn't attract any interest. The reason: poor seat mile costs. It is always less economical to "shrink" an aircraft because you are forcing the operator to carry around a wing (and the associated weight) that is too large for the rest of the aircraft. That really hits the seat mile costs. As mentioned earlier, the 747SP was a failure as far as seat mile costs and that is why it didn't sell very well. The 764 however, is streched and so more optimizes the operating economics by distributing the increased weight/fuel burn over more seats. Hope that explains things.
Originally posted by Father Manicotti
Hey Monkey-boy! You think I am going to tell you where my secret spot is at EWR? Hell no! You might bring some DAC goons and ruin my lunch... POW!!PING!!KICK!! (But your first guess is a little too close for comfort)...
That spot was the first that came to mind. Actually, there are several medium to good spots around the north part part of the airport, but lets not speculate lest the wrong type find their way there.
Prior to 11 September, the best spot I've ever been to was pointed out to us - at the base of the control tower. You had to drive the access road that passes under the tarmac nearest the Continental terminal. A great spot. Now closed to the public, of course; it's in the security area now.
BTW, my DAC goons, as you call them, are pretty cool guys and you have nothing to fear from them. Now those model railroad fans, on the other hand, well... let's just say they have something to worry about.
Well, I must go along with the good "Father" on this one. As the L-1011's, DC-10's and older 747's were removed from the market our service to and from the islands has gone to almost all 767 type aircraft. And they all, the 200. 300 and 400 are all to narrow for our long flight segements. Even in First Class, if you can call it that, the seating is very cramped. My dad just returned from Guam (8 hour flight) on a Continental 764 and I can't print here what he said about the seating on that flight. I just flew to the mainland on a 763 and ended up standing for most of the flight...it was just too cramped and the seats too uncomfortable. We're really going to miss those old tri-jets.
Thanks for the explanation Jim. As you pointed out, if you're carrying all the weight an engineering of a larger plane, the shrink is going to stink, relatively speaking. The 762 is a rocket off the ground, but its operating costs per seat are considerably higher than the 763. The have the same wing and engines and overall frame, but the 763 distributes costs across more seats, making it more cost effective for airlines.
The rule of thumb in airline economics: the closer you fly a plane to the edge of its range, the lower the costs. The greater the number of seats you have in a plane, the better to spread the costs across more customers. Plain and simple.
767-400 or what may have been... the 777-100
Let me explain....
Re: 767-400 or what may have been... the 777-100
The 757 was suppose to be shorter but the -200 was more viable!
Your Privacy Choices
