Todos
← Back to Squawk list
The Boeing 777X And Its Unmatched Foldable Wings
An unusual scene may become commonplace at airports in a few years if Boeing succeeds in making a new system safe for commercial operation. (airlinerwatch.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As mentioned in the first comment above Boeing originally designed the first 777 (777-200) with the folding wing option. A couple of prominent customers insisted on it. I was a Boeing design engineer at the time. From a pure weight and drag perspective the engineers didn't like it but the market prevailed. Basically all the extra structure and systems runs out to the tip caused the entire wing to be beefed up to carry the loads. The impact on the aircraft was explained to the customers but we were to give them what they wanted. When the orders came in those same customers decided the weight penalty wasn't worth trying to save a few tighter gates at the terminal. Uh huh. That's what we tried to tell them during design.
Boeing did the original B777 folding wing engineering concept back in the 1990's and offered it to its airline customers, but had no takers. The hardware had been designed and tested and was finally used in 2006 -07 on the B747 Dreamlifter to lock/unlock the swingtail. It is a robust ring and lug design and the lock train for the swingtail consists of 21 sets of these locks around the perimeter of the aft fuselage where the tail swings. I had a small part in the operations demos during the FAA certification process in Everett, WA. The 4 Dreamlifters have been working hard ferrying B787 components since 2007 with no problems.
The end of the story says new engine would be put on in Renton.
I think they mean Boeing Field or Everett. Not sure a 777 has ever landed or taken off from Renton.
I think they mean Boeing Field or Everett. Not sure a 777 has ever landed or taken off from Renton.
Probably bringing up a previous post, but.
Two points.
The United States Navy,
Twenty years on and off of flight decks, and I never saw a failure of a folding wing in flight or even on the flight deck or ground.
Remember this minor point, a 777 will probably never pull the G’s that a F18, A6 or the now rolling out F35. If they do, folding wings will be the least of the aircrews concerns.
Two points.
The United States Navy,
Twenty years on and off of flight decks, and I never saw a failure of a folding wing in flight or even on the flight deck or ground.
Remember this minor point, a 777 will probably never pull the G’s that a F18, A6 or the now rolling out F35. If they do, folding wings will be the least of the aircrews concerns.
Small aircraft have different dynamics than large ones and I can guarantee you that military aircraft do not get the use of civilian aircraft
Commercial aircraft are usually retired long before military aircraft are, especially naval flight platforms. Our squadron had the second A6 produced,157001, it was still flying tanker duty when the squadron was shut down, it was then sent to VA 34 which flew it for another 3 years, the wings were folded while on the flight line and deck with no suppimental support until we needed to climb up on the folded part to perform maintenance on the electronic systems that were in the wingtips.
She was built in 1964 and retired when all of the A-6’s were taken out of service in 1993.
She flew combat missions in VN, Beirut, And desert storm.
No commercial aircraft could stand the carrier landings, hot fuels, hot crew swaps and relaunches for days at a time that a carrier aircraft works with.
She was built in 1964 and retired when all of the A-6’s were taken out of service in 1993.
She flew combat missions in VN, Beirut, And desert storm.
No commercial aircraft could stand the carrier landings, hot fuels, hot crew swaps and relaunches for days at a time that a carrier aircraft works with.
How many hours of operation, overall, and takeoffs and landings would a commercial airliner rack up over the course of its lifetime, as compared to the military aircraft you spoke of...I have no idea about any of this "stuff." I've always just been a bit fascinated by aircraft/flight. I've often also wondered if it would have taken longer to develop flight technology...if there were no birds, etc., to show Man that flight was even possible.
I had to kind of laugh when the probability of catastrophe was mentioned...that proof of no chance of catastrophic problem with these wings would have to be given. That's the same kind of thinking, at the time, that caused the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable and, also, that no jet could lose all hydraulics...'til flight 232 crash landed in Sioux City, Iowa, after that very thing happened, and why there was no mention of such a catastrophe (and action to be taken) in the flight manual (and why they had to keep repeating the problem to whomever took the call when they called it in to whatever entity/authority in (I believe) Minneapolis...cuz no one there believed such a thing could happen, either. It's a good reminder, I guess, to "never say never."
Right on, Linda-like the odds that Douglas engineers calculated were 10 billion to 1 that an engine would come off the wing of a DC-10, so it was ok to route the electrical and hydraulic system through the same area of the wing, thus giving us the American Flt 191 crash at O'Hare and 273 lives lost. "No possibility both systems would be inoperative."
the engine came off because of a faulty engine-change procedure American Airlines was doing.. not because of the design.. American was using an unapproved method of re-installing the engine with the pylon attached that caused cracks in the receptacle on the wing
If I recall correctly, I believe there was also a flaw (tiny impurity) in the material used to make that, too, which was missed.
I was with FAA at the time... don't know if true or not but I heard that they put 10 senior DC10 pilots thru a simulation of what happened in Chicago and the only one that "survived" was one old guy who pushed the throttles to MAX ignoring the standard directives of the day...anybody hear this?
1. Yes, I've heard that, and also that operating emergency procedures were amended.
2. The point was that the airplane was designed the way it was because "it'll never happen" and because that's the way Douglas had found to be a previously acceptable way of doing things, e.g., in the DC-8.
On the other hand, a contemporary airplane (Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star)was designed starting with a clean sheet and the engineers used a different, and, as it turned out, safer routing for those systems. Yes, the mishandling of the engine installation was the proximal cause of the engine loss, but there is reason to believe that, with a different system design, Captain Lux and his crew might have been able to save the airplane and its passengers.
2. The point was that the airplane was designed the way it was because "it'll never happen" and because that's the way Douglas had found to be a previously acceptable way of doing things, e.g., in the DC-8.
On the other hand, a contemporary airplane (Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star)was designed starting with a clean sheet and the engineers used a different, and, as it turned out, safer routing for those systems. Yes, the mishandling of the engine installation was the proximal cause of the engine loss, but there is reason to believe that, with a different system design, Captain Lux and his crew might have been able to save the airplane and its passengers.
I'm not sure if it's true or not (and it's maybe in the book...there was so much info in the book, I couldn't remember it all), but I do remember something being done against protocol. What you wonder about would also stand to reason...I've often heard concern in the past of what would happen to the commercial airline industry when we no longer had commercial pilots who had originally come from the military, as they had to know how to fly by the seat of their pants in all kinds of to-the-max situations. Flight 232 was damn lucky to have flight trainer Denny Fitch onboard to help that plane down. He was deeply saddened by not having been able to save everyone. May he rest in peace. Terrific man and pilot was he, as were/are the rest of the crew on that flight.