777x folding wingtips
- Thread starter CincyDavid
- Start date
- Status
Saw a few of those videos .
The Navy has been using planes with folding wings , for carrier use , since some time around WWII . I think .
Saves space on them or a 777 . I would think there would be some weight penalty . How about on the 787 ? Do they have the folding wing tips ?
The Navy has been using planes with folding wings , for carrier use , since some time around WWII . I think .
Saves space on them or a 777 . I would think there would be some weight penalty . How about on the 787 ? Do they have the folding wing tips ?
It's my understanding that the folding wingtips are a 777 option, so that the airplane can be taxied, and parked, in existing spaces.
The 787 doesn't have a wingspan long enough to require that additional weight, and cost, that folding wingtips would add to the airplane.
The 787 doesn't have a wingspan long enough to require that additional weight, and cost, that folding wingtips would add to the airplane.
Thanks , 
Added complexity whoes time hasn't arrived.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey
Added complexity whoes time hasn't arrived.
Bigger planes in smaller airports without huge infrastructure improvements?
More use out of airports that can't grow (DCA, LGA, etc)???
Added complexity whoes time hasn't arrived.
Bigger planes in smaller airports without huge infrastructure improvements?
More use out of airports that can't grow (DCA, LGA, etc)???
Originally Posted By: Yah-Tah-Hey
Added complexity whoes time hasn't arrived.
It arrived eighty years ago on the decks of aircraft carriers.
It’s time has come for airports, like LGA, EWR, BOS, PHL, DCA, SFO, just to name a few that simply can not accommodate the largest of airplanes. No amount of building will change the fact that they’re surrounded by water and cannot get enough Taxi space for large wingspan airplanes. The existing taxiways are simply too narrow and too close.
So, future growth for them will require airplanes that fit into existing infrastructure.
Added complexity whoes time hasn't arrived.
It arrived eighty years ago on the decks of aircraft carriers.
It’s time has come for airports, like LGA, EWR, BOS, PHL, DCA, SFO, just to name a few that simply can not accommodate the largest of airplanes. No amount of building will change the fact that they’re surrounded by water and cannot get enough Taxi space for large wingspan airplanes. The existing taxiways are simply too narrow and too close.
So, future growth for them will require airplanes that fit into existing infrastructure.
Last edited:
F-4 Phantom IIs were a Navy fighter adapted for Air Force use when Air Force fighter-bombers and interceptors proved to be woefully inadequate during the Vietnam war. The Air Force versions retained the folding wingtips, but they were almost never folded.
While I was at George AFB in Southern California we had a crew take off with one wing fold not locked. After lifting off, one tip folded, the pilot could not maintain control, and they punched out. The plane crashed, narrowly missing the tank farm. Funny part about it, the pilot landed on the ramp in front of our squadron building. He injured an ankle. We could not get an ambulance - all were responding to an "aircraft emergency" and were at the flaming wreckage site. After being hung up on a couple of times, we finally convinced a med tech to drive out. He took the pilot to the base hospital in his van.
There are procedures in place that should have prevented the accident, but in 1979 the military had endured years of budget shortfalls, and procedures weren't followed. A number of shortcuts were involved. Shouldn't have happened, but it did.
I would hate to see something like this happen with a budget airline. Hopefully there will be hard interlocks that will make folding in flight impossible.
While I was at George AFB in Southern California we had a crew take off with one wing fold not locked. After lifting off, one tip folded, the pilot could not maintain control, and they punched out. The plane crashed, narrowly missing the tank farm. Funny part about it, the pilot landed on the ramp in front of our squadron building. He injured an ankle. We could not get an ambulance - all were responding to an "aircraft emergency" and were at the flaming wreckage site. After being hung up on a couple of times, we finally convinced a med tech to drive out. He took the pilot to the base hospital in his van.
There are procedures in place that should have prevented the accident, but in 1979 the military had endured years of budget shortfalls, and procedures weren't followed. A number of shortcuts were involved. Shouldn't have happened, but it did.
I would hate to see something like this happen with a budget airline. Hopefully there will be hard interlocks that will make folding in flight impossible.
Last edited:
Seems like I remember airports having simular issues when the 747's came out ?
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Seems like I remember airports having simular issues when the 747's came out ?
They did.
And many spent billions to widen and upgrade taxiways to accommodate them, but to this day, not all airports can accommodate a 747.
When the A-380 came out, not all airports could accomodate that airplane. Those that chose to upgrade ramp strength, taxiway width, and taxiway radii, spent over a Billion dollars to be able to handle them.
Without folding wingtips, the 777X (the airplane that we're talking about) will have a 235 foot span.
That's wider than the 211' foot span of the 747-400.
But not as much as the A-380, which is 80M, or 262'.
When folded, the 777X will be at 212, and able to use airports that are too small for the A-380, but that handle current 777 (200') traffic.
And it's not just taxiways and ramps that need upgrading, a 235' wingspan would mean that many gates would be blocked by one of these parked at an adjacent gate - reducing airport (and airline) gate capacity, which, to be blunt, is at a premium right now.
Fold 'em, and you get a bigger airplane in the existing space, without the need for billions of dollars in improvements.
Win-win.
Seems like I remember airports having simular issues when the 747's came out ?
They did.
And many spent billions to widen and upgrade taxiways to accommodate them, but to this day, not all airports can accommodate a 747.
When the A-380 came out, not all airports could accomodate that airplane. Those that chose to upgrade ramp strength, taxiway width, and taxiway radii, spent over a Billion dollars to be able to handle them.
Without folding wingtips, the 777X (the airplane that we're talking about) will have a 235 foot span.
That's wider than the 211' foot span of the 747-400.
But not as much as the A-380, which is 80M, or 262'.
When folded, the 777X will be at 212, and able to use airports that are too small for the A-380, but that handle current 777 (200') traffic.
And it's not just taxiways and ramps that need upgrading, a 235' wingspan would mean that many gates would be blocked by one of these parked at an adjacent gate - reducing airport (and airline) gate capacity, which, to be blunt, is at a premium right now.
Fold 'em, and you get a bigger airplane in the existing space, without the need for billions of dollars in improvements.
Win-win.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
F-4 Phantom IIs were a Navy fighter adapted for Air Force use when Air Force fighter-bombers and interceptors proved to be woefully inadequate during the Vietnam war. The Air Force versions retained the folding wingtips, but they were almost never folded.
While I was at George AFB in Southern California we had a crew take off with one wing fold not locked. After lifting off, one tip folded, the pilot could not maintain control, and they punched out. The plane crashed, narrowly missing the tank farm. Funny part about it, the pilot landed on the ramp in front of our squadron building. He injured an ankle. We could not get an ambulance - all were responding to an "aircraft emergency" and were at the flaming wreckage site. After being hung up on a couple of times, we finally convinced a med tech to drive out. He took the pilot to the base hospital in his van.
There are procedures in place that should have prevented the accident, but in 1979 the military had endured years of budget shortfalls, and procedures weren't followed. A number of shortcuts were involved. Shouldn't have happened, but it did.
I would hate to see something like this happen with a budget airline. Hopefully there will be hard interlocks that will make folding in flight impossible.
I would hate that, too...
But, what's interesting about your tale, is that it was USAF pilots who made that mistake with a Navy airplane.
I'm not aware of a Navy pilot making that mistake, despite folding and unfolding the wings on every sortie.
Same thing on the Tomcat - wingsweep to minimise the deck footprint - and not one of us tried to take off with swept wings...
Checklists, and discipline, regularly practiced, kept millions of Navy sorties from having that kind of accident (there were plenty of other kinds, but not wing fold issues).
F-4 Phantom IIs were a Navy fighter adapted for Air Force use when Air Force fighter-bombers and interceptors proved to be woefully inadequate during the Vietnam war. The Air Force versions retained the folding wingtips, but they were almost never folded.
While I was at George AFB in Southern California we had a crew take off with one wing fold not locked. After lifting off, one tip folded, the pilot could not maintain control, and they punched out. The plane crashed, narrowly missing the tank farm. Funny part about it, the pilot landed on the ramp in front of our squadron building. He injured an ankle. We could not get an ambulance - all were responding to an "aircraft emergency" and were at the flaming wreckage site. After being hung up on a couple of times, we finally convinced a med tech to drive out. He took the pilot to the base hospital in his van.
There are procedures in place that should have prevented the accident, but in 1979 the military had endured years of budget shortfalls, and procedures weren't followed. A number of shortcuts were involved. Shouldn't have happened, but it did.
I would hate to see something like this happen with a budget airline. Hopefully there will be hard interlocks that will make folding in flight impossible.
I would hate that, too...
But, what's interesting about your tale, is that it was USAF pilots who made that mistake with a Navy airplane.
I'm not aware of a Navy pilot making that mistake, despite folding and unfolding the wings on every sortie.
Same thing on the Tomcat - wingsweep to minimise the deck footprint - and not one of us tried to take off with swept wings...
Checklists, and discipline, regularly practiced, kept millions of Navy sorties from having that kind of accident (there were plenty of other kinds, but not wing fold issues).
The Air Force version doesn't have the option of folding the wings in the cockpit - it's a maintenance function done by ground crews. There is a red pin indicator in the wing that sticks up showing the down positioned wingtip is not locked. This one had been painted over with the same jungle camouflage as the wing. The misspainted camo pin was missed by the aircrew on preflight, missed by the crew chief, missed by the end of runway crew. Lots of blame to go all around, but it wasn't a cockpit switch error.
I had heard of one that had both wings fold on takeoff, but that one was able to land. Second hand, so I can't vouch for that story.
I had heard of one that had both wings fold on takeoff, but that one was able to land. Second hand, so I can't vouch for that story.
Wings folded takeoff? Yep it was a NAVY PILOT that made "that mistake"!
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Seems like I remember airports having simular issues when the 747's came out ?
They did.
And many spent billions to widen and upgrade taxiways to accommodate them, but to this day, not all airports can accommodate a 747.
When the A-380 came out, not all airports could accomodate that airplane. Those that chose to upgrade ramp strength, taxiway width, and taxiway radii, spent over a Billion dollars to be able to handle them.
Without folding wingtips, the 777X (the airplane that we're talking about) will have a 235 foot span.
That's wider than the 211' foot span of the 747-400.
But not as much as the A-380, which is 80M, or 262'.
When folded, the 777X will be at 212, and able to use airports that are too small for the A-380, but that handle current 777 (200') traffic.
And it's not just taxiways and ramps that need upgrading, a 235' wingspan would mean that many gates would be blocked by one of these parked at an adjacent gate - reducing airport (and airline) gate capacity, which, to be blunt, is at a premium right now.
Fold 'em, and you get a bigger airplane in the existing space, without the need for billions of dollars in improvements.
Win-win.
Sounds like good thinking on Boeing's part .
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
Seems like I remember airports having simular issues when the 747's came out ?
They did.
And many spent billions to widen and upgrade taxiways to accommodate them, but to this day, not all airports can accommodate a 747.
When the A-380 came out, not all airports could accomodate that airplane. Those that chose to upgrade ramp strength, taxiway width, and taxiway radii, spent over a Billion dollars to be able to handle them.
Without folding wingtips, the 777X (the airplane that we're talking about) will have a 235 foot span.
That's wider than the 211' foot span of the 747-400.
But not as much as the A-380, which is 80M, or 262'.
When folded, the 777X will be at 212, and able to use airports that are too small for the A-380, but that handle current 777 (200') traffic.
And it's not just taxiways and ramps that need upgrading, a 235' wingspan would mean that many gates would be blocked by one of these parked at an adjacent gate - reducing airport (and airline) gate capacity, which, to be blunt, is at a premium right now.
Fold 'em, and you get a bigger airplane in the existing space, without the need for billions of dollars in improvements.
Win-win.
Sounds like good thinking on Boeing's part .
Originally Posted By: ammolab
Wings folded takeoff? Yep it was a NAVY PILOT that made "that mistake"!
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
What a story! I wouldn't have believed a plane could fly with wings folded, till I read this.
Wings folded takeoff? Yep it was a NAVY PILOT that made "that mistake"!
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
What a story! I wouldn't have believed a plane could fly with wings folded, till I read this.
I always heard you could make a barn door fly if you put enough engine on it !
Originally Posted By: ammolab
Wings folded takeoff? Yep it was a NAVY PILOT that made "that mistake"!
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
Cool story, Bro.
That was 50 years ago. 1968. An F-8 Crusader.
Things have changed since then, the USN has improved its safety record by two orders of magnitude. Put simply, we* crash jets at a rate that is about 2% of the rate at which they were crashed then. High-performance airplanes will always have risks, but we've adopted better training, procedures, systems, pilot screening, maintenance practices (google NATOPS) to cut the rate dramatically. Nearly 100 times better than we were when this story was written.
So, my point: that wing fold isn't really a risk, still stands.
Wing fold is no different than flap setting. Pilots have taken off without properly setting flaps in the past. Doesn't much happen anymore, due to training, system interlocks, warnings, SOP, checklists, etc. that mitigate risk by reducing errors.
*Yeah, I am retired, and fly airliners now, but I will always be a Naval Aviator.
Wings folded takeoff? Yep it was a NAVY PILOT that made "that mistake"!
https://www.flightjournal.com/f8-wings-folded/
Cool story, Bro.
That was 50 years ago. 1968. An F-8 Crusader.
Things have changed since then, the USN has improved its safety record by two orders of magnitude. Put simply, we* crash jets at a rate that is about 2% of the rate at which they were crashed then. High-performance airplanes will always have risks, but we've adopted better training, procedures, systems, pilot screening, maintenance practices (google NATOPS) to cut the rate dramatically. Nearly 100 times better than we were when this story was written.
So, my point: that wing fold isn't really a risk, still stands.
Wing fold is no different than flap setting. Pilots have taken off without properly setting flaps in the past. Doesn't much happen anymore, due to training, system interlocks, warnings, SOP, checklists, etc. that mitigate risk by reducing errors.
*Yeah, I am retired, and fly airliners now, but I will always be a Naval Aviator.
- Status
