http://www.aviationw...3_p0-548819.xml

 

Not that I expect will see this on the PMDG version, since it's going to be a whole new model, but I felt it relevant.

 

And funny.

 

E: And I typoed the topic. Lovely.

Not that I expect will see this on the PMDG version

 

I think PMDG has said they aren't doing it. Or were they talking about the NGX development?

I think PMDG has said they aren't doing it. Or were they talking about the NGX development?

 

They were definetely talking about the 777. I remember Ryan saying that they won't do it because it's not on the real aircraft (for now, at least). I prefer that way because, personaly, I don't like the folding wingtip idea very much...

 

Found Ryan's post: http://forum.avsim.n...t/#entry2340967

Edited February 14, 201313 yr by PlaneDriver

I don't think we'll ever see a normal 777 with folding wingtips, since it really wouldn't give any advantage.

However, with the redesigned wing the 777X will have, it'll probably be a necessity at a lot of airports.

http://www.aviationw...3_p0-548819.xml

 

Not that I expect will see this on the PMDG version, since it's going to be a whole new model, but I felt it relevant.

 

And funny.

 

E: And I typoed the topic. Lovely.

 

 

'foling':

 

Is it 'fol(d)ing wingtips'? :Thinking:

 

Or 'fo(u)ling wingtips'??? :LMAO:

When Boeing first introduced the 777 they had folding wing tips as optional but the market wasn't interested. The folding wing tip has it advantage i.e. lager wings but when folded the plane takes same space as the first generation 777. I don't know about fuel efficiency with bigger wings but most likely.

Maby you don't know but at the begining Boeing offered a folding wingtips for the 777... But no airline was interested in this. This has much sense right now. For smaller parking spots there are lower fairs on the airports. There are lower fares for airplanes with smaller MTOW. And it scales pretty nicely - the same ammount of passangers but lower fairs - thats one of the reasons to buy non ER versions when the airline doesn't need the bigger range.

The 777X is going to be a whole new delevopment based on the tenchnology of the 787 (except those bateries LOL)

'foling':

 

Is it 'fol(d)ing wingtips'? :Thinking:

 

Or 'fo(u)ling wingtips'??? :LMAO:

 

I actually meant foaling, they'd be giving birth to baby deer.

 

Or perhaps fowling, in that they'd shoot turkeys with muskets.

The 777X is going to be a whole new delevopment based on the tenchnology of the 787 (except those bateries LOL)

 

I have to do some reading up on this, so please accept this statement as "opinion based on what I currently know - which is not a lot"...

 

There are no plans to my knowledge to use a bleedless engine on the 777X. Therefore the battery question should be rendered mute. As for folding wing tips, as I understand it, the reason that they were not accepted is that it would limit fuel tank capacity (tanks could not be incorporated into those portion of the wings that would have been folded). The whole concept of payload range is the reason the 77W is such a money winning proposition for Boeing. If they make the airplane out of carbon fiber and upgrade the engines, the amount of efficiency in this area alone would be enormous.

 

Dave Lamb

I actually meant foaling, they'd be giving birth to baby deer.

 

Or perhaps fowling, in that they'd shoot turkeys with muskets.

 

 

 

And with precipitation on its birthday, it's gonna be a RAIN-deer ...

 

That's what I LAUGH about aviation - puns are an integral part of it: "Center, I have that little f...FOKKER in sight!"