Boeing reportedly mulling a super-stretched 777-10X to combat the A380

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've never ridden on a 757 or 767-300 before, at least not in the back of the aircraft, but hearing of that phenomenon on the stretched ones was what got me thinking of the -10X, since it's basically a stretch of a stretch (the 9X) of a stretch (the -300ER).

a reply to: Barnalby

You didn't miss much with the 757. Now the 767-400, that's a nice ride.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Barnalby

You didn't miss much with the 757. Now the 767-400, that's a nice ride.

Have to be honest, I love the 757. Its been my chariot for at least 10 trips to Hawaii and many to Europe. But back on topic:

Im not surprised to be honest. The A380 while an incredible airframe was essentially a European jobs program. Its economics were based on zero risk loans and a model for aviation that was relevant 50 years ago, but much less so today. While I would point you the multitude of threads about Airbus and its subsidies, the A380 even if they pursued the NEO option is basically dead, and we are just waiting to claim the body. Only airlines that have a unique model aka Emirates (which by no coincidence is the largest user of the type) have made effective use of it.

Which leads us to Emirates. They no doubt are pissed that Airbus is dropping the NEO plan (which to be honest was not really what they wanted to do anyway) and will be chomping at the bit for a 400+ seat 2 engine airframe that has really low seat mile cost.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've flown MIASCL in both Lan and AA's 767-200ER's back in the 90s and early 00s. They also used to fly them back when AA ran a BOSLHR route. They were a pretty nice ride, but not quite up there with the time in 2000 when I flew an AA DC-10 from DFW to SCL. I kinda treasure that flight in retrospect, same as with flying AA's old A300's.

I've also had nothing but fantastic experiences flying Icelandair's 757s in and out of KEF. I should get a Flickr for some of the sunset pictures of Greenland that I've snapped. They're beautiful in that livery, I'll be sad to see them go.

Maybe someday, we'll get our gonzo double-decker ETOPS LD beast, whether it's Boeing or Airbus who builds it.

a reply to: Barnalby

I used to have to go to Guam, so flew the Continental 764s out there, then would island hop on smaller aircraft if necessary. I loved the IFE system, and the coach seats were actually comfortable enough to sleep without waking up feeling like you suffered a stroke, because body parts were so asleep you couldn't tell if they were still there without looking.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, back in the 90's and through most of the 00's, AA had the original 1982-era IFE system, which was no fun on the ~10 hour MIA->SCL leg. Same goes for their BOS-based transatlantic flights. That first trip on a 777-200 with the seatback IFE's was like an aerial epiphany.

But the 767 legs still beat the one time I flew CDG->BOS in an AA-spec 757. Between American's economy seat pitch and the ripe camembert that we snagged at the Paris duty-free that spent the whole flight off-gassing while everyone around us was muttering discretely amongst themselves trying to discern whether someone had been ill or if someone's colostomy bag had ruptured, that was a fun 6 or so hours.

These days, Delta flies a pair of 767s out of Boston to LHR and FRA, one is a -400, one is a -300ER with a winglet kit. Handsome birds, for sure.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sammamishman

They'll put stiffeners where necessary.

Soooo...
aircraft viagra?

And I thought that the 737-900 was a tailstrike waiting to happen.

I'm sensing a pattern here with Boeing. Between this and their thoughts of extending the 737-9max even more, it seems like they're trying to just draw out their current lines as much as possible while seeing what they can get away with.

a reply to: justwanttofly

It makes me think that either their finances aren't looking too hot, or that the economics of either the 787s development or production (or both) are far worse than they've acknowledged, because it seems like they're avoiding the all-composite Y1 and Y3 aircraft like the plague in the name of ever more outlandish stretch jobs.

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: Barnalby

I'm not sure it would flex that noticeably over the length of the fuselage. Aluminum doesn't have anywhere near the malleability of wood or composites depending on the ingredients. If it was flexing to an extreme, that it could be noticed by passengers, I don't think it would hold up very long to the stresses of flight. In addition, the interior panels might be able to cover or deaden the observability of what ever flex might exist in the structure.
I'd like to know what structures Boeing might have to add to strengthen the fuselage lengthwise or if the current design already has the strength built in to take the added stress.

The word you are looking for is modulus, malleability is the property that allows a metal to be formed into thin sheets, and for good measure, ductility is what allows a metal to be drawn (into a wire).

Sometimes a little flexing is a good thing...

a reply to: Barnalby

A new design will take close to 10 years to get in service, at best. The 777X is planned on being about 5 or so. And being a new Triple, probably won't have the teething problems of a new design.

The 777X is technically a new aircraft, but there's so much overlap with the existing 777 that it won't take as long to get in service. Same with a stretched Max.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Thanks for clearing up my metallurgy terminology. I wasn't certain I was using the correct term at the time.