Boeing 777 concepts

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,021
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Model of Boeing 777 with folding wings located in the Boeing Archives Bellevue, Washington.

Folding wingtips were offered when the aircraft was launched, to appeal to airlines who might use gates made to accommodate smaller aircraft, but no airline purchased this option.

Source:
http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-777-model-with-folding-wings-option-/19113

http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-777-model-with-folding-wings-option-early-1990s/19112
 

Attachments

  • 19113.jpg
    19113.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 472
  • 19112.jpg
    19112.jpg
    117.5 KB · Views: 458
From the magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 9th 2012, page 84.
 

Attachments

  • AW&ST_B777_9X.jpg
    AW&ST_B777_9X.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 435

Attachments

  • 6_13_308_img2619A.jpg
    6_13_308_img2619A.jpg
    122.9 KB · Views: 299
  • 6_13_308_img2619B.jpg
    6_13_308_img2619B.jpg
    59.4 KB · Views: 262

Attachments

  • 1579977112246.png
    1579977112246.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 138
  • Boeing 777 trijet.jpg
    Boeing 777 trijet.jpg
    110.3 KB · Views: 151
  • 1579977576635.png
    1579977576635.png
    4.4 MB · Views: 159
  • Boeing 777 trijet 3.jpg
    Boeing 777 trijet 3.jpg
    283.8 KB · Views: 147
  • Boeing_777-100_Trijet_Concept_Model.jpg
    Boeing_777-100_Trijet_Concept_Model.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 148
  • Boeing 777 trijet 4.png
    Boeing 777 trijet 4.png
    456.4 KB · Views: 132
  • Boeing 777 trijet 5.png
    Boeing 777 trijet 5.png
    292.3 KB · Views: 140
rather hard to find picture of the boeing 777 300ER model
visitorslook.jpg

469184619.jpg

 
other picture here
Boeing-777.jpg

 
It seems Boeing has considered the conversion of the 777 (specifically, the 777-200LR) into a tanker as a replacement for the KC-10 Extender, generally referred to as the KC-777. This conversion was studied in the early 2000's alongside the KC-X program under the name of KC-Y.

As of 2021, the KC-10 is slated to serve until the 2040s, and I don't believe there is a direct one-to-one replacement for it in the pipeline. I assume the conversion of the 777 into a tanker shouldn't take much effort, unless they take the approach that they had with the KC-46, essentially a mishmash or parts. The conversion of the 777 into a freighter is already possible, so a tanker shouldn't be much of a stretch, right? If the need arises, I assume that an order can be put forward. What would it take to convert the 777 into a tanker? Do they have to be built from scratch, or can they be converted from used airliners? Finally, if an airforce were to put forward an order for this type, would Boeing build it?

Here are some comparisons between the KC-10 and 777
KC-10:
General characteristics
  • Crew: 4 (Aircraft Commander, copilot, flight engineer, and boom operator)
  • Capacity: 170,000 lb of cargo, 25 pallets and 16 passengers, or 17 pallets and 75 passengers[citation needed]
  • Length: 181 ft 7 in (55.35 m)
  • Wingspan: 165 ft 4.5 in (50.406 m)
  • Height: 58 ft 1 in (17.70 m)
  • Wing area: 3,958 sq ft (367.7 m2)
  • Airfoil: root: DSMA-496/-521/-522; tip: DSMA-519/-520[42]
  • Empty weight: 241,027 lb (109,328 kg)
  • Gross weight: 590,000 lb (267,619 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 593,000 lb (268,980 kg)
  • Fuel capacity: 365,000 lb (165,561 kg)
  • Powerplant: 3 × General Electric F103 (GE CF6-50C2) turbofan engines, 52,500 lbf (234 kN) thrust each
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 538 mph (866 km/h, 468 kn)
  • Maximum speed: Mach 0.89
  • Range: 4,400 mi (7,100 km, 3,800 nmi) with a maximum passenger capacity; 3,800 nmi (7,038 km; 4,373 mi) with maximum cargo capacity.
  • Ferry range: 11,500 mi (18,500 km, 10,000 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (13,000 m)
  • Rate of climb: 6,870 ft/min (34.9 m/s)
Boeing 777:
This table is based of the specifications table from Wikipedia. I created a spreadsheet, and removed information deemed unnecessary, and highlighted the capabilities of the 777-200LR, since it was the variant to which preference was given when Boeing studied the tanker concept, based off of what I've read.
1616425354779.png

Here are some sources:




 

Attachments

  • Boeing KC-777 comparison.gif
    Boeing KC-777 comparison.gif
    55.8 KB · Views: 106
  • Boeing KC-777 concept 1.jpg
    Boeing KC-777 concept 1.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 104
  • Boeing KC-777 concept 2.jpg
    Boeing KC-777 concept 2.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 105
  • Boeing KC-777 with B-2.jpg
    Boeing KC-777 with B-2.jpg
    51.7 KB · Views: 113
  • Boeing KC-777.jpg
    Boeing KC-777.jpg
    80.5 KB · Views: 139
I have read articles stating that the 777X was considered as a candidate for the replacement of the VC-25, but the 747-8 was the preferred option. The conversion of the type into the transporter of the President would require various modifications to the interior, exterior, fuselage and electrical system to make it up to standards for the requirement.
 
I have read articles stating that the 777X was considered as a candidate for the replacement of the VC-25, but the 747-8 was the preferred option. The conversion of the type into the transporter of the President would require various modifications to the interior, exterior, fuselage and electrical system to make it up to standards for the requirement.
Four engines was the requirement that drove the 747-8, or at least was when I interacted with the program pre 2010. At that point a 777 option was a nonstarter.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom