Boeing C-17 as Airliner and Four Engined Model-777 Projects

The "enlarged, four-engine 777" reminds me of the Boeing 763 concept. I must admit that the single-deck idea is somewhat fascinating, because it allows for sleeper berths above the seats. The double-deck idea isn't all its cracked up to be if there's no way to directly access the upper deck from the boarding gate.
 

Attachments

  • b763-246c ext.gif
    b763-246c ext.gif
    49.1 KB · Views: 681
  • b763-246c int.gif
    b763-246c int.gif
    91.8 KB · Views: 538
hesham said:
Hi,

the Boeing developed an airliner project similar to concept of the
Military aircraft,the C-17,Also the company designeda four engined
version of Model-777.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2000/2000%20-%200048.html
Click to expand...

These designs were also part of the New Large Airplane (NLA) study. The Large Airplane Product Development (LAPD) team at Boeing also closely evaluated the Antonov An-124, BAE Systems BAe 146, and Boeing/McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III. Based on this evaluation, they created a high-wing super jumbo design (at top)--the Model 763-241. It was configured with a 69-foot-tall T-tail, a 262-foot span and a length of more than 250 feet.

Source: Norris, Guy and Wagner, Mark Boeing 787 Dreamliner Zenith Press 2009 page 17.

CFE said:
The "enlarged, four-engine 777" reminds me of the Boeing 763 concept. I must admit that the single-deck idea is somewhat fascinating, because it allows for sleeper berths above the seats. The double-deck idea isn't all its cracked up to be if there's no way to directly access the upper deck from the boarding gate.
Click to expand...

The design at the bottom is indeed the Model 763-246.
 
CFE said:
The "enlarged, four-engine 777" reminds me of the Boeing 763 concept. I must admit that the single-deck idea is somewhat fascinating, because it allows for sleeper berths above the seats. The double-deck idea isn't all its cracked up to be if there's no way to directly access the upper deck from the boarding gate.
Click to expand...

The current 777s can be fitted with sleeper berths above the seats at the rear of the plane, as a crew rest area. Perhaps that got its genesis with the 763.

Pics of such areas can be seen at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=6217
 
Hi,

also an early three engined Boeing Model-777.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%202011.html
 

Attachments

  • 777.JPG
    777.JPG
    63.5 KB · Views: 450
I also recall a (sort-of) 3 engined 777 being schemed as a growth version, perhaps the -300ER. Boeing was having trouble getting an engine manufacturer to agree to the required thrust level and so considered using an oversized APU arranged so that it could provide the necessary additional thrust for takeoff and climb. Gas turbine APUs are probably on the way out, but it's interesting to speculate on whether this scheme could have caught on, not only to boost takeoff thrust but to help out after an engine failure.
In the end, GE, I think, came through and agreed to provide the powerplants needed so the APU didn't get the promotion.
 
starviking said:
The current 777s can be fitted with sleeper berths above the seats at the rear of the plane, as a crew rest area. Perhaps that got its genesis with the 763.
Click to expand...

The 747-400 has had an overhead crew rest in the tail for far longer than the 777, it's an old option.
 
To everyone：hello!
I have a question for a long time:
Any one have detail of the Boeing design to compete the C-17？
I know it is 3 engine，and the 3rd engine is between the fin and fuselage(just like the Lockheed L-1011 or MD DC-10)，but it is all that I know。
Can anyone help me?
Thanks a lot!
 
When i started my aviation career quarter of a century ago, in our offices near London Stansted Airport, on the wall nearest my desk was a marketing infograph from then McDonnell Douglas C-17 as a commercial airliner in the early 1990s. I will look through my photos and think theres one of me stood by my desk with said leaflet behind me on the wall but looked similar to this.

363337059_10161493422426490_1834163453435837593_n.jpg


cheers
 
RavenOne said:
When i started my aviation career quarter of a century ago, in our offices near London Stansted Airport, on the wall nearest my desk was a marketing infograph from then McDonnell Douglas C-17 as a commercial airliner in the early 1990s. I will look through my photos and think theres one of me stood by my desk with said leaflet behind me on the wall but looked similar to this.

View attachment 704490


cheers
Click to expand...
I don't think a derivative of the C-17 was ever proposed as an airliner (if that means a passenger-carrying aircraft in scheduled service), but as a civil freighter. The design characteristics that suit it for the military airlift role (requiring STOL operations from rough fields, airdropping and carrying heavy equipment) would make in uncompetitive in the regular airfreight business (FedEx, UPS) and it would be limited to specialty carriers, which isn't a big market.
 
taildragger said:
I don't think a derivative of the C-17 was ever proposed as an airliner (if that means a passenger-carrying aircraft in scheduled service), but as a civil freighter. The design characteristics that suit it for the military airlift role (requiring STOL operations from rough fields, airdropping and carrying heavy equipment) would make in uncompetitive in the regular airfreight business (FedEx, UPS) and it would be limited to specialty carriers, which isn't a big market.
Click to expand...
There is still a large market for outsize freight (mainly centred around the oil and gas industries, but occasionally you see some other things too, Railway locomotives for example). Unfortunately (for Boeing / McDD / whoever) most of that market is sewn up by the former eastern block / CIS countries with hand-me-down antonovs etc. These players could obviously undercut any prospective operation with western derived equipment.

Setting the obvious tragedy of the situation to one side and looking at it dispassionately, it’ll be interesting to see where the market goes to for its outsized lift as the main players (Ukraine and Russia) are effectively removed from the market for the foreseeable future. Certainly I don’t think there’s anything else out there that could replace the An124 & -224 that they offered.
 
taildragger said:
I don't think a derivative of the C-17 was ever proposed as an airliner (if that means a passenger-carrying aircraft in scheduled service), but as a civil freighter. The design characteristics that suit it for the military airlift role (requiring STOL operations from rough fields, airdropping and carrying heavy equipment) would make in uncompetitive in the regular airfreight business (FedEx, UPS) and it would be limited to specialty carriers, which isn't a big market.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember comments in Flight at the time that the civil derivative was also a stalking horse for a cost reduced ‘2nd line’ version for the UASF, operated by freight carrriers on commercial terms.

One of the reason for it not going ahead was Boeing tried to claim exemption from having to decertify the aircraft to civil standards, going on the notion that the aircraft would also be part of the military fleet, similar to CRAF. This would have been at the height of various attempts to contractorize various parts of the USAF, alongside the original leased tanker initiative.

As such, it should come as no surprise to anyone who remember those times to see whose name was tied to the BC17 idea in the following link: https://www.govcon.com/doc/af-boeing-team-up-with-commercial-carriers-to-0002
 
Last edited:
bobthemonkey said:
I seem to remember comments in Flight at the time that the civil derivative was also a stalking horse for a cost reduced ‘2nd line’ version for the UASF, operated by freight carrriers on commercial terms.
Click to expand...
OK, the linked article is talking about a proposed program to subsidize the operation of BC-17s by commercial carriers in return for a commitment to make them available in national emergencies. Subsidies can make operation profitable, but they don't really make the airplane competitive in any commercial sense.
Also, I contend that the market for outsize air cargo is tiny in comparison to other segments of commercial aviation. It seems to be adequately served globaly by several dozen airframes.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom