What if Boeing 777 was wider

BREECH · Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:18 pm

I honestly tried to search the forum but didn't (or couldn't) find the answer.

Boeing really wish they had a slightly wider 777 to make 10-abreast comfortable. Say it had the same width as 747. What is it? 6.5 m? As compared to 777's 6.2. How would that affect its aerodynamics? I read somewhere that increasing fuselage width by 10% gives 2% of drag increase. Is that true? How much heavier the frame would be? I've been curious about this for quite some time but could never find any basis to do any calculations. It doesn't help that I'm very bad at physics and math. :-)

Maybe there are other curious people here who would want to speculate technically about this imaginary aircraft. :-)

mmo · Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:29 pm

You seem to have forgotten it wasn't Boeing who went to 10 abreast, but the individual airlines. Boeing originally marketed the 777 as 9 abreast.

Aptivaboy · Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:02 pm

They went with the width because that's what the airlines in the original working group wanted, and it could be easily built while satisfying aerodynamic requirements. Had the working group wanted a wider fuselage, then I'm sure Bowing would have provided one. The 777 was one of the first airliners built with significant airline involvement, with representatives from many airlines offering input and design ideas. Other airliners had customer involvement, as well, but this was a significant airline presence, not merely a case of a supplier making a plane to meet an airline's set of specs, like the DC-10 and L-1011 were. Had they wanted it wider, I'm sure Boeing would have done so to satisfy the airlines involved and garner more sales. At the time, the current fuselage width was deemed sufficient. It also had the virtue of making grafting the narrower 767 nose onto the front much easier.

Newbiepilot · Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:07 pm

The 777x will have a wider passenger cabin.

Airlines squeezing in an extra seat per row is nothing new. The DC10 was originally configured 8 abreast and 747 was 9 abreast for Pan Am. Boeing tried to make a more comfortable cabin allowing 18.5 inch wide seats in the 777. For the first decade, everyone loved it. And then Emirates changed the game and put in 10 abreast and everyone followed. Emirates wasn't first, but they were the first mainstream airline with 10 abreast. What has been proven again and again is that if airlines can squeeze an extra seat in at 17 inches wide, they will.

dw747400 · Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:42 pm

It is also worth noting the 777 launched in the late 80s, around the time the 747-400 entered service. Boeing was more focused on competing with Airbus/Douglas to replace DC-10s and L1011s, not try and hurt their own 747 sales. Furthermore, even though both Boeing and Airbus had made major strides in making large twins a practical option, I don't know if many of the stakeholders in the 777 program would have been able to confidently predict that the airplane would eventually be desired to function as a 747 replacement, both in terms of range and capacity.

ikolkyo · Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:59 pm

I find 10 abreast to be just fine on the 777, Flew on a newer AF 77W and a refitted 772 and flew one of the newer DL A330s also. Didn't notice a difference at all between them.

WildcatYXU · Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:18 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I find 10 abreast to be just fine on the 777, Flew on a newer AF 77W and a refitted 772 and flew one of the newer DL A330s also. Didn't notice a difference at all between them.

That's interesting. The difference in personal space width-wise between an AC 77W and AC 333 is massive. But I'm not talking about the seat cushion itself. My behind fits into the 77W seat just fine. But I'm missing space at shoulder level. If seated in the window seat in the 77W, one shoulder is touching the wall and the other the middle seat's backrest. I don't have this problem in the 333, nor in the 767 (I did not fly the 787 in Y yet as I'm avoiding it as a plague after the 777 experience)

ikolkyo · Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:46 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I find 10 abreast to be just fine on the 777, Flew on a newer AF 77W and a refitted 772 and flew one of the newer DL A330s also. Didn't notice a difference at all between them.

That's interesting. The difference in personal space width-wise between an AC 77W and AC 333 is massive. But I'm not talking about the seat cushion itself. My behind fits into the 77W seat just fine. But I'm missing space at shoulder level. If seated in the window seat in the 77W, one shoulder is touching the wall and the other the middle seat's backrest. I don't have this problem in the 333, nor in the 767 (I did not fly the 787 in Y yet as I'm avoiding it as a plague after the 777 experience)

I'm 6"5 with broad shoulders and the seat backs were fine for me. All I really care for is pitch for obvious reasons, haha.

afterburner · Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:58 am

If Boeing designed 777 to have 9 abreast in economy class, why isn't the fuselage slightly narrower, just about the width of A350XWB?

BREECH · Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:07 am

Unbelievable! I went to a technical forum to avoid the "10-abreast is too tight" malarchy. I asked how it'd affect it's aerodynamics. Result - EPIC FAIL on my part to get the answers I hoped for. Can we PLEASE focus on the technical side of things?

bigjku · Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:44 pm

BREECH wrote:
Unbelievable! I went to a technical forum to avoid the "10-abreast is too tight" malarchy. I asked how it'd affect it's aerodynamics. Result - EPIC FAIL on my part to get the answers I hoped for. Can we PLEASE focus on the technical side of things?

It isn’t much of a technical question. If it’s wider it’s less efficient. Period. There is no technical mystery to solve there.

ikolkyo · Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:49 pm

BREECH wrote:
Unbelievable! I went to a technical forum to avoid the "10-abreast is too tight" malarchy. I asked how it'd affect it's aerodynamics. Result - EPIC FAIL on my part to get the answers I hoped for. Can we PLEASE focus on the technical side of things?

You literally started your post talking about 10-abreast comfort...

SCAT15F · Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:27 am

If it could be comfortable at 10 abreast they would cram 11 abreast in it. The days of airliner seating comfort for the economy passenger are long over.

oldannyboy · Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:56 pm

mmo wrote:
You seem to have forgotten it wasn't Boeing who went to 10 abreast, but the individual airlines. Boeing originally marketed the 777 as 9 abreast.

Well, not really - not quite. Boeing designed -and certified- the aircraft with a ten-abreast higher density layout option from day one. What the airlines did was simply going with the option. Had the 777 been designed with a 'narrow enough' fuselage, then the natural option would have never existed.

oldannyboy · Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:59 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I find 10 abreast to be just fine on the 777, Flew on a newer AF 77W and a refitted 772 and flew one of the newer DL A330s also. Didn't notice a difference at all between them.

I am with you entirely, but I suppose we say this in a discreetly low tone here on A.net, lest we get stoned.....

I for one care a lot more about legroom and seat pitch..

oldannyboy · Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:02 pm

...What if the cabin of the 777 was quieter?? They could use the extra diameter to finally increase the insulation! I am dreading the new 777X with thinner walls...

Now this is something more relevant to the argument of comfort quality when flying the big B twin... ;-)

What if Boeing 777 was wider

What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Re: What if Boeing 777 was wider

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net