My 2c:

The goal is longer, thinner wings than usual. Long and thin wings are far more efficient—think gliders and the U2. But beyond a certain width, those wings become incompatible with existing airports and other facilities for handling commercial aircraft. So the idea is to mount folding extensions that are extended for flight, but likely fold when being hangered or navigating taxiways.

▲

roryirvine 2 days ago | parent [-]

And, importantly, this programme is targetting the next generation of single-aisle aircraft.

It was hard enough to convince a few dozen of the world's largest airports to make the alterations needed to accommodate the A380's wings. Demanding similar changes at the thousands of smaller airports where A320-class planes land would be a non-starter.

	▲	a4isms a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Demanding similar changes at the thousands of smaller airports where A320-class planes land would be a non-starter. Perhaps similar: One of the reasons the Vickers VC10 was so successful in the 60s and 70s was that it could operate from short runways, high ambient temperatures, and high altitudes compared to other jets of its era. It was far easier for carriers like BOAC to fly those into Britain's former colonies than it would have been to magically expect all those colobnies to update their airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC10 p.s. As a boy, I flew to West Africa in 1970 on a VC10. Now I know some of the backstory.