Re: Confusion over 777 variants.

From: (H Andrew Chuang)
Date:         2 Dec 1997 22:20:47 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <>,
Stefano P. Pagiola <> wrote:
>And as long as we're expressing opinions, let me add that I personally
>dislike the ER and IGW suffixes that seem to be all the rage these days.
>Consider a 777-200. There already is a -200IGW (formerly known as -200B).

Nitpicking: IIRC, Boeing actually skipped the B-market -200 (~ 6,000-nm
range) and went straight to the B-plus -200 and called it the -200IGW.
I think you're being over critical of Boeing's lettering scheme for
sub-models.  Don't forget Airbus has the A340-300 and A340-300E, and is
considering to offer an A330-300HGW based on the A330-300.  And how about
the 'R' in A300-600R?

>But what happens if they go ahead with the -200X? That will involve a
>further increase in gross weight. What will they call that?

The B707-320 and B707-420 had the same length.  So did the B747-100 and
B747-200, as well as the B747-300 and B747-400.  Thus, the -200X does not
have to be a sub-series of the -200.