From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Date: 2 Dec 1997 22:20:47 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stefano P. Pagiola <Spagiola@worldbank.org> 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.