Re: What really is a 'Jumbo'?

From: (Mihir Pramod Shah)
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date:         15 Apr 95 11:38:22 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1995.399@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote:
>>Just to set the record straight, here's my take on the wide-bodies:
>Given that it's all pretty subjective, I don't think it's *possible*
>to set the record straight!

Well, I just meant this MY OWN opinion regarding wide-bodies.  The
"record to be set" merely referred to my own view.  Sorry about the

>>2nd tier wide-bodies:
>>Airbus A330/A340 (2-4-2 seating)
>>3rd tier wide bodies:
>>Airbus A300/A310 (2-4-2 seating)
>Why would you put these in different groups?  Not only are they the
>same in the back of the 'bus (obviously, 2-4-2) but all four share the
>essentially same fuselage, with simple variations in length (shades of
>Boeing's mythical great fuselage machine from 707 days!) and a differ-
>ent aft section in the case of A300s prior to the A300-600.
>Overall capacity does seem to put the A330/A340 in a different class,
>but on that metric, the 777 fits more with the 747 than your other
>"2nd tier" aircraft!

I put the A330/340 there because of both capacity (up to ~350 pax
I think) and range (the A340 can match the 747-400 on this one,
assuming the right version).  The A300 holds about 250-290 pax in
most configurations, with range being considerably shorter than an
A340.  Yes, the A300 and A330/340 are close in terms of size, but
I still think they are separated mainly by the increased range.
I will admit that the same 2-4-2 seating and fuselage section make
them very close indeed.  The 777 is also a bit fuzzy vis-a-vis the
747.  It's more comparable to the 747-100/747-200 but obviously
can't compare to the 747-400.  Again, it has a smaller 2-5-2 seating
and fuselage section.

Just to back this babble up, a recent PBS special on the 777 noted
that the closest competition the 777 has is the MD-11 and Airbus A340.

>>I guess I could also put the Illyushin IL86/IL96, but I'm not sure of
>>the seating (2-4-2, 3-3-3, 2-5-2 ??), and without Western engines, it
>>simply does not have the range of a comparable Western wide-body.
>I don't see range as a very good metric -- the early A300 didn't have
>all that great a range.  And there is at least one project afoot to
>put Western engines on the Ilyushins, the Il-96-300, I believe.  There

I think I tried to imply that an Il-96 WITH Western engines WOULD
have been able to compete on range.  Again, I apologize about the
midunderstanding.  Yes, I have heard of the arrangements to put
Western engines on the Illyushins.


Mihir Shah			Email:
Washington University           Phone:  (314) 935-2800
Campus Box 3874			WWW home page:
6515 Wydown Blvd.