Re: Why "IGW" instead of "ER", and other question about 777's...

Date:         17 May 97 15:15:46 
From:         M Carling <m@ml.com>
Organization: Merrill Lynch
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

H Andrew Chuang wrote:
>
> In article <airliners.1997.1039@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
> M Carling  <m@ml.com> wrote:
> >
> >1) Such a 777-400X would have a length of 83.8 meters, just about 1.5
> >meters short of the maximum length an aircraft can be and still turn
> >around between existing terminals.
>
> I belive ICAO "recommends" (sorry, I can't think of a better word to
> use) 80m by 80m.  The proposed B747-700X was more than 80m long (it's
> not a typo; I'm not talking about the -600X).

The proposed length of the 747-600X was (according to AvWeek) 278.75
feet or 84.9 meters. Also according to AvWeek, 280 feet is the max
length of an aircraft that can turn around between existing terminals.

M Carling