Date: 13 Jul 97 01:25:49 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.1432@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Marc Schaeffer <email@example.com> wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >> Please don't equate a half-a-billion-dollar project (i.e., the >> B777-200X/300X) to a three-billion-dollar project (i.e., the A340-500/600). >> Yes, the B777-200X needs a wing extension, but it's not as expensive as >> the A340-500 which needs a new wing. > >Both will just get a wing extension, at least that's what you can read >on the net and in the magazines. Airbus writes on their website that the >A340-500/600 wing will be a stretched version of the existing -300 wing. >Same for the B777-200X wing which will be stretched from todays wing. > >Could you please explain : > >- what difference between the so called new -500/600 wing and the >existing -300 wing there will be No. The A340-500/600 wing is not just a wing extension. The simple fact that the A340-500 is slightly larger than the A340-300 (318 pax vs 295 pax in tri-class configuration) is because of the new wing that Airbus has to plug additional frames in the center section. >- where you got these figures (500M$ and 3B$) Various reports. With the definition of the B777-200X getting heavier everyday, I think the $500M will be low for the -200X, but I doubt it will go over $1B. Just for a reference, I believe the B777-300 cost about $500M. >- what would justify this difference (is the Trent 500 included ?) No. Engine development cost is not included. With the heavier than the orginal anticipated -200X, engine development cost for the heavier -200X may be very similar to the cost to develop the Trent 500.