Confusion over 777 variants.

Date:         21 Nov 97 01:59:54 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5
Followups:    1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>With the numbers flying around I went and got confused...

That's easy enough!

>If I recall we have 777-200 (A market), 777-200IGW (B market)

Right.  There were also some references to an A+ market version, which
was the A market plane pushed somewhat, but not nearly up to the IGW
weights and range.

>777-300 (A market)

I thought that the stretch (what became the -300) was originally the
C market, though the one document I could find seems to indicate that
the C market plane is the really long range one, and that the -300 is
part of the A market.

>I'm unclear as to the development of the 777-100X and 777-300IGW.

The 777-100X proposal was a shortened 777-200IGW, roughly, with very,
very long range.  Boeing found that none of their customers, except
Singapore Airlines, were very interested in a super long-range plane
smaller than the 777-100X.  Meanwhile, engine performance was improving
more quickly than Boeing had expected, so they abandoned the idea of a
shorter 777 and instead focused on an even higher weight 777-200 for
this market.  One proposal was a 777-300 with a fuselage shortened by
33'3" (i.e., the same length as the -200, but with the stronger
structure of the larger aircraft), another was for a 720,000 lbs MGTOW
(compared to "only" 660,000 lbs for the -300).  Many refer to these
proposals as the 777-200X, although recently I think I read that
Boeing is now calling it the 777-400X.


   Boeing is studying a derivative of the 777-200 that could fly
   nearly 10,000 miles, as well as a longer-range derivative of
   the 777-300.

These are the 777-200X and 777-300IGW proposals.

>Now I see 777-400.

The "777-400" mentioned in several recent posts here refers to a
possible further stretch.  My recollection is that Boeing has not
talked about such a beast except to say that it wouldn't fit in the
current factory, and thus is unlikely for the foreseeable future.
I suspect that's another way of saying they don't want to kill the
747 because it's their cash cow.  ;-)

Boeing's only use of 747-400 that I'm aware of is in the context of a
much different aircraft, the very long-range 747-400X mentioned above.

>Someone help put my head on straight?

I'm not sure whether I helped or not!  :-)

Karl Swartz	|Home
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills