Re: Confusion over 777 variants.

Date:         25 Nov 97 03:26:06 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at
>Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering
>schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new
>numbers in recent years.

I am sure they would have invested far more effort in explaining to
you the capabilities of their products rather than the minutia of
their naming conventions.

>But I got confused with the 777 right from the start. Seems to me that
>the "200" is wasted text since it is meaningless as there are so many
>777-200 variants.

The -200 suffix refers to a specific size.  There's only one named
variant, the -200IGW.  Within those two variants, a customer can
choose many options including different engines and different MGTOW,
but that's no different than any other aircraft -- Airbus offers at
least four engine choices for the A320-200 (CFM56 and IAE V2500, each
in at least two different thrust levels) and varying MGTOW for the
aircraft depending on needs.

>If Boeing were interested in preventing confusion in the general public
>(or enthousiats) it would have stuck to a more logical naming scheme.

Therein lies your answer -- I'm sure Boeing doesn't give a tinker's
damn about enthusiasts' confusion over their designations.  As for the
general public, many know what a 747 is, but beyond that, most people
are clueless.

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