Re: Boeing naming convention for 777

Date:         22 Jul 99 23:30:32 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>It's hard to know when to break out a new number, and when to simply
>add a modifier ("extended range"). On the 727 and 737, different series
>numbers were given to different fuselage lengths, and then to the New-
>Generation models ...

Both the second and new generations triggered a new series -- note that
the 737-500 has essentially the same fuselage length as the 737-200 but
with all of the second generation enhancements introduced on the 737-300.

>A more pertinent criticism is whether modifiers like ER and IGW are
>terribly useful? Since there are several flavors of ER on both the 767
>and 777, the designation itself doesn't tell you much.

I don't know about the 767s, but there are significant differences
between a 777-200 and a 777-200ER.  The latter has stronger landing gear
and wings plus a center fuel tank, amongst other things.  Within each
sub-series upgrading from the lightest to the heaviest can be as easy as
a paper upgrade, but you cannot upgrade a 777-200 to a 777-200ER.

--
Karl Swartz	|Home	kls@chicago.com		http://www.chicago.com/~kls/
		|Work	kls@netapp.com		http://www.netapp.com/
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
  - Andrew A. Rooney