Re: Boeing naming convention for 777

Date:         07 Aug 99 01:22:22 
From:         spagiola@my-deja.com
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote:
> >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.

Point taken. But my understanding is that the heaviest available
current "ER" versions are quite a bit heavier than the earliest ones.
Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that
bringing earlier builds up to the best currently-available standard
would certainly involve more than just a paper upgrade. So the question
comes back: at which point do you switch designators?

Stefano Pagiola
--
All opinions are my own.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html
Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html