Wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4760 times:
I believe the -100 series was to designate a shorter version of the -200 series, if there was a desire to have one. It was once mentioned to have a 777-100, which was shorter than the 777-200. But none were sold.
747buff From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4749 times:
I think the -100s actually had a shorter range than any other model. KLM was the launch customer for the -200 series, and after the -200s were launched very few, if any -100s were manufactured. Some of the early -200s (in pictures) looked identical to the 100s, because some of them had only three upper deck windows.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4684 times:
I often wonder the same thing. How come there is no 767-100/757-100/777-100? When the first 707 model came out it was the 707-100, same as the 727-100 and the 737-100/747-100. It stopped with the 757 for some reason and only the -200 was available.
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1984 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4560 times:
I believe the reason is because Boeing usually originally deigned a -100 series, such as the 777-100, but no airline wanted it. Boeing came out with the 777-100 and the 777-200, and every airline chose the 777-200. Therefore, they never built the -100. Same thing with the other planes.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
FLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7428 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4473 times:
The Boeing 747 was originally certificated in December 1969 and PanAm put the "Jumbo" into service across north Atlantic in January 1970.
The early variants all became 747-100 when the designation 747-200 was adopted for a version first flown in Oct.1970 as the 747B, with increased weight, more fuel and uprated engines. The -200 was certificated in Dec.1970 and entered service with KLM in 1971.
It is true that some version of the -200 had only three windows at the upper deck, as well as certain -100 had the more "traditional" serie of 10 windows.
You can easily recognize a -100 from a - 200 : the -200 has two emergency doors at the upper deck, one on each side, while the -100 has only one on the right side.
AJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2397 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4472 times:
From an old thread:
"Also, why did the 757/777 series begin with a -200 model? The rest of their A/C started with a -100."
The 757 and 767 were both designed with both stretched and contracted models in mind, with the -200 being the medium size and the first built. Both models were eventually stretched into -300s, but the 737 filled the lower end 727 replacement market so the -100 was never built. The 717 follows the same theory, with the -200 being the only model built so far."
Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2753 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4388 times:
From the stretch-and-shrink-planes I guess the A330 is the only one that was not born a -200 but later on shrinked to one. I guess that has to do with the fact that the A330-300 has the same fuselage length as the A340-300. So in this case it is to not mix people up.
Tbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4348 times:
FLYSSC, I think your theory of telling the difference between a -100 and -200 is somewhat flawed when it comes to UD emergency doors. I worked for World Airways (we won't go there right now) and we flew B747-273C's. One emergency exit door on the UD and on the right side. There is an escape "hatch" on the roof, however. I know - I had to jump that UD slide for training.....
On the above picture, you will notice that the wing is a totally different design , i.e, larger wingspan, taller winglets, different materials (different composites), etc..
The A321 uses the same wing as the A320.
Totally different engines; Rolls-Royce Trent 500 whereas the A340-200/300/8000 had CFM 56-5C2 or 5C4 engines.
The A321 uses either the same engines as the A320 or "upgraded" evolutions of that same engine, i.e CFM56-5B1/B2, etc...
The A340-500/600 cockpit have a slightly different layout due to the use of LCD screens as compared to CRT screens for A340-200/300's.
(however, the recent A330's and A318's also have LCD screens, maybe recent A340's also have them).
The FMC's are different, and the MCP seems different too.
The A321 cockpit is exactly the same as the A320's and A319's.
Hope this helps,
Fly to live, live to fly - Air France/KLM Flying Blue Platinum, BMI Diamond Club Gold, Emirates Skywards
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4192 times:
There is a 757-100- its called the 737-900 though
There was a Boeing book I had seen at Borders Bookstore that was pretty interesting, it shows 3 view drawings of many of the Boeing proposals. In there they have a picture of the 777-100 in a 3 view drawing. Obviously it is short and stubbier looking, but it has the same 6 wheel bogies and the same huge engines.
I do not recall if they had the 757-100 in there or not.
I think it has the orriginal 767-400 with the winglets instead of the raked wingtips and I believe they also show a 777 with winglets.
They also show the 747-500X, 600-800 and show the difference in size between the 400 and 800 series. That 800 although not double decker, just an extended upper deck makes the A380 look tiny.
Now with Airbus, why couldn't they be orriginal and give their series a different designation other than the 200, 300 etc like Boeing.
Why couldn't they be like the orriginal A300 with the B2, B4, B6 and put that designation on their A340s?