Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not 777 400?  
User currently offlineVoyager747 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13644 times:

Hello Everyone,

I was looking in the A/C Data and I found that there only have the 777 200 and 300 series aircraft.Why did they not make the 777 200LR into a 777 400 series aircraft?

Thanks

Voyager747

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNASOCEANA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13619 times:

The 777-200LR is just an enhanced 777-200.


B777 greatest Airliner ever built!
User currently offlineCRJ705 From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13600 times:

Because the 200LR shares the same fusulage length as the other 777-200 series planes. Also the 400 series designation would be reserved for a stretch of the fusulage length. I hope this has answered your question.

Regards
CRJ705


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13553 times:

Usually a change in derivative designation signifies a change from the original, like the number changes are usualy stretch or shrinks of fuselage. Adding letters implies a technical change but not enough to abuse the numbering system. Like what Airbus did with A350. Big grin


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineSuperhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 478 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13545 times:

Quoting CRJ705 (Reply 2):
Because the 200LR shares the same fusulage length as the other 777-200 series planes. Also the 400 series designation would be reserved for a stretch of the fusulage length. I hope this has answered your question.

So using this logic, all 747s have the same fuselage lenghts. Why were they designated -100, -200, -300, -400? And even if we account for the upper deck lengths, then why did Boeing not group -100 and -200 together, and -300 and -400 together?

Answers appreciated.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13518 times:

400 would have to be reserved for a longer (or shorter) version, or one that had significantly new engines and systems... oh, wait, they very well could have called the 772LR a 774 and the 773ER a 775 because they used new engines, modified wings, modified undercarriage, modified cockpit, etc. , etc.

So to answer your question? Because they didn't want to. Pretty much.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13512 times:

Almost every Boeing that has had a change in its designation has been either a stretch, or a drastic technological upgrade. The 707-320 was a lengthened and extended range version of the 707-120, the 727-200 was a stretch of the -100, the 737-300 was a stretch of the -200, the 737-400 was a stretch of the -300, and the 737-500 was the -200 with the technology of the other classics. The 757-300 was a stretch of the -200, the 767-300 was a stretch of the -200, the 767-400 was a stretch of the -300, with some technology of the 777, such as the flight deck. The 747-300 was a stretch of the -200, while the 747-400 was the -300 with drastic technological upgrades. The 737-600 was the -500 with the NG technology, the 737-700 was the -300 with the NG technology, and the 737-800 was the -400 with the NG technology.The 777-300 was a stretch of the -200, and the 747-8 is a stretch of the -400 with drastic technological upgrades.

All of the aircraft that got a new designation without a stretch received at least a generation's improvement in technology. The 772LR, on the other hand, is a 772ER, fitted with improvements from the 773 program. It has the downrated engines and wingtips of the -300. It also has a strengthened undercarriage, and increased MTOW. A good way to think of it is what Boeing did to the 772ER to make the 772LR is similar to what they did to the 772A to make the 772ER.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13476 times:

Quoting Superhub (Reply 4):
Quoting CRJ705 (Reply 2):
Because the 200LR shares the same fusulage length as the other 777-200 series planes. Also the 400 series designation would be reserved for a stretch of the fusulage length. I hope this has answered your question.

So using this logic, all 747s have the same fuselage lenghts. Why were they designated -100, -200, -300, -400? And even if we account for the upper deck lengths, then why did Boeing not group -100 and -200 together, and -300 and -400 together?

747 is a different case, everyone that has worked on that plane I doubt still works there. Boeing is now run by a more customer oriented and less revolutionary business mindset, despite 787, IMO that is a plane in which all derivative possibilites will be dealt with at once.

Consider this: If a significant change in design causes a product to be different than the original by performance (efficiency, payload, range all affects performance), from an accounting perspective, it is technically a different plane. The first 747's varied by payload, range and MTOW; hence different airplane.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13367 times:

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 6):
The 747-300 was a stretch of the -200,

Stretched in what way? There were 747-200SUD's with the Stretched Upper Deck.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13288 times:

Has there at any time been talks of at 777-400?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13248 times:

you could look at it in 2 ways,

774-some type of sp version that boeing invented from the 747..would be kinda wierd to see a shortend 777-200


or

a stretched 300 that had some crazy powerful engines that i dont know how much longer you could structurally stretch the 300????



bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2673 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13220 times:

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 10):
a stretched 300 that had some crazy powerful engines that i dont know how much longer you could structurally stretch the 300????

If Boeing had developed a 777-400NG they could reduce the wheight by adding more compsites into the plane. That way maybe the GE90-115 engine would have sufficient thrust. Then you could add the updates to the -300NG and 200NG later on. and then you would have the Y3  Smile

Simple, efficient and cheap.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineAeroTycoon From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13164 times:

The 777-300 is longer than the 747-400. The 777 cannot get much bigger than it is. It is stretched structurally as far as it will be stretched.

Advancements to the 777 line, therefore, will be in the existing size of aircraft. The 777-200 and 777-300 models have evolved significantly in the last ten years.

Take, for example:

-200 Family
777-200 1994*
777-200ER 1996
777-200LR 2005
777-200F 2008**
-300 Family
777-300 1997
777-300ER 2003

*Dates indicate year of first flight.
**Source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_freighterback.html

Improvements will continue to be made on efficiency and flexibility of the aircraft. Expect more fuel efficient engines, interior upgrades, and more weight saving techlogies.

Because no stretching will occur, I doubt the designation "777-400" will ever come about.



A 777-200LR with a 787 style interior could do damage on ultralong haul VIP routes. $$





AeroTycoon dollarsign  dollarsign 


User currently offlineBrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1286 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13114 times:

I think that far down the road there will be new designations for 777 model but not the -400. I think Boeing will, just as they are doing now with the 747-8, upgrade the 777 with 787 technology and newer engines. The 777-8 and the 777-9 come to mind. Probably the 777-8 (or a long range version of it if it makes sense to have several sub-types e.g. ER or LR) will be the first aircraft to be able to fly nonstop from LHR to SYD and back on any day with any weather.


I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13111 times:

Quoting Superhub (Reply 4):
So using this logic, all 747s have the same fuselage lenghts. Why were they designated -100, -200, -300, -400? And even if we account for the upper deck lengths, then why did Boeing not group -100 and -200 together, and -300 and -400 together?

Answers appreciated.

What you say is absolutely correct. My gut tells me it was marketing, to make the 747-4 look like a new product, since they digitized an analog airplane, put new engines under the wing and reduced the flight crew to two. Something that is similiar to the A330 vs the A350 name.

In additon, The 777-200LR isn't a replacement airplane (777-200ER will still exist), but one with a higher gross weight. The 747-400 replaced the 747-300.

just two cents... cheers


User currently offlineCPH757 From Denmark, joined Sep 2005, 684 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13058 times:

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 10):
a stretched 300 that had some crazy powerful engines that i dont know how much longer you could structurally stretch the 300????

Not much. Remember that the 773ER is stretched an incredible 10 meters from the 772. Not just the regular 3-4 meter stretch. That was simply too boring for the engineers  wink 



Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13025 times:

Can you tell the diffrence (as a spotter) between B772A/ER/LR?

Micke//SE  wave 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineDalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12701 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 21):
Can you tell the diffrence (as a spotter) between B772A/ER/LR?

The LR has raked wingtips like the 767-400.



Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2048 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12645 times:

Quoting Superhub (Reply 4):
So using this logic, all 747s have the same fuselage lenghts. Why were they designated -100, -200, -300, -400? And even if we account for the upper deck lengths, then why did Boeing not group -100 and -200 together, and -300 and -400 together?

The 747-100 was the base model. Came with P&W engines, upper deck was smaller inside, usually used as a lounge.

The 747-200B had greater range, MTOW. Introduced engine choice with addition of RR and GE. Upper deck lengthened internally (Lots of 741s were retorfitted with this). Also offered in Combi and Freighter versions.

The 747-300 introduced the Stretched Upper Deck (SUD). KLM most notably had majority of their 742s modified with this, but as not new build they were 747-200B(SUD). Some JL 741s modified with SUD too I believe. Range was less than a 742 though, similar to a 741, because of extra weight.

The 747-400 introduced glass, two-man cockpit, wing tips, greatly increased range, newer engines, etc. It was a technological leap from the 747 classics.
The 747-400ER has greater range still, 777 style interior, higher MTOW, but is still essentially a 744, so it wasn't a 747-500.

The reason the 772 has not taken a new designation is that although modifications have been made none are dramatic enough to warrant a new designation. Changes take place to aircraft throughout their lives - a 1990 built A320-200 will not be the same as a 2006 built example, but it doesn't warrant it becoming an A320-300.



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineSeanp11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12614 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 8):
Stretched in what way? There were 747-200SUD's with the Stretched Upper Deck.

The 747-300 was originally designated the 747SUD. Some -200s and -100s were converted to have the stretched upper deck, but they did not come off the line like that. The only exception was two JAL -100s, which were delivered new with the stretched upper deck.


User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12404 times:

The 777-200ER has its name on the market. So calling it the 777-200LR is in my eyes a good thing.

It shares the same name, but even more improoved!!

Boeing should have called it the 777-200ELR though, or maybe that is what the future will bring us  Wink



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineJam747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 12354 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 9):
Has there at any time been talks of at 777-400

Actually when Boeing was considering the 747-800, a stretched 777-400 was studied. As someone mentioned before a 777-400 would be very long and you might need more powerfull engine or a lighter frame, plus problems turning, taking off and landing such a long plane would would cause issues. Since Boeing has decided on the 747-800 I think the idea for the 777-400 is shelved.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12219 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 21):
Can you tell the diffrence (as a spotter) between B772A/ER/LR?

It's tough (if not impossible) to tell the difference between a 772A and a 772ER just based on external looks...

...but the 772LR is rather easy to distinguish, as its GE90-11XB engines have curved fan blades, and the aircraft itself shares the raked wingtips of the 764ER/773ER  Wink


User currently offlineAirportGal From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11679 times:

Quoting Seanp11 (Reply 6):
The 772LR, on the other hand, is a 772ER, fitted with improvements from the 773 program. It has the downrated engines and wingtips of the -300.

no... -200, -200ER and -300 all have the same wingspan (199 ft 11 in). The -200LR and 300ER have raked wingtips and wingspan 212 ft 7 in.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 24):
The fact remains, the 747-400 received new engines when it was introduced in the late 80s.

also the addition of wingtips, increasing its wingspan from 195 ft 8 in to just under 213 ft (fully fueled).

all of this in addition to the proper technology improvements for the times....

and yes, a plane spotter can detect these differences (with the exception of 777-200 vs -200ER)  Big grin

lengthening the 777-300 prolly wouldn't make sense from a marketing perspective considering the increase in seat count.....


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10567 times:

The 747 evolved significantly without becoming longer (until 747-800). I think that with a reworking, maybe of the same scale as 747-800, meaning a more composite intensive structure and wing, and maybe even, if GE is so willing, a slightly reworked and modernized GE90-115C? they could have an aircraft with opperating costs in line with the 777-300, and they could likely stretch it atleast another solid 25ft, to maybe a little under 270ft. Yes, that is an extremely long aircraft, but not really that much out of the realm of possibility. With 777 economics, or better, a 777-400 would make a compelling case for replacing old 747's. That said, a new, larger, more capable twin engine long haul boeing is being spoken of (Y3). I think with a little 787 technology, like 748, the 777 can be stretched and pushed further.

That said, they are selling 777s faster than they know what to do with, so I don't think spending money on enhancing them is a number one priority, especially with the launches of dreamliner, 747-800, and work on the upcoming 797 (Y1) mainline 737 replacement, which may prove to be the most important project they've undertaken yet.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
25 777fan : Don't forget to leave out the 747SR and SP! The mere appearence of a SP makes me chuckle...
26 Seanp11 : How could I forget the -SP, one of the first real long range a/c. The SR though was just a domestic modification to the 100/200.
27 OyKIE : The Boeing 777-300 is 242 Ft 4 in (73.9 m) long compared to the 209 Ft 1 in (63.7 m) long 777-200. The A340-600 is 246 Ft 11 in (75.3 m) and I believe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Instead Of The 747Adv, Why Not A 777-400? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 20:50:30 by Starlionblue
Airbus, Why Not Take On The 777? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 06:26:10 by Tangowhisky
Q 400 And ATR 72 Why Not More Orders In The US? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 22:15:15 by Cumulonimbus
Why A330's And Not 777's! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 20:38:09 by American777
Boeing At Farnborough: Why A 747 And Not A 777 posted Mon Jul 26 2004 13:12:16 by Tolosy
Why Did LY Pick 777-200 And Not 777-300? posted Thu Apr 4 2002 00:26:45 by Shlomoz
BA Has LGW-BDA 777 Service. Why Not Lhr? posted Thu Jan 13 2000 22:49:24 by TWA902fly
British Airways @ Heathrow T3 Why Not Also At T2? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:52:08 by 8herveg
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees