Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models  
User currently offlineFlyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7795 times:

Why is there no A380-100,200,300,400,500,600,700 or 787-100,200,400,500,600,700? Are the "missing" models all just proposed and dropped designs? There was a proposed 747-500, and 747-600, but I have never heard of a 747-700? Any thoughts?


As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7756 times:

Thats a really good point, Graham! I think its high time sombody inquired to that.  Wink Seems to be a trend for all new aircraft designs to start with the -800 model. This makes no sense whatsoever!

Cheers
WS



Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7723 times:

Well, 8 is a lucky number in Asia, so 8 is being used a lot lately. Hasn't proved to be especially lucky for Airbus though.

User currently offlineMotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3274 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

And where is the A360 and A370... well apparently aircraft manufacturers can be just as contrary and idiosyncratic as people elsewhere.

Apparently the figure 8 cross section of the fuselage was the reason the A380 name. And being a fully "mature" model at market release, the 800 was the model name. The stretches will presumably be 900 and 1000 as with the A350.

Now Boeing must then have thought that if those Euros could be well, so European and change the rules mid-game, they could too damnit and change they did with the 787.

MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7671 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 2):
Well, 8 is a lucky number in Asia, so 8 is being used a lot lately. Hasn't proved to be especially lucky for Airbus though.

I've heard this a number of times, but have a hard time believing it. Why would a manufacturer favor a lucky number for one part of the world while ignoring the rest of their potential customers? Would this not be somewhat offensive to Asians, equating their legitimate business interests with superstition? Lastly, 800 series is only one of several planned series for each model. 787s also have -3, -9 and potentially -10. A380 has a -900. 737s range from -600 to -900. Nothing special about 8 or 800. Still, I think it odd to start so high up on the model numbers, and I don't know any other reason.

-Rampart


User currently offlineVorticity From United States of America, joined May 2004, 337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7649 times:

Model numbers probably start off as practical markings in the study phase of projects. But once you have a successful series of products, you have built branding, and model designations have marketing value.


Thermodynamics and english units don't mix...
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7333 times:

I believe that the A300 got its name from the fact that it was originally to be a 300 seat aircraft.

User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
I believe that the A300 got its name from the fact that it was originally to be a 300 seat aircraft.

Indeed it did, I believe it was a sarcastic comment from one of the British managers at the conference table, the others took it to heart. Still a good idea now,

So you see boys & girls (the few we get 'round 'ere) the lesson of the story is Sarcasm is good  Smile

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7229 times:

I thought the 787 designations had to do with the range.

787-3: ~3000 nm
787-8: ~8000 nm

787-9, 787-10 are then stretches.

A380 I thought was named because it was "2 A340s" but I could be wrong on that...


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7205 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 8):
A380 I thought was named because it was "2 A340s" but I could be wrong on that...

Wouldnt that make it the A680????


User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6155 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 7137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What will Boeing do when they use the 797? They will have used all of the numbers up. Will they add a number to them like the 2707, which was going to be the SST?

Quoting EI321 (Reply 9):
Wouldnt that make it the A680????

That is the math...

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 8):
I thought the 787 designations had to do with the range.

787-3: ~3000 nm
787-8: ~8000 nm

That makes sense to me. It probably is wrong because it would make sense to the average person.  Wink



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSwissA330 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2002, 613 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7039 times:

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 10):
Wouldnt that make it the A680????

Then Again, why not B680 ?  Smile
Then the B vs B wars would start  Wink



swissair/+/ we care
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

8 Being a Lucky number in Asia would be a strong reason.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineChase From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6742 times:

I think the numerology/superstition angle makes sense. Often you'll see apartments with "unlucky" apartment numbers or on "unlucky"-numbered floors going for a lesser rent payment, and someone recently paid a very large sum of money at auction for a phone number that was all 8's (i.e. his phone number is now something like 8888-8888). Of course, Steve Wozniak did the same thing in the US (got phone number XXX-888-8888 where XXX is his area code, likely 415) and ended up having to change the number because (I'm not making this up) he kept getting too many phone calls from babies banging on the 8 button  Smile

User currently offlineFlyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6690 times:

All of these ideas make sense, but why then do some aircraft start at 100 and go up without skipping any? The 737 for example. It is probably a question only the people at A and B responsible for naming the aircraft.

Quoting Chase (Reply 13):
Often you'll see apartments with "unlucky" apartment numbers or on "unlucky"-numbered floors going for a lesser rent payment

Some buildings do not even have "unlucky" floors, such as 13.



As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
User currently offlineBwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1377 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6666 times:

And Brussels Airlines had to ad a 14th dot to their logo...


I always thought that they went from A340 to A380 because the airbus numbering had something to do with size... so there's still room between the A340 and the A380. But then, where does that leave the A300 & A310... :s



I love my Airport Job! :)
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6607 times:

As for the 747-8, the official line is that the -8 shows the relationship between the new 747 and the 787. Additionally, it fits in line with the numbering system, as there was a 500X, 600X, and 700X. The 700X is not as well known; it was a giant aircraft with a new cross section (essentially an all-new aircraft that just looked like a VERY big 747).


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6577 times:

Quoting Flyboyseven (Thread starter):
The 700X is not as well known; it was a giant aircraft with a new cross section (essentially an all-new aircraft that just looked like a VERY big 747).

I've never heard this before. Do you have any sources? (Not that I'm doubting you; I'd be genuinely interested in learning more about the -700X.)

[Edited 2007-02-12 20:00:26]


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6566 times:

Quoting MotorHussy (Reply 3):

Apparently the figure 8 cross section of the fuselage was the reason the A380 name. And being a fully "mature" model at market release, the 800 was the model name. The stretches will presumably be 900 and 1000 as with the A350.

I believe the best explanation for why Airbus went straight to "A380" was because they figured the model would be in production for a long time, and therefore they left slots open below for the models in lower segments; narrowbody (A320), medium-range medium widebody (A330), and long-range medium widebody (A340). So now they have the A350...and two more slots open for NSR and a potential medium widebody.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineThomasCook757 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 162 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6471 times:

Another reason why Airbus went with the 'A380' is becase the 8 symbolizes the double deck design.

[Edited 2007-02-12 20:21:49]

User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 12):
8 Being a Lucky number in Asia would be a strong reason.

Yes, especially with the booming aviation market over there, manufacturers would want to make there product as "attractive" to them as possible in hopes of big orders. My theory anyway.

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineMidEx216 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Quoting Rampart (Reply 4):
Would this not be somewhat offensive to Asians, equating their legitimate business interests with superstition?

I do not think that it would be so much as "equating their business interests with superstition" as catering to their business styles. The Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank tower, in Hong Kong, had to be built with feng shui in mind, and even bought the land in between the tower and the bay to keep with this. While I don't think the A380 was named for this reason, I don't think it would be offensive.

Quoting Chase (Reply 13):
Often you'll see apartments with "unlucky" apartment numbers or on "unlucky"-numbered floors going for a lesser rent payment

or sometimes even conspicuously absent.



"Cue the Circus Music!"
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5755 times:

And its si stupid to begin with -800. For example there might be an A350-1000...how stupid is that ?


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
User currently offlineAirEMS From United States of America, joined May 2004, 684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

This might be a little off the topic but......

On the Boeing side with their military bombers they usually all could equal 7 or had 7 in them

B-52: 5+2=7

B-29: 9-2=7

B-17

B-47

I think Boeing might think that 7 is a lucky number


-Carl



If Your Dying Were Flying
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1264 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 17):
I've never heard this before. Do you have any sources? (Not that I'm doubting you; I'd be genuinely interested in learning more about the -700X.)

I don't have my library with me, but I seem to recall it is at least briefly mentioned in Norris and Wagners "Giant Jetliners". I believe the same offers included more in another text, but I can't recall the title (something like "Modern Boeing Jetliners"). It has also been mentioned on this board.

Ultimately, though, I've never seen too much about it, and like you, would like to learn more!



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
25 Stitch : The -100 designation seems to have gone out of style with Boeing when the 757 and 767 programs were launched. Both entered service as -200s and their
26 GRIVely : Hmm, I thought that military aircraft designations in the US were assigned by the respective military services. Didn't think a manufacturer could requ
27 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Aircraft designations are set by the military, not Boeing. Boeing also built aircraft under designations B-15, B-38, B-39, B-44 and B-50, none of whi
28 Post contains images Desh : The "lucky number" theory just does not make any sense - never heard of a "lucky number" that is used across Asia - the only number that I have seen b
29 Post contains links TeamAmerica : The number 8 is considered lucky. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_(number) "Eight is considered a lucky number in Chinese culture beca
30 Post contains images Aircellist : In fact, in 1978, Boeing offered shorter versions, labelled -100, of the 757 and the 767, but when all the early orders were for the longer -200 varia
31 Planemaker : Not according to Flight International... The -800X studies have evolved from the -400XQLR (Quieter Longer Range) proposal which did not have sufficie
32 Post contains links Stitch : The confusion, Planemaker, probably comes from the 747-X and 747-XS(tretch) models often being referred to as the "747-700" by the press because this
33 PropilotJW : I have heard that too... Asia is where big planes are sold so it makes sense.
34 Post contains images Stitch : I have heard that too... Asia is where big planes are sold so it makes sense. Yet the 747-400, with two "evil" number fours in it's nomenclature, has
35 Post contains images Fridgmus : I can see it now, after Boeing launches the 797, we'll have the....7007! (a little bit of James Bond there!) Marc
36 Dw747400 : Well, I appreciate someone quoting the right username for a change, but I'm not quite sure how that is different than what I said. The 747-700X was a
37 Post contains images GAIsweetGAI : Wouldn't that be 1 4700 ? (according to my computer's calculator, I'm not very familiar with the Hexadecimal system )
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...
Airbus/Boeing Goals In 2007 posted Wed Jan 3 2007 11:21:11 by WINGS
Airbus/Boeing Order List Value Thru Nov30 posted Thu Dec 21 2006 18:40:28 by DrExotica
Airbus, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters posted Fri Jul 21 2006 17:35:47 by NYC777
BBC World Service Airbus/Boeing Interviews posted Sun Jul 9 2006 08:45:59 by NAV20
Composite Divide: Airbus, Boeing And The New A350 posted Fri May 12 2006 12:06:17 by A380900
Avianca "to Order" 42 Widebodies (Airbus/Boeing?) posted Sat Feb 4 2006 20:21:01 by Luisde8cd
Airbus... Boeing... When Will They Catch Up? posted Fri Jan 20 2006 09:11:59 by BigJimFX
Analysis Of Airbus/Boeing 2005 Sales Figures posted Sun Jan 1 2006 17:50:19 by Reggaebird
UA Will Order Airbus/Boeing posted Sat Oct 8 2005 22:25:03 by Aa777flyer
Airbus-Boeing ATC Test Flight Callsigns. posted Tue Oct 4 2005 12:48:51 by AirworldA320