Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380,A350,748,787 Whats Next? & New Plane #'s?  
User currently offlineBlueSkys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8122 times:

First question, we now have two new jumbos, 748 & A380 and two new Super efficient composite planes... What is next from the industry, more super efficiency? SuperSonic? BWB? I am really curious to hear peoples opinions.


&


The 747, 727, 737, A320 Etc. all started with the -100 designation for the first model. Why now is Boeing and Airbus starting with -800 and going up? I have been really curious. I thought it would have been 787-100 then 200 and so on and same for the A350. Anyone have a Clue?

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8085 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
Why now is Boeing and Airbus starting with -800 and going up?

Marketing. Some believe it has to do with 8 being lucky in Asian culture

The next aircraft to go into development after the A350, A380, 787 and 748 will be the Airbus NSR (A320 replacement) and Boeing Y1 (737RS).



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8086 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
What is next from the industry, more super efficiency?

Yep. CFRP twinjets will be the thing for awhile. Next up I expect we'll see new generation narrowbodies from both Airbus and Boeing, replacing the A320 and B737.

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
Why now is Boeing and Airbus starting with -800 and going up?

The number 8 is considered lucky in some Asian cultures (much more so than "lucky 7" in the USA).

Airbus allegedly jumped from A340 to A380-800 for this reason. Boeing followed with the 787-8, then the 747-8. Airbus has continued the pattern with the A350-800.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8077 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
What is next from the industry, more super efficiency? SuperSonic? BWB?

Probably more efficiency as this is what it seems the airlines want over speed. Also it seems making an airliner more fuel friendly is easier than making a Mach 1.5 airliner due to sonic boom issues.

What's next?
Probably the 797 and A360.  Wink


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8057 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
First question, we now have two new jumbos, 748 & A380 and two new Super efficient composite planes... What is next from the industry, more super efficiency? SuperSonic? BWB? I am really curious to hear peoples opinions.

For the industry, all of the following are in the pipeline but not clear which order they'll arrive:
-supersonic biz jet
-737/A320 replacement
-777 upgrade/replacement
-New burst of ~100 seat RJ's

Super efficiency is going to be a huge deal for everything but the biz jets (supersonic and efficient don't play nicely together). BWB is a long way off...we'll see it in military cargo first, then maybe in commercial in a few decades.

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
The 747, 727, 737, A320 Etc. all started with the -100 designation for the first model. Why now is Boeing and Airbus starting with -800 and going up? I have been really curious. I thought it would have been 787-100 then 200 and so on and same for the A350. Anyone have a Clue?

Boeing didn't use -800, it's -8 (and -9, etc.). They went with -8 on the 787 because of the tie with the 7*8*7 and the fact that 8 is considered lucky in several Asian cultures and the plane's launch customers are Asian. They went with -8 on the 747-8 to tie the 747 upgrade to the PR associated with the 787. It's not at all clear what the number of the next project will be, although 797 is probably a good guess.

Airbus started with A300 because it was designed for 300 people and then they stuck with sequential numbers (A310, A320) for the next few models. The A318/319/321 are self explanatory. I'm not sure why the suffixes on the A330 and A340 are what they are...maybe the -100 models were planned in development but never executed? A380 was picked, I assume, to reflect the significant jump over the A340 (roughly the same dimensions but double decks). -800 might be have been to capture the whole "8" thing or because the plane's maximum capacity is in the neighborhood of 800. A350 took them back to the sequential major model numbers...-800 is a counter to Boeing, I assume.

The whole industry is generally obsessed with 8's at the moment.

Tom.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8048 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
Probably the 797



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
797 is probably a good guess

Nope. I'll bet Boeing goes with "808". The interesting thing will be to see how Airbus responds to that. stirthepot 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):

Boeing didn't use -800, it's -8 (and -9, etc.). They went with -8 on the 787 because of the tie with the 7*8*7 and the fact that 8 is considered lucky in several Asian cultures and the plane's launch customers are Asian. They went with -8 on the 747-8 to tie the 747 upgrade to the PR associated with the 787. It's not at all clear what the number of the next project will be, although 797 is probably a good guess.

The -8 number came out before the 7E7 became the 787. They claim the reason for choosing -8 was to reflect the range of the long range base model (>8000nm), and -3 to reflect the range of the short range model. -9 was given to the larger aircraft.

I suppose they could make the same claim for the 747-8 too, as it has 8000nm range, but they never gave a reason for using that number as far as I know.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineAirplaneFan From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):

Boeing did not start the Boeing 787 with the 800 series, but the 300 series, Boeing 787-3. 

[Edited 2007-09-23 05:14:03]


I AM ABLE THINK, THEREFORE I EXIST.
User currently offlineInbarD From Israel, joined Jan 2007, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8019 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 5):

Nope. I'll bet Boeing goes with "808". The interesting thing will be to see how Airbus responds to that. stirthepot

Thats sounds like a horrible model number (eight zero eight). Not nearly as catchy as the 707.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8011 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 5):
Nope. I'll bet Boeing goes with "808". The interesting thing will be to see how Airbus responds to that.

The A707 and B300 are coming.      

[Edited 2007-09-23 05:07:20]

User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3327 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8008 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 5):
Nope. I'll bet Boeing goes with "808". The interesting thing will be to see how Airbus responds to that.  stirthepot 

With the exception of the 720 (arguably a 707 derivative), Boeing hasn't made a commercial aircraft not ending with "7" in over fifty years. I doubt they're about to abandon that generations-old tradition just to cater to some Asian superstition.

The Boeing 807 would be much more likely than the Boeing 808.


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 5):
Nope. I'll bet Boeing goes with "808". The interesting thing will be to see how Airbus responds to that.

Of course. You get it. Boeing should go with 808 because it claims all the 8 series for them. Then Y3 could be 888.

Airbus has more of a right to the 4 series, because all their planes are A300 / A310 etc.

But too bad for Airbus, 4 is an unlucky number because it sounds like the cantonese word for death.

7 was a great number, and 7 had a good run, but except for 797, its used up.

8 is the new lucky number for the 21st century.

" the reason #8 is so lucky is because if you say the word (patt) it sounds like "faat" which means "prosperity & abundance"

http://www.fengshuitips.co.uk/numbers.htm

The Jin Mao Building in Shanghai is 88 stories.

"The 88 floors (93 if the spire floors are counted) are divided into 16 segments, each of which is 1/8th shorter than the 16-story base. The tower is built around an octagon-shaped concrete shear wall core surrounded by 8 exterior composite supercolumns and 8 exterior steel columns. Three sets of 8 two-story high outrigger trusses connect the columns to the core at six of the floors to provide additional support."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Mao_Building


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

Quoting AirplaneFan (Reply 7):
Boeing did not start the Boeing 787 with the 800 series, but the 300 series, Boeing 787-3

So is Boeing scrapping airline identifiers, ex. B767-332 for DL configured 767? Or will it be 787-832?



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineABpositive From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7960 times:

I think engines will see the next major development, especially in regards to new fuels.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7936 times:

Quoting AirplaneFan (Reply 7):
Boeing did not start the Boeing 787 with the 800 series, but the 300 series, Boeing 787-3.

The 787-8 is both the base design and precedes the 787-3. The 787-3 is very much a derivative model.

It is clear that Boeing will turn their attention to the Y1/737RS after the 787 and that Airbus will turn their attention to NSR after the A350. After that, nothing is clear except that there is no significant market for airliners larger than A350-1000/787-11 sized.


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7929 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 10):
The Boeing 807 would be much more likely than the Boeing 808.

Not to mention it rolls off the tongue better

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 12):

So is Boeing scrapping airline identifiers, ex. B767-332 for DL configured 767? Or will it be 787-832?

Nope. The customer codes will still be there, but the generics will be sans the 00

Quoting AirplaneFan (Reply 7):
Boeing did not start the Boeing 787 with the 800 series, but the 300 series, Boeing 787-3.

THe 787-8 was introduced first and will enter service first. Lower number doesn't mean it was first.

I would be willing to bet Boeing goes with the 797 for the 787RS.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineDallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7926 times:

Quoting BlueSkys (Thread starter):
The number 8 is considered lucky in some Asian cultures (much more so than "lucky 7" in the USA).

Airbus allegedly jumped from A340 to A380-800 for this reason. Boeing followed with the 787-8, then the 747-8. Airbus has continued the pattern with the A350-800.

And it will continiue until the economic crash in Asia, after which the world would look up to the next emerging market and present the next "lucky" number



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3125 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7890 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
The number 8 is considered lucky in some Asian cultures (much more so than "lucky 7" in the USA).

Airbus allegedly jumped from A340 to A380-800 for this reason. Boeing followed with the 787-8, then the 747-8. Airbus has continued the pattern with the A350-800.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
that 8 is considered lucky in several Asian cultures and the plane's launch customers are Asian.

The only place I've ever read this is on A.net, or in writings derived from A.net, and none from the manufacturers themselves, and I'm more convinced that the "lucky 8" attribution is more urban legend and coincidence than anything planned. As I've mentioned on other threads, I understand the primacy of good fortune in East Asian cultures, but isn't pandering to superstition a little insulting for something so high-tech in one of the most sophisticated businesses on the planet? And at the expense of other cultures -- what about their lucky numbers? The Asian aviation market is large and growing, but only ~25% of the current 787 orders, for instance, go to East Asian customers. I'd say it would be mistaken marketing to name an aircraft to curry favor from just 1/4 of your customers.

-Rampart

[Edited 2007-09-23 06:46:26 made it "East" Asian, since I don't think we're including India, the Middle East, and Central Asia in the "lucky 8" conversation.]

[Edited 2007-09-23 06:48:21]

User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7851 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
For the industry, all of the following are in the pipeline but not clear which order they'll arrive:
-supersonic biz jet
-737/A320 replacement
-777 upgrade/replacement
-New burst of ~100 seat RJ's

I suspect we will also see an A/C of near 747 size to come out with two engines, composite construction, and possibly a sightly wider fuselage, with possibly 3 aisles, though a single deck. Because in the decades ahead I expect we will need more fuel efficiency at the large end. (Then then upper deck could be used for inflight revenue space, such as berths.)

Is there any reason that an engine could not be built for such an A/C?

P.S. - Is this what people refer to as "Y3," or will "Y3" be whatever comes after the 787/350, no matter which category?



I come in peace
User currently offlineBlueSkys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7823 times:

Quoting AirplaneFan (Reply 7):
Boeing did not start the Boeing 787 with the 800 series, but the 300 series, Boeing 787-3.

Actually, the 783 is just a derivitave of of the 788. A shorter range version meant for much higher cycles. 788 is the first 787 model  Wink


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7797 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 12):
So is Boeing scrapping airline identifiers, ex. B767-332 for DL configured 767? Or will it be 787-832?

It'll still be around. Marketing and engineering are very different things.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
It is clear that Boeing will turn their attention to the Y1/737RS after the 787 and that Airbus will turn their attention to NSR after the A350.

It isn't clear that they won't do a 777 update first.

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 15):
THe 787-8 was introduced first and will enter service first. Lower number doesn't mean it was first.

Correct. They used to go sequentially (the 737-300/400/500 are in chronological, not size, order). Now they go by size (although that often turns out to be chronological too).

Quoting Rampart (Reply 17):
The only place I've ever read this is on A.net, or in writings derived from A.net, and none from the manufacturers themselves, and I'm more convinced that the "lucky 8" attribution is more urban legend and coincidence than anything planned.

You don't have to search very far:
http://www.asian-nation.org/gambling.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_(number)
http://afgen.com/china8.html

There are lots of others. Just Google on "number 8 lucky asian culture". When I used to live in Vancouver (large Asian population) it was very common to see developers shoehorn "8" into the address any way they could...*far* out of proportion to what you'd expect just by sequential numbering.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 17):
isn't pandering to superstition a little insulting for something so high-tech in one of the most sophisticated businesses on the planet?

If it sells airplanes, no.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):
I suspect we will also see an A/C of near 747 size to come out with two engines, composite construction, and possibly a sightly wider fuselage, with possibly 3 aisles, though a single deck. Because in the decades ahead I expect we will need more fuel efficiency at the large end. (Then then upper deck could be used for inflight revenue space, such as berths.)

Is there any reason that an engine could not be built for such an A/C?

Technically, no. Economically, it's probably a non-starter for many years to come. The number of units for an airplane that large will be very small for a very long time, so it would be hard for a manufacturer to recover their development costs.

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 18):

P.S. - Is this what people refer to as "Y3," or will "Y3" be whatever comes after the 787/350, no matter which category?

Y3 is a specific airplane that was studied as part of Project Yellowstone at Boeing. It's like a 787, only larger. The successor to the 777/747 may or may not be the commercial descendant of Y3. However, on a.net you often see people use "Y3" to refer to whatever replaces the 777.

Tom.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9999 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7750 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 4):
A380 was picked, I assume, to reflect the significant jump over the A340 (roughly the same dimensions but double decks)

The "8" in the A380 was picked to reflect the fact that it's a full double-decker.......

Regards


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7687 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
It isn't clear that they won't do a 777 update first.

Boeing frequency release minor updates to the 777 and will continue to do so. As for any sort of major update like that from the 777-300 to the 777-300ER, it's never going to happen. For about the same money, Boeing could develop a new wing for the 787 and produce 787s up to 777-300ER size with better payload/range performance and much, much better economics.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12464 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7646 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 2):
Airbus allegedly jumped from A340 to A380-800 for this reason.

No, the whole "8 is lucky in Asia" thing is overplayed.

As the Astute one correctly points out, Airbus selected A380 to represent the double-deck layout. The -800 was also selected to represent a mature aircraft from day one (i.e. not one than started as a -100 and grew/developed from there.) At the time, I doubt they appreciated quite how mature it would be at EIS.  blush 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 727 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7623 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
There are lots of others. Just Google on "number 8 lucky asian culture". When I used to live in Vancouver (large Asian population) it was very common to see developers shoehorn "8" into the address any way they could...*far* out of proportion to what you'd expect just by sequential numbering.

The front desk phone number where I work is xx88xx88, and some of our asian customers believe we paid a truckload of money to get that number, when we infact just happened get it assigned when the company started  Smile



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
25 BlueSky1976 : OB1504 took the words right out of my mouth. IMO it makes much more sense for Boeing to continue with the "xx7" model designation, as it is their tra
26 Post contains images Rampart : Sure, superstitious numbers are found in many cultures. Look at the avoidance of 13, at airport gates, floor numbers in elevators, and highways. Than
27 Sh0rtybr0wn : I have to disagree with you. How do you think its XX7? You're forgetting about the first 7. Boeing's trademark is / was 7 ___ 7 , with the dual seven
28 Drahnreb : Airbus: A360 or A370 to close the gap between A350 and A380
29 Zvezda : That gap is not a lack of supply (as Boeing have an offering) but a lack of demand. Nothing with more than 400 seats is selling in significant number
30 Post contains images EBJ1248650 : I suspect 797 will be used first; 808 will follow right after ... then 818, 828, 838, etc.
31 Braybuddy : I'm sticking my neck out here and reckon Boeing will go for a 7007 designation rather than an 808. It's one way of keeping the traditional 7 (the othe
32 BlueSkys : What about Boeing using letters in the middle of the 7__7 designation? 7C7, 7X7, 7Z7. I think i would like to see that more than anything. '
33 Sh0rtybr0wn : I actually like that idea, very cool. But, isn't it too many numbers. I dont think it will work because saying the " oh oh" will be confusing over AT
34 Zvezda : Huh? How is it any more of a mess than the Boeing system? Both are arbitrary and both work fine.
35 OB1504 : This also explains why we never saw a 757/767/777-100, since those designations were saved for any possible shrinks. So the Boeing 247 and 367 mean n
36 Braybuddy : I don't think it's anything that ATC couldn't get used to. Don't they just use the flight number, and state whether it's "heavy" if it's a widebody a
37 Post contains images Birdwatching : I see a very different direction than everybody else in this thread in civil aviation in the next 50 years. During the last decades passenger numbers
38 BlueSkys : You Forgot about cryogenic fuels, hydrogen. It has been done by Tupolev with natural gas and Hydrogen. The Tu-154 variant, the Tu-155. Granted it is
39 Grantcv : The Boeing tradition is for airliners to end in a 7 - it has been so since the 1930's. The Boeing 247 was one of the first modern airliners, the Stra
40 EI747SYDNEY : The main reason for thwe 747-800 Designation is because the aircraft shares alot of it's new technology with the 787. Robbie
41 Zvezda : 717 Speculators are not buying airline tickets and thereby bidding the price ... down. No speculators, no bubble. No, no one is buying whole new flee
42 FlagshipAZ : My idea on the future Boeing designator system is to modify the DC series moniker (Douglas Commercial) into the BC series (Boeing Commercial). Start w
43 OB1504 : I didn't post that, BrayBuddy did. IIRC, Boeing originally used the "717" designation for the military C-135, but eventually decided to drop it and j
44 Post contains images Ikramerica : I supposed 7107 might work, as the last Boeing jet of the current era. After all, the 797 would replace the 737, the 787 would be flying, the 7107 wou
45 BlueSky1976 : You're wrong. Boeing's trademark was always "three digits, seven at the end" naming scheme for all commercial airliners - at least for land-based one
46 Zvezda : I apologize for my carelessness.
47 Tdscanuck : There are several ways other than petrol to power aircraft. Coal and NG are the obvious ones and they work just fine today (lousy environmentally, bu
48 Scbriml : IIRC, numbers per se, cannot be trademarked or copyrighted. Yes, you can make "Roland 808" a trademark, but then "Boeing 808" would be a completely d
49 Braybuddy : The 717 is the descendant of the DC-9, a Douglas model, dating from the early 60s. Like I said in the post, "every new Boeing model".
50 BOSSAN : In fact, the Airbus A400M military transport is in development, with first flight planned for next year.
51 Dtwclipper : Just a slight correction. The 727 originally had just a 2 digit suffix. -21, -27, etc., designating original customers. After the -200 was developed
52 DeltaDC9 : Didn't the Sonic Cruiser give us a clue? 2707 wasn't it? I think that has a good ring to it, year 2000, then starting the 7 thing all over again. But
53 Post contains links Sh0rtybr0wn : They have no shot at stopping Boeing from calling a plane the 808. For God's sake, how many people even know the 808 is a drum machine? Have you hear
54 Post contains links SpeedyGonzales : 2707 was the supersonic transport project that got canceled in 1971. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707
55 Post contains images Braybuddy : I don't know why a lot of people think that Boeing will automatically go to an 8-8 series after the three digit 7-7 series ends. It's a possibility, b
56 BlueSky1976 : Are you saying that 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 all are awkward because they all have more than three syllables too? Somehow, someway i
57 Post contains images JSquared : Not necessarily... Using letters, in my opinion, is the only way to keep the tradition going, and with 26 letters available, they could keep it going
58 Tdscanuck : That's the second 717. The first 717 is what's known to the military as the KC-135. 2707 was the SST. Totally different project. Wind and ocean curre
59 DeltaDC9 : True, the Sonic Cruisers designations was "20XX", my bad... Fact remains, these are both pretty valid clues as to where Boeing will go with the numbe
60 Sh0rtybr0wn : The 7_7 designation works great because the sevens are said twice, in a rythym. Once you remove the symmetry and say 807, 817 it sounds like a diffic
61 TeamAmerica : Correct. Recall the case of Intel with the x86 series of microprocessors - they couldn't prevent AMD from releasing a "486" of their own. Thereafter
62 Futurecaptain : I read this alot on this website, and it is only an A.net based rumor. The KC-135 was never called the 717 by any Boeing documentation.
63 DeltaDC9 : Yet the 7E7 was a pretty good clue as to the 787s name. Still think that both those above are a pretty good clues as to which direction the naming co
64 Post contains links DeltaDC9 : I know where you are coming from. While I admit to never hearing that before joining A-net, you can find references to it all over the web referring
65 Tdscanuck : It's all over the Boeing website. I'm currently staring at a copy of Boeing Frontiers from July 2006 that states: "The Dash 80 led to two airplanes:
66 SSTsomeday : My impression was always that the 2707 designation for the first (eventually cancelled) American supersonic project was an homage of sorts to the 707
67 BOSSAN : As the Sukhoi Superjet-100 is rolled out today (excuse me, Суперджет-100), I wonder why there's
68 BlueSky1976 : You'll be surprised how many people say "seven seventy seven" everyday in reference to the Boeing 777. Nope. The minute the next Asia economic crash
69 Braybuddy : I really don't think that it matters one whit what the aircraft is called. If the airlines want it, they will buy it. The "Asian lucky 8" is clearly
70 XXXX10 : [quote=Braybuddy,reply=69]I really don't think that it matters one whit what the aircraft is called. If the airlines want it, they will buy it. Totall
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...
New A350 Vs 787 Battle In Sight posted Fri Jan 20 2006 00:08:49 by FCKC
Aeroflot To Choose Between A350 And 787 Next Week posted Fri Oct 28 2005 11:38:38 by Keesje
Airbus A380! Whats Next? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 17:40:22 by Myk
AI In Talks With A And B; Eyes A380 And 748 posted Fri Sep 21 2007 18:17:14 by LAXDESI
Terminal 2 & New Runway Approved For DUB posted Wed Aug 29 2007 21:13:01 by JWMD123
Ryanair & Spain: More Bases & 6 New Madrid Routes posted Thu Aug 16 2007 23:41:24 by Teahan
CX Holding Off On A380; Interested In 787/350 posted Wed Aug 15 2007 13:37:02 by Kaitak
Cathay : Current 787 A Bit Small & Short Ranged posted Thu Jul 26 2007 14:55:19 by Keesje
Aeroflot To Buy Airbus A350, Boeing 787 posted Tue Jul 24 2007 20:14:19 by Aeropiggot
Mesa Posts 2Q Loss! Whats Next? posted Fri May 11 2007 01:26:36 by Apodino