Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777-200 ER & IGW  
User currently offlineJubilee_777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4630 times:

Could someone please tell me the difference between the 772ER and the 772IGW? Does ER and IGW mean exactly the same thing? I only know that here in Australia we have the 767-300ER and the 767-200ER.

ER = Extended Range
IGW = Increased Gross Weight

Also what does the X mean, when written after the Airbus A340-300 aircraft name (Eg. A340-313X). Are Singapore Airlines A340-312 extended range and therefore have the prefix X at the end of the name?

Thanks.

Steven
sk1@hotmail.com

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMegatop From Denmark, joined May 1999, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

Regarding SIA A340-300, they have a E prefix, meaning extended range.



User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

The IGW and ER mean the same thing. Boeing changed from the IGW to ER a couple of years ago.

User currently offlineTrent From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

I have been plagued with the same question, Jubilee_777! I came across an internet website which showed all of the aircraft orders airlines around the world have made, and I came across an Air Canada order for 5 A330-343X. I posted some questions here regarding this "X" anomoly and it seems no one knew exactly what it meant... I wasn't the only one who was dumbfounded.

In the past, I remember reading somewhere that Airbus was planning an extended range or increased gross weight/performance version for their A330-300s, and this is what I thought the "X" stood for. However, up to this day, I am not quite sure whether Airbus has developed these aircraft variations yet. I sent an email to the person operating the website asking him if he knew what the "X" represents, with no reply. Therefore, you are not alone with this "X" enquiry.

P.S. The only evidence which may lead to increased performance/range is that Air Canada has ordered these A330s with new, more powerful (by endurance) Rolls Royce Trent 700 series engines.


User currently offlineAsqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Atleast not according to the Boeing web site. The whole 777ER thing is very similar, I think, to what Eastern did with the DC-8s when they were first delivered. Origionally Douglas was to produce DC-8As and DC-8Bs. The As were later the -10 models designed for domestic US service. The Bs were the heavier weight overseas models, later called the DC-8-20. When Eastern took their first DC-8s they called them DC-8A and DC-8B in a similar and familiar fashion to the DC-7A, DC-7B, etc. Delta and a few other airlines protested this. They were origionally allowed to do this because origionally the DC-8s were the A & B model. However, under continued pressure from Delta, Eastern had to change back to the -10, -20 designation.

Now, as for the 777IGW, according to Boeing it is the IGW. There is no ER 777s (atleast, not yet). However, for years people became familiar with the 767-200ER, -300ER and now the -400ER so the term ER sticks out in people's minds more than IGW, besides, it sounds better!

Regards from St Louis!


User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

Boeing officially changed the IGW name into ER for the 777. So it is the IGW that doesn't exist anymore.

User currently offlineCaptain747 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4432 times:

The official word from boeing is that the IGW stands for increased gross weight which is what they do for any extension of range. And ER just came along with different designers calling the IGW an ER. And it has stuck with some planes but the 777 has always had IGW and always will.

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Yes, it really is all very confusing. I agree that the "ER"suffix should be used on Boeing long range aircraft. Air France, I believe, was the first to use the -ER title on the fuselage of its new 777s. An ER aircraft is, by definition, an increased gross weight aircraft - i..e greater range requires more fuel, which requires a higher gross weight.
Like Trent, I too am baffled by the use of the "X" after the A340-300, for example in Aviation Letter (ALxxx etc.). I don't think it should be there and SIA calls its aircraft -300Es. The JP airline fleets doesn't use any suffix - E or otherwise.
Just to confuse matters even more, the numbers at the end are not always consistent. For example, CX, KU and SQ are among the airlines which operate 340-313s, yet the SQ/CX aircraft have an MTOW of 275, but KU (AND Virgin -313s) has a limit of 257t. AF/LH have a 271t limit. Everyone suitably confused?


User currently offlineAsqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

Hisham wrote:
-------------------------------
Boeing officially changed the IGW name into ER for the 777.

When did they do that? I never saw anything in their employee news letter about it. Unless they changed the designation before the 777 project was finalized. I have been getting the news letters from a friend ever since the start of the 777 project a few years ago and haven't seen anything about this. And why does the web site still say IGW not ER?

Regards!


User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

In the Boeing press release for the 777-200X and 777-300X, they refer to the 777-200ER.

User currently offlineAsqx From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4413 times:

SO the 777-200IGW remains the IGW and the 777-200X would be the 777-200ER IF it was built so there would be 777-200, 777-200IGW and a 777-200ER? Does any of this make sense?

User currently offlineMIKEYYZ From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4415 times:


I think that if Boeing builds the B772X it will be called something else not the B772ER because from what i understand in the begining there was the B777-200A Market and the B777-200B Market then the B Market turned into the IGW and now the IGW turned into the ER as every (or almost every) Boeing plane does.
That's the way i understand it, it's not written in stone.
I hope this make sense.

Mike


User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

No,no,no. I was refering to that in the Boeing Press release they called the existing plane by the 777-200ER. If your doubt me, look at the Boeing press realese for " Boeing selects GE for Future 777 development."

User currently offlineHisham From Lebanon, joined Aug 1999, 701 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

This news release is from the Boeing site:

SEATTLE, July 6, 1999 - The Boeing Company said today it has reached an agreement with General Electric for the development of a 115,000-pound-thrust engine to power longer-range 777 airplanes...The 777-200X would be the longest-range commercial airplane ever designed. It would fly 10,100 statute miles, approximately 1,200 miles farther than today's 777-200ER (the world's longest-range, in-service airplane), opening long-range, transpacific non-stop service. The same size as the 777-200, it would carry approximately 300 passengers in a three-class configuration.

This is another one:

LE BOURGET, France, June 18, 1999 - The Boeing Company today confirmed Singapore Airlines' (SIA) choice of the 777-200ER (extended range) - the world's longest-range jetliner - to serve ultra long-range routes between Singapore and European destinations.

They are not using IGW.
Hisham.


User currently offlineMas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

Boeing initially used IGW for the Boeing 777-200 (IGW) when the aircraft was first launched. Some aircraft were subsequently delivered as Boeing 777-200IGW aircraft. After a couple of years, this suffix was changed to ER as standard...hence aircraft from then on were delivered as Boeing 777-200ER. Example, the first couple of 777s delivered to Malaysia Airlines were called Boeing 777-2H6 IGW but the rest are called Boeing 777-2H6 ER - although there isn't any difference between them...just nice to know that the IGW aircraft were the original ERs.

User currently offlineUnited946 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

MIKEYYZ has it exactly right. The A market plane has a range of around 5800 miles, and the B market plane aka 772IGW aka 772ER has the 8800 mile range.

United946


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...
Configuration Of UA 777-200 ER And AC 744M (Combi) posted Sun Jun 5 2005 18:32:54 by Mrniji
Aeromexico's 777-200 ER posted Thu Jan 20 2005 00:04:22 by MTY77
Continental 767-200/ER With 777-Style Interior posted Wed Jan 25 2006 21:58:56 by N484ER
Price Of Ex-BA 777-200 (non-ER)? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 23:06:09 by LanPeru
777-200 & 737-800 Fort Austrian Airlines? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 12:25:46 by Airmale
Does JAL Operate Any B 777-200/300,ER/LR? posted Mon May 7 2001 05:27:09 by United Airline
Delta 767-400 & 777-200 Reconfiguration! posted Sat Jan 13 2001 19:44:17 by DeltaAir
Continental 767-400ER & 777-200 posted Sun Oct 1 2000 14:57:01 by 777kicksass
767-400 & 777-200 posted Tue Aug 22 2000 07:54:27 by B-HOX
777 ER, LR, IGW posted Tue Aug 8 2000 23:29:31 by AT
Continental 767-200/ER With 777-Style Interior posted Wed Jan 25 2006 21:58:56 by N484ER
Price Of Ex-BA 777-200 (non-ER)? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 23:06:09 by LanPeru
777-200 & 737-800 Fort Austrian Airlines? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 12:25:46 by Airmale
Does JAL Operate Any B 777-200/300,ER/LR? posted Mon May 7 2001 05:27:09 by United Airline
Delta 767-400 & 777-200 Reconfiguration! posted Sat Jan 13 2001 19:44:17 by DeltaAir
Continental 767-400ER & 777-200 posted Sun Oct 1 2000 14:57:01 by 777kicksass
What Routes Are UA Using 777 200 Non (ER)? posted Sun Sep 11 2011 12:40:55 by 747400sp
Continental 767-200/ER With 777-Style Interior posted Wed Jan 25 2006 21:58:56 by N484ER
Price Of Ex-BA 777-200 (non-ER)? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 23:06:09 by LanPeru
777-200 & 737-800 Fort Austrian Airlines? posted Wed Nov 21 2001 12:25:46 by Airmale
Does JAL Operate Any B 777-200/300,ER/LR? posted Mon May 7 2001 05:27:09 by United Airline
Delta 767-400 & 777-200 Reconfiguration! posted Sat Jan 13 2001 19:44:17 by DeltaAir
Continental 767-400ER & 777-200 posted Sun Oct 1 2000 14:57:01 by 777kicksass