Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-100 787-200 Etc  
User currently offlineokobjorn From Denmark, joined Jun 2011, 36 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8182 times:

Have searched the forum and internet for this, but have not found an answer. Perhaps you A-netters will know:

Why is the 787 called -800, -900 and -1000? Why not start at -200 allowing for a shrink but also allowing for several NG, NEO and MAX etc versions like the 737?

I see the -300 existing in the early stages of development, but it is quite a leap to go to -800 for the first production. No one will ever buy a -400 after this.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8099 times:

As I understand it, it's mostly a marketing thing...Boeing decided that airlines would see a 787-200 to be inferior to a 787-400 or something like that.

Here's an article that IMHO does a decent job of describing this epidemic in general terms (this issue is by no means limited to the 787 or to commercial aviation)...

http://www.economist.com/node/21552214



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):

Why is the 787 called -800, -900 and -1000?

It's not. It's the -8, -9, and -10. Those aren't shorthand, those are the actual designations.

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):
Why not start at -200 allowing for a shrink but also allowing for several NG, NEO and MAX etc versions like the 737?

It's all arbitrary. As long as you don't start with 1 you can go either direction. Going past -9 is no issue (Boeing is already talking about a 787-10 and Airbus is already committed to the A350-1000).

Quoting okobjorn (Thread starter):
I see the -300 existing in the early stages of development, but it is quite a leap to go to -800 for the first production. No one will ever buy a -400 after this.

They'll buy a -400 if it's the right airplane for their business. These are not the types of decisions that airlines make based on arbitrary numbers.

Tom.


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7930 times:

one question to that. not to the 787, but the 737

we have had the original (-100, -200) and the classic (-300 - -500) and we have the next generation (-600 - -900)
why don´t boeing continue this pattern with the MAX (-1000, 1100 and 1200) but names them 737-7, 737-8 and 737-9?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25440 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7820 times:

8 is also a lucky number in Chinese (it sounds like the word for "wealth" or "prosper"). I expect that's at least partly explains A380-800, 747-8, 787-8 etc.

On the other hand, several numbers are unlucky, especially 4 which sounds like the word for "death". Some buildings in HKG apparently have no floors with 4 in the number, much like many hotels in North America and Europe have no floor numbered 13, and why many aircraft have no seat row numbered 13.

Cathay Pacific's HKG-YVR-JFK flight has long been CX888, and AC's HKG-YVR fliight is AC8 (inherited from CP when it was CP8).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
On the other hand, several numbers are unlucky, especially 4 which sounds like the word for "death".

Which nonetheless didn't stop Asian airlines from ordering shedloads of 747-400s.  
Quoting horstroad (Reply 3):
one question to that. not to the 787, but the 737...

Likely to align the new models with Boeing's new numbering schema as well as tie into the 787's numbering schema.



Boeing did announce the 747-500X and 747-600X and stated they would build an even wider 747-700X if the market warranted it. So in a way, "8" was the next available number for the 747, but I do expect it was chosen for the same reasons the 737 MAX is -7 / -8 / -9.

I've also heard the "8" in A380 was for the dual passenger decks.


User currently offlineflyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6929 times:

the 787-8 was so designated because it was originally expected to be used by Chinese airlines during the Beijing Olympics and 8 is a lucky # for Chinese.

As for why the 737-Max7/8/9 are named such ... that is because the 737 Max variants are just improved versions of the existing 737-700/800/900ER where as the 737-300/400/500 etc were basically completely new aircraft (as compared to the 737-100/200)

If the 787 is anything to go by ... the 737-Max7/8/9 might not have Boeing customer codes either (i.e. there is only the 787-8 ... not 787-846)


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

8 represents 8000nm, the "gold standard" in aircraft range set by the A346 and 77W (close enough). Same with -800. The Chinese lucky number garbage is just that. Garbage. Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.

787 was chosen because it was the next in the series.

A380 was chosen for some reason someone else might know. 2x the A340? Enough room so that even if Airbus makes an A360 and A370, the A380 will still be the largest aircraft with the biggest number?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
8 represents 8000nm, the "gold standard" in aircraft range set by the A346 and 77W (close enough). Same with -800. The Chinese lucky number garbage is just that. Garbage. Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
A380 was chosen for some reason someone else might know.

I thought I remember reading somewhere (Airways mag. maybe?) that Airbus was actually really close to naming the A380-800 the A388-800 because the number 8 is so lucky in Asian cultures. But maybe I'm dreaming about this.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6436 times:

An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).

User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 9):
An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).

My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817


I believe the 8xx series is reserved for satellites. The 6xx is open except for Bomark numbers and the 9xx is open except for hydrofoils, and the lunar rover..


User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2052 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6079 times:

While we're on the topic, when is NW getting rid of the DC9s?

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-CBR-SYD | QF SYD-DFW | AA DFW-TLH-MIA-DFW | QF DFW-SYD
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 7):
Even superstitious pax won't know a -8 from a -9.

It's more to entice airline management, as oppose to making pax feel a bit better about flying the thing.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707

I Vote for Roman numerals! That would look cool...

DCCLXXXVII - VIII = 787-8   



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31055 posts, RR: 87
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707...

The SST started life as the Boeing 733. There was also the four-engined, triple aisle Boeing 763 concept.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4232 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
747-8
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing did announce the 747-500X and 747-600X and stated they would build an even wider 747-700X if the market warranted it.

Correct.

Quoting flyPBA (Reply 6):
If the 787 is anything to go by ... the 737-Max7/8/9 might not have Boeing customer codes either (i.e. there is only the 787-8 ... not 787-846)

Actually both the NH and JL versions of the B-787 carry the customer codes.

Quoting iFlyLOTs (Reply 10):
Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 9):An interesting question is also what Boeing is going to do after they have brought out the 797 (whatever it may be).
My guess is they'll keep going with the XX7 numbering -like an 807, 817 and so on- its only the jets that have been 7X7 but if you go back to some of their earlier planes they've been 247, 307, 377 as well as the not developed 2707

I think they will add the 800 series to jet powered aircraft too, but it will be the B-808, B-818, B-828, etc.

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
I believe the 8xx series is reserved for satellites

No it is not. Boeing's satellite division expanded when the bouth Hughes Satellites. So there numbering system is all over the place, including in the 700 series, 600 series, and 300 series.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/programs.html

Airbus skipped over the (then) A-350, A-360, and A-370 series to name the A-380, so they could use the number "8", and they began the sub-model series with "800", all to hope to get the lucky Chinese number. But they have actually sold more A-380s to the ME, and then in the EU, than they have in China.

Airbus eventually used the designation model number A-350, and will probably eventually use A-360 and A-370 model numbers, too. But will the trend of beginning the sub-model designations with "8" or "800"? Probably not, as this is just a fashion and marketing trend right now.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3135 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
No it is not. Boeing's satellite division expanded when the bouth Hughes Satellites. So there numbering system is all over the place, including in the 700 series, 600 series, and 300 series.


Of course you're correct.. I was looking at an old book..

well that muddies that... maybe numeric-alpha combinations like Boeing's drawing system.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting Coal (Reply 12):
While we're on the topic, when is NW getting rid of the DC9s?

Not until Delta/Northwest gets their 787's and then retires them...the crew of that last 787 needs to get home on something and it's going to be a DC-9.

Tom.


User currently offlinehz747300 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2004, 1680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Some buildings in HKG apparently have no floors with 4 in the number, much like many hotels in North America and Europe have no floor numbered 13, and why many aircraft have no seat row numbered 13.

Apparently? Haha, my apartment block in Wan Chai has no "4" numbered floors, and no 13. The elevator goes to 31, but technically we are four floors shorter.

I wondered the same myself about the 787 numbering. It seemed to be odd, but I thought they did it because it was the 787. Didn't they at one time offer the 787-3, which was to be a high density design for regional trips around Asia (I pictured the type of works that CX does with its non-ER 773s.



Keep on truckin'...
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

It's all a bit Spinal Tap really, starting at 800 or 8 is the equivalent of the amp going up to 11...

I remember the marketing drivel that said the initial A380 would be the 800 because the aircraft would be fully developed on launch, which wasn't exactly correct, and the initial 787-8 is hardly the definitive plane either.

By contrast the A320s (apart from the early 100) have all been 200s, and thus been massive flops, only selling several thousand  



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

It's much like mobile data service naming... 3G is now seen as old and slow, so everyone (at least in the US, certainly not here in Australia) has been rebranding it as 4G. In most cases (ie except for true 4G), the speed, service, purpose and technology are all the same, but the technology these days is not moving as quickly as the general public demands.

Sticking an -8 where there used to be a -100 makes the product sound advanced, and ahead of its times... It is also important when considering the perception of the aircraft in comparison to competitors. Airbus labelled the A380-800 based on the full length 2 story passenger cabin (ie the two parts of the 8), and apparently based on Asian superstition. Boeing could hardly then come out with a measly little and horribly outdated sounding -100/-200 family...


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2373 times:

Besides the 737-800, which is completely normal evolution after the -600 and -700, the first aircraft with an out of order "8" was a very fogotten one, the A340-8000. This combined the -200 body with the -300X wind and engine and was the first airliner to reach a non stop 8000 miles range at full load. So here the 8 stood for 8000 miles range. I have the impression that this inspired A and B to use the 8 to signal very long range capability.


Needless to say here that the A340-8000 was lucky in that sense that the only aircraft ever built found a home somewhere in Arabia after having waited for the price 10 years in the nice city of Hamburg....


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

My pet peeve with some of the Boeing computing system is the way it sort numbers.

In sorting "dash numbers" you some system will place -1,-10,-100,-1000 before -8 etc.

I wonder if this and how old legacy databases handle sorting impacts why Boeing went away from the old -XXX and to the new -X etc scheme.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 22):
Sticking an -8 where there used to be a -100 makes the product sound advanced, and ahead of its times...

But... but.... 100 is more than 12 times the 8!



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3575 posts, RR: 27
Reply 25, posted (2 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 24):
I wonder if this and how old legacy databases handle sorting impacts why Boeing went away from the old -XXX and to the new -X etc scheme.


bet you're correct.. even back in the 60's we were having trouble with the "military" numbering system. Military in quotes because that's what they called it and I have no conformation the military was similarly screwed up, though a lot of our retired military managers were. We always had fun finding things because new hires thought 1 was followed by 2 instead of 10...
It did make it easier to sort IBM punch cards ....   


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...
A321-100 Vs. -200 posted Thu Apr 10 2003 07:51:59 by Gnomon
Apex A/C France,Makers Of Robin 200 Etc - Bankrupt posted Mon Jan 13 2003 23:48:51 by Ben
Dash-8 100 Vs 200 posted Thu Jun 27 2002 07:08:52 by Airlineguy
Difference Between A321-100 And -200 posted Sun Oct 7 2001 12:12:52 by Hoons90
Boeing Derivatives Starting Wil -100 Or -200? posted Sat Aug 11 2001 15:09:12 by Airbus380
Boeing 727-100 And 200 posted Mon Dec 25 2000 15:28:43 by VASI
What´s The Difference Between A321-100 And -200? posted Thu Dec 7 2000 12:21:37 by Airsicknessbag
Difference Between 747-100/747-200? posted Mon May 29 2000 19:59:12 by Olympic A-340
747-100 And 200 Upperdeck Lounges. posted Fri Apr 21 2000 08:21:22 by VirginA340
The Diffrents Between A321-100 To -200? posted Tue Mar 28 2000 16:17:29 by El Al 001