Guest

A 777 Family Question

Wed Apr 26, 2000 8:50 am

It is an elementary question, but are there any exterior differences which distinguish a 777-200 from a 777-200ER and/or a 777-200IGW?

Many thanks!
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3632
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: A 777 Family Question

Wed Apr 26, 2000 10:17 am

In a word: No.
Working very hard to Fly Right....
 
Guest

RE: A 777 Family Question

Wed Apr 26, 2000 4:42 pm

There is no difference.The 777 are all the same in length.


Gundu 
 
WorldTraveller
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 1999 3:47 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Wed Apr 26, 2000 6:43 pm

Don't they get raked wingtips?
I heard that, but I may be wrong...

Regards
 
Guest

RE: A 777 Family Question

Wed Apr 26, 2000 7:54 pm

WorldTraveller is right. The 777ERs have raked wingtip extensions.
 
777X
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 am

RE: Jaemz

Wed Apr 26, 2000 10:52 pm

No, the 777-200ER (also known as the 777-200IGW) does NOT have raked wingtips, however the new 777-200LR and 777-300ER WILL have raked wingtips

The 777-200 is no longer produced, only 777-200ERs and 777-300's are currently in production, with the 777-200LR and 777-300ER due to start production soon.

Regards
777x
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Thu Apr 27, 2000 12:43 am

777x
I hate to contradicte you, but the -200 is definitely still produced. Currently, United has 5 coming down the line, Air China still has 5 to be delivered (4 so far scheduled) and both ANA (5) and JAL (5) still have some on order. These last two can obviouly be switched to other models, but that is how it stands now.

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: A 777 Family Question

Thu Apr 27, 2000 1:25 am

Why when Boeing were first designing the 777 did they come up with the 'A' Market, 'B' Market, Stretch 'A' and Stretch 'B' vocabulary when calling them ER, ERplus etc. in line with other Boeing a/c?

Would have prevented a lot of confusion!
 
777X
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 am

RE: Hamlet69

Thu Apr 27, 2000 2:11 am

Apologies, Hamlet69 is right about the 200's still being in production.

777x
 
Guest

RE: A 777 Family Question

Thu Apr 27, 2000 2:43 am

A and B market refers to interior configuration, international 3 class or domestic 2 class. These are not an officially different models of 777.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Thu Apr 27, 2000 9:43 am

Boeing used the A, B and C designations as a means to identify which aircraft were going to be produced in which order. 'A' refers to the basic -200 plane designed for regional routes. 'B' of course came next, and referred to the -200ER now flying the long-distance sector. Technically, 'B' refers to the increased MTOW of the plane, so along with the -200ER, 'B' also refers to the -300, which uses that same belly tank configuration designed for the -200ER. Now the 'LR' planes are being designed, the 'C' market (ultra-long range) is finally becoming a reality. Basically, the A-C designations were the steady increases in MTOW as the plane matured. Each serving a different need.
Yes, it is definitely confusing. I won't even mention that the 777 was originally designated the 767-X, with various variations.

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: A 777 Family Question

Thu Apr 27, 2000 5:44 pm

Thanks for that informative reply, Hamlet69. I have a book called "21st Century Jet" by Karl Sabbagh - the book of the TV series they made about the 777, but it still confuses me!

In the book the author says that Boeing wanted an aircraft that could end up flying Hong Kong-Europe, over the Pacific, America and Atlantic. Is this now a reality?
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Fri Apr 28, 2000 12:36 am

Do you mean taking off from Hong Kong, and flying EAST to go all the way to Europe? I can see no advantages to that, as it would mean flying more than half-way around the world. I'd be really curious as to why an airline would want to go that way. As far as the 777, it can't quite do that, yet.  

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
bacardi182
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2000 2:47 am

I Think You Are All Wrong!

Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:18 am

the 777-200 and 777-200er are almost the same aircraft except the er can fly a bit further then regular. the 777-300 is a strech of the 777-200 by adding a few plugs somewhere.

a stumpy 777-200

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Kelvin Poon



a streched 777-300

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Takuji Sohmura



count the windows if you like, or even the doors  


some more pictures

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Takuji Sohmura



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Takuji Sohmura



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Piotr Pluciennik



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Ito Noriyuki



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Ito Noriyuki



BTW- the 777-300 is the 3rd longest airplane in the world, not far behind the 747
 
AFa340-300E
Posts: 2115
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

Hamlet67

Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:23 am

Hello,

Hamlet67 could you please join me by e-mail to alain.mengus@wanadoo.fr

Could you please tell us more about the former 767X plans?

Best regards,
Alain Mengus
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:29 am

The 777-300 is longer than the current 747-400, by about 10 feet I believe.
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
bacardi182
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2000 2:47 am

Re: Ual747

Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:34 am

but is the 747-400 the longest version of the 747? i think i read that the 747-200 is longer then the 777-300
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: A 777 Family Question

Fri Apr 28, 2000 5:24 am

Alain,

That will take a little researching. Give me a couple of days, and I'll get back to you on this forum, or on the orders forum, if you wish.

Bacardi182,

Except for the shortened 747-SP, all 747s have the same fuselage length. Only the upper deck length, changed between the variants.

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.
 
Guest

RE: A 777 Family Question

Fri Apr 28, 2000 5:51 am

The fueselage length of the 747 variants is 231' 10" wingspan changed from 195'8" to 211'5" for the -400.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: 767X Versions

Sat Apr 29, 2000 12:40 am

I finally found the article that I was looking for:

767X Stretch:
Starting in late 1986 to mid-1987, Boeing looked at simply stretching the current 767. Two fuselage plugs totaling 21' 1" were put in. Total 2-class capacity was @ 300. NOTE: In 1997, Boeing went ahead with this aircraft as the 767-400ER!

767X Re-Wing:
Next, Boeing decided to add a new wing as wide as the 747's. Also, they more than doubled the stretch, making the aircraft 226' 8" long, only 5 feet short of the 747. 2-class capacity was @ 340. This design stayed on the boards from the middle of '87 until mid-1988.

767X Aft Double Deck:
Definitely the most radical design to come from Boeing in years, this plane was briefly considered in 1988. Using a modified 767 wing, designers added a simple 9' 2" forward fuselage plug. Then, they slapped a shortened 757 fuselage on top of the aft section of the '67 fuselage. This ungainly bird would have seated @ 355 people, but the design didn't really work.  

767X Stretch II:
Using the modified 767 wing developed for the previous version, engineers added fuselage plugs fore and aft to stretch the length to 224' 3". Again seating around 340 in 2 classes, this design stayed on the boards until late into 1989.

Starting in late 1988, Boeing also began designing a brand new aircraft in case the 767X designs didn't meet with customer satisfaction. By the beginning of 1990, it was decided that this new aircraft was the only viable option (at least according to what the airlines were telling Boeing). So all engineering work was turned toward the 777, and the rest is history!  

Hope this informs as much as it bored some!

Hamlet69
Honor the warriors, not the war.