flyboyseven
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:24 pm

Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:10 pm

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.
 
WestJetYQQ
Posts: 2763
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:31 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:26 pm

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.
 
grantcv
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:28 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:41 pm

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.
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:49 pm

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
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:02 pm

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
 
Vorticity
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:09 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:06 pm

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...
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:56 pm

I believe that the A300 got its name from the fact that it was originally to be a 300 seat aircraft.
 
FlyingColours
Posts: 2202
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:13 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:11 pm

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
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:34 pm

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...
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:38 pm

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 avatar
falstaff
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:17 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:55 pm

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
 
SwissA330
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 8:23 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:26 pm

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29929
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:35 pm

8 Being a Lucky number in Asia would be a strong reason.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
chase
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:02 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:01 am

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
 
flyboyseven
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:24 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:17 am

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 avatar
bwest
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:54 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:22 am

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! :)
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:37 am

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
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:42 am

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 in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:44 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
ThomasCook757
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:01 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:21 am

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

[Edited 2007-02-12 20:21:49]
 
jamesbuk
Posts: 3712
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 11:52 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:55 am

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!!!
 
MidEx216
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:19 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:31 am

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.
 
rootsair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:25 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:43 am

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
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:45 am

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
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:45 am

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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23504
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting Flyboyseven (Thread starter):
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?

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 stretches were the -300 (with the second 767 stretch the -400).

On the 777 program, the -100 was intended to be a smaller, longer-ranged version of the "baseline" -200 to service the C market. However, only QF ever expressed any interest in it (though AA kind of did in terms of liking the size, but they didn't need the range) and the economics never worked out. So that model was never built and the -200LR became the "C market" model.

As to Airbus, the A300 being named that because it had around 300 seats makes as much sense as anything. The A310 was the next family launched (a shrink of the A300 to increase range), then the A320 and A330 and finally A340. Don't know why Airbus went with the A380 when they formally launched the A3XX program, though it can hold around 800 people so perhaps it drew from the A300's nomenclature basis.

There was an A320-100 for a short time, but not sure how many airlines operate it (I know BA does/did). It has a lower MTOW then the A320-200 which is the one currently in production.

It looks like the A318 and A319 is only offered in a "-100" model and the A321 in a "-200" model, but that is just from a very brief perusal of the photos section.

The A330 and A340 were both launched with the -300 being the baseline model, and the -200 being a shorter, longer-ranged variant. I do not know why the A340 skipped the -400 designation, except maybe it was meant to be used for the A340-8000 (based on the A340-200 with an 8000km range) if that model had ever entered production (as only one prototype was built and sold to a private party). So the -500 and -600 became the next two models.

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 10):
Will they add a number to them like the 2707, which was going to be the SST?

The 2707 was designed to fly at Mach 2.7, so I wonder if that had any influence on her nomenclature...

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 believe it was published in an issue of Burnes & McDonnell's Aircraft Characteristics. My copy is 1998 and only has the -400X, -500X, and -600X but I do remember reading about the -700X and it is as Flyboyseven describes.
 
GRIVely
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:46 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:03 am

Hmm, I thought that military aircraft designations in the US were assigned by the respective military services. Didn't think a manufacturer could request a specific number. Of course the US Navy had their own idiosyncratic convention of using one up design numbers by manufactuer. (F4F, F6F, F8F for Grumman, etc.)

This Navy use really caused some confusion as an F4U (Corsair), F4B (a Boeing piston engine fighter) and an F4H (Phantom II) had similarly designations but were all considerably different aircraft. Especially since a Phantom II was variously the original F4H, an F110 (briefly) and then an F4C after the national numbering system was radically revised in the late '60's.

Regards,

GRIV
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:29 am

Quoting AirEMS (Reply 23):
On the Boeing side with their military bombers they usually all could equal 7 or had 7 in them

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 which add to, subtract to, or include a 7. You just might be mistaken about the 7's. smile 
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
Desh
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:46 am

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 been used, or rather not used, for purely superstitious reasons is 13

its probably the design numbers within the companies that are used - like when Airbus started thinkning about the whalejet it would have multiple versions of the design to work with - most of which got rejected except the one referred to as A380 ......  confused 
"History is merely a list of surprises. It can only prepare us to be surprised yet again." - Kurt Vonnegut
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 am

Quoting Desh (Reply 28):
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 been used, or rather not used, for purely superstitious reasons is 13

The number 8 is considered lucky. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_(number)

"Eight is considered a lucky number in Chinese culture because it sounds like the word "prosper" or "wealth" "

and also note that the number 4 is considered unlucky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_%28number%29 :

"Four is considered an unlucky number in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures because it sounds like the word "death" "
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:17 am

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 variants, the shorter ones were simply dropped; same for the 777. It is recounted in Modern commercial aircraft, Portland House, 1987.

As for Airbus, the A300 was supposed to be for 300 passengers. For lack of a suitable engine, it was scaled back to about 250 pax, under the deisgnation A300B. It's first version was the B1, of which two were built, Then, it was slightly lengthened as the B2, and made heavier as the B4, of which there were versions called B4-100 (CF6 engines) or -120 (JT9D). Then came yet heavier versions, called -200 and then -600. The B4 was dropped, and we now have the A300-600.

The shorter version, called the B10, became the A310. I remember reading in the press about the awkward feeling when Airbus launched a longer version of tje A320, which became the A321 because, well, it was not an A320 and there were already -100 and -200 for that one, and then came a shorter version of the A320, which could have been named A322 because it came later, but it didn't feel right, since it was shorter, hence the A319 designation, which didn't feel right either since it could now seem to be a family member of the A310... And then, the shorter A330 is not the A329, and the lonber A340 are not the A341... Oh, well...

Airbus always seem to have a bit of difficulty in saying which aircraft is the same, and which is different...  Wink
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 16):
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).

Not according to Flight International...

The -800X studies have evolved from the -400XQLR (Quieter Longer Range) proposal which did not have sufficient range to attract real airline interest. Boeing believes the potential changes from the baseline -400 are now so great that the study merits renaming it the -800X. The label leapfrogs the proposed 747-500X/600X models, as well as the "747 look-alike" 747-700X all-new large aircraft proposal of 1996 which was designed to counter the Airbus A380-800.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23504
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:30 am

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 was the next formal 747 proposal put forward by Boeing.

The "original" 747-700, which is showcased in the book Modern Boeing Jetliners by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, was nothing more then a "design study" never given serious thought. It would have had a wider cross section on both the main deck and the upper deck and used wings and powerplants derived from the 777 famiy (as would the smaller 745 and 746).

You can see a picture of it here, courtesy of Kaitak744: http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...6610&filename=1167766845G3lNxl.jpg
 
propilotjw
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:36 am

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 have heard that too... Asia is where big planes are sold so it makes sense.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23504
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:05 am

Quoting PropilotJW (Reply 33):


Quoting Grantcv,reply=2:

Well, 8 is a lucky number in Asia, so 8 is being used a lot lately.

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 been a phenomenal sales success in Asia...  Wink
 
fridgmus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:28 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:09 am

I can see it now, after Boeing launches the 797, we'll have the....7007! (a little bit of James Bond there!)  bigthumbsup 

Marc
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:34 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 31):
as well as the "747 look-alike" 747-700X all-new large aircraft proposal of 1996

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 new aircraft that looked like a 747.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
GAIsweetGAI
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:19 am

RE: Airbus - Boeing: Missing Models

Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:38 am

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



Quoting SwissA330 (Reply 11):

Then Again, why not B680 ?

Wouldn't that be 1 4700 ?
(according to my computer's calculator, I'm not very familiar with the Hexadecimal system )  bouncy 
"There is an art, or rather a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos