johnclipper
Topic Author
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 am

Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:00 pm

According to the FAA type certificate and all FAA paperwork there is no such thing as a Boeing 777-200ER (or a 767-300ER as well). The FAA Type Certificate for the 777 references five types:

B777-200
B777-200LR
B777-300
B777-300ER
B777F

Boeing uses the 777-200ER for marketing but if you do an N search on the FAA, all 777-200ERs are shown as 777-200s.

Can anyone confirm?

Thanks!
"Flown every aircraft since the Wright Flyer" (guys, if you take this literally, then you need to get a life...)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26402
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:52 pm

"ER" airframes have higher operating weights and you can purchase a 777-200ER with the same operating weights as a 777-200, so I could see why the FAA considers them functionally the same because they effectively are.

The 777-200LR and 777-300ER do have structural differences to the 777-200(ER) and 777-300, so I expect that is why they are listed as separate models.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3602
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:32 am

Sort of like no such thing as a 757-200ER?
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:18 am

As Stitch said, there are essentially no structural or systems differences between the -200 and -200ER, save for a larger center tank on the latter.

I didn't know the FAA considered it as a single type either, but I guess it makes sense.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1929
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:56 pm

Isn't this related to the fact that Boeing originally didn't want to offer a 777-200ER? The aim of the 777 programme was to have ETOPS from the get-go, which was achieved. Designating aircraft as 'ER' was seen as implying that there had been some sort of big improvement.

The first aircraft were 'A' models, what we today just reference as a 777-200 (e.g. BA's first 777-236, G-ZZZA).

The 'B' model was to offer higher MTOW and thus was able to offer more range. This was marketed as the 777-200IGW (Increased Gross Weight). After taking its first five 777s as 'A' models, BA took the next batch as 'B; models (e.g. G-VIIA). I recall BA initially referring to these as 777-236IGWs.

The 'ER' label crept in at some point over IGW to the extent that by the time BA took RR powered 777-236s (e.g. G-YMMA) they were known as 777-236ERs.

I believe BA internally refers to the RR powered birds as 777-236ERs (they have overhead crew rest and are used on some on BA's longest flights, e.g. LHR-EZE) whilst the GE birds are 777-236s. This was how many interpreted a recent IAG investor day presenetation where BA said the 777-236ERs were going to lose First. Many thought that meant the G-VIIx and G-YMMx birds, although I believe a consensus from BA insiders was that it was just the RR birds (well the 9 with First).

The 777-300ER makes sense, because there is a big improvement on the 777-300 (including structual changes). The 777-200LR is I guess because the 777-200ER designation had come in unofficially as 777-200 weights increased, so Boeing needed a way to distinguish that the 77L was an aircraft with sufficient changes. Maybe it should have been 777-300LR as well!
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13994
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:06 am

Quoting johnclipper (Thread starter):
Can anyone confirm?

That is correct, the operational differences between 777-200s are covered in the approved flight manual (AFM) level, not type certificate level. Operators can pay for additions to the base airframe which will be reflected in the AFM, this costs extra money. Note the 777-200, 777-200LR, and 777F are different variants.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
johnclipper
Topic Author
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Thu Mar 24, 2016 12:32 pm

So then, is there actually a 777-200ER or are they all just 777-200s at different MTOWs?
"Flown every aircraft since the Wright Flyer" (guys, if you take this literally, then you need to get a life...)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26402
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:00 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 4):
Isn't this related to the fact that Boeing originally didn't want to offer a 777-200ER?

Boeing always intended to offer the 777 with higher operating weights - it's one of the reasons the 777-200(A) is so heavy as it was designed and engineered to support those future weights.

As you noted, the early designation was IGW (at least internally). However, I believe Boeing has always used ER for their longer-ranged variants (the earliest ER model I know of was 1984's 767-200ER) so when it came time to formally enter service, it became the 777-200ER.



Quoting johnclipper (Reply 6):
So then, is there actually a 777-200ER or are they all just 777-200s at different MTOWs?

For purposes of certification, there is not a 777-200ER model.

For purposes of marketing, there is a 777-200ER model.
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:54 pm

Boeing renamed the 777-200IGW to the 777-200ER when it developed and sold the 777-200LR and 777-300ER programs in the 2002ish time frame. The 200IGW and the now called 200ER are one and the same structural airframe with some additional common changes that were slotted in when the 200LR/300ER went into production.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:57 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
As you noted, the early designation was IGW (at least internally).

When the first Malaysian 777 flew it's round the world record flight in April of 1997 all the record paperwork designates it has a 777-200-IGW so it was a little more than internally.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13994
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:11 am

Quoting johnclipper (Reply 6):

So then, is there actually a 777-200ER or are they all just 777-200s at different MTOWs?

They are 777-200s with different AFM limits, e.g. fuel volume, fuel distribution, loading&balance, thrust, performance, and weight limits.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:10 pm

Quoting johnclipper (Reply 6):
So then, is there actually a 777-200ER or are they all just 777-200s at different MTOWs?

Sorry but this is the best I could do.

This is the listing of all B777 types from the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet.

777-200 Series T00001SE Rev. 38
777-200LR Series T00001SE Rev. 38
777-300 Series T00001SE Rev. 38
777-300ER Series T00001SE Rev. 38
777F Series T00001SE Rev. 38

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...keModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

Can we please stop beating this dead horse!!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13994
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:59 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 11):
This is the listing of all B777 types from the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet.

He already posted that in the OP.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3602
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:22 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
He already posted that in the OP.

Zeke...I bet you are fun to fly with on a six day trip 
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Sun Mar 27, 2016 9:28 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
He already posted that in the OP.

Then why is the same question being repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.......get my point????

It may be posted but apparently not comprehended!!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
johnclipper
Topic Author
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:44 am

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:07 am

Dude, you don't have to be an a$$ about it. It's comprehended but apparently from the number of posts there is no consensus. And for the record, I only reiterated the question once.
"Flown every aircraft since the Wright Flyer" (guys, if you take this literally, then you need to get a life...)
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: Is It Really A 777-200ER?

Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:02 am

Quoting johnclipper (Reply 15):

Dude, you don't have to be an a$$ about it. It's comprehended but apparently from the number of posts there is no consensus. And for the record, I only reiterated the question once.
Quoting johnclipper (Thread starter):
According to the FAA type certificate and all FAA paperwork there is no such thing as a Boeing 777-200ER (or a 767-300ER as well). The FAA Type Certificate for the 777 references five types:

B777-200
B777-200LR
B777-300
B777-300ER
B777F

Boeing uses the 777-200ER for marketing but if you do an N search on the FAA, all 777-200ERs are shown as 777-200s.

Can anyone confirm
Quoting johnclipper (Reply 6):

So then, is there actually a 777-200ER or are they all just 777-200s at different MTOWs?

I have to ask since you opened the door........Why????? It's pretty clear from the FAA TCDS. I really don't care if there is a consensus on this forum or not. The simple answer is they are all 777-200 aircraft. The FAA decides that, not this forum!!! So I guess you can stop being an ***!

AMF!!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

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