How come Boeing did not produce an 757-100? Or why, since the 757-200 cme out first, wasn't the 757-200s called 757-100s? The same for the 767, 777 and 717. Did I miss any? As for the A380, why did they start with such a high numer? Why not the A380-100, therefore they could build more models and possibly expand withouth having to find a new designation, because after they bulid the 900 serise then they will need a new designation.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
757-100?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by avro_arrow_25206I read somewhere that Boeing decided to start numbering some models from -200, in case they plan for a small version in the future... is there any truth to this?
AlexStop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com
Comment
-
Originally posted by AA_MD-80@STLSure is!!! Boeing wanted room to reduce capacity. They knew they could always expand, but couldnt "go back" So they would start with the -200 or -300, saving the -200 or -100 varient.
Alex
Comment
-
Originally posted by ConcordeBoy...the irony with that being, with rare exception (the A319 is one of the few examples thereof) model-shrinks turn out to be relatively piss-poor performers; only good for patchwork market application.
Stretching is usually the way to go (753, 734, 738, 773, A321), although even there there are exceptions (739 (for now), 764).
Comment
-
Really odd thing though...
...is that both of Airbus' two top performing models are shrinks!
Seems that they generally can't build a stretched model (A345, A346, A321) worth a damn against its competition, but (excepting the A318, which is a double-shrink) they seem to have the whole shrink concept mastered
Comment
-
Originally posted by ConcordeBoySeems that they generally can't build a stretched model (A345, A346, A321) worth a damn against its competition, but (excepting the A318, which is a double-shrink) they seem to have the whole shrink concept mastered
It looks like Airbus is also focusing the A350 design on the 900 model (supposedly the stretch) rather than the 800. If this is truly the case, then its almost like the A333 (base) and A332 (shrink) all over again.
Btw, the A321 is marginally successful given its respectable order book (but if the plane was viewed as a 757 replacement, then it was a piss poor performer).adaequatio rei et intellectus
Comment
-
Originally posted by ACmanjust like the 767-100. Boeing scrapped it, it was bigger than the 762 and was better. 3 man crew though. Early 767's had them. Ansett had one or two.
When Ansett brought those 767-204 aircraft of britanaia Ansett converted their early 767-200 with 3 man crews into 2 man crews (how they should have been).
Getting on topic i think the 757-100 was took much like the 737-400 and -900Some people in today's society are so thick!
Comment
Comment