The Boeing 777 had two variants, the Boeing 777-200 and Boeing 777-300, but the Boeing 787 Dreamliner went right away to Boeing 787-8, 787-9, 787-10.
Why didn’t the Dreamliner start out with the variants 787-1, 787-2, 787-3, etc.?
ISTR from an AvWeek article that Boeing made the first one the -8 because 8 is a lucky number in Asian cultures, and that’s where they wanted to focus sales. Other models had to follow in sequence.
It’s a marketing fad. Supposedly there’s some association with Asian numerology, but the main thing is just that planes numbered -8 or -800 and above are fresh and new, unlike those dirty old planes with obsolete numbers. It’s like how random stuff used to be numbered 2000 in the 90s, to show that it was modern and with the times.
The 787 isn’t the only one. The A380 was launched well before there was even an A350 and its first (and so far only) version is the A380-800. When the A350 was launched, it started at -800 (the -800 length was later canceled). The new 777s are the -8 and -9, and the new A330s are the -800 and -900. Likewise, the latest 747 is the -8 rather than the -500.
It happened in the 80s and 90s with skipping -100s too. The 757, 767, 777, A330, and A340 all have/had -200 and -300 versions but no -100. (For some, there were nebulous plans to consider a shorter version that would be a -100, but I don’t think this was true for all of them.)
The 747-400 was replaced by the 747-8 for the same reason. Boeing might as well paint it red and gold and call it a Dragon.
See also: The Boeing B-29D Superfortress, a much-improved post-war variant of the B-29 which addressed the most severe shortcomings of the design (fun fact: the WWII Superfortresses were underpowered and suffered serious reliability issues from the engines being overtaxed). Since Congress wasn’t authorizing any new WWII construction, it was re-branded as the Boeing B-50A Superfortress, which saw service throughout the 1950s, particularly during the Korean War.
Airplane of Hong Kong Dragon Airlines.
Getting close…
A related question, if I may; does anyone know what name Boeing plans to use after the 797? It’s probably 15-20 years away, but you don’t want to leave these crucial decisions until the last minute.
I’ve wondered that for years. Boeing’s 7_7 system seems rather shortsighted; Airbus’ naming system, by contrast, could easily simply go to 410, 420, 430 etc. once Airbus maxes out at A390.
7A7. Those numbers are hexadecimal, y’know.
With the above-mentioned trend to favor the number 8, you would have to think that the obvious pattern after 797 would be 808, 818, etc.
Maybe 800, 810, 820, 830, etc.
As I understand it, the whole 7x7 thing was something of an accident, from the days when marketing departments didn’t choose the project numbers. The different types of projects were grouped by hundreds; 3xx models were piston-engined airliners, 4xx were jet-engined bombers, etc. When they started making jet airliners, 7xx was the next block of unused numbers.
I’m pretty sure the 8s and 9s have already been used for something. The 929 was a passenger hydrofoil built in the '70s. These days, if the marketing folks decided 8x8 numbers would sell, I’m pretty sure Boeing would use them and the old engineering model numbers would be overridden.
Depends on when that happens. It won’t be too long before the 8 fad is old and stale, and newness is signified with a different number, or a letter or a color or a smell.
They could always start reusing old numbers, it wouldn’t be the first time. The Boeing 717 can refer to either the re-branded McDonnell Douglas MD-95 (itself an updated DC-9) or the C-135 Stratolifter, a military transport which is a cousin of the 707 (both based on the Dash 80 prototype) and the basis for the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mid-air refueler.
As a matter of fact, the Dash 80 is another example, the name coming from the designation 367-80, which implied it was a derivative of the entirely unrelated Boeing 367, which was a wide-body transport based on the B-29 Superfortress, and the basis for the 377 Stratocruiser airliner.
Yeah, I knew about reusing the 717 number. That’s one of the reasons I think the marketing department will have the final say on what future planes are called. They will reuse numbers, probably, but it’ll have to be a number that people aren’t familiar with.
There is precedent to not use the 7_7 convention. There was a model 720 developed from the 707; slightly smaller, shorter range, could use shorter runways, etc. The first flight I can remember in my life was on a 720B (turbofan engines) in 1972, the only time I’ve ever been on one of the first generation of jet airliners.
True, but I think the accepted explanation is that they were trying to conceal the fact that they were working on a jet. By giving it a 3xx number it sounded like just another piston airliner. Better to not let the competition know what you’re up to.
That prototype saw a lot of use. Boeing modified it to test a lot of different ideas over the years before donating it to the Smithsonian.
As an aside, I feel like everyone got let down with the new KC-46 tanker being called the Pegasus instead of the Dreamtanker like every other Dream- branded Boeing aircraft from the last few years.
These are still in use in Hong Kong for the Kong Kong-Macau route, and still painted red with a huge white Boeing on the side. I was rather surprised when I saw them, not have known Boeing ever made boats. Kawasaki also bought the design and still makes them to this day but the ones in Hong Kong are original Boeing built ones.
They already used 7J7 in a nod to their Japanese partners. It never made it into production and would have been a disaster if it had, though.
Originally, maybe, but Boeing already had a lucky-number thing going on when they lobbied the Air Force to make sure their jet bomber would have the B-47 designation, not the competition’s. The 247, 377, and B-17 had already set the pattern. The 700 series was the project codes for their commercial airliners, and the first got the lucky 7.
There are purists who hate that still, since it was a Douglas design.
Story there is that United Airlines head Pat Patterson hated Boeing for some reason, and had publicly stated that he’d never buy an airplane that ended in 7. Boeing gave him a new number just to close the deal he needed to make.
The 797 looks like it will be the clean-sheet mid-market aircraft they’re looking at, essentially to replace the 757 in the product line. Give it ten years.
To be the Dreamtanker I suspect it would have to be based on the 787, not 767. Also I think Dreamtanker might be perceived as too catering to commercialism to sound military enough.