No
77W ok
772 perfect 777
I mean really?
They make the 772 and 773
Then 772ER and 777W and then 77L? See the timeline is confusing 
1 Like
747-100: underpowered
747SP: rocket
747-200: the first real success
747-300: totally not needed (again)
747-400: perfect
747-8: what you get when you do 787×2
1 Like
No, it was
-200
-200ER
-300
-300ER
-200LR
F
-9
-8
1 Like
When the -100, -200, -300, and -400 are all the same length
I just realized that the other week
1 Like
You. Just. Realised. That…
1 Like
See
Confusing as heck
1 Like
The -200 looks really short compared to the others
1 Like
No
748 as good as 744
1 Like
100 vs 200: longer hump
300: pretty much a winglet less -400 with engines no one used
1 Like
So we’re back to the -200 and -300 with the -8 and -9
1 Like
Actually it was the same
More like a -200 with a -400 hump
So just more windows than the -100
Pretty pointless
1 Like
And heavier (more tanks)
No
Looks like a -400 without winglets
1 Like
737-100: too short
737-200: the perfect original
737-300: best of the classics
737-400: a bit underpowered
737-500: short but powerful
737-600: rocket
737-700: still a little short
737-800: just right
737-900: underpowered and easy to tailstrike
1 Like
No, it has the engines of the -200 and the same wing
No
It has different engines than the -200
-200 has same engines as the -100
1 Like
Yes it’s more of a 200 with an extended deck
EVEN THE COCKPIT IS IDENTICAL
1 Like
Show me the different engines of the -300 then