Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
717?-how did it get its name?  
User currently offlineDghiggins From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 23 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

This is undoubtedly an elementary question to many - but why in the Boeing series of 707 to 777 do we not hear of 717?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4947 times:

The original 717 (not the MD-95) was the early designation for the KC-135.

User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Dghiggins, there is a 717. It started as the MD-95 but after Boeing bought them it became the 717. AirTran (a Low Cost Operator based in Atlanta) was the launch customer. Here is the link to the page with info on the 717:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/flash.html


User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4772 times:

717s....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Cheung
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Arcellana



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Willmott-Sharp
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Looks great in the Qantas Link livery  Smile

Josh


User currently offlineDghiggins From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4715 times:

Thanks guys - particularly Flyf15 as the KC-135 seems to be the missing link. Hard to think of the DC-9/MD95 line as an early Boeing.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4704 times:

Another correction maybe. I don't believe that the KC-135 was ever called a B-717 by Boeing or the FAA. I've been hearing that for thirty years and I think is is just a fable probably started by KC-135 crews.

I've had friends who flew KC-135 and got FAA type ratings out of that service. The type rating was for B-707.

Maybe someone could email Boeing or the MOF at KBFI and get an answer on that. I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure of this.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

While we're at it, let's dispose of another Boeing fable. It's also said that the 367-80 jetliner project was named Boeing 707 when it went into production because the wings are swept at 45 degrees and .707 is the sine/cosine of 45.

Nice story but not true. The wing sweep is more in the range of 35-37 degrees. A lot by today's standards but well short of 45



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4621 times:

There is a Boeing Model 717.It's the deignation Boeing gave to the plane that the USAF designates the KC-/C-135.
Boeing 717-100 applied to the first 29 KC-135A's built,717-146 to the next 68 and 717-148 to all remaining built.The Model 717-157 is the C-135A Stratolifter.The Electronic and Radar versions were designated Model 739 by Boeing,the Model 739-700 became the RC-135A,for instance.
Since the -1xx series was already in use,the MD95 had to become Model 717-200



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

FBU 4EVER! is that official information? Did it come from Boeing or the FAA or did it come from some lay person's book or website? Yours is the first assertion I have ever heard on this subject that had any appearance of authority.

I'd still like to know how a person could get a B-707 type rating in a KC-135 if that plane officially was some other type airplane. It did happen. Friends I have flown with have this ticket in their pocket. And to the best of my knowledge their type rating earned in what you call a B-717 is not valid in the type of airplane Airtran uses which is, according to the data plate, a Boeing 717.

I cannot accept that the early 717 (KC-135 and 707 were a "common type rating" in the manner of the 757/767. In the first place 757 and 767 are two different type ratings. I know, I have them both on my license. The only real allowance is for you to take the checkride in one go for both ratings, but the oral exam must cover both if you are to get both ratings. To jump back and forth between the two types you have to have met certain specific training requirements. A glance at the engineer's panel in each airplane shows there to be significant differences between a B-707 and a KC-135. Wish I had a picture of these two panels. Maybe on this site.

Anyway, I would appreciate knowing the source of the KC-135 data you cite.

Thanks








Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

I found out about 717 being the designation for the KC-135 type aircraft from an official Boeing publication. It detaled a bit of the history of Boeing Commercial Aircraft, and was part of a package (I believe entitled 'Building Value' or something similar) which I got my hands on in 1995.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

FBU 4EVER's post about the 717 designator for the C-135 series is both accurate & legit. I suggest a book "Boeing Aircraft since 1919" by the late Peter M. Bowers to find all the details about the original 717. Bowers was no mere arm-chair quarterback, but a highly-respected well-known authority & author on aviation. As a sidenote, the Dash 80 prototype was never known as a 707...just the Dash 80. But even the Dash 80 wasn't really a ground-breaking aircraft. All the designs & features came from the B-47. It was this aircraft that's truly the grandfather of all Boeing jetliners, both commercial & military. Just my assessment here. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

You may also be interested to know that Boeing had a B720 aircraft that was in outward appearance similar to the B707, but more aligned to the job of a B727. This aircraft might have been named 717 were it not for Boeing's internal designation of the KC-135.


Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4168 times:

Since the -1xx series was already in use,the MD95 had to become Model 717-200

It may be true that the 717-100 designation was already taken, but I thought nowadays (since the 757, anyway) Boeing has shied away from giving an initial aircraft design a -100 designation as in the past it sometimes denoted an underperforming/underpowered/unrefined aircraft. At least, that's the explanation I heard for the 757, 767, and 717 lines beginning with the -200 models.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6201 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Slamclick:

This info may help to clear up the confusion, as I understand it.

Boeing did not originally 'build' the KC-135's - that was and is the US Airforce's designation for them (in a way similar to the DC-10 and the KC-10A Extender).

The 717 was Boeing's model number for the production series based on the Model 367-80 prototype (Dash 80) that is now at the NASM. The Model 717 differs primarily from the Model 707 by having a smaller-diameter fuselage, deletion of cabin windows, and reduced size and weight.

An informative web page listing different 'KC-135/c-135' production models can be viewed at:

http://www.uswarplanes.net/kc135.htm

With regards to the Airtran 717 pilot rating, the 717's type designation was changed by Boeing from the MD-95-30 to the 717-200 and was officially accepted by the FAA/JAA on Aug. 21, 1998.




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Further to what has been posted on this topic,the 717 was built to military specifications with a "safe life" design philosophy.The 707 was built to civil "fail safe" standards.This meant that different aluminium alloys and production techniques had to be used.

The 717 was never (to my knowledge,at least) certified by the FAA,hence no civilian typerating for this plane.The FAA may have regarded these two types as operationally related and issued a common 707 type rating for these two A/C types.

USAF also uses 707 versions for various purposes.Due to the difference in design techniques and maintenance procedures,these planes are designated C-137 iso. C-135.



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineFxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3938 times:

Just to add on, cause i can. Now this is not fact, because i can;t find the numbers to fsupport the premise. But, I've heard for a long time that the KC-135's had been desingated B-717's by boeing for years. One of the diffenreces in the B-707 and 135/717 was the cabin width. Initially (i beleive, can't really besure i'm gettting this right, so you experts fel free to chime in and correct) 367-80 would only support an 2/3 width for seats. Boeing changed this to meet the 3/3 width becasue of the DC-8, story goes event hough Boeing had the flying proto-type, DOuglas was promising the airlines more since they had a "paper" airplane and an eraser here and there would fix that. SO, airlines wanted 6-abreats seating, BOeing said, fine, on the production model we'll make the cabin wider (and designate it B-707). Appearently the military really didn't care so much if you had 3/3 seating capacity so they were fine with a model based on the 367-80 width, and was designated the B-717. The fact that boeing internally at least designated the KC-135 as the B717 is actually on their web page if you look under the commercial airplan group at the 707 page.

The 707 fuselage became the standard used for Boeing narrowbodies until now. The 727,737, 757 all have the same fuselage width. So here comes this little project for Valujet called the MD-95, based on the narrower (than a borring narrowbody) fuselage of the DC-9 serries airplanes. BOeing buys MD before it can deliver and really produce any planes (and around the same time Valujet morphs into AIrtran). So, this MD-95 has a similar fuselage cross section of the KC-135/B717... lets just rename it that!! (I wonder if it was that simple or is someone spent months arguing over it)

Again, standard disclaimer, i could be wrong. BUt at anyrate, realy odd ball jet number from Boeing i always wondered about.. the B-720... where did they get that?

later



Visualize Whirled Peas
User currently offlineAirsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3811 times:

I heard that "717" was also to be the designation of what then became the 720.

Please correct me if I´m wrong.

Daniel Smile


User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Further to Airsicknessbag's comment, I also understand that the Boeing 720 was originally going to be designated the 717.

User currently offlineCsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1365 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

The 720 was originally the 707-020. According to wikipedia, (and lord knows if you see it on the Internet it *can't* be wrong) it was changed to 720 for marketing reasons. I assume to make it look like a different model rather than a varient of the same model. I actually remmeber reading that in a book a long time ago.

Wikipedia's URL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offlineImisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6295 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

Fxra, your first paragraph was correct. the second though is off base. It has nothing to do with fusealge width

The MD-95 was redesignated the 717 simply because Boeing chose not to use the 787 designation as they chose to keep it available for future use.

Of course I am clueless and will be "corrected" by someone soon.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4329 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

The reason they picked 717 was on the one way they wanted to give the MD-95 a Boeing name and identity but on the other hand they only halfheartedly supported the program. 787 would give it an unwanted priority and expectations that it was THE design with which Boeing would enter the 21st century. 717 fitted in nicely in their existing 7X7 series and maybe is a secret hint it fits closer to their (current) 737 and 747 as just like these the origin (DC-9) is a 1960s era airplane.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineDelta777Jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Here is my favorite 717:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery




Fly easyJet
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Did KLM Get Its Name? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 07:13:42 by JetsGo
Where Did Gatwick Get Its Name From? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 13:28:17 by 8herveg
HOW DID Ansett Get Into ITS Current STATE. posted Fri Sep 14 2001 01:47:02 by 364512158
How Did You Get Your User Name, Members? posted Fri Aug 20 1999 06:26:25 by Pandora
Croatian Pm In Washington, How Did He Get There? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 03:49:54 by Mig21UMD
How Did Cessna Get This? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 20:35:44 by SBNair3022
Older Passenger Headsets, How Did It Work? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 18:40:20 by Falstaff
How Did They Get Here? Charter? posted Sun Mar 12 2006 06:11:44 by QXatFAT
How Did A.netters Get On Board The A380? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 00:55:17 by CaptainTim
Jet Airways IPO - How Did It Go? posted Tue Mar 8 2005 03:29:24 by Clickhappy