RootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4187 posts, RR: 38 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 13843 times:
As you can see , the question is simple. Boeing only came up with the 717 after renaming the MD 95 once it took MD over!
However, if one is logical, the 727 should have been the 717 but boeing skipped this model and went right on from 707 to 727. Would anyone be able to explain me the reason for this? thanks in advance.
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1329 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13446 times:
There is an older book by Barry Schiff that gives a pretty good account of the 707 program. That book confirms the above statements about the KC135 program designation as the 717. I cant remember the exact title, "The 707" maybe? The book itself is in storage so unfortunately I cant access it.
Along that same vein I've always wondered why the MD95 didnt become the 787. Im sure there was some interesting debate in the boardroom over the choice of 717 vs continuing the consecutive numbers.
RC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13350 times:
Quoting Flaps (Reply 5): There is an older book by Barry Schiff that gives a pretty good account of the 707 program. That book confirms the above statements about the KC135 program designation as the 717
Got my copy right on the bookcase - "The Boeing 707" by Barry Schiff. Published by Arco in 1967, designated as a Len Morgan book. Anyhow, you're memory's spot on about the 717 designation, referenced on page 42.
Tugpilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12929 times:
Too bad we'll probably never see another 707-type fuselage used, as the 737RS will likely be a scaled-down 787.
It is interesting to note that up until recently (final 717 being built) that derivatives of all three of the major jetliner companies' initial fuselage is/was still being used in currently manufactured aircraft (B737 derived from the B707, A300/310/330/340 from the initial A300B2, and the B717/MD-95 from the DC-8 [fuselage was narrowed, but it's pretty obvious they're closely related]).
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9615 times:
Ok fine, here's the real one design, one of the eariler considerations for the 7N7, that Petmbro probably was referring to. I thought people were wanting a T-tail, rear engined image, so I posted the interpretation as listed above. As the designs progressed on the 7N7, the 757 came into being.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12278 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9220 times:
Another fact relating the current (now just out of production) B-717-200 to the KC-135 series airplanes is the KC/C/EC/RC-135As (the water wagons with the steam jet J-57s) were all the Boeing model B-717-100. There was the KC/EC/RC/WC/VC-135B/C, all with TF-33 fan jet engines that were the Boeing model B-717-200, as they had 12' longer fuselarge. These airplanes were remodeled to the B-717-156, with the original KC-135A steam jet airplanes called the B-717-136 by Boeing.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8094 times:
Quoting BOS2LAF (Reply 4):
I've also read elsewhere that this is the reason the current 717 is the 717-200, the KC-135 was the 717-100.
Not true, as Boeing almost launched the 717-100, which would have been about the size of a DC-9-10/20 series. The problem was that the market niche was already too crowded, plus airlines weren't interested in a 70-80 seat a/c that was heavier than it's competitors in the segment, and would have more than likely been flown by mainline crews.