Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717?  
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12795 times:

Hi folks.

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.

Regards,

BM


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12786 times:

The original 717 was the internal Boeing designation for what became better known as the KC-135. It was also briefly used as the name for what became the 720.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20632 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12786 times:

Where Did Boeing Get The 7_7 Idea From? (by RobK Sep 14 2004 in Civil Aviation)


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12621 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 1):
The original 717 was the internal Boeing designation for what became better known as the KC-135.

This is correct.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineBOS2LAF From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12570 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 1):
The original 717 was the internal Boeing designation for what became better known as the KC-135. It was also briefly used as the name for what became the 720.

I've also read elsewhere that this is the reason the current 717 is the 717-200, the KC-135 was the 717-100.

Just what I've read in previous threads... Could be wrong... You know how reliable some of the info posted here is  Wink


User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1274 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12398 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.


User currently offlinePetmbro From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12367 times:

Quoting Flaps (Reply 5):
Along that same vein I've always wondered why the MD95 didnt become the 787

In another thread they had a 787 concept which was basically a non-trijet 727 but obviously that never got off the drawing board. Nice looking plane though.



"don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!" - Judge Judy
User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12302 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.


User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12154 times:

Quoting Petmbro (Reply 6):
In another thread they had a 787 concept which was basically a non-trijet 727 but obviously that never got off the drawing board. Nice looking plane though.

You've got a picture to share?


User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12099 times:

http://members.aol.com/dkdzyn/jets/787300H.jpg

From: This thread on another site


User currently offlineASMD11 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11934 times:

Now that is a sweet looking plane  Smile

User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

thats crazy looking! i wonder why they never developed it?


Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
User currently offlineBestpilot From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11923 times:

Sweeeet! That plane has windows in intake duct of the engines! OOPS

User currently offlineTugpilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 31 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11881 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]).


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 11745 times:

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 11):
thats crazy looking! i wonder why they never developed it?

Because that is not a real Boeing design. That came off someones home computer.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineUnited737522 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10646 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 14):
Because that is not a real Boeing design. That came off someones home computer.

Exactly, it looks like they took the 737 nose, 757 fuselage, and MD80 screwdriver tail and combined it. It is amazing how gullible people really are.


User currently offlineSjot From United States of America, joined May 2002, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bestpilot (Reply 12):
Sweeeet! That plane has windows in intake duct of the engines! OOPS

no ... that is the Rolls Royce logo


User currently offlineNosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8567 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.


Boeing.com





Seattlepi.com

Amazing how even Boeing's model had the:

Quoting United737522 (Reply 15):
737 nose, 757 fuselage,

 sarcastic 


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8172 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.

User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8086 times:

This forum discusses a lot of aircraft that never made it to the tarmac (or some that did but make production).

Airliners That Never Were (by StarGoldLHR Mar 17 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2664696



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7046 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.


User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6827 times:

Quoting United737522 (Reply 15):
MD80 screwdriver tail

Not to be nit-picky....maybe the tailcone....but that tail (vertical stabilizer) is a 727....  bigthumbsup 


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...
Why Did Boeing Build The 720? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 15:34:57 by Swissgabe
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Why Didn't Boeing Use The 717 Designation Earlier? posted Fri Apr 20 2001 09:26:09 by LAX
Why Did Boeing Overpower The 757 To Such A Degree? posted Wed Nov 29 2000 10:29:17 by Skystar
Why Did Boeing Choose The Number "7" posted Mon Aug 21 2000 17:37:46 by Euroflyer
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Why Did Boeing Decide To Build The 757? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 22:06:20 by BeltwayBandit
Why Did Boeing Shut Down The MD-lines? posted Tue Nov 2 1999 15:36:57 by MD 11
Why Did GSO Expand The Airport posted Thu Aug 10 2006 09:12:37 by Gsoflyer
Why Did NW Choose The A319 & 320? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 06:20:10 by MSPGUY