Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 797. Then What?  
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11955 posts, RR: 46
Posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

What are Boeing going to call their planes after the Boeing 797?

Thom@s


"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOO-VEG From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1125 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

7107??

User currently offlinePH-BLV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

How about 808?

User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

There's plenty of letters in the alphabet:

7A7
7B7

Hmm, there already was a 7J7 (150 seat concept in the late 80s).


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1984 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

The purpose of the "7-7" is to designate it as Boeings commercial airliner portion of their business. A "5" may be for missiles, for example. So I dont know if "808" would work. Maybe, like someone said, 7A7 would work too.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineMason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

Leave that to the guys that get $500k a year! Then, mabye they will earn their salary. If that's all they're goof for. I'm a Boeing fan, but come on! Some of those higher-up managers and such get waaaaaay to much $ for what they do, which is basically nothing, except "what pretty colors to paint the pretty planes."

User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

You take for granted that Boeing is going to produce new planes!!! Aside the 777, from what I see, Boeing seems to prefer recycling their old planes into kind of new ones, e.g. 737NG.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

I don't know, is there? If so does anyone have a pic of it? It must be old if there is one.

Thanks

G



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

The 808, DUH!

-maiznblu_757-
http://www.us.hsanet.net/user/maiznblu_757


User currently offlineQantasA330 From Iraq, joined Dec 2000, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

The new Boeing Aircraft will be named witha '2' at the beggining: example:

Boeing 2707-100
Boeing 2737-400
Boeing 2767-200

etc. you get the picture.

Kindest Regards,
 SmileQantasA330 Smile


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

By the time the design after the 797 is to be built, technology will have advanced so much from the current airliners we have a number change will be obviously a good idea anyways, for PR reasons - just as how the first jet was the 707.

User currently offlineCorey777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

808 would work; letters would be a bit strange: "I'm flying on a 'seven-ay-seven' today"

Gmonney, there's no 787 that I know of yet. Though it may be a A380-type if sales of the Airbus model are good.

Cheers,
Corey777


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4576 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

I doubt the two at the begining. The 2707 was the SST, and AFAIK 2707 represented mach 2.7, which is what it would cruise at... I think the 2 at the begining would be reserved for a supersonic aircraft. But it will be a safe bet it will be 8xx. Probably 807 or 808, but who know. I like the way seven just6 rolls off the tongue, eight doesnt, nine would sound nicer actually...


"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineAstrojet From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1994 times:

We still have some years to wait to see the third new Boeing plane (after the B787 and B797).

User currently offlineYFE From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

What about a 8..8 serie.

Or you call it 7107 but that is to lang I believe.

Greetings,

YFE


User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11955 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Even if technology changes alot before the plane after 797 arrives, Boeing would still need names for new aircrafts. The way buisness has been going, I doubt Boeing would go bankrupt or simply stop building aircrafts.
One possibility however, is that boeing joins another aircraft manufacturer, and together they come up with new names for their planes. (ex. BC-10, BC-20 etc..)

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11955 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Just like to mention that when I wrote BC-10,BC-20 etc, BC was just something I came up with. B for Boeing and C for another major aircraft manufacturer developed by the time the 797 is produced.

I suppose most of you understood that, but I just wanted to clarifie (sp?) it before someone asked.  Smile

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 4 days ago) and read 1936 times:

807 looks more likely for me... and if 2707,... then why not 1707 first? Or this was used already for something else? By the way, the question is less actual for Airbus since they have 350, 360, 370 and 390, but what then? 400 is in use already.

"You take for granted that Boeing is going to produce new planes!!!" - surely, I take it for granted, for both Boeing and Airbus.

I don't think 2707 was for M2.7, they were rather thinking about M2.2-2.4. But the wooden thing they ended up with didn't even make M0.000000001... There were thousands well-known reasons for this but still, what a pity!


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6543 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

After 797? Wild guess: 737NG2.


Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4576 posts, RR: 41
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1897 times:

The original boeing SST proposal envisaged a cruising speed of Mach 2.7. I believe the Lockheed proposal may have been slower. That was part of the problem, at that speed, you had to use expensive alloys...


"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineKonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

All Boeing planes have traditionally ended in 7 i.e.: 247, 307, 377, 707... The next in the list is obviously 807, 827, 837,....

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...
Boeing Takes Back A340...then What? posted Sun Aug 11 2002 08:59:55 by Mhsieh
Boeing 787, 797, Then What? posted Sun Jan 16 2000 04:34:52 by USAirways A330
Boeing 797 To Be Blended Wing posted Tue Apr 25 2006 06:18:02 by Phuebner
Boeing's Record Flight, What Flightplan? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 02:34:26 by Airlinelover
Boeing 797? posted Mon Aug 15 2005 02:30:47 by C172
After The A380. Then What? posted Thu Jan 13 2005 02:22:32 by Matt D
Jetblue's Gonna Run Out Of Names, Then What? posted Tue Sep 16 2003 21:38:40 by 727LOVER
Boeing 737-300F... What The?! posted Fri Mar 29 2002 15:20:57 by 747-600X
Delta Boeing 737-800... What To Expect? posted Thu Aug 16 2001 20:34:08 by Jcxp15
Qantas Boeing 767-238 - What Do Expect? posted Wed Aug 15 2001 09:37:16 by QantasAirways