Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Naming Boeing Aircraft And Airbus Aircraft  
User currently offlineOvrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

How did the Boeing Company start naming their aircraft 7xx?? before the jet age they had airplanes with all different types of numbers. As for Airbus, how did the name 'airbus' happen? there wasn't a William E Airbus so, anybody...please help (with other company names as well) the more the better

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJOEYCAPPS From Italy, joined Jul 2008, 200 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8264 times:

Airbus.

Omnibus: A vehicle set up to carry many people

Hence, air (no definition required) + omnibus - airomnibus. So just Airbus.

As for Boeing, I know their prototype aircraft (now known to us as the 707) was originally called something else (Dash? I dont recall off the top of my head). So the design they stuck with was their 707th design. Which started 727, 737, 747, etc. Its an old wives tale I heard a while back, so perhaps someone can verify it ?


User currently offlineRigo From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8251 times:

I remember reading somewhere that the original A300 was so called because it was initially intended to carry 300 passengers.

User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8237 times:

For Boeing, they have designators for their products. It would be 400s for rockets, 500s for helicopters, etc... or whatever the real match up is. Boeing made their commercial airplane line the "7 series". After the original "Dash" title, the first plane was the Boeing 70. But the Boeing people didn't think that "70" sounded good so they added another 7 at the end to make it the "707".


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8088 times:



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):
Boeing made their commercial airplane line the "7 series". After the original "Dash" title, the first plane was the Boeing 70. But the Boeing people didn't think that "70" sounded good so they added another 7 at the end to make it the "707".

The designation for the 707 'prototype' was Dash 80, though it is strictly incorrect to refer to the Dash 80 as the 707's prototype. The 707 emerged almost as an after thought as the Dash 80 was essentially developed as a prototype for an in flight refuelling tanker for the USAF (the KC135). Gotta be the most successful after-thought in aviation history!


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5609 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8015 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 4):
The designation for the 707 'prototype' was Dash 80, though it is strictly incorrect to refer to the Dash 80 as the 707's prototype.

As it was intended as a tanker, with the existing KC-97 being Model367 the "dash 80" was designated Model 367-80(there were other drawing board concepts labeled 367-40 thru 70)
It is likely the airliner became model 707 and the tanker model 717 arbitarily at the slip of an administrators pen.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):
After the original "Dash" title, the first plane was the Boeing 70. But the Boeing people didn't think that "70" sounded good so they added another 7 at the end to make it the "707".

Can't find any basis for that, Boeing had used 3 digit designators for decades back as far(or further) as the Model 247 Airliner and 314 Clipper and 377 Stratocruiser etc.

Curiously the commercial aviation world often refers to the 737-900 as the 739, the Boeing model 739 is the RC-135

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7880 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EDICHC (Reply 4):
The 707 emerged almost as an after thought as the Dash 80 was essentially developed as a prototype for an in flight refuelling tanker for the USAF (the KC135).

Not quite.  Wink

The 367-80 was intended to be a passenger carrier, as well. Comet I might have had her problems (even without the fatigue problem, she was too small), but she clearly defined the future of commercial air travel and Boeing knew it. Pitching it as a tanker just helped cover some of the development and tooling costs via the contract.

The hold-up was that while Douglas took longer to come to that realization, when they finally did they developed a better passenger plane then the 367-80. The DC-8 was wider (6-abreast vs. 5-abreast on the 367-80), had better engines and I think a better wing. Pan Am wanted jets so bad they ordered the 367-80 anyway, but they made it clear that when Douglas launched the DC-8, they'd order a shedload of them and stop with the Boeing product. So Boeing went back and widened the fuselage and did other changes to create the 707.

And the rest, as they say, was history...  Smile


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7777 times:



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):
For Boeing, they have designators for their products. It would be 400s for rockets, 500s for helicopters, etc... or whatever the real match up is. Boeing made their commercial airplane line the "7 series". After the original "Dash" title, the first plane was the Boeing 70. But the Boeing people didn't think that "70" sounded good so they added another 7 at the end to make it the "707".

Well you have the right idea on the first part, but there's a few corrections:

In the beginning, each product (including ones never built) had a number in sequential order. They got all the way into the 400s (ie 450: B-47 Stratojet, 464: B-52 Stratofortress) when the engineering department wanted to diversify again (after WWII). So Boeing set aside groups of 100 numbers for future products.

300s/400s - continued to be used for aircraft
500s - turbine engines
600s - rockets and missiles

Now that they entered the jet transport aircraft market, they used the next series...the 700s. Now 70 wouldn't have been the first choice...700 would be. But rumor is that the marketing department thought 707 would be better for..well..marketing purposes.


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7656 times:



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 5):
Curiously the commercial aviation world often refers to the 737-900 as the 739, the Boeing model 739 is the RC-135

That's because "739" is the official IATA code for the 737-900. All commercial aircraft types have a 3-character shorthand abbreviation as such.

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 7):
Now that they entered the jet transport aircraft market, they used the next series...the 700s. Now 70 wouldn't have been the first choice...700 would be. But rumor is that the marketing department thought 707 would be better for..well..marketing purposes.

Should also note that most all Boeing commercial aircraft model numbers have ended with the number 7. Leading speculation to believe the next model series will be "807."



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineRunway24R From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

I just have a quick question about the latter part of the aircraft names. With the 727, 737 and 747, Boeing started with the -100 series and future stretches / improvements were numbered the -200, -300 series and so on.

Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?
Why did Boeing not just start with the -100 as per the other aircraft?

Same question applies for the A330 and A340 too.

Thanks in advance for your help,

Rob



A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A346, 732, 733, 736, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, CRJ700, MD80
User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7518 times:



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 9):
Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?
Why did Boeing not just start with the -100 as per the other aircraft?

I believe the -100 series models were the prototypes, and final production models were introduced as -200 series.

That, or the -100 was reserved for a potential shortened model.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7518 times:



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 9):
Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?
Why did Boeing not just start with the -100 as per the other aircraft?

Same question applies for the A330 and A340 too.

I´m pretty sure that´s just marketing, as -200 sounds much more modern and mature than -100.

The same can be said of Airbus skipping the -400 on the A340 series.


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7515 times:



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 9):
Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?
Why did Boeing not just start with the -100 as per the other aircraft?

I think they were always leaving room in case they wanted to make a scaled down version and use the -100 name for easy marketing purposes.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 9):
Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?

There was a proposed 777-100 which would have been a shrink of the 777-200 to provide the C-market range QF was looking for. However, the economics were terrible so it never happened and Boeing eventually covered the C-market with the 777-200LR.

I believe there were some conceptual work done on the 757-100 because some customers felt the 757-200 was too large. However, nothing really came of it.

I do not know of a 767-100 proposal.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24080 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7459 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting EDICHC (Reply 4):
The 707 emerged almost as an after thought as the Dash 80 was essentially developed as a prototype for an in flight refuelling tanker for the USAF (the KC135).

Not quite.

The 367-80 was intended to be a passenger carrier, as well. Comet I might have had her problems (even without the fatigue problem, she was too small), but she clearly defined the future of commercial air travel and Boeing knew it. Pitching it as a tanker just helped cover some of the development and tooling costs via the contract.

And while it wasn't technically a 707, the Dash 80 livery did have "Boeing 707" on the tail and it was registered N70700.



The "707" on the tail appears to have been added at some point as it wasn't there when the aircraft first rolled out in May 1954 when it just said "Boeing", but I think it was there at a fairly early stage. It was registered N70700 from the beginning. Rollout photo below.



User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7284 times:

From the Boeing website.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...chive/2004/february/i_history.html

After World War II, Boeing was a military airplane company. William Allen, Boeing president at the time, decided that the company needed to expand back into commercial airplanes and pursue the new fields of missiles and spacecraft. To support this diversification strategy, the engineering department divided the model numbers into blocks of 100 for each of the new product areas: 300s and 400s continued to represent aircraft, 500s would be used on turbine engines, 600s for rockets and missiles and 700s were set aside for jet transport aircraft.
Since both of these offspring of the Dash 80 would be jet transports, the model number system called for a number in the 700s to identify the two new planes. The marketing department decided that "Model 700" did not have a good ring to it for the company's first commercial jet. So they decided to skip ahead to Model 707 because that reiteration seemed a bit catchier. Following that pattern, the other offspring of the Dash 80, the Air Force tanker, was given the model number 717. Since it was an Air Force plane, it was also given a military designation of KC-135.
After 717 was assigned to the KC-135, the marketing department made the decision that all remaining model numbers that began and or ended in 7 would be reserved exclusively for commercial jets. (After the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in the late 1990s, the model number 717 was reused to identify the MD-95 as part of the Boeing commercial jet family.)
Other than the 717, the only anomaly to the Boeing commercial jet numbering system was the Boeing model 720. The 720 was a short-range, high-performance version of the 707 and was first marketed to the airlines as the model 707-020. United Airlines was very interested in the 707-020 but had previously decided to go with Douglas and the DC-8. To help United avoid any negative public relations for going back to the 707, Boeing changed the name of the 707-020 to the 720.


.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7116 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Not quite.

Well I did say "almost"  Wink

Quoting JBo (Reply 10):
Quoting Runway24R (Reply 9):
Was there ever a 757-100, 767-100 and/or 777-100 proposed?
Why did Boeing not just start with the -100 as per the other aircraft?

I believe the -100 series models were the prototypes, and final production models were introduced as -200 series.

That, or the -100 was reserved for a potential shortened model.

In the case of the 757 & 767 the planned 100 series emerged on the 'drawing boards' at the same time as the 200 series but following feedback from customer airlines Boeing never proceeded beyond these plans.


User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3173 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7099 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 11):
The same can be said of Airbus skipping the -400 on the A340 series.

Also remember that 4 is an unlucky number in many Asian cultures.


And these days, aircraft series tends to start at 8


User currently offlineRunway24R From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

Thank you all for helping me with that.  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
There was a proposed 777-100 which would have been a shrink of the 777-200 to provide the C-market range QF was looking for. However, the economics were terrible so it never happened and Boeing eventually covered the C-market with the 777-200LR.

I am suprised Boeing ever considered a shrink of the 777-200. I would have thought it would need a radical redesign to be economically viable, and therefore loose its 777 design and you'd almost end up with a 767-400ER again.

Was the 777-100 planned to be a 747SP equivalent then?

Rob



A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A346, 732, 733, 736, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, CRJ700, MD80
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6812 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 18):
Was the 777-100 planned to be a 747SP equivalent then?

It was designed to lower the OEW enough so that the available fuel volume would be sufficient to allow it to service C-market routes.


User currently offlineThreepoint From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 2127 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6568 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
Rollout photo below.

What a glorious colour scheme. Looking at that photo, what strikes me is not how much the airframes themselves have progressed in the past 40+ years, but the enormous advances in engine technology.



The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
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...
Delays Of Past Aircraft-Boeing And Airbus posted Thu Jan 3 2008 17:26:02 by 7e72004
Boeing And Airbus Aircraft Model Numbers posted Sat Apr 1 2006 00:22:53 by MaxQ2351
Boeing Aircraft Orders And Deliveries As Of 9/21 posted Fri Sep 24 2004 15:41:30 by NWA757
Boeing And Airbus Numbers, Updated. posted Thu Apr 3 2008 07:42:10 by 797
Output Capacity Of Boeing And Airbus Lines posted Tue Sep 25 2007 15:24:30 by Stickers
Boeing And Airbus 'A' Models posted Mon Mar 12 2007 23:57:57 by AirbusA6
Airbus/Boeing -Orders And Commitments 2007. posted Mon Feb 5 2007 15:24:56 by WINGS
Boeing And Airbus Backlogs posted Thu Jan 4 2007 02:08:20 by T773ER
Boeing And Airbus New Plane Development Cycle posted Tue Jan 2 2007 21:32:45 by Baron95
SQ, Boeing Sign $4.52B Aircraft Deal posted Mon Oct 2 2006 01:29:07 by AirMailer