Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 717: Why Was It Originally Left Out?  
User currently offlineTobias2702 From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 721 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12910 times:

Hi guys, the following question has just occured to me: The MD-95 was rebranded Boeing 717 when Boeing took over McDonnell-Douglas. But why didn't Boeing use the name on one of their own a/c? Why was there no 717 between the 707 and the 727?


PA, AF, UK, BA, AB, DL, LH, FR, BD, A3, EZY, DY //// A319/320/346, B733/735/73G/738/744/763, AT4, 146, CR2, DH4
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12884 times:

United did not like the original proposal "707-020" and was unhappy with "717" as well because of the way it is spoken (seven-seventeen or seven-one-seven). After 707-020 and 717 were rejected, Boeing came up with 720.

Funnily, American marketed their 720s as "707s".


User currently offlineVhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12772 times:

There was the 717 the KC-135 was originally designated the 717 hence the reason why there was a gap between 707 and 727 on the commercial line.



hq.



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12542 times:

717 was only an internal designation for the KC135. It would have been available for officially naming another type and this was also suggested for the 720 after United refused to have it named "Boeing 707-020". The reason for United not wanting that designation was that it made the aircraft look inferior/older than the already flying Boeing 707-120/220/320 at a time when other airlines were introducing the DC8. Remember that in those days every airline was trying to have the newest jet in its inventory and naming them in a way that supported such a notion was a major issue.

User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2438 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12229 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 offlineVfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 4003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12129 times:

Well, according to the - to the best of my knowledge - only book on the Boeing 720 (by Jon Proctor), the first alternative suggested to United's then-President William A. Patterson was "717", but apparently he did not like "seven-seventeen" (for reasons not explained in the book), so they ended up with 720 because of the original suggestion "7[07-0]20".

Not sure what the ultimate truth is.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11997 times:



Quoting Tobias2702 (Thread starter):
But why didn't Boeing use the name on one of their own a/c?

They did. As others have mentioned, the KC-135 was designated the 717 by Boeing. The airframe was later sold to airlines as the 720, which was eventually replaced by the 727.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6294 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 11774 times:

The 720 did not have the same airframe as the C-135, they were about the same length and look superficially the same but thats all.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10154 times:



Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 7):
The 720 did not have the same airframe as the C-135, they were about the same length and look superficially the same but thats all.

Correct. The B-707 and B-720 fuslage were each 4" wider than the fuselage of the KC-135. However, the B-720 did use the KC-135 wing, short leading edge flaps, double slotted flaps and fillet flaps. The B-707 does not have fillet flaps.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10045 times:



Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 7):
The 720 did not have the same airframe as the C-135,

I typed wrong, I should have said a similar airframe. (sizewise)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
, the B-720 did use the KC-135 wing, short leading edge flaps, double slotted flaps and fillet flaps

Did the KC-135 have the Krueger flaps as well, or was that just the 720?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10000 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Correct. The B-707 and B-720 fuslage were each 4" wider than the fuselage of the KC-135.

I wonder if the reasoning for the 4" difference in width was due to the fact that fuselage width of the production-707 was widened (from the original prototype model) to allow for 6-across Coach class seating. Originally, the 707 was designed for 5-across Coach seating but launch-customer PA wanted more seats.

It sounds like the KC-135 (aka the orignal 717) utilized the original, narrower fuselage from the fore-mentioned prototype.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9736 times:



Quoting CitationJet (Reply 4):
The 720 was a short-range, high-performance version of the 707

The JT3D-powered 720B certainly was Boeing's "hot-rod" of that era, but the original JT3C-powered standard 720 was far from high-performance. I remember a few very sluggish takeoffs on UA 720s, a total contrast from the 720B with over 40% more thrust and almost the same MTOW. The 720B always seemed like it could easily take off with 2 engines shut down!

For that era I would consider the 720 more medium-range than short range. Many 720s were used on nonstop routes of 2700 nm or so, about 500 nm further than JFK-LAX. EI even used their standard JT3C-powered 720s on their SNN-JFK/BOS/YUL for several years.

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 3):
The reason for United not wanting that designation was that it made the aircraft look inferior/older than the already flying Boeing 707-120/220/320 at a time when other airlines were introducing the DC8. Remember that in those days every airline was trying to have the newest jet in its inventory and naming them in a way that supported such a notion was a major issue.

Much like NW asking McDonnell-Douglas to change (which they agreed to do) the DC-10-20, as it was marketed originally, to DC-10-40 to make it sound better than the DC-10-30, although in some respects the JT9D-powered -40 (ordered only by NW and JL who wanted P&W engines as on their 747s) was less capable the GE CF6-powered -30 That's no doubt why in later years NW retired their own -40s and bought a large number of used -30s for use on their expanded Europe network.


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 12 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9568 times:



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 10):
I wonder if the reasoning for the 4" difference in width was due to the fact that fuselage width of the production-707 was widened (from the original prototype model) to allow for 6-across Coach class seating. Originally, the 707 was designed for 5-across Coach seating but launch-customer PA wanted more seats.

This was the reason the Convair 880/990 failed to gain a large customer base, even though performance outweighed that of the 707 & DC-8.



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8462 times:



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 10):
It sounds like the KC-135 (aka the orignal 717) utilized the original, narrower fuselage from the fore-mentioned prototype

No, the fuselage cross-sections (both horizontal and vertical) on the Dash 80 prototype, KC-135, and 707 are all different. KC-135 is a foot wider than the Dash 80. I believe the dimensions are as follows:

Dash 80 - width 132 in., height 164 in.
KC-135 - width 144 in., height 168 in.
707 - width 148 in., height 170.5 in.


User currently offlineLuiePL From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Interesting information, I always thought it went to the 727 because it was the 2nd commercial aircraft. Another question on a similar topic is, does anyone know what Boeing is planing on doing after the 797? Will they start with 800 series designations?


-Luie PHL-
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...
MAN-IAD: Why Was It Cancelled? posted Tue Mar 25 2008 12:51:58 by Tuiflyer
757 - Why Was It Never Considered For Ops In Oz? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 21:42:30 by VHECA
MD-11 Why Was It A Failure? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 03:26:44 by GREATANSETT
Beechcraft Starship..Why Was It A Failure? posted Thu Jul 28 2005 19:32:52 by A5XX
EMB-123 Vector: Why Was It Cancelled? posted Wed Jul 14 2004 16:42:22 by Qb001
Why Was The Boeing 717 Such A Slow Seller? posted Tue Nov 25 2008 11:16:11 by Flyer62
Why Was Airliner Taken Out Of Service? posted Tue Apr 22 2008 11:30:46 by Airlinerho
Dornier 328, Why Did It Go Out So Fast? posted Mon Jul 3 2006 19:07:02 by SBNair3022
Why Was Concorde Taken Out Of Service For Good? posted Fri Apr 8 2005 17:08:22 by AirbusA346
Why Was There No 717? posted Tue Jun 13 2000 22:44:51 by UK FLY