FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 756 times:
There was a post about this same subject just a few days ago. Boeing did consider the 717BBJ...probably still are. But the range is not there...2000 nm max still-air for the HGW 717. But, anything can happen. Personally if I had the cash, the 717BBJ would be my first choice for a private jet. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 702 times:
As with any aircraft used for executive purposes, range would be increased due to the decreased need for cargo space in the belly. I dont imagine it would be to hard to shore up the range of the 717 with a belly fuel tank or two. Thats how the MD82/83 (the ones with the 160,000 MGTOW) increased their range.
Alaska Airlines MD-82s w/ belly tanks were able to do the old ANC-Magadan and Russian Far East flights which had 5 hours legs between ANC-MGX.
Rwy31R From Saudi Arabia, joined Aug 2001, 454 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 647 times:
I do agree with woodsboy.
There is no way 717 would be a canidate to be a BBJ unless the belly was converted to a fuel tank! I do think that Boeing will go for further developments in this field. specially if 717 sales prove to be slower than expectaions.
717BBJ would look more of a "ussiness Jet" than the WONDERFULLY GORGEOUS 737BBJ.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 627 times:
The 717 BBJ would be marketed as a transcontinental range aircraft and would also be marketed as a corporate shuttle. It just couldn't compete with the range of the 737BBJ. I'm personnally hoping to see the BBJ3. (757) We'll see.