duke
Posts: 1170
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 1999 9:52 pm

Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:15 pm

Of the 1010 Boeing 707s that were built between 1957 and 1991, 154 were actually designated "Boeing 720" - a medium range, shorter version of the plane. Nowadays, however, we often treat it as merely a subtype from what I see. I think we can agree (note my thread of 2 days ago) that the 707's "prototype" (the "Dash-80" or the 367-80, not included in the 1010 planes) and the similar looking KC-135 tanker were truly different models and not 707s, but the 720's differences don't really seem enough to fully qualify it as a different model. Originally it was supposed to be the 707-000 anyway. For some reason, they changed the designation.

So my question is twofold. First, why did they call it the 720 and secondly, are the differences really so different that it deserves to be given a separate type number? For example, is it more different from the original 707-100 than the 707-300 is?
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6626
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:45 pm

The designation for the 720/B was a combination of 2 designations. The 720 was originally designated as a 707-020/B and was shortened to 720 to simplify it and make it seem like a new version rather than have potential customers thinking that they're buying the base model.
Made from jets!
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8202
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:47 pm

The 720 is actually the 707-020. I think of it as a different type although American Airlines referred to their 720s as 707s ("707 Luxury Liner" etc).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
justplanesmart
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 3:25 pm

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:54 pm

I will do my best to answer both parts of your query. The designation 720 came as a direct result of United being the launch customer. In a nutshell, W. A. "Pat" Patterson, longtime head of UA, wanted it to be called something other than a 707, because United had already bought the DC-8. Boeing suggested 717, but apparently Pat did not like a number ending in 7, so it became the 720 (his opinion clearly changed by the time the 727, 737, and 747 were all purchased by his company). As to whether it qualifies as a separate type, I have always considered it a 707, and Boeing has always included its sales/production in the totals for the 707. If you really want to study the minutiae between the 707/720 variants, click below and read away.
http://dac.senternet.com/forum/showthread.php?s=ddabca5d0187ff6fae9d911cdb751231&threadid=21531&highlight=boeing+707

[Edited 2004-02-06 13:08:01]
"So many planes; so little time..."
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8202
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:04 pm

Dead right about United not wanting to buy "707s" (even little ones) after the big DC8 purchase, but I think 717 was impossible not because of Patterson's dislike of the number 7 (727, 737 etc), but because the Boeing designation for the KC-135 was 717 (which also tells you why 717 was never used til the rebadged DC9 of the late 90s).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
duke
Posts: 1170
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 1999 9:52 pm

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:26 pm

Well, that's an exhaustive thread! Thank you.
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:08 am

This grayhair has alway wondered about the 720 and why it was numbered so. Thanks to all for the info. I have ridden numberous 720B models with CO, AA, called the 707 AstroJet as noted in an earlier post, and NW. Thank you all again.
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
CanadianNorth
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 11:41 am

RE: Does The Boeing 720 Deserve To Be A Separate Type?

Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:26 am

The 720 is basicly a 707, only it is a bit shorter and has a slightly lighter structure. The 707 was mainly for longer hauls so Boeing made the 720 a little smaller and lighter which meant it was more efficient on shorter hops and was able to operate in and out of airports with shorter runway lenghs.

The diff between a 720 and a 720B is the same as say a 707-300 and a 707-300B.

The reason it was called the 720 and not the 707-020 or the 717, was already stated in previous replys. In my oppinion it should be slightly diff from the 707, but not a completly diff type (717 or something), and they seemed to have the same idea when they called the "707-020" the "Boeing 720"




Hope this helps
CanadianNorth
HS-748, just like a 747 but better!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos