I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas and rebranded the MD-95 as 717, they "burned" one of these designations. I'm sure there were many factors at play at the time - Wikipedia mentions MD-95 was widely anticipated to be canceled when Boeing took over, so maybe it was deemed that the type needed a boost and/or demonstration of commitment.

In the end 717 was not a huge success with only 155 produced.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

I doubt it. They had already moved on at that point. It would have seemed like a step backwards.

Nah probably not. They will perhaps move on using some other series. Probably the 8x8. Or some other number instead. A lot of numbers exist.

Given how Boeing model numbers for passenger planes tended to end in 7 before they started in 7, an 807 would be more likely.

As much as I will find it odd when we see the Boeing 8X8 or Airbus A4XX (although they still have A360 & A370 to use), it's gonna happen at some point.

Gotta think having to conform to Base 10 will not stop Boeing and Airbus from developing new planes.

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas and rebranded the MD-95 as 717, they "burned" one of these designations. I'm sure there were many factors at play at the time - Wikipedia mentions MD-95 was widely anticipated to be canceled when Boeing took over, so maybe it was deemed that the type needed a boost and/or demonstration of commitment.

In the end 717 was not a huge success with only 155 produced.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

I don't think so as it would be seen as a backwards number. The MoM will be the 797. Or they could start a whole new line starting with 8 (lucky with the Chinese market too).

Guys & gals..it is sooo easy...it is now the 21st century..2707, 2727,2773, etc...good for another 100 years!


BTW, thew first will be 2757!!!!!!

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

You fit right in here, this forum is obsessed with this kind of numerology...

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

Yes, most of us are Gentiles, but there are also Jews, Muslims and Hindus, along with a few atheists.

Tan Flyr wrote:

Guys & gals..it is sooo easy...it is now the 21st century..2707, 2727,2773, etc...good for another 100 years!


BTW, thew first will be 2757!!!!!!

'2707' was the moniker used for the planned Boeing SST.
Whether Boeing will seek to resurrect the '2xxx' denomination remains to be seen - however, it wouldn't appear to be outside the realm of possibilities

I don't think there's a lot of people at Boeing worrying about this. They still have the 797 designation to use.

Looking at when airplanes were first introduced into service:
787 - 2011
777 - 1995
767/757 - 1982/1983
747 - 1970
737 - 1966
727 - 1962
707 - 1957

Over history that's an average of a new plane every 8 years. But in the last 3 decades development has slowed to a new plane about every 12 years. There are not many people working at Boeing today who will still be working when the model that follows the 797 is introduced.

KLDC10 wrote:

Tan Flyr wrote:

Guys & gals..it is sooo easy...it is now the 21st century..2707, 2727,2773, etc...good for another 100 years!


BTW, thew first will be 2757!!!!!!

'2707' was the moniker used for the planned Boeing SST.
Whether Boeing will seek to resurrect the '2xxx' denomination remains to be seen - however, it wouldn't appear to be outside the realm of possibilities

Yes, I remember even when Congress killed it..(the US effort at a SST)

but to me it just makes more sense to add the prefix "2" and start over!

there are lots of 9 they can use. I doubt they care at all. The Boeing 808 seems pretty much the same thing they make the 797 which doesn't seem like it will be anytime soon.

FX1816 wrote:

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas and rebranded the MD-95 as 717, they "burned" one of these designations. I'm sure there were many factors at play at the time - Wikipedia mentions MD-95 was widely anticipated to be canceled when Boeing took over, so maybe it was deemed that the type needed a boost and/or demonstration of commitment.

In the end 717 was not a huge success with only 155 produced.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

And internally Boeing designated it the 717-100.

antoniemey wrote:

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

And internally Boeing designated it the 717-100.

Correct, though it's worth noting the actual 717 and the internally named 717-100 (aka KC-135) are not functionally related. Just a recycling of the 717 name.

Nobody seems to remember that "797" was the designator that Universal used for the airplane on "The Doomsday Flight" .

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas and rebranded the MD-95 as 717, they "burned" one of these designations. I'm sure there were many factors at play at the time - Wikipedia mentions MD-95 was widely anticipated to be canceled when Boeing took over, so maybe it was deemed that the type needed a boost and/or demonstration of commitment.

In the end 717 was not a huge success with only 155 produced.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

No, it is not. The KC is an independent development from the dash eighty with a different fuselage diameter.

Can't be 808--Roland Corp beat them to it...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_TR-808 ('Beat'...I crack myself up...)

Spacepope wrote:

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

No, it is not. The KC is an independent development from the dash eighty with a different fuselage diameter.

What? How is it independent if they both are based on the same prototype? That's like saying you and your biological sibling aren't related because you're different people.

If 27x7 is for supersonic how about 17x7?
And i thought A4xx are for military...

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before now, but there was a Boeing jet-powered aircraft that was not designated as a 7X7. That was the four-engine Boeing 720. Only 154 of them were manufactured, but the 720 did show a small profit for Boeing. The Boeing 720 competed with its parent plane, the 707, as well as the early, smaller versions of the Douglas DC-8, the Convair 880 & the Convair 990 Coronado. But, what really spelled the end of the line for the 720 was the Boeing 727. The new three-holer could handle smaller airports with shorter runways better than the 720, and it operated much better at hot-and-high aerodromes, such as Denver Stapleton. The designation of the Boeing 720 was a one-time thing, as Boeing saw & marketed the 720 as a smaller version of the 707, but it does show that Boeing was willing to deviate from the 7X7 series once before.

masgniw wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

masgniw wrote:

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

No, it is not. The KC is an independent development from the dash eighty with a different fuselage diameter.

What? How is it independent if they both are based on the same prototype? That's like saying you and your biological sibling aren't related because you're different people.

They are not independent developments but the KC135 is not a 707 variant.

Both the 707 and KC135 are derived from the 367-80. The 707 is a 6 abreast frame whereas the 367-80 and 717 (KC135) and 739 (RC135) would be 5 abreast if you tried fitting in seats. These are quite different frames, maybe more different than the A330 vs A340, which is another example of planes that are not independently developed.

johns624 wrote:

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

Yes, most of us are Gentiles, but there are also Jews, Muslims and Hindus, along with a few atheists.

Touche! LOL

The day will come when Boeing announce with a huge fanfare, flashing lights etc that a new day in Aviation has dawned and future planes will be numbered 8**. They won't announce it with even a touch of regret or reminiscence, it will be portrayed as a positive and used to illustrate that the new aircraft is a completely new world beater rather than something that has evolved from the existing.
The more I think about it, the more I am surprised that they didn't do this with the 787 to illustrate its extensive use of composites and non bleed air engines.

Zudnic wrote:

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

Boeing will run out of 7x7 numbers sooner or later, be it after 9 or 10 models. Can't stop the inevitable. The marketing department will deal with it: the 8x8 series will be announced with lots of fanfare and the 7x7 series will be history.

SkyVoice wrote:

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before now, but there was a Boeing jet-powered aircraft that was not designated as a 7X7. That was the four-engine Boeing 720. Only 154 of them were manufactured, but the 720 did show a small profit for Boeing. The Boeing 720 competed with its parent plane, the 707, as well as the early, smaller versions of the Douglas DC-8, the Convair 880 & the Convair 990 Coronado. But, what really spelled the end of the line for the 720 was the Boeing 727. The new three-holer could handle smaller airports with shorter runways better than the 720, and it operated much better at hot-and-high aerodromes, such as Denver Stapleton. The designation of the Boeing 720 was a one-time thing, as Boeing saw & marketed the 720 as a smaller version of the 707, but it does show that Boeing was willing to deviate from the 7X7 series once before.

Not so sure abut your performance analogy as the B720B had a significant performance edge over the 727-100 0r -200 builds during that time period. The 720B exceeded the number of 720A's build by a pretty good ratio.

The only ones fixated on this non-issue are the folks on Airliners.net.

Boeing should have called the Dreamliner 808 IMO. It was a revolutionary plane, was marketed as that, and like the 707 it is a relatively small longhaul aircraft. The marketing issue with the 8x8-scheme is, however, that it would let the rest of the lineup look outdated.

Since that did not happen the best will be probably to just recycle old names and call the NSA 717 or 727 or both if it comes with different wings. Smaller "x" for smaller planes, even if it doesn't fit perfectly. Might be irritating for us aviation nuts but why not?

7107, 7117, 7127...

SkyVoice wrote:

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before now, but there was a Boeing jet-powered aircraft that was not designated as a 7X7. That was the four-engine Boeing 720. Only 154 of them were manufactured, but the 720 did show a small profit for Boeing. The Boeing 720 competed with its parent plane, the 707, as well as the early, smaller versions of the Douglas DC-8, the Convair 880 & the Convair 990 Coronado. But, what really spelled the end of the line for the 720 was the Boeing 727. The new three-holer could handle smaller airports with shorter runways better than the 720, and it operated much better at hot-and-high aerodromes, such as Denver Stapleton. The designation of the Boeing 720 was a one-time thing, as Boeing saw & marketed the 720 as a smaller version of the 707, but it does show that Boeing was willing to deviate from the 7X7 series once before.

Thanks for this, that's very interesting. I was always puzzled by the '720' name when I was a kid and regarded the aircraft as a bit obscure.
What few people know is that the 720 itself was, at one point, called the '717-020' by Boeing (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_720). So not only the KC-135 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC ... ratotanker) and the ultimate version of the DC-9 line (the MD-95) had the '717' designation at one point, but the plane that eventually became the 720 as well. This makes that there have been three different 717s in history. With that in mind, I think it was not a bad choice from Boeing to use this not-so-new name for the not-so-new plane that the MD-95 was. Further, I'm afraid that the designation '717' would sound a bit 'old hat' by the time the successor of the 797 is there.

There was a reason for choosing the name "720". One could argue that the 720 was in fact a 707, but a bit shorter (like the 707-138 specially made for Qantas) and with a slightly different wing and smaller MLG wheels. However, it was rumoured that United Airlines, who had just chosen the Douglas DC-8, was very interested in the proposed shorter, medium haul version of the 707 (by then called 707-020) as well. Having just explained to everybody (investors, employees, the general public) why the DC-8 was a better choice than the 707, it could be regarded as loss of face for United to order 707s. Therefore, is was agreed that the new medium haul 707 version would be called '720' and everybody was happy. This is what I have heard, no guarantees that this is a true story.

The 720 may not have been an enormous sales success in itself but it did the trick for Boeing (and Douglas) in pushing Convair with its 880 and 990 jets out of the market.

BTW, this is my first post here after almost 15 years of lurking

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

One of the drawbacks to having an iconic naming scheme like 7x7 is that you can only have ten models. When Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas and rebranded the MD-95 as 717, they "burned" one of these designations. I'm sure there were many factors at play at the time - Wikipedia mentions MD-95 was widely anticipated to be canceled when Boeing took over, so maybe it was deemed that the type needed a boost and/or demonstration of commitment.

In the end 717 was not a huge success with only 155 produced.

In the long term, will Boeing regret this decision once they eventually launch 797 and are then out of 7x7 numbers?

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

You're actually quite wrong. In fact, it's more accurate to say the opposite: the 707 is a KC-135 (dash 80) variant. When originally produced, Boeing pitched its already-being-engineered KC-135 to Pan Am, who decided they wanted a wider fusulage and thus an extra row a seats. Boeing, of course, appeased Pan Am and built the 707. The 707 and 717 (KC135), however, do not even share a common fusulage. If you cut them in half and tried to stick them together, they wouldn't fit.

Boeing could always switch to letters: 7A7, 7B7 etc...and keep the X-Y-Z letters for planes in design mode. The world will probably end or we'll all be teleporting by the time they get to 7W7.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Boeing could always switch to letters: 7A7, 7B7 etc...and keep the X-Y-Z letters for planes in design mode. The world will probably end or we'll all be teleporting by the time they get to 7W7.

The 7E7 was early name of the 787. It's already established internally. They will just use letters.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Boeing could always switch to letters: 7A7, 7B7 etc...and keep the X-Y-Z letters for planes in design mode. The world will probably end or we'll all be teleporting by the time they get to 7W7.

A friend of mine calls the 77W a "7W7" just to irritate the enthusiast in me. But I do like the concept of extending the 7 series rather than starting with a new number. Boeing 808 just sounds weird to me. Just my .

-Rowen

johns624 wrote:

Zudnic wrote:

I'm mostly a lurker, be gentile...

Yes, most of us are Gentiles, but there are also Jews, Muslims and Hindus, along with a few atheists.

....and some agnostics too.

N766UA wrote:

masgniw wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

The KC-135 is technically the 717 also so it was not wasted.

No, the KC-135 is a 707 variant.

You're actually quite wrong. In fact, it's more accurate to say the opposite: the 707 is a KC-135 (dash 80) variant. When originally produced, Boeing pitched its already-being-engineered KC-135 to Pan Am, who decided they wanted a wider fusulage and thus an extra row a seats. Boeing, of course, appeased Pan Am and built the 707. The 707 and 717 (KC135), however, do not even share a common fusulage. If you cut them in half and tried to stick them together, they wouldn't fit.

You know Boeing only appeased PanAm after PanAm announced they had ordered 47 jets of which only 20 were the 707, the rest were DC-8s. PanAm made it clear that the DC-8 was their growth plan since Boeing refused, at first, to widen the 707. After Boeing widened the 707, history changed. There is a book called Skygods on PanAm that has an excellent history.

But on thread, Boeing has two 717s. Cest la vie.

There could be letters. e.g., 7E7, 7R7, or 73S or something...

Lightsaber

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

there are lots of 9 they can use. I doubt they care at all. The Boeing 808 seems pretty much the same thing they make the 797 which doesn't seem like it will be anytime soon.

I'll bet there won't be any Boeing 9x9 planes.
COMAC seems to have "trademarked" that series.
The single aisle 919 has already made its first flight, the widebody 929 is on the horizon and further down the airways or road, there's talk of the bigger 939.
Chances are lower series numbers than 7, ie 6x6 etc, will not be considered.
8x8 is being bandied about everywhere and there's also the four digit 27x7.
However, I tend to believe that if they ever decide to go for the longer string of numerals, 77x7 will stand a very good chance, starting of course with the 7707. You heard it here first.

TerminalD wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Boeing could always switch to letters: 7A7, 7B7 etc...and keep the X-Y-Z letters for planes in design mode. The world will probably end or we'll all be teleporting by the time they get to 7W7.

The 7E7 was early name of the 787. It's already established internally. They will just use letters.

The 757 and 767 also had letters early on in the program.

One oddity Boeing used to do was the way the KC-135 was also referred to as the 717-148. Odd as 48 is the code for Aer Lingus!

TurboJet707, thank you for your reply. Your first post was a dandy! May your waterburner's smoke trails rise over the a.net forums for a long time to come . . .

Many thanks SkyVoice for your warm welcome!

Channex757 wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Boeing could always switch to letters: 7A7, 7B7 etc...and keep the X-Y-Z letters for planes in design mode. The world will probably end or we'll all be teleporting by the time they get to 7W7.

The 7E7 was early name of the 787. It's already established internally. They will just use letters.

The 757 and 767 also had letters early on in the program.

One oddity Boeing used to do was the way the KC-135 was also referred to as the 717-148. Odd as 48 is the code for Aer Lingus!

From what I can remember, which is being clouded by the sands of time, the 7N7 and 7X7 models were studied together in the 70s. The 7N7 became the 757 and the latter the 767. There was also a trijet version
767MR/LR which was later named the 777 and eventually dropped. So the 777 as we know it now reused that paper trijet's name.
Then there's the twin aisle (2+2+2) propfan 7J7 of the 1980s which was never built.

The 7x7 designation have not been Boeing's only model designations for jets. The B-52, for example, has an internal model number of 464. As others have said, the C-135 airframe (used for the tankers and many other derivatives), is the type 717. Once 7x7 is exhausted, I have to imagine the next will be 807. Going by Wikipedia, Every "modern" (metal monoplane retracting gear) Boeing passenger airliner (beginning with the 221) has had a model number ending in 7 or a multiple of 7 the exception of the 720 (which was originally a 707). Before the 367-80, there was the 221, 247, 307, 314, and 377.

I thought they already announced they are going straight to the 9x9 names? I can't remember where I read that, but it's on here somewhere.

How about this wrench being thrown in..start recycling the 7x7 again. With the variants being out of production for so long, why can't they be reused? Granted we are enthusiasts on here, but will the majority of the public know they are on a "707" again?

C-135 is just a millitary nickname of the 717.

'757 phoenix', five is an ideal mom number
The 737 has yet to reach its max,... pinnacle,... zenith

Based on their decision to appeal to Asian sensibilities with the numeral 8 as in 787, 787-8, 747-8, 777-8, 737-8, I would expect 8x8 to be a real possibility. I would also like to see some reference to the 21st century with something like 2107 or 2108 as the first non-7x7 model.

7-n-7 it's just a name. Boeing could name its next airliner the Spruce Moose without losing any sales.