Boeing has given a "code" to each of its product lines, post-World War II:

300 and 400: military aircraft
500: turbine-powered aircraft
600: missles
700: jet-transport passenger aircraft

I thought I had read a long time ago that the 800 and 900 series were reserved, but I can find no modern reference to them.

The 720 was the only non 7x7 aircraft produced, as at the time. I remember reading that the 717 number was used for something, so the 720 designation was used. Later, the McDonnell Douglas MD-90 series was renamed the 717, which was no longer needed. I wish I could find the books from which I know this reference, but they're in storage somewhere.

As for speculation on the post-797? Not from me.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Boeing has given a "code" to each of its product lines, post-World War II:

300 and 400: military aircraft
500: turbine-powered aircraft
600: missles
700: jet-transport passenger aircraft

I thought I had read a long time ago that the 800 and 900 series were reserved, but I can find no modern reference to them.

The 720 was the only non 7x7 aircraft produced, as at the time. I remember reading that the 717 number was used for something, so the 720 designation was used. Later, the McDonnell Douglas MD-90 series was renamed the 717, which was no longer needed. I wish I could find the books from which I know this reference, but they're in storage somewhere.

As for speculation on the post-797? Not from me.

The "original" 717 is the 717-100, a.k.a. C135 and derivatives.
The "unloved" 717 is the 717-200, f.k.a. MD-95.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Boeing has given a "code" to each of its product lines, post-World War II:

300 and 400: military aircraft
500: turbine-powered aircraft
600: missles
700: jet-transport passenger aircraft

I thought I had read a long time ago that the 800 and 900 series were reserved, but I can find no modern reference to them.

The 720 was the only non 7x7 aircraft produced, as at the time. I remember reading that the 717 number was used for something,

"Something"
Click on the photo below and you will find that a.net describes it as a "Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker (717-148)"
The Boeing 717-100 is the C-135, and "148" is the USAF Boeing customer code.

Boeing model 818 was Boeing's candidate for the U.S. military's TFX fighter competition in 1962.
It lost to the General Dynamics F-111

Boeing model 953 was the YC-14 which was supposed to replace the C-130.


The best comes last! This is the Boeing 929-100 Hydrofoil (just over 40 built, most still in service)

I knew someone here would know it!! Thanks for the updates, guys - I'm glad someone in the know filled in the gaps in my memory!

Given that it is nearing 60 years since the use of 818 by Boeing, it's possible.

The '797' series will likely be out in 8-10 years, learning from the mistakes from the 737-MAX series. That will mean a taller landing gear system and some serious engineering. I would also like to see Boeing use a 'barrel' dimension like that of similar Airbus planes so a touch more seat room.

Beyond the 797 may have to be a major evolution to the 777's, moving to more composites in the aircraft body, more advanced engines.

Adopt the old Douglas scheme, but make it BC. Boeing Commercial, BC. BC-2 BC-3.....BC-8, BC-8-50, BC-8-60...........

Boeing 807 "Sardineliner". Ryanair will order 400

Bricktop wrote:

797 will be the NSA. NMA has no business case. Don’t worry about anything after that, because Airbus will kill the NSA in the marketplace and Boeing will exit the commercial airplane market a la Bombardier.

You cannot be serious!! That thought must have given you a headache!! Or? You're just Drunk! The B797 Will happen and there's nothing Airbus is going to Do about it with a bunch of warmed over "ME Too" Designes,,

Bricktop wrote:

797 will be the NSA. NMA has no business case. Don’t worry about anything after that, because Airbus will kill the NSA in the marketplace and Boeing will exit the commercial airplane market a la Bombardier.

As long as the US government is still around, Boeing will continue to build commercial aircraft.

strfyr51 wrote:

The B797 Will happen

Not sure anyone doubts that the 797 will happen; but what will it be? The famous NMA? Or the NSA? Or another 3-letter-acronym?

The 797 is logically the next Boeing aircraft in the designation; but then again, as of now, no one (outside of Boeing) officially know which project will be assigned this moniker. It's just speculations right now.

LeDcNq7D wrote:

N776AU wrote:

My money is on 808, etc because of how a certain part of the world falsely believes 8 is a lucky number.

HA would be all over that one.

Also, typical booking code for disturbing the peace and also the name of a synth drum. There was a song..."boom like an 808"
Would be the awesome designator of a future SST

afterburner33 wrote:

I vote for 808 as well, although once upon a time that was a car:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Grand_Familia

Funny I'm reading this today...yesterday I watched the very first episode (from 1972) of "The New Price Is Right" game show on YouTube and the 808 was a prize on it. The guy bid $2500 for the showcase and it was $2504...so he won it.

Revelation wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Now that's a theory worth unpacking !!

I'm skeptical of whether the government would let Boeing fail. I can imagine another "bailout" which the taxpayers will pay for..

Not fail. They will be a military and space company, where the government subsidies that allow them to sell their commercial airplanes so cheap (after all why would anyone buy them otherwise?) can be used for share buybacks and executive bonuses. Winning!

I think that should leave them with just enough money to bring the next grandfathered post-MAX 737 iteration to market, no?

Maybe with enough left over for all those great 767neo ideas to finally be brought to market as well?

A 767-NEO could be done relatively effectively with the knowledge from the KC-46. Just ensure the trash and power tools are removed prior to deliveries.

WayexTDI wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

The B797 Will happen

Not sure anyone doubts that the 797 will happen; but what will it be? The famous NMA? Or the NSA? Or another 3-letter-acronym?

NLA - Non Lethal Airplane

While historically shrunk version did not perform very well, I still speculate that Boeing will offer NMA shrink as 737 replacement for the next 30 years. NSA has no business case.

My guess is they will keep the 7-7 because it's familiar and sounds good; introducing a letter in the middle would do the job keeping the same rhythm. A name like Boeing 7S7 for instance gives continuity and modernity without turning into a tongue-twister.

Obviously the 2707, which is already more mature than most expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707

IQuit wrote:

While historically shrunk version did not perform very well, I still speculate that Boeing will offer NMA shrink as 737 replacement for the next 30 years. NSA has no business case.

If it hasn't worked so far, why would it work now?
And if NMA = shrunk NSA, then it's just another version of the NSA family.

What comes after the 797? Bankruptcy.

BN727227Ultra wrote:

What comes after the 797? Bankruptcy.

Put all you have on shorting Boeing stock and let us know whether it is you or Boeing that is bankrupt in a year's time.

AirwayBill wrote:

I have yet to meet someone referring to the Caravelle as SE210 or the Comet as DH106.

Aeroplanes in Britain have tended to have been known officially and popularly by names and not numbers, even though most had a manufacturer's number, such as the quoted DH 106 for the Comet. The Vickers VC10, the De Havilland (later Hawker Siddeley) 125 and the BAC 111 are three of the exceptions which never received names.

The Royal Air Force complicated matters by renaming some aeroplanes which already had names: hence, the De Havilland Dove became the Devon (although the four-engine version, the Heron, did not get changed); or giving names to some which didn't have them in civilian use, such as the Avro 748, which was called the Andover; or having a different name from the start for basically the same aeroplane, such as the Handley Page Hermes (civil) and Hastings (RAF). The RAF didn't give a name to their VC10s, but have called their Airbus A-330s the Voyager.

DrPaul wrote:

The Vickers VC10, the De Havilland (later Hawker Siddeley) 125 and the BAC 111 are three of the exceptions which never received names.

I've just remembered that the Royal Air Force did name their DH 125s, they were called Dominies.

WayexTDI wrote:

If it hasn't worked so far, why would it work now?
And if NMA = shrunk NSA, then it's just another version of the NSA family.

I don't know, things change, people change, technologies change.
The way I understand it, NMA = 7 abreast, NSA = 6 abreast.

IQuit wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

If it hasn't worked so far, why would it work now?
And if NMA = shrunk NSA, then it's just another version of the NSA family.

I don't know, things change, people change, technologies change.
The way I understand it, NMA = 7 abreast, NSA = 6 abreast.

If NMA = 7 abreast & NSA = 6 abreast, then they are 2 different airplanes, on 2 different certificates, even if construction methods and a lot of systems are the same (very much like 757/767).

Why not 2707, which I believe was going to be the designation for the Boeing SST back in the 70s. That could start the next series: 2707, 2717, 2727...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1989worstyear wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

dik909 wrote:

Now that's a theory worth unpacking !!

I'm skeptical of whether the government would let Boeing fail. I can imagine another "bailout" which the taxpayers will pay for..

Not fail. They will be a military and space company, where the government subsidies that allow them to sell their commercial airplanes so cheap (after all why would anyone buy them otherwise?) can be used for share buybacks and executive bonuses. Winning!

Just out of curiosity - what would A offer to compete with the NSA?

I imagine the current A320-200 wing would be over 40 years old by that point (ten years from now).

They can't, but that's probably the reason why Airbus are looking into developing a replacement for A320neo family and the neo version of A350 after 2025.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/airbus-reveals-plans-for-all-new-narrow-body-re-engined-a350

Maybe they could drop the numbering system and goes for name code. You know, Boeing Yellowstone Project and their Boeing Y1, Y2, and Y3 are pretty nice.

So Boeing Y11, or Y22, something like that.

I mean Y2 project are B787 and Y3 project are B777X. But the public doesn't really hear about the Y1 Y2 and Y3 codding yet, so it could be used for their next gen labeling.

Wasn't the 787 originally called the 7E7? So it's possible Boeing move to using middle letters once they run out of numbers e.g. 7A7, 7B7

Elshad wrote:

Wasn't the 787 originally called the 7E7? So it's possible Boeing move to using middle letters once they run out of numbers e.g. 7A7, 7B7

Except that they'll overlap on more than just that - 7E7 was indeed the project name for what became the 787, but they've also used 7N7 for the concept study that developed into the 757, 7X7 for the early days of the 767, 7J7 for a mid-'80s concept unducted-fan T-tail intended to replace the 727, and IIRC 7Y7 was slapped on one of the early NSA proposals too.