Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
IFlyVeryLittle
Topic Author
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:31 pm

Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:38 pm

Was there ever discussion of a stretched 707 in the same style as the DC-8 Super 60? Would the rejection have been technical or market-based? Thanks.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19926
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:12 pm

The 707-300 series was a stretch over the original -100 series. There was also the shrink 720, so three different fuselage lengths.

Boeing also studied further stretches - a -600 domestic version and a -800 intercontinental ranged version. I believe development was dropped in favour of the 747.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
DH106
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:41 pm

I think the 720 was the same length as the original -100?
There was the -138 shrink case specially for Qantas
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20692
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:30 am

If nothing else, the 707 suffered from the same problem that the 737 has had. The gear legs were a bit short for stretching. The DC-8, with taller gear, was much more successful in this regard.

Boeing seems to favour shorter gear. Compare the 787 with the A350. Granted, the 787 is a smaller aircraft, but still...

As sbcriml says, the 747 came along and further development of the 707 was presumably shelved.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
aeromoe
Posts: 1714
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:33 am

DH106 wrote:
I think the 720 was the same length as the original -100?
There was the -138 shrink case specially for Qantas


720 was NOT the same length as the -100.

A quick web search will answer this: "Compared to the 707-120, it has a length reduced by 9 feet (2.7 m)." This also excludes that special -138 fuselage for Qantas.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_720. Take it for what it's worth...a pinch of salt.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20692
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:38 am

As aeromoe says, the 720 was a shrink and thus shorter than the -100.
- 707-120/220: 145'1" long.
- 720: 136'9" long.
- 707-320/420: 152'11" long.

In summary, the 707 was stretched once (-320/-420) and shrunk once (720).


Looking at the other family members, the 367-80 prototype was 127'10" long.

Both the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*) and the 707 were derived from the 367-80. The KC-135/717 has a 1' wider fuselage compared to the 367-80, and the 707 was a further 4" wider to accommodate 6 abreast seating.

The KC-135/717 was 136'3" long.


707 version summary with dimensions here: http://aviation.rosboch.net/?p=13


*This was the original 717, and explains the apparent gap between 707 and 717. Boeing later recycled the 717 model number with what began life as the MD-95.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
e38
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 10:09 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:01 am

Starlionblue wrote:
. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)


The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.

The twin-engine version of the Boeing 717 aircraft - original MD-95 design - are assigned a -200 designation, I.e. Boeing 717-200, and from a review of the data at rzjets.net, many have the Boeing customer code designation.

Accordingly, in the U.S. (FAA), KC-135 pilots receive a B-707 / B-720 type rating while Boeing 717 pilots receive a DC-9 type rating (unless that has changed recently).

e38
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20692
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:23 am

e38 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)


The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.

The twin-engine version of the Boeing 717 aircraft - original MD-95 design - are assigned a -200 designation, I.e. Boeing 717-200, and from a review of the data at rzjets.net, many have the Boeing customer code designation.

Accordingly, in the U.S. (FAA), KC-135 pilots receive a B-707 / B-720 type rating while Boeing 717 pilots receive a DC-9 type rating (unless that has changed recently).

e38


Cool! I didn't know the 717-148 tidbit.

Makes sense that you'd get a DC-9 rating. However, I thought the MD-88 onwards was under a different type certificate compared to the MD-81/2/3/7 and DC-9?
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
e38
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 10:09 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:00 am

Starlionblue wrote:
I thought the MD-88 onwards was under a different type certificate compared to the MD-81/2/3/7 and DC-9?


DC-9 type rating is applicable for DC9-10 through DC9-87 (MD-87) as well as MD-88, MD-90 (MD-90-30), and 717-200.

reference is FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 19. Effective 17 December 2020.

e38
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2664
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:36 am

e38 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)


The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.


I wonder why Aer Lingus ordered all of those tankers? :D
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.

Former AMT on A220,A310,A319/20/21,A330,A350,B707,B717,B727,B737,B747,B757,B767,B777,DC-9,DC-10,L-1011,
MD-80/90,MD-11
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:31 pm

e38 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)


The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.

The twin-engine version of the Boeing 717 aircraft - original MD-95 design - are assigned a -200 designation, I.e. Boeing 717-200, and from a review of the data at rzjets.net, many have the Boeing customer code designation.

Accordingly, in the U.S. (FAA), KC-135 pilots receive a B-707 / B-720 type rating while Boeing 717 pilots receive a DC-9 type rating (unless that has changed recently).

e38


Regarding the (K/R)C-135 aircraft the following trivia :

KC-135A's have been built in three variants : 717-100A, 717-146 and 717-148.
C-135A = 717-157
C-135B = 717-158
KC-135B = 717-166
C-135F (French AF) = 717-165

RC-135A = 739-700
RC-135B = 739-445B

All other "135" variants are conversions and/or modifications..

Source : Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M.Bowers., page 463-480
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:00 pm

I don't know. Maybe it would have eaten sales away from the 7N7 and 7X7 (757 and 767)?
Going to ATL airport in 2019 is like being in 2013
Going to ATL airport in 2010 is like being in 2000
Going to ATL airport in 1998 is like being in 1988
Going to ATL airport in 2035 is like watching paint dry
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
The 707-300 series was a stretch over the original -100 series. There was also the shrink 720, so three different fuselage lengths.

Boeing also studied further stretches - a -600 domestic version and a -800 intercontinental ranged version. I believe development was dropped in favour of the 747.


The 707-620 was a proposed domestic range-stretched variant of the 707-320B. The 707-620 was to carry around 200 passengers while retaining several aspects of the 707-320B. It would have been delivered around 1968 and would have also been Boeing's answer to the stretched Douglas DC-8 Series 60. Had the 707-620 been built, it would have cost around US$8,000,000. However, engineers discovered that a longer fuselage and wing meant a painstaking redesign of the wing and landing-gear structures. Rather than spend money on upgrading the 707, engineer Joe Sutter stated the company "decided spending money on the 707 wasn't worth it". The project was cancelled in 1966 in favor of the newer Boeing 747.

The 707-820 was a proposed intercontinental stretched variant of the 707-320B. It was to be powered by four Pratt & Whitney JT3D-15 turbofan engines and would have had a 10-foot (3.0 m) extension in wingspan. Two variations were proposed, the 707-820(505) model and the 707-820(506) model. The 505 model would have had a fuselage 45 feet (14 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 209 passengers in mixed-class configuration and 260 passengers in all-economy configuration. The 506 model would have had a fuselage 55 feet (17 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 225 passengers in mixed class configuration and 279 passengers in all economy configuration. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 was also set to compete with the stretched DC-8-60 Super Series models. The design was being pitched to American, TWA, BOAC, and Pan Am at the time of its proposal in early 1965. The 707-820 would have cost US$10,000,000. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 would have required a massive structural redesign to the wing and gear structures. The 707-820 was also cancelled in 1966 in favor of the 747.

Source : Flight International magazines from my archive (not available anymore via the Flight Global website) , issues March 25 and June 3, 1965. (also used at source for wikipedia "Boeing 707")
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20692
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:20 am

747classic wrote:
e38 wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)


The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.

The twin-engine version of the Boeing 717 aircraft - original MD-95 design - are assigned a -200 designation, I.e. Boeing 717-200, and from a review of the data at rzjets.net, many have the Boeing customer code designation.

Accordingly, in the U.S. (FAA), KC-135 pilots receive a B-707 / B-720 type rating while Boeing 717 pilots receive a DC-9 type rating (unless that has changed recently).

e38


Regarding the (K/R)C-135 aircraft the following trivia :

KC-135A's have been built in three variants : 717-100A, 717-146 and 717-148.
C-135A = 717-157
C-135B = 717-158
KC-135B = 717-166
C-135F (French AF) = 717-165

RC-135A = 739-700
RC-135B = 739-445B

All other "135" variants are conversions and/or modifications..

Source : Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M.Bowers., page 463-480


Perfect. Thank you!
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:21 am

There were seven total lengths of the 707 versions across four fuselage lengths. They are, in length order:

707-138
707-138B
720
720B
707-100/200
707-100B
707-300/300B/300C/400

Now for the long version (pun intended): Boeing originally planned the 707 with the same 144" wide (5Y) and 128' long fuselage as the KC-135 for production simplicity. Pan Am bought 20 707s and 25 DC-8s because Douglas went 6Y on the DC-8 with a 147" tube. American balked at the 5Y and said they'd buy if Boeing built the 707 at 6Y, so they relented and made the upper lobe of the 707 148" to accommodate 6Y seating, but kept the tail cone and stabs the same. This is why the 707's fuselage tapers down before the tailfin (like a less-obvious version of the 747SP) but the KC-135 goes right back. Check this picture out and look at the section just above the aft exit door and you'll see it:
Image

As the engines got more powerful, PA and AA lobbied Boeing for a 10-foot stretch (6 frames, 4 ahead and 2 aft), which Boeing obliged. This became the 707-100. Qantas needed the lower OEW of the original design, so Boeing produced the short-body 707-100 as well, with 3 frames less ahead and behind the wings. The 707-138 was thus the same fuselage length as the KC-135, but the wing was mounted further aft. Other than Qantas, nobody bought the short 100. The 200 was basically a long-body 100 with JT4As for Braniff. The 300 was a four frame stretch of the long 100: 2 ahead of the wings, and 2 in the wing box because of the wing extension. All 300/300B/300C/400 were the same fuselage and overall length. After the 300 came the 720, which is 5 frames shorter than the 707-100, -1 ahead and -4 behind the wing. So the 720 is 20 inches longer than the short-body 707-100, but with different proportions.Next up, Boeing made fan versions of the 720 and the 100 (as well as some conversions), which included a 20-inch stabilizer extension to deal with the increased pitch-up moment from the higher-thrust engines. That stabilizer extension hung 7 inches further aft, meaning that fan-converted aircraft were all a bit longer. Thus there were 4 different fuselage lengths and 7 different overall lengths in the family.

As mentioned, the 600/800 would have been an expensive wingbox redesign for the rotation angle, which is why they canceled them in favor of the 747, just like they did with the 737NG->Y1 :D

More here:
http://adastron.com/707/qantas/138-length.htm
https://airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=72
https://airlinercafe.com/page.php?id=428
 
ELBOB
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:10 am

There was also the 707-700 Stretch proposal in 1977/78 with CFM56s. 200 inches longer than the baseline -700 to carry 180 passengers in mixed config.

Boeing's model planning in the late 70s was complicated, mainly due to American Airlines who kept insisting on a transcontinental 777-100 trijet and the short 767-100 twin, which meant that the 707-700 Stretch slotted in above the 777. But once American were persuaded to upgauge to the 767-200 for both of their requirements, the need for the trijet and the 707 stretch evaporated and they were replaced by proposals for stretched 767s.
 
User avatar
PPVLC
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:07 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:00 pm

[quote="ELBOB"]There was also the 707-700 Stretch proposal in 1977/78 with CFM56s. 200 inches longer than the baseline -700 to carry 180 passengers in mixed config.
That's curious as I clearly remember flying the old 707s configured to carry 186 passengers. th stretch would carry less people
Cabin crew L188 707 727 737 757 767 A300 DC10 MD11 777 747
 
global2
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:08 am

747classic wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The 707-300 series was a stretch over the original -100 series. There was also the shrink 720, so three different fuselage lengths.

Boeing also studied further stretches - a -600 domestic version and a -800 intercontinental ranged version. I believe development was dropped in favour of the 747.


The 707-620 was a proposed domestic range-stretched variant of the 707-320B. The 707-620 was to carry around 200 passengers while retaining several aspects of the 707-320B. It would have been delivered around 1968 and would have also been Boeing's answer to the stretched Douglas DC-8 Series 60. Had the 707-620 been built, it would have cost around US$8,000,000. However, engineers discovered that a longer fuselage and wing meant a painstaking redesign of the wing and landing-gear structures. Rather than spend money on upgrading the 707, engineer Joe Sutter stated the company "decided spending money on the 707 wasn't worth it". The project was cancelled in 1966 in favor of the newer Boeing 747.

The 707-820 was a proposed intercontinental stretched variant of the 707-320B. It was to be powered by four Pratt & Whitney JT3D-15 turbofan engines and would have had a 10-foot (3.0 m) extension in wingspan. Two variations were proposed, the 707-820(505) model and the 707-820(506) model. The 505 model would have had a fuselage 45 feet (14 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 209 passengers in mixed-class configuration and 260 passengers in all-economy configuration. The 506 model would have had a fuselage 55 feet (17 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 225 passengers in mixed class configuration and 279 passengers in all economy configuration. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 was also set to compete with the stretched DC-8-60 Super Series models. The design was being pitched to American, TWA, BOAC, and Pan Am at the time of its proposal in early 1965. The 707-820 would have cost US$10,000,000. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 would have required a massive structural redesign to the wing and gear structures. The 707-820 was also cancelled in 1966 in favor of the 747.

Source : Flight International magazines from my archive (not available anymore via the Flight Global website) , issues March 25 and June 3, 1965. (also used at source for wikipedia "Boeing 707")


Were there any renderings of these? I haven't found any but would be curious to see how these would have looked.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2460
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:46 am

global2 wrote:
747classic wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The 707-300 series was a stretch over the original -100 series. There was also the shrink 720, so three different fuselage lengths.

Boeing also studied further stretches - a -600 domestic version and a -800 intercontinental ranged version. I believe development was dropped in favour of the 747.


The 707-620 was a proposed domestic range-stretched variant of the 707-320B. The 707-620 was to carry around 200 passengers while retaining several aspects of the 707-320B. It would have been delivered around 1968 and would have also been Boeing's answer to the stretched Douglas DC-8 Series 60. Had the 707-620 been built, it would have cost around US$8,000,000. However, engineers discovered that a longer fuselage and wing meant a painstaking redesign of the wing and landing-gear structures. Rather than spend money on upgrading the 707, engineer Joe Sutter stated the company "decided spending money on the 707 wasn't worth it". The project was cancelled in 1966 in favor of the newer Boeing 747.

The 707-820 was a proposed intercontinental stretched variant of the 707-320B. It was to be powered by four Pratt & Whitney JT3D-15 turbofan engines and would have had a 10-foot (3.0 m) extension in wingspan. Two variations were proposed, the 707-820(505) model and the 707-820(506) model. The 505 model would have had a fuselage 45 feet (14 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 209 passengers in mixed-class configuration and 260 passengers in all-economy configuration. The 506 model would have had a fuselage 55 feet (17 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 225 passengers in mixed class configuration and 279 passengers in all economy configuration. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 was also set to compete with the stretched DC-8-60 Super Series models. The design was being pitched to American, TWA, BOAC, and Pan Am at the time of its proposal in early 1965. The 707-820 would have cost US$10,000,000. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 would have required a massive structural redesign to the wing and gear structures. The 707-820 was also cancelled in 1966 in favor of the 747.

Source : Flight International magazines from my archive (not available anymore via the Flight Global website) , issues March 25 and June 3, 1965. (also used at source for wikipedia "Boeing 707")


Were there any renderings of these? I haven't found any but would be curious to see how these would have looked.

Yeah, there are a few models in the Boeing Archives, I've seen them. Here's a pic of one: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/330662797622712522/

I'm sure there are more out there on the web somewhere.
 
global2
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Why no Boeing 707 stretch?

Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:41 am

LH707330 wrote:
global2 wrote:
747classic wrote:

The 707-620 was a proposed domestic range-stretched variant of the 707-320B. The 707-620 was to carry around 200 passengers while retaining several aspects of the 707-320B. It would have been delivered around 1968 and would have also been Boeing's answer to the stretched Douglas DC-8 Series 60. Had the 707-620 been built, it would have cost around US$8,000,000. However, engineers discovered that a longer fuselage and wing meant a painstaking redesign of the wing and landing-gear structures. Rather than spend money on upgrading the 707, engineer Joe Sutter stated the company "decided spending money on the 707 wasn't worth it". The project was cancelled in 1966 in favor of the newer Boeing 747.

The 707-820 was a proposed intercontinental stretched variant of the 707-320B. It was to be powered by four Pratt & Whitney JT3D-15 turbofan engines and would have had a 10-foot (3.0 m) extension in wingspan. Two variations were proposed, the 707-820(505) model and the 707-820(506) model. The 505 model would have had a fuselage 45 feet (14 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 209 passengers in mixed-class configuration and 260 passengers in all-economy configuration. The 506 model would have had a fuselage 55 feet (17 m) longer than the 707-320B and would have carried 225 passengers in mixed class configuration and 279 passengers in all economy configuration. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 was also set to compete with the stretched DC-8-60 Super Series models. The design was being pitched to American, TWA, BOAC, and Pan Am at the time of its proposal in early 1965. The 707-820 would have cost US$10,000,000. Like the 707-620, the 707-820 would have required a massive structural redesign to the wing and gear structures. The 707-820 was also cancelled in 1966 in favor of the 747.

Source : Flight International magazines from my archive (not available anymore via the Flight Global website) , issues March 25 and June 3, 1965. (also used at source for wikipedia "Boeing 707")


Were there any renderings of these? I haven't found any but would be curious to see how these would have looked.

Yeah, there are a few models in the Boeing Archives, I've seen them. Here's a pic of one: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/330662797622712522/

I'm sure there are more out there on the web somewhere.


Thanks! I love the L2 door!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

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