Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DH106 wrote:I think the 720 was the same length as the original -100?
There was the -138 shrink case specially for Qantas
Starlionblue wrote:. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)
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
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?
e38 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:. the KC-135 (Boeing model 717*)
The official designation of the KC-135 is Boeing 717-148.
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
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.
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
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")
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.
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.