Boeing - Why 7 series?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BNN VOR
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing - Why 7 series?
Can any enlighten me as to why Boeing aircraft families are all 7XX series? Ie. 747, 707, 737, 777 etc.
Is there some historical logic to this or was it an arbitrary choice?
Is there some historical logic to this or was it an arbitrary choice?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible, but unlikely. I can't find specs on the wing sweep, but on the Dash 80, which was the prototype for the 707 series, the sweep was only 35 deg. It's possible that by the time it went into production the wing had completely changed, but I doubt it.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/index.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/index.html
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys - nothing as technical as wing sweep!
Numbers in the 400 series had been used up, the 500 and 600 series were being reserved for missiles, pilotless aircraft and gas turbines, hence new aircraft types would start afresh in the 700 series.
The 707 should really have been called the 700 but Boeing felt that 7 was a lucky number and having two 7s in the designation would mean twice the luck. The head of Boeing public relations, Carl Cleveland, agreed that Model 707 sounded better and the rest they say is history...
Hope that clears up the mystery! Wonder if the proposed Sonic Cruiser will be given an all-new designation?
Numbers in the 400 series had been used up, the 500 and 600 series were being reserved for missiles, pilotless aircraft and gas turbines, hence new aircraft types would start afresh in the 700 series.
The 707 should really have been called the 700 but Boeing felt that 7 was a lucky number and having two 7s in the designation would mean twice the luck. The head of Boeing public relations, Carl Cleveland, agreed that Model 707 sounded better and the rest they say is history...
Hope that clears up the mystery! Wonder if the proposed Sonic Cruiser will be given an all-new designation?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 367 was the C-97 Stratofrieghter/tanker. The 367-80 was the 80th design study stemming from the basic project. Of course after 80 rehashes it didn't look anything like a C-97 
http://www.sierrafoot.org/aviation/dash80.html
http://www.sierrafoot.org/aviation/dash80.html
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true!
I suggest taking a look at "Legend and Legacy" by Robert J. Serling and "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter M. Bowers for the full lowdown on the Boeing method of airplane numbering.
I suggest taking a look at "Legend and Legacy" by Robert J. Serling and "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter M. Bowers for the full lowdown on the Boeing method of airplane numbering.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sandwich, Kent, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the marketing department's idea of what sounds good is often the major factor...
Similar things happen with car model numbers. I read that when Porsche were developing a certain well-known rear-engined, air-cooled sports car, they wanted to call it the 901, only to find the Peugeot had trade-marked all three-digit numbers with a zero in the middle (I guess it only applied to cars!) so they called it the 911 instead.
Allegedly.
Similar things happen with car model numbers. I read that when Porsche were developing a certain well-known rear-engined, air-cooled sports car, they wanted to call it the 901, only to find the Peugeot had trade-marked all three-digit numbers with a zero in the middle (I guess it only applied to cars!) so they called it the 911 instead.
Allegedly.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classic Aviator
If I recall well, the Boeing 720 was originally designated the 707-020, but they wanted to make something of the short-haul features of the type and gave it a separate number.
As for the 367-80, again if I'm right, it was given this designation, ie. the Dash-80, as a kind of cover story to allow the competition think it was just another version of the basic 367 Stratocruiser.
If I recall well, the Boeing 720 was originally designated the 707-020, but they wanted to make something of the short-haul features of the type and gave it a separate number.
As for the 367-80, again if I'm right, it was given this designation, ie. the Dash-80, as a kind of cover story to allow the competition think it was just another version of the basic 367 Stratocruiser.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, the 720 launch customer, United Airlines, did not approve of the designation 707-020 and pushed for a new designation number, hence 720. This was to show their customers that the plane was not just another 707 version, but American Airlines actually marketed their 720s as 707s.
Boeing first launched the aircraft as Model 717 (Boeing News - July 25th 1957) but was renamed in the November of that year.
The consensus was the aircraft was not different enough to warrant a whole new designation (727), so 720 became the compromise.
Interestingly, 717 was Boeing's commercial designation for the C-135 tanker/transport until superseded by the renamed MD-95.
Boeing first launched the aircraft as Model 717 (Boeing News - July 25th 1957) but was renamed in the November of that year.
The consensus was the aircraft was not different enough to warrant a whole new designation (727), so 720 became the compromise.
Interestingly, 717 was Boeing's commercial designation for the C-135 tanker/transport until superseded by the renamed MD-95.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be surprised to learn that the 'first' model was the 717, which was re-named the 707. I thought Boeing launched two models almost simulataneously, ie. the civilian 707 and the military 717, which became the (K)C-135 series. The 717 military type had a slightly narrower fuselage, did it not, than the civil 707 ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Carolina, USA, Planet Earth
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GCC-
Yes, the 707 has a larger cross-section than the Air Force version (C-135/KC-135 etc. etc.) The whole family started as a project to produce a jet version of the C-97/KC-97 Stratotanker, and originally had the same cross-section dimensions as the KC-97 except that the 'crease' at the cabin floor was smoothed over.
The USAF made Boeing enlarge the cross section, and then the airlines required an even larger section. So, the 367-80 has the smallest section , then the KC-135 is larger, and the 707/720 is yet larger again.
FWIW, the KC-97 was essentially a B-29 design (tubular fuselage) with another, larger tube grafted on top.
Yes, the 707 has a larger cross-section than the Air Force version (C-135/KC-135 etc. etc.) The whole family started as a project to produce a jet version of the C-97/KC-97 Stratotanker, and originally had the same cross-section dimensions as the KC-97 except that the 'crease' at the cabin floor was smoothed over.
The USAF made Boeing enlarge the cross section, and then the airlines required an even larger section. So, the 367-80 has the smallest section , then the KC-135 is larger, and the 707/720 is yet larger again.
FWIW, the KC-97 was essentially a B-29 design (tubular fuselage) with another, larger tube grafted on top.
