Yes, the MD-80 prototype was retrofitted with the GE36 propfan/UDF:



quickly acquiring a reputation as one of the most efficient ways of converting jet fuel directly into noise. :O

Not particularly. In terms of empty weight the smallest 787 starts 16 tonnes heavier than the biggest 767.

And most 767s are -300ER which are 27 tonnes lighter than a 787-8 at empty. For an airline that doesn't need the extra range capability of the 787 that's equivalent of a fully-loaded CRJ in extra weight to be lifted. 787s are more efficient on a seat-basis ( and about the same in trip costs ) but against that have to be offset the higher capital costs plus all the hassles of introducing a new type.

So for an airline such as United with an immense 767 infrastructure I can see why adding more new-builds would be attractive.

Incidentally the 787-8 / -9 are pretty much direct matches in floor-space to the A330-200 / -300 respectively which slotted-in just above the 767 series.

I remember seeing it fly at Farnborough some 30 years ago - oddly don't recall the noise! Must be my preference for Merlins, Griffons, R2800s, etc!

This one? Farnborough 1988 (apologies for the poor quality).
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4517/...2663ff4a_b.jpg

What they really need to do is open up the 707 line again :}

Personally, I’d hope Boeing would knock 6 off of 1707 and call it Enterprise now that we’re back to naming aircraft types. Starship would be better, but it’s already taken.

Furthermore the basic 787, the 787-8, is effectively out of production now, it was only ordered by those who did so before it entered service. Production has moved on to the larger 787-9, which will soon be supplanted by the even larger 787-10. All moving well away from the traditional 767 market and impinging on the 777.

Given we are discussing aircraft designations, can someone explain why some model modifications start at 100 and go up, while other start at a higher number? And while some use 3-digit designations, while others use 1-digit. And why some numbers in a sequence are never used?

727-100, 727-200
737-100, -200, -300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, -900, MAX-8, MAX-9
747-100, -200, -300, -400, -8
757-200, -300, (-100 missing)
767-200, -300, -400, (-100 missing)
777-200. -300, X-8, X-9
787-8, -9, -10

300B4, -600
310-200, -300
320-100, -200
318, 319, 321
340-200, 300, -500, -600 (-400 missing)
380-800, -900 (not produced)
350-800, -900, -1000

I have tried to list only major models, but I am sure with some inaccuracy.

A lot of it is Marketing's view at the time............

The -100 series designator has been unfashionable for many years now (it was missing from the 777 too).

More recently, it's been almost compulsory to start series designations for new types with 8 (or 800) and higher (Airbus started it with the A380).

An added complication was Boeing's decision in recent years to stop incorporating customer codes in their series designations, so they really only need one or two digits (saves ink).

But now you have the problem of running out of "same number of digits" codes. 737MAX-10, 787-10, 350-1000. :ugh: Yes, I know, this is a First World problem.

I guess another reason why we now like to start at higher numbers comes from the software field. Seeing a version XX.0 always made people alert that it was more likely to be buggy than a version XX.1 or higher. Of course, I think the amount of initial testing in large transport aircraft exceeds immensely the amount of initial testing in consumer-grade software.

This is the aircraft industry's bizarre obsession with the number 8 being considered lucky in some far eastern cultures. We could have the Eightplanes 888-8. Total sales.....err...eight.

The -100 designation was a place holder for a 'shrink' version of the 757, 767, and 777. However it's very difficult to shrink an aircraft and keep it economical (as Airbus discovered with the A318). You end up with something that's too heavy with too much wing that costs nearly as much to build as the original, but is much less valuable to a potential customer. Hence the -100 versions were never built.

a/c have shrunk over the last few years

once upon a time LGW was a line up of 747 DC-10 and Tristars now its 320 and 738 in the main with many long haul oceanic flights conducted by narrow body types such as 738 and the 320/321 especially now on many USA transcontinental flights and from UK provincials
the old 757 is still seen on legacy airline Long Haul oceanic use by many carriers UA AA EI Iceland

this is really a retrograde step to go to so much narrow body use

the 738/or MAX and 321 are no match for a 757 or 767 which airlines today are trying to emulate

Boeing have lagged behind thinking they can keep on stretching the 737 to get it doing missions which are way beyond its original game plan
as for airbus the 320/321neo family again merely gasps at grabbing abit more range in a narrow body that was never designed for going over the pond nor transcon/Hawaii

It's all about the economics. PAX want cheap tickets, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, they are much cheaper now than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Further, they want to avoid connections through a hub. While a narrowbody may not be as comfortable as a widebody, its cost per PAX is less on routes that do not need widebody range, and it allows more point-to-point flying.

British Airways as BOAC took delivery of B747-036s that were -100 series, so why not -136?

I think you have been misinformed.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalap...llregmark=AWNA