WHY 7X7 or A3X0?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Crew Room
Age: 41
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHY 7X7 or A3X0?
Can anyone tell me why (in layman terms, i'm cc):
Boeing number their aircraft 7X7 (x=insert number here)?
and Airbus number their's A3xX0 ("")?
I don't mean why are they different, i mean why those numbers.
sorry if this sounds dumb
Boeing number their aircraft 7X7 (x=insert number here)?
and Airbus number their's A3xX0 ("")?
I don't mean why are they different, i mean why those numbers.
sorry if this sounds dumb
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing Company had a history of naming its' aircraft with numbers going back to to 1917.
Post WWII they were up to the 400 series (B-52 bomber was model 464). 500 series was reserved for powerplants while 600 series items were missiles. Next in line was 700 and while originally named internally the 367-80 or Dash 80 the aircraft was officially christened the 707.
Some say there are ! metaphysical - illuminati - masonic ! (cue strange music) reasons for the relationship between Boeing and the number 7.
Anyone care to explain the Airbus relationship to the trinity ?
Post WWII they were up to the 400 series (B-52 bomber was model 464). 500 series was reserved for powerplants while 600 series items were missiles. Next in line was 700 and while originally named internally the 367-80 or Dash 80 the aircraft was officially christened the 707.
Some say there are ! metaphysical - illuminati - masonic ! (cue strange music) reasons for the relationship between Boeing and the number 7.
Anyone care to explain the Airbus relationship to the trinity ?
Also Tu-104/114/124/134/144/154.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vapilot2004 was correct in stating that the B707 was Boeing model No. 707. It went on to become an extremely successful and popular aircraft, and the 7x7 designation continued for the 727, 737, 747 etc. It was 'catchy'. The B717 designation was originally intended bor the 'lightweight' B707, the Boeing 720, but not used (I cannot remember the COMMERCIAL reason why), until Boeing's acquisition of Douglas many decades later, when B717 was used for the latest member of the DC9 dynasty.
The Airbus '300 series' designations originated with the original Airbus, the A300. The reason was no more complex than that the aircraft carried 300 passengers! Again, there was 'product identification', and all subsequent Airbus aircraft have been A3xx.
I have zero superstititions, but I'm told that the number 7 is aviation's lucky number. Maybe that's a contributory factor to Boeing's preference for the number 7. Somehow I doubt it, but feel happy flying the luckiest Boeing of all, the B777
Regards,
Old Smokey
The Airbus '300 series' designations originated with the original Airbus, the A300. The reason was no more complex than that the aircraft carried 300 passengers! Again, there was 'product identification', and all subsequent Airbus aircraft have been A3xx.
I have zero superstititions, but I'm told that the number 7 is aviation's lucky number. Maybe that's a contributory factor to Boeing's preference for the number 7. Somehow I doubt it, but feel happy flying the luckiest Boeing of all, the B777
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old Smokey
vapilot2004 was correct in stating that the B707 was Boeing model No. 707. It went on to become an extremely successful and popular aircraft, and the 7x7 designation continued for the 727, 737, 747 etc. It was 'catchy'. The B717 designation was originally intended bor the 'lightweight' B707, the Boeing 720, but not used (I cannot remember the COMMERCIAL reason why), until Boeing's acquisition of Douglas many decades later, when B717 was used for the latest member of the DC9 dynasty.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fwd right seat
Age: 41
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to "Legend and Legacy" by Robert J. Serling it is more or less a PR-gag, why Boeing uses the 7x7-designations.
"Each type of Boeing commercial jetliner is distinguished by a middle numeral between two 7s. The 707 should really have been the 700, the first of a new type of Boeing product, following earlier commercial aircraft or military aircraft whose numbers began with 2, 3, or 4 (Numbers 5 and 6 were used by missiles and pilotless aircraft.) The only explanation - a feeble one - for why it became the 707 rather than the 700 was that the Public Relations Department thought it would be a good idea."
"Each type of Boeing commercial jetliner is distinguished by a middle numeral between two 7s. The 707 should really have been the 700, the first of a new type of Boeing product, following earlier commercial aircraft or military aircraft whose numbers began with 2, 3, or 4 (Numbers 5 and 6 were used by missiles and pilotless aircraft.) The only explanation - a feeble one - for why it became the 707 rather than the 700 was that the Public Relations Department thought it would be a good idea."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fwd right seat
Age: 41
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know, the 707 was the upgraded 720 alias Dash 80.
Originally the -80 had a fuselage for a 5 abreast configuration, whereas the DC8 had a fuselage for a 6 abreast configuration.
So the -80 fuselage was used for the KC135 and as a smaller 707 version. The 720.
And the real 707 got a fuselage for a 6 abreast layout, so the could compete with the DC8.
In my point of view. Both birds are real nice. Loud and Proud!!!
But isnīt it interesting.
There are so many opinions and stories about the Boeing-designation, but none for the Airbus-toys.
Perhaps the french guys got their designation A3xx from a bottle of nice red wine.
Originally the -80 had a fuselage for a 5 abreast configuration, whereas the DC8 had a fuselage for a 6 abreast configuration.
So the -80 fuselage was used for the KC135 and as a smaller 707 version. The 720.
And the real 707 got a fuselage for a 6 abreast layout, so the could compete with the DC8.
In my point of view. Both birds are real nice. Loud and Proud!!!
But isnīt it interesting.
There are so many opinions and stories about the Boeing-designation, but none for the Airbus-toys.
Perhaps the french guys got their designation A3xx from a bottle of nice red wine.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
loader,
May I repeat a quote from my earlier post on the topic -
"The Airbus '300 series' designations originated with the original Airbus, the A300. The reason was no more complex than that the aircraft carried 300 passengers! Again, there was 'product identification', and all subsequent Airbus aircraft have been A3xx."
Regards,
Old Smokey
May I repeat a quote from my earlier post on the topic -
"The Airbus '300 series' designations originated with the original Airbus, the A300. The reason was no more complex than that the aircraft carried 300 passengers! Again, there was 'product identification', and all subsequent Airbus aircraft have been A3xx."
Regards,
Old Smokey
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 367-80 story is really an extension of earlier Boeing designations.
Remember the Stratocruiser? The 377? Its military counterpart, the C-97/KC-97, had the company designation 367. There were several derivatives planned, and one turboprop version (C-97J) went into limited USAF service.
As it became clear that only a turbojet tanker would meet future needs, the 367 tanker/transport series went through several more paper cycles, until the final 367-80 bore no resemblance to the KC-97.
But when the USAF ordered the KC-135, the fuselage diamater grew slightly (4" IIRC) from the -80. The fuselage of the commercial model, the 707, was about 12" bigger than the -80.
And - the 720 was a marketing designation only. The nameplate and type certificate call the "720" a 707-0xx (where the xx is the Boeing customer code).
Remember the Stratocruiser? The 377? Its military counterpart, the C-97/KC-97, had the company designation 367. There were several derivatives planned, and one turboprop version (C-97J) went into limited USAF service.
As it became clear that only a turbojet tanker would meet future needs, the 367 tanker/transport series went through several more paper cycles, until the final 367-80 bore no resemblance to the KC-97.
But when the USAF ordered the KC-135, the fuselage diamater grew slightly (4" IIRC) from the -80. The fuselage of the commercial model, the 707, was about 12" bigger than the -80.
And - the 720 was a marketing designation only. The nameplate and type certificate call the "720" a 707-0xx (where the xx is the Boeing customer code).
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by barit1
The 367-80 story is really an extension of earlier Boeing designations.
Remember the Stratocruiser? The 377? Its military counterpart, the C-97/KC-97, had the company designation 367. There were several derivatives planned, and one turboprop version (C-97J) went into limited USAF service.
As it became clear that only a turbojet tanker would meet future needs, the 367 tanker/transport series went through several more paper cycles, until the final 367-80 bore no resemblance to the KC-97.
But when the USAF ordered the KC-135, the fuselage diamater grew slightly (4" IIRC) from the -80. The fuselage of the commercial model, the 707, was about 12" bigger than the -80.
And - the 720 was a marketing designation only. The nameplate and type certificate call the "720" a 707-0xx (where the xx is the Boeing customer code).
Remember the Stratocruiser? The 377? Its military counterpart, the C-97/KC-97, had the company designation 367. There were several derivatives planned, and one turboprop version (C-97J) went into limited USAF service.
As it became clear that only a turbojet tanker would meet future needs, the 367 tanker/transport series went through several more paper cycles, until the final 367-80 bore no resemblance to the KC-97.
But when the USAF ordered the KC-135, the fuselage diamater grew slightly (4" IIRC) from the -80. The fuselage of the commercial model, the 707, was about 12" bigger than the -80.
And - the 720 was a marketing designation only. The nameplate and type certificate call the "720" a 707-0xx (where the xx is the Boeing customer code).
There had been models like Boeing 80 and Boeing 247. I suspect that omitting numbers was already established and Boeing did not have every single model from 81 to 246... anyway, there were also Boeing 307 and 367 and 377. But also non-7 models like Boeing 314.
After the 4xx, 5xx and 6xx ranges were reserved, Boeing seems to have chosen 707 rather than 700 or 704 etc. partly to keep good luck from the numbers like 247...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Crew Room
Age: 41
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i might just be a lowly slf handler but i really don't get the last one, however i am keeping an eye on the other idea's.
it really is something that is so everyday that we never even question but i guess sometimes i'm really analy retentive! lol, boeing all the way!
however i must say that wider isles (and trust me boys whatever the a/c spec is the isles are wider) and those loverrrrlllyyy push button and open doors with power assisst are very nice especially on service doors, like r1 on any 73 or 75 is nothing compared to a320 an 21.
i must say though that working on boeing is like working with ba: it might be old and slow but it's proved and classic in it's beauty!
either way back to the point: what do you mean!!!! lol
it really is something that is so everyday that we never even question but i guess sometimes i'm really analy retentive! lol, boeing all the way!
however i must say that wider isles (and trust me boys whatever the a/c spec is the isles are wider) and those loverrrrlllyyy push button and open doors with power assisst are very nice especially on service doors, like r1 on any 73 or 75 is nothing compared to a320 an 21.
i must say though that working on boeing is like working with ba: it might be old and slow but it's proved and classic in it's beauty!
either way back to the point: what do you mean!!!! lol
