Talk:Boeing 707

Travolta

Not saying it isn't true, but nothing in the citation listed for Travolta says he owns the plane.

Mirror site?

Who is copying whose articles? This article bears an uncanny resemblance to the following external website:

http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_707.htm

they copied Wikipedia circa 2004. Potatoswatter 05:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a number of copied versions of the wiki article, seems to be popular. Mgw89 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tex Johnston

I'd add Tex Johnston piloted th -80 on her 1st flight (& the date, if I could recall...). I'd also point out the C-135 was converted as the narrow-body 717 (N a success; later 720?). Trekphiler 08:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

First!!

it was the first to be commercially successful

I think it's America-centric POV. See Tupolev Tu-104. --ajvol 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When a government-owned airline procures aircraft from a government-owned factory at the behest of the government, which also forces its client governments to buy the aircraft for their government-owned airlines, and (according to the Tupolev Tu-104 article) ONLY 200 aircraft were sold, that's not commercialism, that's Communism. Hardly counts as a "commercially successful".

By the way, the the 707 sold over 1000 to civil customers. It was used not only by the major US airlines, but by Air France, BOAC, Lufthansa, and other European (even national) airlines. Perhaps we should rephrase it to say that the 707 was a "capitalist pig success"? - BillCJ 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Text taken from the Caravelle page:

"In total 279 Caravelles of all types were built, with Sud Aviation's break-even point at the 200 mark. The Caravelle was thus the first airliner design to make a clear profit, something that would not be matched again until the 1970s."

So, was the B707 the first airliner to make a profit or the Caravelle? We must find out, otherwise it will be confusing. J-C V 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on their respective wikipedia pages, the caravelle had its maiden flight first but the 707 was the first to fly commercially. So it's hard to tell which was the first to make a profit. 193.132.242.1 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The demagogy behind this is contra Wikipedia principles. And since there is no qualified source mentioned, it should be eliminated. Thebiggestmac (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The 707 did not 'usher in the jet age' as several jets were already in service in other countries. The first Comet may not have been a success, but the TU-104 proved successful in service over a long period even if it wasn't financially profitable (primarily due to its weight). It was also the only jetliner operating anywhere at one stage. The number built is irrelevant, be it 200 or 1000, as is the financial backing of the manufacturer. All commerical and military planes made in the Soviet Union were clearly built by state-owned factories - hardly a revelation. Boeing and Lockheed developed and built new models for and at the behest of the US govt - should we therefore discount all of their products as well? Slumpertz (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point of the whole phrase, which isn't just about numbers built, but about the way it helped to transform air travel. But since it does not yet heve a source, I concur with its removal. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

October 19, 1959, Seattle Washington Boeing N7071

Let me introduce myself...I am the son of George C. Hagen. He was onboard the fatal flight on this day attempting to recover from the loss of three of the turbo jet engines ripped from a violent "recovery manuver".

He was hired on and flew that fatal test flight with Braniff pilot. I have for years wondered how an "unauthorized manuver" on a test flight would be allowed.

I would like to know more first hand about any survivors from this accident as their are probably family survivors of those who perished on that day.

"Intercontinental"

When the 707 was introduced, Boeing had no intention of it being used to cross the North Atlantic. The airlines were willing to risk it, even if it meant a stop mid-way, such as the Azores or Goose Bay. The 707-320 was desigend to have the range to cross the Atlantic safely, and was called the "Intercontinental" by Boeing (as explained already in the text). But not the 707 as a whole. - BillCJ 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hours and cycles

What´s the highest # of cycles and hours for an individual B707/B720? Thanks Alexmcfire

I dunno, but I would put odds on it being one of the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8 DoD birds. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tex Johnston II

Who the heck is Tex Johnston and why should I care about him? He is mentioned in the article as being a passenger on a plane that suffered some difficulties, took over for the pilot, and that he landed the plain. An interesting story but, it should be removed or changed unless the person who inserted it can tell us why this guy is significant. And no, I don't want to search elsewhere for him.  :-) Theshowmecanuck 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be a troll, considering your comments were originally posted right after an explanation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of undiscussed move

I reverted Cripipper's move of this page to Boeing 707/720. The 720 is really just a marketing designation for the 707-020. In addition, it only made up a fraction of 707 deliveries, especially if you include non-C-135-based military variants. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, especially as it was not discussed beforehand. - BillCJ 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Other variants

Frieghter versions and tanker version (not 387 based) used by Italy and others are currently not mentioned in the variants section (or somewhere). I'm going to add a line for the 707 Tanker. -Fnlayson 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WTC trivia?

I'm moving this trivia item off the page, as it has remained unsourced, and when you think about it, it makes little sense. What, exactly, is a "low speed 707 crash"? The 707 has a cruise speed in the same range as the 767. Here's the text I've removed:

• The World Trade Center towers' designers John Skilling and Leslie Robertson had low-speed, Boeing 707 crashes in mind, when developing the towers' resistance to impact. Akradecki 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Low speed as in a landing approach probably. A possible accidental impact vs. one on purpose. Anyway its unsourced. -Fnlayson 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard that they designed the towers to withstand the impact at a pretty reasonable clip. They survived the impact of the 767's, what led to the collapse was the fireproofing, which, rated at around 2700 F, was no match for all the Jet-A. Mgw89 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Designed for a 707 impact at approach speed for a landing, I believe. And the fireproofing insulation did not stay in place. The towers held up decently given they weren't designed for that extreme. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The barrel roll

Since the barrel roll took place on the 367-80, wouldn't it be better to move this paragraph to that article? It is mentioned in the 367-80 article, but not as comprehensively as here. --JCG33 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Probably does not need a mention here at all, as it's really not re,evant to the 707. I imagine all this was originally added prior to the 367-80 page being created, and no one ever thought to move it. Good catch! - BillCJ 22:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed that too. It is a background thing in this article. They were trying to convince customers to buy Boeing jet airlines. More details hsould be in the 367-80 article though, not vice versa as it is now. -Fnlayson 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to keep this paragraph on the roll:

While developing of the 707, Boeing president William Allen invited representatives of the Aircraft Industries Association (AIA) and International Air Transport Association to the Seattle's 1955 Seafair and Gold Cup Hydroplane Races held on Lake Washington on August 6, 1955. The Boeing 367-80 was scheduled to perform a simple flyover. However, Boeing test pilot Alvin "Tex" Johnston performed a barrel roll in the Dash 80 to show off their jet airliner.

But it's a bit iffy how well it'll fit in. -Fnlayson 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure it fits either, but I won't revert if you re-add it. I think having it in the 367-80 page works well, and better fits the historical context. - BillCJ 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think some mention of the barrel roll on this page is appropriate. I think many people (myself included) associate that event with the 707. As I write this there is no longer any mention of the roll and I was very confused as to why there wasn't until I read this. -- Ryan 17 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.138.122 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure. The above paragraph would be about all that'd be described. -Fnlayson 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Orders

Does anybody have any order details for the 707? Thanks Djmckee1 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken reference

There is ref no. 14, with a ref name=FI" that is missing the http site. Anyone have any clues?? LanceBarber 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's probably for Flight International. Not sure which issue. An older one is <ref name="FI">[[Flight International]], 3-9 October 2006.</ref>, which has data through Aug. 2006. It is used in many airliner articles. I'll look back in the history and see what I can find. -Fnlayson 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On the infobox image, I think the BOAC image should be moved to the Operational history section (1960s time frame) and replaced by the Yugoslav Airlines 707 image that's further down in the article. The Yugoslav Airlines does not have anything by the plane blocking the view. -Fnlayson 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Variant list incomplete

I noticed the variant list is incomplete. There are loads of variants missing for both military and civilian use. For example, the CC-137, the OC-135B, TC-18F and the Boeing 707-321B. Is there a reason, such as copyright material why this is not there or was it missed out? Pash Master 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• All major commerial variants from the 707 web page and 707/720 airport reports are listed. For mil variants The CC-137 & TC-18F are listed. The OC-135 is a C-135 Stratolifter variant, not a 707 one. -Fnlayson 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The 707-321B is just a 707-320B for Pan American (customer code 21), they are not different variants just configured for different customers . MilborneOne 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Operators, it is stated that "21" is Boeing's code for Pan Am and thus, a 707-321B is really just a 707-300B. Under Variants however, there is a 707-320B and the text above says a 707-321B is just a 707-320B for Pan Am. Is the 707-320B a separate model, or is it a 707-300B for customer "20"? If it is a separate model, how would one know from "-321B" whether it was a 707-300B for Pan Am, or a 707-320B for Pan Am? What would it be if Northwest ("51") had bought a 707-300B?; and a 707-320B? Pbyhistorian (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the 300B to 320B all the 707 model numbers used by Boeing were -120, -220, -320 -420 and later some has letter suffixes like -120B or 320B. The customer codes started at 21 for Pan Am then used 01 to 19 after 99 was reached. After 19 they used numbers and letters for customer codes. MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• How did they fit the 2 digit customer codes in with -120, -220, ... variant designations? Boeing has stuck to -100, -200, -300, etc after that until recently (787-3/-8/-9 & 747-8). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • They dont really, the base model was 120 then the first customer 121, 122, 123 etc upwards. As you say the "20" only appears on the 707 (and 720!) as a base model. MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • So it's essentially "-MCC" where M is the model and CC is the customer code, with the unfortunate caveat that CC starts at "20" for the base model rather than "00". A 707-321 is the same model (707-320) as a 707-351; the former was merely delivered to Pan Am, Boeing's first customer ever (making them "21" across all series/models) and the latter was delivered to Northwest (aka "51"), Boeing's 31st customer. After reaching "99", Boeing wrapped around to "01" and then got strange(r) after "19". (Example?) I thought Boeing used letters to designate different engine options; I hope "-320B" doesn't mean the 101st customer to buy a 3rd-model 707. Pbyhistorian (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I believe the B in -320B means the B version so the -320 in the implied A version. Boeing does this late on the 747-200 and -200B. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A full list of List of customer codes, just to show an example of an alpha-numeric code - Ship 864 a 707-320C went to Nigeria Airways and was designated a 707-3F9C with F9 being the customer code. MilborneOne (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Crash listings

I reverted the E-3 listing back to the 707 crash listing, because the E-3 is a 707 airframe. It is simply a military version of the 707. As stated in the article, several E-3's (with the exception of the radar antenna) are nothing more than ex-commercial airline aircraft that the U.S. Air Force piled a bunch of electronic equipment into. Since it is a 707, there shouldn't be a problem with having this one crash on the crash listing. Sf46 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The E-3 is a military version of the Boeing 707 and has its own article to cover that version's development and military aspects. I moved your E-3 entry there because that's the most specific location for it. That's one of the reasons for the separate articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You duplicated information that was already on that page. Since the E-3 is a 707 why is it so important to exclude this one crash from this listing? Why not remove all of the E-3 information in its entirety from the 707 page if this information isn't allowed? Sf46 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• That repeated info was in the wrong place anyway. There is not much E-3 content on the 707 page. Enough to point people there and say what it is. Listing E-3 crashes goes beyond that. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one E-3 crash to list. The crash that occurred on this E-3 was investigated and listed as an FAA crash. I'm sure that the total numbers given at the top of the 707 crash section probably include numbers from this crash as well. I still don't understand why this one particular 707 crash has to be excluded simply because it's a variant. If anything it would see that more information is better than less. Sf46 (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What do others think on this? I'll go along with a consensus decision. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Jeff (Fnlayson) on this one. Most information related to a variant should be listed on the variant page, includign accidents and incidents. There is very little info on this page related to the E-3 itself; it's just a very short entry in the section on military variants, and is no longer than any of the others listed. They are there to give a brief overview of the variants, and are common practice in airliner articles that have military variant articles. I've considered moving the military variants list elsewhere, but there really isn't a single location that's suitable. the C-137 page could work, or we could create a "C-18" page. I'd also suggest taking this to WT:AIR for a broader concensus. - BillCJ (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good point on the military variant list(s). The C-137 and C-18 variants were repeated in the C-137 article. So I cut back to the main types there. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Fnlayson - The E-3 accident should be on the E-3 page as it was an E-3 accident! The E-3s are not former commercial airliners but were built new as E-3s. MilborneOne (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft on display/Survivors

User:Ssbohio has added John Travolta's 707 to the survivors section because it is in historical livery - I removed it because it is listed under operators. Ssbohio added the VC-137s to the list because they are still 707s - I removed it because they have their own page. I changed survivors to aircraft on display which is usual for aircraft that are still operational - Ssbohio changed it back. Dont really want to revert it again without a concensus or comments from other editors either way. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The article already John Travolta is a 707 operator in the Operators section. No reason to state that elsewhere. The VC-137s and C-137s should be listed in their respective articles. The same reasons I stated for the E-3s in the previous section apply here as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reiteration of previous arguments as moving the discussion forward. Here are the facts as I see them:

• MilborneOne never removed mention of Travolta's airplane for the reason that it was mentioned in the section, according to their edit summaries, e.g. [1] & [2].
• Vc-137s, unlike C-135s, are, indeed 707s. Indeed, I wasn't the one to add SAM 26000 and SAM 27000; 27000 was added some seven months ago, and they were even improved by MilborneOne as far back as 23 December 2007 without removing them.
• Military variants seem acceptable to be mentioned elsewhere in this article, and military aircraft are pictured multiple times, along with a 1996 military crash, and a South African Air Force 707 on display. The let us never speak of the military variants again argument breaks down in the face of the broadly accepted inclusion of such information elsewhere in the article.
• The section has been called Survivors at as far back as 27 September 2007, when MilborneOne him/herself created it under that name; For MilborneOne to now criticize a section heading he/she chose nearly a year ago strikes me as a means of justifying the exclusion of Travolta's aircraft, rather than improving the article. Moving the goalposts is not the same as winning the game.
• Fnlayson asserts that I had "no reason" to add Travolta's aircraft to Survivors. This is both untrue and an assumption of bad faith. I gave the reason in my edit summary.
• Fnlayson asserts thart surviors are non-fliers; Travolta's 707 is a survivor by any common definition of the term. Every definition of the term survivor that I've checked contains no such qualification. A survivor is one who survives, in whatever condition of which that survival consists.
• Civility also appears to be a problem here, to wit: Fnlayson has decribed another editor as having fuxed (fucked) the order of [[Boeing 707#notable incidents|]], described one addition as junk, another as jibberish, & criticising the quality of vandalism.

If you want to own this article, then so be it, but at least be consistent about it. If mention A is OK but mention B is wrong, then, absent an explanation of the disparate treatment, your logic breaks down. The ball is either fair or foul; It can't be both. Is anyone interested in compromising on a solution acceptable to all involved? --SSBohio 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Uh "fuxed is simply a typo of "fixed". I typed C-135 in an edit summary when I should have typed C-137 also. My edit summaries when reverting vandalism are not relevant to this anyway. Those are not personal attacks btw. Good job of cherry picking. ;) MilborneOne and I moved the military entries to C-137 Stratoliner. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• My online experience has led me to see fuxed as a euphemism; I accept the fuxed/fixed explanation.
• I'm not sure what the relevence of the C-135 vs C-137 typo would be.
• I've checked my contribution above, & I don't see where I described your edit summaries as personal attacks.
• As to relevence, other instances of intemperate commentary inform my view of your assertion that there was "no reason" for my addition.
• I was looking to see how long the section had been called Survivors and how long the information on SAM 26000 and SAM 27000 had been accepted before my edit caused a sudden change in cabin pressure. No cherries were picked, I just noticed the sharp comments while looking for the information I sought.
• I noticed where you two moved some information to the C-137 article; Good job. However, material is not automatically ruled out of this article because it could be included in another one. A C-137 is still a 707, after all.

Now that that's all behind us, what about the article content? Is there any room to compromise? --SSBohio 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• You misstated my words on the Travolta plane. I stated above that there was no reason to mention Travolta's airplane a 2nd time in this article. Add to what is in the Operators section if you wish. I mentioned that those aren't personal attacks because that could be implied by the civility & bad faith comments. I wrote enough on splitting content on the E-3s above. Others can discuss further here... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The second mention is the one I added; That's the one you said there was "no reason" for. Now, you may disagree with my reason, but I did have one. Still do, as a matter of fact. To deny that there was any reason for the text to appear where I put it even though I stated a reason is either misleading about what I've done or an incivil dismissal of the reason I stated. I'd like to think that we can disagree but still recognize each other's arguments.
• I apologize for giving any indication that I thought you were making personal attacks. That is not my belief.
• I'd like to see Travolta's airplane listed among the survivors, particularly because of its being an historical restoration. In fact, I think it probably belongs there more than it does in the Operators section, since he isn't an operator in the conventional sense of one who operates an airliner for the carriage of passengers or cargo. --SSBohio 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing N751TW from the survivors list, I sent Pima an email about it a few years ago and they said it was scrapped sometime around 2002 due to not being able to restore it, especially since it had already been parted out pretty bad.

Slight contradiction

This page says that the 367-80 had 2+2 seating; the 367-80 page says it was five-abreast. I've no idea which is right but hopefully somebody will. Adetaylor (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it had room for 2-3 seating IIRC, maybe it was also fitted with 2-2. SynergyStar (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

landing field length?

120B has 6k, 320B says 10,840, which is ecactly the same as its takeoff run. I fing it hard to beleive that it would take 4k more space to stop, the same as TO run. I'm going to look this up again. Mgw89 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony Pither's 707 book has Take off at Max weight +15oC at Sea Level

• 707-320

10,650(3200m)

• 707-120B

11,000(3330m)

• 720B

8,300(2515m)

• 707-320BA

10,840(3280m)

• 707-320BA-H

11,900(3600m)

Landing at max weight

• 707-320

7,280(2205m)

• 707-120B

6,200(1875m)

• 720B

5,750(1740m)

• 707-320B

6,420(1945m)

• 707-320BA

6,407(1940m)

• 707-320BA-H

6,100(1850m)

It looks like the figures may have been mixed up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Boeing charts said ca. 5950, so I used that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Range discrepancy

At the bottom of the spec sheet there are two refs for range, one simple one that says the -320BA goes 6160 mi (5350 nm), while the range/fuel sheet says 5750 nm. I went with the latter because it seems better, and it's posted IFR range. Any other refs out there to determine this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pither has for the 320BA Max range (no reserves, max fuel) = 6640nm (12,280km) and max range still air no reserves = 5230nm (9675km) MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

6640 seems like a good number for max without reserves, but I think the industry standard "range" is IFR range with reserves for holding/diverting. For the sake of comparison, we should try to find this number, otherwise we've got an apple/orange problem. If we post 6640, people will wonder why the 747 was seen as an "improvement." We should try to standardize this as well, and check other pages for old aircraft, like the DC-8. Mgw89 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

707-138B fuel and range?

I read somewhere, but now can't find, that the 138B carried 19k us gal of fuel and went 5510 nmi, about as far as the -320B. Does anybody have an idea where I might find a ref, and whether it would be sufficiently relevant to include it? Mgw89 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 120 Short Body had a 10,000lb increase in Maximum Take Off Weight for the same Zero Fuel Weight as the 120 Long Body, the payload is only 900lb different (52,200 long body v 53,100 short body) so presumable the rest was fuel but I dont have anything else. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

MTOW was still 257k, it was ZFW that went down. I thought fuel cap went up by 2k gal or so due to larger tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saha crash

Author of this section wrote:-

• On August 3, 2009, Saha Air flight IRZ 124 from Ahwaz back to Tehran suffered an uncontained explosion of engine number 2, right inboard. Flying debris disabled number 1, right outboard, damaged the underside of the wing and left metal debris on the runway. Thanks to the skill by the Iranian pilots, the aircraft, EP-SHK, made it round the circuit on two engines, to a successful landing after ten minutes in the air. No one was injured but with two destroyed engines, serious damage to the wing and leaking fuel, EP-SHK is beyond economical repair.

unfortunately the no2 engine is the left inboard not right inboard, so which is it, he also compounds the error stating no1 right outboard, where no1 engine is the left outboardPetebutt (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Program launch to first flight in under 2 years

Interesting if somebody could note that the time it took to fly this plane is less than the time between the rollout of the completed 787, and the latest end of 2009 projected first flight of the fixed 787? Bachcell (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You just did, and this is where it should stay. It's not relevant to the article, and would most likely be OR/synthesis. They are two different aircraft from completely different eras. The 707 was purely conventional in its technology, though nat all had been done on a civil program. Also, the 707 benifited from the earlier development work of the 367-80 and KC-135, so to be fair, one should include their development time to some extent. Why not compare the 707 to the A400's time since rollout to first filght? Oh, it wouldn't be a dig at Boeing then! My bad! As to the length of time on the 787, I'd much rather Boeing get it right then to have aircraft disintegrating in mid-air like the early DH Comets! - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)