Talk:Boeing 707

Landing Gear image

The landing gear image there on the page seems to be the image of a Concorde landing gear. Anyone confirms this? Victhor393 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I took those pictures at the Museum of Flight and mistakenly posted the Concorde one, so I fixed that. Mgw89 (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2010 (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)

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)

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)

Travolta

Not saying it isn't true, but nothing in the citation listed for Travolta says he owns the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.116.92 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Airliner graveyards in Mojave and Arizona

Many planes in the airplane graveyards are still functional but are there because of operating costs don't make a profit.

My father was a Boeing engineer and related that Airliners that had purchased 717s were treated to sales calls and offered cash incentives so change their orders to 707s. The 717 was fitted with higher performance GE engines. From the Convair 880 article "the General Electric engines had a higher specific fuel consumption than the Boeing's Pratt & Whitney JT3Cs." Many of the 707's contemporaries were retired early due to higher fuel consumption. Boeing had done a study of future fuel price increases and factored customer goodwill (due to lower operating costs)as an important commodity. Other milestones were 90% reverse thrust capability on 707s that was scaled back by the FAA to match DC-8 capability. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

707-320 stretch

I think the figure of a 100-inch stretch is wrong. Counting windows on a Pan Am -121B and a -321B shows a stretch of four frames, and that's just 80 inches. That's backed up by a Boeing airport manual with demarkated fuselage lengths. Sacxpert (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How was Continental Airlines "first"?

This sentence is puzzling

"Continental Airlines introduced its first two 707 aircraft into scheduled service three months later—the first U.S. carrier to employ the type widely in domestic service."

Naturally we suspect American and TWA were using the 707 "widely" in domestic service; can anyone guess what distinction he's trying to claim for Continental? Tim Zukas (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that Pan Am and TWA used the 707 for domestic services in any great number they were all used on international routes, although when TWA only had one 707 it was used for New York-San Fransisco! Bit more research needed I suspect. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pan Am didn't use it domestically at all at the time, but TWA used it domestically starting in March 1959 (they didn't fly any 707s outside the US until maybe September). Of course AA had several in (domestic-only?) service by June 1959 when CO started. Tim Zukas (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Might be best to remove the last bit of the statement unless it can be cited, which doesnt appear likely. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1969 Pan Am accident

Moved here from User talk:Fnlayson

Hi... Regarding this edit, is your objection the link to Pan Am Flight 812 or the incident itself? I have realised that the article on flight 812 covers a 1974 crash, rather than the 1969 accident at Sydney airport, which is why I am writing a separate article in user space at present (draft) for the 1969 event. I am not sure (once the draft is completed) what to rename the existing article to, because it seems to me that the present name should be a dab page pointing to both the '74 crash and the '69 accident. I do have impecable sources for the incident, including the accident report from the atsb.gov.au website. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated the 1969 incident was a fairly minor one and is not an aviation accident (subsection in 707 article is labeled for notable accidents). It does not seem to warrant a stand alone article per the preliminary guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH. Accident/incident entries in aircraft articles are covered by guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. -fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fairly minor" is subjective... It most definitely was an aviation accident as the aircraft sustained damage or structural failure... it does satisfy WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION as it did involve "hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport"... coverage went beyond local news reports (I have found Chicagi Tribune coverage, for example)... the damage done was categorised as "substantial" by the ATSB - one of the engines was partially detached, as was the nose gear and part of the main gear, the cost of repair was estimated at $4M (1969 dollars)... a full air crash investigation was conducted, which amongst other things established the aircraft was more than 7000 lb heavier than it should have been due to a mistake in fueling and that the runway excursion was not inevitable - I don't know whether this resulted in recommendations for changed procedures. I admit that wiki-notability needs consideration but the incident certainly was significant for the airline and the airport, if not necessarily for other articles. EdChem (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your entry did not mention any major damage. Re-add and briefly mention that then. Use article's talk page for any further discussion. That's where such discussions belong.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I readded this entry, but did not add anything about damage. -fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)