Talk:Boeing 707

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)

I've checked the aircraft record from the FAA, it's owned by Jett Clipper Johnny LLC, which I am given the impression is the company name which Travolta uses for business purposes regarding the plane. If anyone has access to the local records where the company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, I'm confident somebody can confirm that this company is basically Travolta under a business name. Perhaps something to do with handling his arrangement with QANTAS and the hiring of crews? cargocontainer (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2011 (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)

By saying 717's do you mean 720s? Please clarify? --Compdude123 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2011 (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)

• Still nothing added the the entry to explain/state the damage involved.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be particular notable, N892PA had a bird strike on take off then overan the runway on landing and hit some runway lights which ripped of the nose wheel and the port gear, aircraft evacuated OK, aircraft was repaired no injuries, unlikely to survive as a stand alone article and not really notable for a mention here either. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Ventral fin explanation needed

The development section of this article makes several mentions of a ventral fin being installed on 707s to help prevent Dutch roll. There is currently no article for ventral fin on Wikipedia and if I search "ventral fin" in the search box above, I get redirected to the Fish anatomy article. So could someone please explain what a ventral fin is on aircraft and where it is placed? Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

A link for "ventral" to Anatomical terms of location#Dorsal_and_ventral is a start. -fnlayson (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question. The ventral fin is described, correctly, under Empennage. Perhaps a link or a redirect to that would be appropriate?

Old_Wombat (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• The first mention of ventral was linked some time ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the link to the Empennage#Fins page, as that relates more to aviation and it actually has a diagram showing what a ventral fin looks like. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Split to Boeing 720

I think it's time to split off the 720 content to Boeing 720. In many ways, it is a different aircraft, though I don't know if it's on its own Type certificat, or the 707's. We have variant article for the Boeing 747SP, which is a similar variant of the 747 - shortened fuselage, modified wing, etc. Also, the Specs table does'nt liist several 707 models such as the JT3C, JT4A, and Conway omdels, and removing the 720 would help to free up room. (Note that the 720 had both JT3C and JT3D versions. In addition, there is not really enough room to get into the separate history of the 720's development. I've read some new sources which state that Boeing originally was going to use the C-135 airframe with its 5-abrest seting as a commercial 717, but later decided that it was better to use the 707's 6-abreast seating, and the same basic fuselage, for commonality. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems fine. I'm sure it'll be much longer than a stub. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree - enough of a difference to stand alone. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll leave the Split tag up for another couple of weeks to give others a chance to weigh in. I'll need someone to work on the specs tables, as I'm not able to do that competantly. Also, I've noticed that many of the entries in the Notable accidents section do not have the model numbers listed, which makes it difficult to determine wich of these are 720s. Any help adding hte model numbers here would be appreciated. I've strated a sandbox page at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Boeing 720, and any help from registered users in good standing would also be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can sort out the accidents when needed, please remember when working in the sandbox that anything copied from this article will need attribution when made live! MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I noted it in the edit summary when I created the page, which should suffice for the time being. - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am adding the models to the accident entries here. It is a good thing to mention and will help separate 720s from 707s for a split. UPDATE: I believe I got the model added to each entry. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree--I think that there's enough differences between the 707 and 720 to make the 720 be its own article. Your sandbox 720 article is a pretty good start. In fact, it looks like you've taken a lot of time on the 720 article. --Compdude123 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wholly agree–I completely support your project. Please be aware tha there are issues with at least two references on the Sandbox page.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference issues fixed. —Compdude123 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Marcus Qwertyus 05:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

+1--I think most people consider them to be different aircraft, and so should be on different pages --l3v1ck 20:38, 07 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree There are pages for the 747SP, and 747-400, as well as 737 Classic and NG, so this should follow suit. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, the 720 should have a separate entry. After all airlines always marketed it as a separate aircraft. Thanks for all your efforts. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Though there seems to be unanimous agreement to carry out this split, BilCat's 720 sandbox page seems to have lost momentum and nobody has been editing it in the past month or so. I guess this could partly be attributed to the fact that BilCat has retired from Wikipedia, but there is still some work that needs to be done on it before it could be moved to an actual Wikipedia article. Could we please work on this some more and then move it to a Wikipedia article? That would be great. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've worked on it previously. And would work on it more if I had sources that covered it. Bill probably would not mind if others worked on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, valid point. But Bill did put a few sources from the Flightglobal archives that covered the topic on the talk page. Dont know how much they'd help, though. --Compdude123 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. The article should be OK to move to main space is a week or two if not sooner. Detailed discussion on improving the sandbox should go at its talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just popping in. I've been unable to work on the 720 sandbox at all due to family issues. The Flight refs are mainly on the development of the 720 in the late 1950s. I do have some good print sources on the 720 in case we need some further information. I'm watching the sandbox, and I'll try to pop in this week to see how it's going. Thanks to all who are helping get the article ready to go to mainspace. - BilCat (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find a few photos on Commons of the 720, but we don't have a good in-flight image as yet. - BilCat (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

US pov again

Above the consensus seemed to be in favour of removing the statement that the 707 'ushered in' the jet age, due to lack of citation. It now appears in the article, with 2 citations that appear to be the same book. This is hardly 'general acceptance' of an idea.

Its common, schoolboy knowledge the the Comet was the first commercial jet liner - and Wikipedia records that the 707 was the third jet liner in service.

The sentence does not add any new information, in fact it misleads by suggesting to a reader who doesn't know the history of aviation that the 707 may have been the first jet liner. I know Americans have a bee in their bonnet about being 'first' and 'best' at everything, but I thought people were supposed to strive for accuracy here? GrampaScience (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording in the Lead clearly says it was not the first jet airliner. The text is referenced by two books, so no POV. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion supported removing the statement while it was unsourced. While we might be able to tweak the wording to make it more clear that the 707 was not the first jetliner, it should not be done at the expense of conciseness, or overwhelming the rest of the Lead. - BilCat (talk)

Also, we should probably make it clear in the Lead, concisely, that this was Boeing's first succesful airliner, which the production numbers of the previous airliners being quite low, which is partly why the Dash 80 was such a financial gamble for the company. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The definition of 'successful' being used here seems to constitute OR. Please also bear in mind that the statement doesn't add anything to the information content of the article GrampaScience (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• The text in the article now says, "707 was among the first to be commercially successful", not the first to be successful. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It says "commercially successful", and that's harder to dispute, even lacking specific sources. As to whether or not the info should be left out, we don't want to give the false impression that the 707 was just another Comet, when nearly 10 times as many 707s were produced, it continued in service for much longer, and was used by far more airlines. - BilCat (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Change infobox photo to Pan Am aircraft

Hello, I found a picture [1] on Airliners.net of a Boeing 707 in Pan Am livery. You may be wondering, why on Airliners.net; aren't these photos copyrighted? Well, this user, Mike Freer has given Wikipedia permission to use his images from Airliners.net, see this for more info.

Anyway, I was wondering if I should upload this photo to Wikipedia and use it in the infobox. Not that the current CAAC photo is bad, but I just thought it would be nice to have a photo of a Pan Am aircraft, since they were a major operator of the type. And we don't currently have a good PA 707 pic on Wikipedia. I want your thoughts because I don't really want to add this img only to have my edit reverted. So, what do you think? Should we change the infobox pic?

Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pan Am image seems fine, but could use a little lightening or something. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to find a suitable Pan Am 707 photo? If indeed that is what editors want in the infobox? I'll be able to find one very quickly, and I've gotten a shedload more permissions to process, so it won't be hard for me to find a suitable one. Contact me on my talk page if so. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Freer's is the best so far. Or there is Marmet. Or Manteufel. And when uploading please do so on Commons. Cheers, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm against adding a Pan Am image just for the sake of adding a Pan Am image, particularly if it's not a better image than the one it's replacing. The Air India image has been in the article for over two years, and isn't a particulary good image. Less than 3 weeks ago, I searched Commons for a bettte image, and found the current CAAC image. I think it is a grat photo, and shows the aircraft to good effect. I don't think Freer's Pan AM image is better than the current one. I'm not supporting the CAAC image becasue I added it, but because it's a great photo, and has been in the article less than 3 weeks. I'd liek to see it remain for 2-3 months, and then it can be replaced with another image of equal quality. By that time, we may have been able to find a suitable Pan AM image. - BilCat (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently, there is no Pan AM 707 image in the article at this time, and I have no problem with the Freer image being added somewhere in the main text. - BilCat (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• After taking a closer look at the Pan Am and CAAC images, the CAAC image is definitely of better quality and higher resolution. I just thought it was weird that the image did not depict a major operator of the type. But, you know what, who cares? Anyway, I will upload the PA image once I get the chance and stick it somewhere in this article. I would upload it to the Pan American World Airways article, but there's too many pictures in the article currently; that's another issue to discuss on that articles talk page. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings all, now several months later, there are now additional 707 photos at Commons. The current photo does have high resolution, but it's rather dark, taken from a distance, and blends into the background. The below photos show the aircraft distinctly against a clearly contrasting background, have above-average resolution, and feature a closer view with more details.

• 
  Qantas 707-138B
• 
  Saha Airlines 707-328C
• 
  Private 707-33B

The Qantas photo for instance fills the frame better, with the aircraft occupying more of the space; it also has more vivid color and is taken from a closer distance for greater detail such as communication aerials, door frames, and the ventral fin. It also shows a major historical operator and one of the earliest variants of the jet. Interested in hearing any thoughts. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering whether anyone has any comments or suggestions; I plan to expand the lead as well. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Both the Qantas and Saha images seem fine to me. The 3rd one has the other aircraft in the background to somewhat distract. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, agreed the third is out. First one added. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced previous SAHA image in the article with the one you suggested here. —Compdude123 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"... Traces of the 707 ..."?

"... Traces of the 707 are still found in the 737, which uses a modified version of the 707's fuselage" and "... while the Boeing 757 also used the 707 fuselage cross-section...".. Uhhh, how so? A cross-section of the 707 fuselage is slightly peanut-shaped, or "double bubble" as it used to be called, found, AFAIK, on no other Boeing. The double-bubble is quite subtle and not that easy to see in images, but it is there, and reasonably well visible on the images here of the Travolta plane, the Pan Am plane, and the E3 image. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The 737 still has the same fuselage width as the 707, 148 inches. And the 737 is not particularly cylindrical, either; see the frontal image of a 737 and a 757. Now I would be curious to see a frontal image of a 707 for comparison. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

707-727-737-757 all use a double bubble; the upper lobe is about the same on all, the lower may be different on all. Nothing wrong with saying the later ones use a "modified" 707 cross section. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting info in production stats and deliveries

The frame says 1,010 planes were produced, from 1958 (1 year after the test flight, but well let's pass on this), to 1979.

However the deliveries section states that a total of 1,011 planes were produces with deliveries being made up to 1994, so 15 years after end of production (!).

Could there be a confusion with the military versions?

ASN states 858 models produced.