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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.33.8 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• 1012 707s were built with the first being rolled out in October 1957, it included military variants of the 707 like the E-3 (but not the C-135 family) and 720s. First delivery was in September 1958 and the last one built was an E-3 for the RAF delivered in 1992, although the last delivery was an E-3 for the USAF in 1994. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, should the page be edited to show that production went on from 1957 to 1992 then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.33.8 (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this article is for the commercial 707 versions. The military versions are covered in other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Split hull-loss occurrences

I've placed a split suggestion tag on the incidents list, as it's the longest section in the article, and comparable to Boeing 747 hull losses. It appears that all the listed incidents resulted in the aircraft being written off. Comments welcome. (Note: a similar tag has been added to Boeing 727). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UNDUE, with WP:SS in Boeing 707. -- Trevj (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree; this section is getting a little too long. —Compdude¹²³ 16:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 created. MilborneOne (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MilborneOne! The more encompassing title allows for all incidents to be included; upon closer inspection, the KAL 707 diplomatic incident for example might not have been a hull loss. Thanks again! SynergyStar (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

717 / C-135 / KC-135

Just to remind everyone that the common origin of these and the 707 was the Boeing 367-80. Originally planned to have the same fuselage as the tanker versions the 707 split away to have a completely different fuselage to accommodate six a-breast seating.Petebutt (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

External links website for the artical Boeing

Dear editors, Can you please approve my website to go on the external links section on the Wikipedia pages named Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787. https://sites.google.com/site/wwwboeingairplaneinfocom/ is the website.

Thanks, Laxplane (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but we only add external links to websites that add value to the article that would be otherwise missing, your website doesnt really add anything to the article and as a personal website is not a reliable source. Remember also that this is not a web directory. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whom shall we believe?

Hi,

Currently I am trying to enhance the 707 article before transfering information from here to other Wikis. The English and the German version are most detailed in comparison to their French, Dutch and Italian counterparts. That's why I endevour to try and help straighten out things here first.

In the first paragraph I found the tag "citation needed" when the article deals with seating capacity and range of that venerable old bird. Since the range, as I stated, is well proven I assume the tag to be directed at seating capacity. Or, wait a minute, was it just a typo and somebody needs a Bizz Jet?

The max pax figure before my edit was 201 if I recall correctly. Boeing states 189 in the Boeing source I've quoted. HOWEVER, my fellow wikipedian who wrote this might have had another source which he'd not given away? Meanwhile, my alternative source, (Niccoli, Riccardo: "Aerei", Novarra 1998, in it's german translation "Flugzeuge. Die wichtigsten Flugzeugtypen der Welt", 2nd edition, Klagenfurt, 2003, p.40) confirms exactely the range data written at Boeing's data sheet ( which CONFLICTS with Boeing's own diagrams!) but states, max pax for the enhanced 707-320 (the same version as in the data sheet) was 219. Hmmm. Do I hear any higher bids? Who offers more?

So, what is your common practice in situations like that? Do you offer all sources and variants you can get and leave the reader to make up his/her mind, like in a study bible, or is your focus more like presenting the most reliable source (e.g. if anyone knows how many seats that plane had, then Boeing), like a common bible would?

Since I am new here and since I have absolutely no interest in starting edit wars ( "... and then there came this crazy German who was unheard of before, that complete rooky ain't got no clue but started to turn everything upside down that we achieved so far thinking he knew better..."), I would be grateful if you let me know just how you would like this to be dealt with.

Thank you in advance for any comments,

The rhythmosaur (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:V is the key here. In this case, give the higher figure and use {{cite book}} to quote the source. WP:V merely requires that a fact is verifiable, not that it can be immediately verified by anyone at any time. A printed book is likely to pass WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you your the quick response, that was really helpful. Since there are so many things, rules and tutorials to check out, it takes some time till I've done all my homework, so I appreciate your kindness and patience all the more.

After in depth checking out the links you provided however, I failed to understand the reason for your suggestion "In this case, give the higher figure (...)." Get me right, I am not critizising you, I just want to understand it so I can apply the rule you follow accordingly in similar cases. As far as I understood, the Neutral POV Core Policy would dictate to present both sources (without making a mess out of the article, of course):

"However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance."

Okay, we are currently dealing with the question of how many seats were in that plane, nothing of peacekeeping and world moving importance, but doesn't it start with accuracy in small things?

Thanks in advance,

The rhythmosaur (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You could say "a maximum of xxx, or give the generally known (lower) figure but not that a few aircraft had a capacity of xxx and quote the source for that figure. Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Each airline could decide how many seats and what seat pitch it wanted so all we can do is give a maximum:

• 707-120 (long-body) =179 (at 32" pitch)
• 707-120 (short-body)=154 (at 32" pitch)
• 707-220 =179 (at 32" pitch)
• 720 = 140 (at 32" pitch)

From page 33 of Pither, Tony. The Boeing 707, 720 and C-135. Tonbridge, Kent, UK: Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd., 1998. ISBN 0-85130-236-X. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The seating class arrangement needs to be considered also. The max seating is with all economy class seats. The total seating decreases with more business and first-class seating since they take up more space per seat. That's why we usually list typical seating for mixed seating arrangements, e.g. 2-class and 3-class. See the seating charts in section 2 of Boeing's airport planning report. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! So that would have us going for the 141-189 (the way it reads right now) being backed up in both Boeing sources, as in the 320C.

In the meantime I tried to find out were these 219 seats are coming from for they appear here and there. There are websites dedicated to Classic Airliner Models for FS, most of which maticulously research specs and behaviour of their models. We cannot quote them, but as some give away their sources, I tried this approach.

( A good example for this is the DM-Flightsim page of David Maltby dealing with the Comet, the Trident, the BAC-111 and the Viscount. This guy actually visits museums and displays and contacts former pilots, and he states his sources in the manuals.)

In case of the 707, I seem to be out of luck, as sources are not stated. I try contacting the author, (Gary Carlson). Interestingly, and that's why I'm telling it, the model in question by the Historic Jetliners Group states the following for a 320C:

"Passengers: 141 (two-class with lounge)

189 (one-class),

219 (hi-density). "

That gives room for the assumption Boeing might have introduced an even more sardine can like pitch at a later point of time, but still publish the original (meaning non-updated) data on their webpage. That would also explain why I find these 219 seats in Niccoli's Encyclopedia.

(Niccoli, Riccardo: "Aerei", Novarra 1998, in it's german translation "Flugzeuge. Die wichtigsten Flugzeugtypen der Welt", 2nd edition, Klagenfurt, 2003, p.40; ISBN 3-7043-2188-5)

The rhythmosaur (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I got very good news!

This will not only resolve the seating problem beyond doubt, it will also shed light on ANY technical aspect of planes in general. What I found are the official type certification sheets of the FAA, reviewable for everybody and even free for download as PDF.

Credit goes to Harerton Dourado (Brasil) of the above mentioned Historic Jetliner Group who mentioned this source in his fuel management tutorial for the HJG B707 model. Made my day!

The relevant page is http://www.airweb.faa.gov, the certificate we need is cerificate no. |4a26. Page 13, last line. I quote:

"Maximum passengers 195 limited by emergency exit requirements. 219 if compliance with FAR 25.2 is shown. See Note 19."

The Rhythmosaur 02:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of the 707-349C?

Why is there no mention of this variant? It played a major role in the film Airport! 64.134.160.187 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Aircraft_in_fiction#Boeing_707 where it gets a mention, just for info it is just a normal 707-320C which is described in the this article, the 49 just means it was built for Flying Tiger Line. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Status

is there any 707 still in service ? -List of Boeing 707 operators --Houcinovic (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes not a huge number but still a few although mainly military and john travolta. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

707-700

The article currently says "Boeing abandoned the program, since it felt it would be a threat to the Boeing 757 program." This is not true, the problem was that airlines did not want to plunk down the 10.4 million to convert them. I've got a bunch of other info on the development, marketing, and pitch with this plane, does anybody think it warrants its own footnote distinct from the paper airplanes like the 620 and 820?