Talk:Boeing 707

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] October 19, 1959, Seattle Washington Boeing N7071

Let me introduce myself...I am the son of George C. Hagen. He was on the fatal flight on this day attempting to recover from the loos of three of the turbo jet 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 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

  • 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)

[edit] 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.[1]

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)

[edit] Orders

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)