![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Who is copying whose articles? This article bears an uncanny resemblance to the following external website:
http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_707.htm
There are quite a number of copied versions of the wiki article, seems to be popular. Mgw89 ( talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
What´s the highest # of cycles and hours for an individual B707/B720? Thanks Alexmcfire
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
I was going to keep this paragraph on the roll:
But it's a bit iffy how well it'll fit in. - Fnlayson 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody have any order details for the 707? Thanks Djmckee1 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do others think on this? I'll go along with a consensus decision. - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
it was the first to be commercially successful
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Landing at max weight
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Author of this section wrote:-
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 outboard Petebutt ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 707/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
;January 2008 : Well written. Added B-class checklist. Wexcan ( talk) 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Travolta owned the plane. He had the servicing done at the Manston airfield/graveyard workshops in UK. He donated it to the Qantas museum in 2018. 14.203.207.166 ( talk) 00:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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).
Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I found a picture [3] 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)
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.
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)
"... 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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 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)
is there any 707 still in service ? - List of Boeing 707 operators -- Houcinovic ( talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Who is copying whose articles? This article bears an uncanny resemblance to the following external website:
http://www.gizmohighway.com/transport/boeing_707.htm
There are quite a number of copied versions of the wiki article, seems to be popular. Mgw89 ( talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
What´s the highest # of cycles and hours for an individual B707/B720? Thanks Alexmcfire
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
I was going to keep this paragraph on the roll:
But it's a bit iffy how well it'll fit in. - Fnlayson 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody have any order details for the 707? Thanks Djmckee1 19:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What do others think on this? I'll go along with a consensus decision. - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
it was the first to be commercially successful
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Landing at max weight
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Author of this section wrote:-
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 outboard Petebutt ( talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 707/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
;January 2008 : Well written. Added B-class checklist. Wexcan ( talk) 01:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 19:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Travolta owned the plane. He had the servicing done at the Manston airfield/graveyard workshops in UK. He donated it to the Qantas museum in 2018. 14.203.207.166 ( talk) 00:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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).
Old_Wombat ( talk) 07:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, I found a picture [3] 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)
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.
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)
"... 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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 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)
is there any 707 still in service ? - List of Boeing 707 operators -- Houcinovic ( talk) 17:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)