Talk:Boeing 707/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

There are quite a number of copied versions of the wiki article, seems to be popular. Mgw89 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

October 19, 1959, Seattle Washington Boeing N7071

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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• The World Trade Center towers' designers John Skilling and Leslie Robertson had low-speed, Boeing 707 crashes in mind, when developing the towers' resistance to impact. Akradecki 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

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)

Orders

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

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)

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)

Aircraft on display/Survivors

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)

The article already John Travolta is a 707 operator in the Operators section. No reason to state that elsewhere. The VC-137s and C-137s should be listed in their respective articles. The same reasons I stated for the E-3s in the previous section apply here as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reiteration of previous arguments as moving the discussion forward. Here are the facts as I see them:

• MilborneOne never removed mention of Travolta's airplane for the reason that it was mentioned in the section, according to their edit summaries, e.g. [1] & [2].
• Vc-137s, unlike C-135s, are, indeed 707s. Indeed, I wasn't the one to add SAM 26000 and SAM 27000; 27000 was added some seven months ago, and they were even improved by MilborneOne as far back as 23 December 2007 without removing them.
• Military variants seem acceptable to be mentioned elsewhere in this article, and military aircraft are pictured multiple times, along with a 1996 military crash, and a South African Air Force 707 on display. The let us never speak of the military variants again argument breaks down in the face of the broadly accepted inclusion of such information elsewhere in the article.
• The section has been called Survivors at as far back as 27 September 2007, when MilborneOne him/herself created it under that name; For MilborneOne to now criticize a section heading he/she chose nearly a year ago strikes me as a means of justifying the exclusion of Travolta's aircraft, rather than improving the article. Moving the goalposts is not the same as winning the game.
• Fnlayson asserts that I had "no reason" to add Travolta's aircraft to Survivors. This is both untrue and an assumption of bad faith. I gave the reason in my edit summary.
• Fnlayson asserts thart surviors are non-fliers; Travolta's 707 is a survivor by any common definition of the term. Every definition of the term survivor that I've checked contains no such qualification. A survivor is one who survives, in whatever condition of which that survival consists.
• Civility also appears to be a problem here, to wit: Fnlayson has decribed another editor as having fuxed (fucked) the order of [[Boeing 707#notable incidents|]], described one addition as junk, another as jibberish, & criticising the quality of vandalism.

If you want to own this article, then so be it, but at least be consistent about it. If mention A is OK but mention B is wrong, then, absent an explanation of the disparate treatment, your logic breaks down. The ball is either fair or foul; It can't be both. Is anyone interested in compromising on a solution acceptable to all involved? --SSBohio 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Uh "fuxed is simply a typo of "fixed". I typed C-135 in an edit summary when I should have typed C-137 also. My edit summaries when reverting vandalism are not relevant to this anyway. Those are not personal attacks btw. Good job of cherry picking. ;) MilborneOne and I moved the military entries to C-137 Stratoliner. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• My online experience has led me to see fuxed as a euphemism; I accept the fuxed/fixed explanation.
• I'm not sure what the relevence of the C-135 vs C-137 typo would be.
• I've checked my contribution above, & I don't see where I described your edit summaries as personal attacks.
• As to relevence, other instances of intemperate commentary inform my view of your assertion that there was "no reason" for my addition.
• I was looking to see how long the section had been called Survivors and how long the information on SAM 26000 and SAM 27000 had been accepted before my edit caused a sudden change in cabin pressure. No cherries were picked, I just noticed the sharp comments while looking for the information I sought.
• I noticed where you two moved some information to the C-137 article; Good job. However, material is not automatically ruled out of this article because it could be included in another one. A C-137 is still a 707, after all.

Now that that's all behind us, what about the article content? Is there any room to compromise? --SSBohio 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• You misstated my words on the Travolta plane. I stated above that there was no reason to mention Travolta's airplane a 2nd time in this article. Add to what is in the Operators section if you wish. I mentioned that those aren't personal attacks because that could be implied by the civility & bad faith comments. I wrote enough on splitting content on the E-3s above. Others can discuss further here... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The second mention is the one I added; That's the one you said there was "no reason" for. Now, you may disagree with my reason, but I did have one. Still do, as a matter of fact. To deny that there was any reason for the text to appear where I put it even though I stated a reason is either misleading about what I've done or an incivil dismissal of the reason I stated. I'd like to think that we can disagree but still recognize each other's arguments.
• I apologize for giving any indication that I thought you were making personal attacks. That is not my belief.
• I'd like to see Travolta's airplane listed among the survivors, particularly because of its being an historical restoration. In fact, I think it probably belongs there more than it does in the Operators section, since he isn't an operator in the conventional sense of one who operates an airliner for the carriage of passengers or cargo. --SSBohio 17:49, 8 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.

First

it was the first to be commercially successful

I think it's America-centric POV. See Tupolev Tu-104. --ajvol 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When a government-owned airline procures aircraft from a government-owned factory at the behest of the government, which also forces its client governments to buy the aircraft for their government-owned airlines, and (according to the Tupolev Tu-104 article) ONLY 200 aircraft were sold, that's not commercialism, that's Communism. Hardly counts as a "commercially successful".

By the way, the the 707 sold over 1000 to civil customers. It was used not only by the major US airlines, but by Air France, BOAC, Lufthansa, and other European (even national) airlines. Perhaps we should rephrase it to say that the 707 was a "capitalist pig success"? - BillCJ 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Text taken from the Caravelle page:

"In total 279 Caravelles of all types were built, with Sud Aviation's break-even point at the 200 mark. The Caravelle was thus the first airliner design to make a clear profit, something that would not be matched again until the 1970s."

So, was the B707 the first airliner to make a profit or the Caravelle? We must find out, otherwise it will be confusing. J-C V 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on their respective wikipedia pages, the caravelle had its maiden flight first but the 707 was the first to fly commercially. So it's hard to tell which was the first to make a profit. 193.132.242.1 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The demagogy behind this is contra Wikipedia principles. And since there is no qualified source mentioned, it should be eliminated. Thebiggestmac (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The 707 did not 'usher in the jet age' as several jets were already in service in other countries. The first Comet may not have been a success, but the TU-104 proved successful in service over a long period even if it wasn't financially profitable (primarily due to its weight). It was also the only jetliner operating anywhere at one stage. The number built is irrelevant, be it 200 or 1000, as is the financial backing of the manufacturer. All commerical and military planes made in the Soviet Union were clearly built by state-owned factories - hardly a revelation. Boeing and Lockheed developed and built new models for and at the behest of the US govt - should we therefore discount all of their products as well? Slumpertz (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You've missed the point of the whole phrase, which isn't just about numbers built, but about the way it helped to transform air travel. But since it does not yet heve a source, I concur with its removal. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Variant list incomplete

I noticed the variant list is incomplete. There are loads of variants missing for both military and civilian use. For example, the CC-137, the OC-135B, TC-18F and the Boeing 707-321B. Is there a reason, such as copyright material why this is not there or was it missed out? Pash Master 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• All major commerial variants from the 707 web page and 707/720 airport reports are listed. For mil variants The CC-137 & TC-18F are listed. The OC-135 is a C-135 Stratolifter variant, not a 707 one. -Fnlayson 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The 707-321B is just a 707-320B for Pan American (customer code 21), they are not different variants just configured for different customers . MilborneOne 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Under Operators, it is stated that "21" is Boeing's code for Pan Am and thus, a 707-321B is really just a 707-300B. Under Variants however, there is a 707-320B and the text above says a 707-321B is just a 707-320B for Pan Am. Is the 707-320B a separate model, or is it a 707-300B for customer "20"? If it is a separate model, how would one know from "-321B" whether it was a 707-300B for Pan Am, or a 707-320B for Pan Am? What would it be if Northwest ("51") had bought a 707-300B?; and a 707-320B? Pbyhistorian (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the 300B to 320B all the 707 model numbers used by Boeing were -120, -220, -320 -420 and later some has letter suffixes like -120B or 320B. The customer codes started at 21 for Pan Am then used 01 to 19 after 99 was reached. After 19 they used numbers and letters for customer codes. MilborneOne (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• How did they fit the 2 digit customer codes in with -120, -220, ... variant designations? Boeing has stuck to -100, -200, -300, etc after that until recently (787-3/-8/-9 & 747-8). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• • They dont really, the base model was 120 then the first customer 121, 122, 123 etc upwards. As you say the "20" only appears on the 707 (and 720!) as a base model. MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • So it's essentially "-MCC" where M is the model and CC is the customer code, with the unfortunate caveat that CC starts at "20" for the base model rather than "00". A 707-321 is the same model (707-320) as a 707-351; the former was merely delivered to Pan Am, Boeing's first customer ever (making them "21" across all series/models) and the latter was delivered to Northwest (aka "51"), Boeing's 31st customer. After reaching "99", Boeing wrapped around to "01" and then got strange(r) after "19". (Example?) I thought Boeing used letters to designate different engine options; I hope "-320B" doesn't mean the 101st customer to buy a 3rd-model 707. Pbyhistorian (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I believe the B in -320B means the B version so the -320 in the implied A version. Boeing does this late on the 747-200 and -200B. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A full list of List of customer codes, just to show an example of an alpha-numeric code - Ship 864 a 707-320C went to Nigeria Airways and was designated a 707-3F9C with F9 being the customer code. MilborneOne (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Slight contradiction

This page says that the 367-80 had 2+2 seating; the 367-80 page says it was five-abreast. I've no idea which is right but hopefully somebody will. Adetaylor (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it had room for 2-3 seating IIRC, maybe it was also fitted with 2-2. SynergyStar (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

landing field length?

120B has 6k, 320B says 10,840, which is ecactly the same as its takeoff run. I fing it hard to beleive that it would take 4k more space to stop, the same as TO run. I'm going to look this up again. Mgw89 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tony Pither's 707 book has Take off at Max weight +15oC at Sea Level

• 707-320

10,650(3200m)

• 707-120B

11,000(3330m)

• 720B

8,300(2515m)

• 707-320BA

10,840(3280m)

• 707-320BA-H

11,900(3600m)

Landing at max weight

• 707-320

7,280(2205m)

• 707-120B

6,200(1875m)

• 720B

5,750(1740m)

• 707-320B

6,420(1945m)

• 707-320BA

6,407(1940m)

• 707-320BA-H

6,100(1850m)

It looks like the figures may have been mixed up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Boeing charts said ca. 5950, so I used that. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Range discrepancy

At the bottom of the spec sheet there are two refs for range, one simple one that says the -320BA goes 6160 mi (5350 nm), while the range/fuel sheet says 5750 nm. I went with the latter because it seems better, and it's posted IFR range. Any other refs out there to determine this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pither has for the 320BA Max range (no reserves, max fuel) = 6640nm (12,280km) and max range still air no reserves = 5230nm (9675km) MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

6640 seems like a good number for max without reserves, but I think the industry standard "range" is IFR range with reserves for holding/diverting. For the sake of comparison, we should try to find this number, otherwise we've got an apple/orange problem. If we post 6640, people will wonder why the 747 was seen as an "improvement." We should try to standardize this as well, and check other pages for old aircraft, like the DC-8. Mgw89 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

707-138B fuel and range?

I read somewhere, but now can't find, that the 138B carried 19k us gal of fuel and went 5510 nmi, about as far as the -320B. Does anybody have an idea where I might find a ref, and whether it would be sufficiently relevant to include it? Mgw89 (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 120 Short Body had a 10,000lb increase in Maximum Take Off Weight for the same Zero Fuel Weight as the 120 Long Body, the payload is only 900lb different (52,200 long body v 53,100 short body) so presumable the rest was fuel but I dont have anything else. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

MTOW was still 257k, it was ZFW that went down. I thought fuel cap went up by 2k gal or so due to larger tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saha crash

Author of this section wrote:-

• On August 3, 2009, Saha Air flight IRZ 124 from Ahwaz back to Tehran suffered an uncontained explosion of engine number 2, right inboard. Flying debris disabled number 1, right outboard, damaged the underside of the wing and left metal debris on the runway. Thanks to the skill by the Iranian pilots, the aircraft, EP-SHK, made it round the circuit on two engines, to a successful landing after ten minutes in the air. No one was injured but with two destroyed engines, serious damage to the wing and leaking fuel, EP-SHK is beyond economical repair.

unfortunately the no2 engine is the left inboard not right inboard, so which is it, he also compounds the error stating no1 right outboard, where no1 engine is the left outboardPetebutt (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Program launch to first flight in under 2 years

Interesting if somebody could note that the time it took to fly this plane is less than the time between the rollout of the completed 787, and the latest end of 2009 projected first flight of the fixed 787? Bachcell (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You just did, and this is where it should stay. It's not relevant to the article, and would most likely be OR/synthesis. They are two different aircraft from completely different eras. The 707 was purely conventional in its technology, though nat all had been done on a civil program. Also, the 707 benifited from the earlier development work of the 367-80 and KC-135, so to be fair, one should include their development time to some extent. Why not compare the 707 to the A400's time since rollout to first filght? Oh, it wouldn't be a dig at Boeing then! My bad! As to the length of time on the 787, I'd much rather Boeing get it right then to have aircraft disintegrating in mid-air like the early DH Comets! - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Assessment comment

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)

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)

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)

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 [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)

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)