off topic, just a little--maybe?

May be off topic because Boeings are not homebuilt.

I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not. I
know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make the 7
in model #'s true?

Saw a special tonight about the B-52 and it made me start wondering again.
L.D.

"L.D." wrote ...
I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not. I
know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make the 7
in model #'s true?

There were many early Boeings without a '7'. The KC135 is not a 707 in any
sense but it was called the 717 for a while. That number has now been given
to the DC-9/MD80.

Rich

L.D. wrote:
May be off topic because Boeings are not homebuilt.

I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not. I
know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make the 7
in model #'s true?

Saw a special tonight about the B-52 and it made me start wondering again.
L.D.

KC-135 is not a 707. Its fuselage is on the order of 3 feet narrower.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:47:31 -0700, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:16:55 -0500, "L.D."
wrote:

:May be off topic because Boeings are not homebuilt.
:
:I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
:PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not. I
:know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make the 7
:in model #'s true?

Nope

P-12/F4B
P26 Peashooter
B.40a biplane
314 Clipper flying boat
AGM 86A
B-29 and B-50

And the B-17 was actually Boeing Model Number 299, the Lycoming-powered version
of the Kaydet was the PT-13, the Monomail was the model 200, etc. Certainly the
latter-day marketing department is capitalizing on the "7s", of course.

As several others have mentioned, the KC-135 is not a 707. It has the narrower
fuselage of the original 707 prototype (the Model 367-80) and the wing planform
is quite different.

Ron Wanttaja

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
L.D. wrote:

May be off topic because Boeings are not homebuilt.

I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not.
I know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make the
7 in model #'s true?

Saw a special tonight about the B-52 and it made me start wondering
again.
L.D.


KC-135 is not a 707. Its fuselage is on the order of 3 feet narrower.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


OK guys, I figured what I had heard about the 7's was a bunch of houie
but I was really surprised to find out about the KC 135. I really
thought it was the same as a 707.
L.D.

L.D. wrote:
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

L.D. wrote:

May be off topic because Boeings are not homebuilt.

I've heard all Boeing aircraft had a 7 in their model #, 707, 747,
PT-17, etc. except the B-52 and then even 5+2=7. Is this true ot not.
I know the KC135 doesn't have a 7 but it is a 707. Would that make
the 7 in model #'s true?

Saw a special tonight about the B-52 and it made me start wondering
again.
L.D.



KC-135 is not a 707. Its fuselage is on the order of 3 feet narrower.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



OK guys, I figured what I had heard about the 7's was a bunch of houie
but I was really surprised to find out about the KC 135. I really
thought it was the same as a 707.
L.D.

The prototype, -80, was shown to the airlines who wanted it wide
enough for another seat. It turned out to be a wise decision. The AWACS
uses 707 airframes. I used to work on KC-135s and was surprised how much
difference the extra 3 feet made when I got the nickle tour of the AWACS
25 years ago. AWACS didn't seem like a military aircraft to me, it was
too clean and too well lit inside.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired