So Boeing uses the 700 range for all commercial jet airliners and 300s for prop airliners. Why the jump to 700? What happened to 400, 500, and 600?

Posted by RoutineTraditional79@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 150 comments

We all know Boeing jumped to 700 when they wanted to turn the 367-80 into a full blown product line, and we all know why they went from 700 to 707, but why the jump up by 400? Why was 400/404 not available? What were they using the 400, 500, and 600 line for?

[-]

Protholl@reddit

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-plane-names-7/

[-]

RealExii@reddit

Bigger question is what the hell are they gonna do when they've used up 797?

[-]

Every-Progress-1117@reddit

Hexadecimal., 7A7

[-]

rounding_error@reddit

That only buys them like six more numbers though, which at the current rate only puts them out around another 1000 years.

[-]

bolpo33@reddit

unless they go full alphanumeric

[-]

redpat2061@reddit

Never go full alphanumeric

[-]

jet-setting@reddit

Now introducing the all new Boeing AS5!

[-]

OptimisticMartian@reddit

Will be confused with a new Audi and there will be hell to pay when the wrong break pads are used.

[-]

WrongEinstein@reddit

I want to see one with the wrong tires.

[-]

BeardedAgentMan@reddit

Except airline tires on an RS7.

[-]

WrongEinstein@reddit

The was the idea. If you put a treadmill in the trunk of an RS7 will it still take off?

[-]

Desperate-Tomatillo7@reddit

7Ñ7

[-]

Every-Progress-1117@reddit

Base 36

If you allow diacritics, then you have enough for all the 737 models to come... 737 Max Ä

[-]

Every-Progress-1117@reddit

They only need three middle numbers 3,7 and 8

[-]

hitechpilot@reddit

Another 737 max 8?

[-]

sadicarnot@reddit

I have to admit the Max 8 is a pretty good plane from a passenger perspective. If I die on one, it is ok, I have had a good run.

[-]

40KaratOrSomething@reddit

Nah, it'll be a Min 8

[-]

HighlyRegard3D@reddit

Mid 8

[-]

MushHuskies@reddit

Mad Max

[-]

Olhapravocever@reddit

2 or Max and it won't be a problem lol

[-]

thphnts@reddit

Give me the original Shark-tail designed 7E7 Boeing you damn cowards.

[-]

Turbo_SkyRaider@reddit

The Sonic Cruiser. I created it in X-Plane 8 and it revealed some interesting flying characteristics, at least for the one in the artistic impressions. One engine failure on takeoff proved to be impossible to control after Vr with two GE-90 installed, the rudders were way too small. After a considerable enlargement and making them all-moving it became a manageable situation.

[-]

thphnts@reddit

How did you model the flight dynamics when the plane doesn't exist?

[-]

Turbo_SkyRaider@reddit

X-Plane comes with a CAD-program called Plane Maker, it uses finite element theory and table based airfoils. You either overlay fuselage, wings, stabs, engines, gears etc. either on a background image or have the relevant coordinates prepared. Then you select appropriate airfoils, i.e. not the default NACA2412 and not the flat plate airfoils, select engine type, set thrust levels, fuel tank volume and location, gear arrangement and CG. Load it in X-Plane and hope it doesn't crash the sim, if it doesn't, give it a go, see how it flies and try to improve the flight model by tweaking control surfaces or introduce a FBW für example.

It is "real" based on the data you put in, sure we'll never know how my interpretation of the Sonic Cruiser compared to the real Sonic Cruiser as it has never been built, but it gave some idea.

I also created a flyable version of project "Pluto", a Mach 3 capable cruise missile driven by a nuclear RAM-jet. Takeoff and landing wasn't possible below Mach 1 due to rudder reversal...fun times.

Like in any other IT-application the general rule is "shit in, shit out", so researching beforehand is crucial.

[-]

thphnts@reddit

That sounds pretty cool, actually. I have almost no experience with X-Plane, so had no idea it came with such a tool. I guess it gives you a general idea of how conceptual aircraft can work then? I wonder if it can do the Boeing SST Concorde competitor that got scrapped. That aircraft has always been one of those “what if…” aircraft for me that could’ve had a similar impact on commercial flight as the 747 did.

[-]

Zinger21@reddit

I have a poster of the 7E7 concept art. My grandfather worked on the avionics development and integration for the 787 among other programs. Really neat seeing the original idea and finished product.

[-]

sffunfun@reddit

The original name of the 787 was the “7E7” (not a code name, the E was for “efficiency”), but at the last minute they renamed it to the 787 after a few Chinese airlines agreed to place orders.

[-]

Tjaeng@reddit

787 was originally announced as 7E7.

[-]

747ER@reddit

There have also been the 7J7, 7N7, and 7X7.

[-]

PacSan300@reddit

Similar to how the A380 was originally the A3XX.

[-]

Zakluor@reddit

And back in the 80s, they announced a concept aircraft as the 7J7, looking like the later-introduced 717.

[-]

Yesthisisme50@reddit

Surely that’s just a placeholder

[-]

hitechpilot@reddit

Or.... exponent?

[-]

EmphasisGreen6888@reddit

Greek characters are also an option.

[-]

mixedBAGofCandy@reddit

This is the way

[-]

InspectionNo6750@reddit

And after that, emojis: 7🍤7

[-]

coloradokyle93@reddit

Ah yes the seven-shrimp-seven, my favorite plane

[-]

anotherblog@reddit

I for one look forward to my trip on a 7□7-max�

[-]

SlicerShanks@reddit

7🅱️7-😂👌👌

[-]

snyder3894@reddit

Start recycling old names like 717 and 727

[-]

adjust_your_set@reddit

Realistically, that’s 40 years in the future, at least. They can keep hanging updated engines on the 787 and incrementally improving it for a long time.

Same with the eventual 797.

My guess is they will just cycle up to 7107, or use the alphanumeric version of that sequence, so 7J7.

[-]

HeroYouKey_SawAnon@reddit

It might come sooner than you think. If a proper new engine technology debuts to spur the eventual 737 replacement, they will still need another airframe to supplant it either above or below. (AKA if the “797” is a straight 737 replacement a midsize airliner is needed, if the “797” is the midsize, then a smaller one is needed.) Also several hydrogen airliners will be necessary by 2050 to meet climate goals.

[-]

sadicarnot@reddit

Where are you going to get the hydrogen from? If you say water the economics of that does not work.

[-]

HeroYouKey_SawAnon@reddit

You can debate that with strategists at plane makers and nation states if you wish, regardless of whether you are convinced or not there will be hydrogen planes designed and demanded, how it works out economically will be answered later.

[-]

sadicarnot@reddit

Even logistically, there is more hydrogen in things like gasoline than there is in compressed hydrogen gas.

[-]

left_lane_camper@reddit

The proposed fuel for hydrogen-powered jetliners is cryogenic slush not compressed gas-phase, which has excellent energy density by mass, though a very low energy density by volume.

You would absolutely never get a non-cryogenic hydrogen jetliner to pencil out economically as the tanks would be prohibitively heavy. Cryogenic fuels have a lot of other challenges, though.

Incidentally, and to your first point, the current source of most industrial hydrogen gas is reforming natural gas, not hydrolysis. This makes hydrogen (currently) an effective fossil product, like gasoline or helium.

[-]

bobith5@reddit

The 7*7 design that was shit canned for the MAX was to be comparable to the 757 in size and the minors were going to iterate smaller instead of larger down into the 737 footprint.

[-]

747ER@reddit

Which was the correct decision to make

[-]

stillusesAOL@reddit

Maybe they’ll roll over to something like Boeing X17 and X27, or 818 and 828, or J71 and J72. Just spit-ballin’ here. They either need to keep the 7 alive, or continue the pattern up into the 8s.

[-]

theerrantpanda99@reddit

Maybe in forty years we’ll all be flying the Boeing 838 Suborbitals. It’ll be fun when the door falls off of that one.

[-]

PermanentRoundFile@reddit

I honestly don't see them staying in operation that long with the way they're being ran right now. The kind of change they need to make is hard for a really big business in any kind of quick way, and they're losing contracts with every failure.

[-]

theerrantpanda99@reddit

Too big too fail manufacturer. Government will keep bailing them out.

[-]

PermanentRoundFile@reddit

I was there too when it was just the 737MAX MCAS issues, then the door issues (which is eerily reminiscent of the DC-10 IMO), now there's concerns about the de-icing systems on the 737 and 777. I'm also hearing there might be issues with the 787. Then there's the stuck astronauts and their space capsule program.

[-]

Just-Statement-1301@reddit

Never gonna happen. They’ll just keep remaking old variants. Get ready for the 737 Infinite 9000!

[-]

United-Bet-6469@reddit

737 Super Max Pro 9

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

Oh no, Apple is buying Boeing?

[-]

ThatOneGayDJ@reddit

Finally, flying rectangles!

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

737 Supermax because that’s where its designers should be living.

[-]

OkieBobbie@reddit

Supermax will be flown by a guy named Verstappen.

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

He better be vergoin, not verstappen.

[-]

bravogates@reddit

I wonder why boeing did number the 787 variants as -1/2/3 instead of 7/8/9. NG 787 is a LOOONG way off, but why not leave the numbers open?

[-]

Spin737@reddit

Asian marketing. 8 is a lucky number.

[-]

GavoteX@reddit

And nine is unlucky. Hence the lack of Windows 9.

[-]

Unhappy_Pollution106@reddit

There probably are studied variants in that range that never made it too far off the design table. After all, there was the 787-3 like others pointed out. But there were also variants like the 757-100, 767-100, 747-500, 747-600, 747-700, 777-100, and if I’m not mistaken a 727-300 design.

[-]

bravogates@reddit

I know that the 787-3 also didn’t happen, but what I meant was that the -8/9/10 should be numbered 1/2/3 instead.

[-]

esntlbnr@reddit

Pure marketing gimmick.

The A380 started with an -800, with the possibility of a -900. The A330neo skipped right from -300 to -800, and the A350 was going to have an -800 as well as rhe -900 and -1000.

Why did the A380 come before the A350? Marketing.

[-]

bobith5@reddit

I think he's saying there probably was a 787-1,2,3,4,etc but the design wasn't finalized until the -8, iteration?

Similar to how the delivery 777 was the 777-200 with the -100 being a purely paper design. I wouldn’t think that’s right as the 777 CW starts at -8/-9 similar to the 787.

[-]

bravogates@reddit

The only 787 variant that didn't happen is the -3 when ANA/JAL switched their orders to the -8.

[-]

caverunner17@reddit

My guess -- bigger = better/newer

A350-900, A350-1000

A380-800

747-8 (instead of -500)

[-]

Yesthisisme50@reddit

Ever heard of the 737-200 all the way to the 737-900?

The 737 has been around a lot longer than even the Airbus company

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

And the 737-10 is almost identical in size to the 707.

[-]

caverunner17@reddit

Yes, but those were replaced with the bigger numbers (600,700,800,900) in 1997, around when the 777-200/300 were released.

Anything in the last 15+ years has been the bigger number scheme

[-]

Yesthisisme50@reddit

The 737-500 was released before 1990. I’d say Boeing logically went with keeping that format even if the 777 was never made

[-]

Karmakazee@reddit

It’s Boeing. They like to keep the doors to opportunity open.

[-]

chasepsu@reddit

Even if they didn't want to keep the doors open, they'll likely open on their own anyway...

[-]

Karmakazee@reddit

It’s like the old saying: when life closes a door, physics opens a door plug.

[-]

WhiskeyMikeMike@reddit

There originally was going to be a 787-3 but it was cancelled. https://youtu.be/QO1aVwqZW1o

[-]

Binford6200@reddit

737 max 8 neo next gen evolution+3

[-]

twarr1@reddit

Never going to need more. They’ll just keep recycling 737.

737 Super Ultra Uber Max

[-]

Own-Employment-1640@reddit

7107

[-]

WarthogOsl@reddit

7007?

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

They’ll have to use some innovative Bonding technologies for that.

[-]

WarthogOsl@reddit

It'd be hard to bungle adding an extra zero, but....

[-]

an_older_meme@reddit

Boeing will find a way

[-]

SebVettelstappen@reddit

Boeing 808

[-]

an_older_meme@reddit

I can just imagine a TV commercial where a smiling stewardess says “Nothing sounds quite like an 808”

[-]

No_Temporary2732@reddit

Boeing 007

The name's Boeing, James Boeing

[-]

boilerdam@reddit

Airbus also has the same issue with A390. But, they have 360, 370 etc if they decide to jump backwards.

[-]

RealExii@reddit

Airbus has already broken their norm when they made A321. So they've got lots of options.

[-]

Persistent_Phoenix19@reddit

737 SE PRO MAX

[-]

PigSlam@reddit

798?

[-]

Mountain_Fig_9253@reddit

Bold of you to think Boeing is ever going to make a new airplane.

[-]

Kerberos42@reddit

With the recent progress in space launch systems, they could start making human rated spacecraft. Oh wait..,

[-]

Much_Recover_51@reddit

No, I think you’re forgetting about SLS, which has gone much more smoothly than Starliner. Oh, what’s that about bolts in the fuel tanks?

[-]

QuantumSasuage@reddit

Let me tell you what used to happen in the ol' days ...

[-]

G-I-T-M-E@reddit

The 737SuperMaxV2UpgradeMega

[-]

ImmediateLobster1@reddit

737ThunderCougarFalconBird

[-]

Mountain_Fig_9253@reddit

Now serving Brawndo…

[-]

OGWyoRockMan@reddit

It's got electrolytes!

[-]

CySnark@reddit

It's what planes crave.

[-]

HurlingFruit@reddit

With new, undisclosed anti-gravity mode.

[-]

elkab0ng@reddit

-201

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

We’ll get a 727MAX before Boeing does a new airplane.

[-]

UW_Ebay@reddit

Are they ever going to build this? Was supposed to be the 757 refresh but heard it was scrapped.

[-]

Mike_Drop_GenX@reddit

Maybe something similar to the X-66 experiment? But probably not exactly the X-66.

[-]

Crazy__Donkey@reddit

Easy 7107. Unless marketing fetch for 909, and in that case, I don't want to be the first atc to call to 919-100.

[-]

chateau86@reddit

Didn't Comac already take the C919 designation?

That would be confusing as frick.

[-]

trphilli@reddit

My totally uninformed guess at "rule of cool" says they go to 77X0. Too easy to miss/confuse the "oh" in seven one oh seven. Seventy seven hundred also sounds stronger. And most people use the triple seven shorthand so less confusion. Gets you another 8 models (skipping 7710 and 7770 because I say so /s).

[-]

AlphSaber@reddit

Well the canceled SST from Boeing was numbered 2707, so I'm assuming at somepoint 4 digit model numbers were going to be used for supersonic passenger aircraft.

[-]

elkab0ng@reddit

Lean into the Y2K thing, why not?

Some app at my old company was still counting years weirdly because nobody could update it. Last I checked, it said the current year is 19124 😂

[-]

bobith5@reddit

Four digits; adding a 2 before the 7XX.

E.G. the Boeing SST that was canned was the 2707. Representing the first iteration (707) 2nd generation of civilian jet aviation.

[-]

EatSleepJeep@reddit

They already announced it on April 1stb https://crankyflier.com/2024/04/01/boeing-announces-new-797-to-replace-the-737-family/

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

7107, 7117, etc.

[-]

Zathral@reddit

The 2707 project sets precedent to use 27x7, though I feel it's just too similar to what is already in use and would lead to confusion.

[-]

That-Guy-Over-There8@reddit

798

[-]

Euro_Snob@reddit

Well the 787 started life as the 7E7 (if I recall correctly), so they are thinking about it at least… they are not limiting themselves to a number.

[-]

hudduf@reddit

If they don't get their act together, they may not need to worry about it.

[-]

super_salamander@reddit

There will be teleporters before Boeing makes the successor to the 797-900max.

[-]

MonsieurReynard@reddit

Go all Apple on us with 797.110 etc

[-]

series_hybrid@reddit

A while back the airline industry went to a hub-and-spoke system, which has a few inefficiencies, but the parts that are efficient make up for that.

The big airliners fly from major hubs to other major hubs. Like Salt Lake City to Atlanta or Dallas.

[-]

ThatOneGayDJ@reddit

I think you may have commented on the wrong post

[-]

gyarbij@reddit

As the first of a new generation of passenger jets, Boeing wanted the aircraft's model number to emphasize the difference from its previous propeller-driven aircraft which bore 300-series numbers. The 400–, 500- and 600-series were already used by missiles and other products, so Boeing decided that the jets would bear 700-series numbers, and the first would be the 707. The marketing department at Boeing chose 707 because they thought it was more appealing than 700.

[-]

Cessnateur@reddit

300 & 400 - Commercial aircraft
500 - Turbine engines
600 - Rockets and missiles
700 - Jet transport aircraft

[-]

copingcabana@reddit

Hold up. These are commercial classifications, right? It's not like the F-15 is secretly also a 724 or something, right? So . . . commercial rockets and missiles?!?

[-]

CommentsOnOccasion@reddit

F is the military designation for Fighter aircraft, like C is for Cargo aircraft

700-series is Boeing's naming convention for their jet transport aircraft

The naming schemes are totally unrelated. The C-40 is literally a 737, for example

[-]

HeroYouKey_SawAnon@reddit

lol that reminds me of Ferrari F1 cars that all have unique wacky names but are secretly all just “Project 676” or some sequential number in the 600s.

[-]

chateau86@reddit

VW group engines:

[-]

halfty1@reddit

These are (were) internal Boeing project codes classifications.

[-]

discreetjoe2@reddit

This. Most aircraft exist for years before they receive a military designation. The company needs to call them something during development. It’s especially true for any thing being designed for foreign export as there is no way to know what the future customers may decide to call it.

[-]

jazzyt98@reddit

F-15 and F-18 were McDonnell Douglas before they became Boeing.

[-]

WillParchman@reddit

Damn I didn’t realize I was riding a WMD when I took that trip on a 737-600

[-]

Awwwmann@reddit

All you have to do is look at their chart of accounts in Quickbooks!

[-]

phoneguy247@reddit

They'll take a page from the auto industry and bring numbers back after a few years. So... next all-new airliner might be the return of the 707.

[-]

RevolutionSweet4148@reddit

Static discharge

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

Also, why did Lockheed go from L-1049 to L-1011

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

Well, Martin had the 4-0-4, which could have caused some confusion.

[-]

TheUnkown696@reddit

Think they should return to the days where they had customer codes.

[-]

hitechpilot@reddit

Ha! The "404 not available" got me!

Yes it's a computer joke.

[-]

RoutineTraditional79@reddit (OP)

Oh damn I didn’t even mean to do that

[-]

ObservantOrangutan@reddit

I believe it had something to do with their different business divisions.

300/400 were for the older prop driven planes. 500 was for engine/turbine development. 600 was for rockets/missiles 700 was for new jet powered commercial aircraft.

If I remember right, 900 is for boats/marine use. Hence the Boeing 929.

As for why 707 vs 700. Honestly it probably comes down to something as simple as the marketing people liked how 7-oh-7 sounded.

[-]