Re: 707 and KC-135 relationship and something about the 747 (was: Subsidies)

From:         faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure)
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.
Date:         02 Jun 96 23:01:52 
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.619@ohare.Chicago.COM>, pravelin@us.oracle.com
(Paul Raveling) wrote:

> In article <airliners.1996.587@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Don Stokes
<Don.Stokes@vuw.ac.nz> writes:

> |> The 707 model number was actually picked for the airliner before the
> |> Dash-80 (Model 367-80) development was approved.  The 707 number was
> |> withdrawn for the prototype in an attempt to put the competition off the
> |> scent...
>
>         Actually my understanding is that it was the government they
>         wanted to put off the scent.  The theory was that by using "367"
>         the government would think it's a derivative of the airframes
>         in the StratoCruiser/KC-97/C-97 line, and would be safer to
>         fund than a major new design.

Everything I've ever heard here at Boeing was that the 367-80 designation
was fabricated to keep Douglas from figuring out what was going on.
According to the men who designed it, the Dash-80 was Boeing's reaction to
the de Havilland Comet, which Bill Allen and Maynard Pennell had seen at
the Farnborough Airshow in 1950.  They came home convinced that to be a
player in the future commercial airplane business, a jet transport was the
only way to go.  The Dash-80 was used as a demonstrator to the airlines
and the government, the airlines for the follow on 707 (which originally
was going to be called the 700 but Boeing Public Relations thought 707
sounded nicer), and the government for the KC-135 tanker.  The Dash-80
itself was built on spec only- there were no contracts pending with either
the airlines or the government.  It was really more of a marketing machine
than an innovation, as most of the technology was drawn from the B-47 and
B-52.

C. Marin Faure
   author, Flying a Floatplane