I stand corrected, David. The Dash-80 was designed as a 2+3 seating cross section (11' 0" cross section), while the C-135 (717), 707 and 720 were all 12' 4", the latter to accomodate 3+3 seating competitive with the DC-8 proposal. (I still recall some double bubble in the -100/-300, though.) The 720 and 707-100 shared the shorter wing. On Braniff, see: http://www.braniffinternational.org/aircraft/720.htm they operated both to South America. David R wrote: >The model number for the C-135 is 717-100. The 720 is not derived from the >717 but the 707. All Boeing aircraft from the 707 to the 737 have the same >cross section. > >Braniff operated the 707-220, not 720, into South America. The -220 was a >"hot rod" version of the 707. > >The main differences between the 720 and the 707 (except for the 138 series) >is that the 720 was shorter and had a different wing > >The 720's wingspan was the same as the -120/-220/120B versions (130' 10"). >The -320/-420 had a wingspan of 142' 5" and the -320B/-320C wingspan was >145' 9". > >David R >home.comcast.net/~damiross/books.html >www.sequoians.com >------Original Message----- >From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of >RWM >Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 18:18 >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: SFGate: ATA Airlines to Expand Service > > >My recollection is that the "720" was a civil derivative of the C-135, a >descendant of the prototype "Dash 80". The 720 had a smaller cabin >cross-section than the "707" series, a shorter fuselage, a longer >wingspan (than the -100/-120) and operated at lower MTOWs. > >The 707 series -100/-120 and -300/-320 (and RR powered -400) had a >slight double bubble to the cabin cross-section, making it appear to be >a wider cabin above the floor. > >American operated the 720B, 707-123, 707-323B and 707-323C models, the >latter operating in both passenger and freighter configurations. > >Braniff also operated the 720, into South America for its hot and high >(La Paz) performance. > >- RWM > > > >David R wrote: > > > >>United called its 720's 720's. The 707-320 is the intercontinental version >>of the 707. The -420 was also an intercontinental version, only it was >>powered by Rolls Royce engines. >> >>Here's why it was called the "720," from volume 7 of the "Great Airliners >>Series" books called, appropriately enough, "Boeing 720." >> >>Pat Patterson, United's president at the time, wanted the model number >>changed. Originally, it was to be the 707-020 but he didn't want the >>appearance of having second thoughts on his large DC-8 order. Boeing was >>going to change it to 717 but "Seven One Seven" and "Seven Seventeen" >> >> >didn't > > >>appeal to Patterson. Boeing decided to call it the 720. This was >>acceptable to Patterson. >> >>Only three airlines actually called the 720 a 707. American called the 720 >>"707 Jet Flagship" and the 720B "707 Astrojets." TWA called it the >>"SuperJet" and did not mention the model number. Aer Lingus used just >>"Boeing" titles without specifying the type. >> >> >>David R >>home.comcast.net/~damiross/books.html >>www.sequoians.com >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Gerard M Foley [mailto:gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 17:42 >>To: The Airline List; damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: Re: SFGate: ATA Airlines to Expand Service >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "David MR" <damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:03 PM >>Subject: Re: SFGate: ATA Airlines to Expand Service >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>I think it was actually a 720. I know - American Airlines (and >>>possibly some other airlines) called its 720s 707s but that don't make >>>it right! >>>David R >>> >>> >>> >>> >>and United calling 707's 720's did make that right? (8^)) >> >>Just to show my ignorance I'll ask what was a 707-320? A 720 by another >>name? >> >>Gerry >> >>