Talk:Boeing 7x7 series

Stub?

why is this article still a stub? what else is there to write about 7X7s? Sai2020 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained move reverted

I have reverted the unexplained moce to Boeing Models, as this article only covered the 7x7 series, not all of Boeing's model numbers, or models themselves, as the title implied. I futher moved it to Boeing 7x7 series, as I think this is clearer about what the article actually covers. I am open to further suggetsions if that is not an acceptable option. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 2707

Shouldn't that be a 7x7 as well? It's got "7x7" in the number somewhere... 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 717

Maybe it's worth mentioning - as a side note in the article, maybe? - that the 717 was never a Boeing original development. It was actually designed, developed and initially marketed by McDonnell Douglas as the MD-95, which in turn was a stretched, more powerful version of the MD-90. It was simply renamed to "717" when Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas in 1997, and from then on, it was marketed as "Boeing 717". So I think this should be at least mentioned in the article. Cpt Vidal (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all covered in detail in the Boeing 717 article itsself, and that's probably sufficient. There's really no place to cover it here, other than maybe to put MD-95 in parenthesis beside 717 in the table. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 717 was in fact the KC-135 Stratotanker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"more commonly [citation needed]"

Just a two-penn'orth here, reckon you'd need an international survey of some kind (beyond the scope of this project at any rate, I suspect) to determine how most people pronounce the series numbers. By personal experience, I'd say all the British pilots I've spoken either spell it out ("seven-four-seven") or drop the last seven, as the article says, whilst it tends to be more common for Americans to say "seven forty seven".

Just my view, but at any rate, would it be tidier to remove the "more commonly" from the article? Unless we do indeed feel like commissioning Ipsos or someone to find out who says what.

Speedbird416C (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "citation needed" the aircraft industry commonly uses pilot lingo. Numbers are always "spelled" as in "flight level two niner zero" which needs no reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_phonetic_alphabet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.151.131 (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling the 'citation needed' refers specifically to the 'more commonly' - a question of which pronunciation is most commonly used, something that's pretty tricky to quantify. You've lost me with the Flight Levels reference - I'm familiar with voice procedure, but this section doesn't seem to refer to how it's pronounced on-frequency - just generally, in conversation.

Both points support an argument for removing the 'most commonly', in any case - if we're talking about VP, officially speaking it should be 'seven four seven'; and if we're talking more generally, as I joked in the first post, we would need to survey a pretty large and diverse section of the aviation industry as a whole to figure out which is globally more common. End of the day, 'most commonly' seems out of place. Speedbird416C (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]