Two fair questions

Prior to takeoff, the tower gives the pilot instructions, such as " cleared runway XX for take off, fly runway heading to 3,000' After initial climb out, the gears are raised, then the flaps are stowed, and then 3,000 feet, or what ever altitude was assigned is reached. Seeing that once you reach that low altitude, there is no reason ho have a high climb power , so power is reduced, as there are speed restrictions to 250 knots at lower altitudes. Then, Air Traffic Control ( ATC) might give instructions , such as climb to 15,000' , then power would be applied in the climb. This process is repeated up to the final desired altitude is reached. This is called a " step climb"

On occasion, such as after 12AM on weekends, when traffic is very light, ATC can allow the aircraft to climb directly to the desired final altitude, and no step climb or power reduction would be necessary.
Gary Bobileff

 

Try flying out of Orange County (John Wayne) and they pull the power at about 500 ft (or the end of the runway). Strictly for noise abatement. Really disconcerting the first time.

 

Not sure why Boeing skipped 717 initially, but after buying Douglas they renamed the MD-95 the 717.
Boeing 717 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This brings up an interesting question.

So, after the future 797 model, do you think Boeing will go to an 807 model? (followed by the 817, 827, 837 models)
Or maybe start over with the 708, 718, 728 series?
Or maybe just go to 8's in the series name: 818, 828, 838 ... ?
.

 

yes, there is a 717, it is the evolutiuon from the original twin engine DC-9 / MD 80 series etc they all look similar to the original that is why you probably are not recognizing the varient by Boeing

when taking off from an airport, the tower clears the plane for take off, once established in the air, it gets handed off to a TCA controller who supervises the departure near the airport, which may include noise abatement procedures while at lower altitudes and steering the departing plane clear of the congestion around the airport / city before it is turned on course for its' destination and handed off to center who handles the enroute portion of the flight. This sequencing is about maintaining proper separation which may include time at lower power settings while waitng for the airway to be cleared of traffic.

 

see the wiki article, there are some comments on this issue.

 

There is a Boeing Model 717. Its designated as the KC-135 by the USAAF. The MD design erroneously called the 717 was a sales gimmick model number used by the sales people to indicate that it was in the 700 series of jet airliners and it had one aisle. Some more paper pushers stupidity.
There is a stair-step climb profile that some airplanes use and noise abatement procedures would also account for throttles being pulled back.

 

Feel sorry for the DC-9...
Originally a Douglas Aircraft plane in '65. (DC=Douglas Commercial)


The it was the MD-80
When McDonnell and Douglas merged a couple years later.


Then it was the Boeing 717
When Boeing merged with M-D in the 90's...


Same thing happened with the DC-10, MD-11, but it never had a Boeing number.

At the end, MD was promoting an MD-12, a 2 aisle, double decker like the A380, but they were basically broke at the time. Just renderings, I think.

 

The model numbers like 702, 706, 709,etc. are models that never reached production status. They will never be re-used for something else...unless the office staff in some outlying office decide to do it again. As the years pass I realize that I worked on parts of our history, some of which will be forever recognized as the most outstanding and durable aircraft of all time. Starting in 1950 I took a small part in the B-52, 367-80, KC-135, 707, 727, 747, and 777. I still feel like I could have another go at it.

 

I believe the speed limit below 10,000ft is 250kts, too.

 

I forgot to mention that the Super Sonic transport was model number 3707, maintaining the " seven series" for civil transport but adding a 3 before the number to indicate something that goes fast.

 

Learn something new everyday, and since joining FCHAT more often than not it is something that Bob Parks posts regarding aviation. Thanks Bob!

 

You're welcome, just some more stuff that I made up. It made me think back on some of the things that apply to the making of a good airplane and it boils down to sound management. In the early days of the 707 we were shooting to meet a deadline set not by our managers but by Juan Trippe of PAA. The 707 had to fly before the end of 1957 and of course the OT was turned up and we practically lived at the Renton plant. The flight deck mock up was mattress of wire bundles and after a long and over schedule effort to get it "right"it was finally ready for inspection. On the last day the engineer in charge of it walked in and said that it was all going to be changed because it wasn't "right". Well, the mock up supervisor turned the color of a plumb and the fit hit the shan. Much screaming and yelling that we wouldn't meet the production dates,etc. The engineering chief, Joe Rasnak, took it all in and simply said, " I'll will bet that you'll get it done," and walked out. It was way over schedule by the time it was bought off but the wire shop and the installers somehow made up the time and the airplane flew just before the end of the year. Engineering had the last word then and what they dictated is what was done. When the fan engine came along the skin smoothness tolerances that they called for were the tightest that anyone ever had to meet. I don't remember the maximum drop in the countersunk rivet locations but it wasn't much because the air flow was supersonic. Manufacturing said that they couldn't do it. Engineering said that it WOULD BE DONE. It was done.
I have some more incidents on the 727 and I'll put those together a bit later.

 

Bob, we're still waiting for your book of stories. At least around here, it will be a best-seller!

 

The 707 program was a pioneering effort and many mistakes were made but the excitement kept the acceleration up and even though we weren't certain how things would work sometimes, we knew that the company was pulling all stops to make a good airplane first and to beat our competition. Every effort was made to make it the fastest and at the same time durable and reliable. The speed target was met but in the end the durability went to the DC -8 and that airplane soldiered on long after the 707 was turned out to pasture. The 727 program seemed to have popped up over a weekend and all of a sudden we had a another challenge, a fast airplane that served the medium and short routes but could land in the shortest fields. Jack Steiner and his crew put together a great airplane that advanced many things all at once; incredible high lift system, a single piece outer wing panel( no chord-wise splices) , shot peen forming the wing planks, "fighter plane" flight controls that were fully powered, three rear mounted engines, and many advanced manufacturing techniques. The learning curve from the 707 was coupled with new confidence and and a different company attitude that made them recognize the profit of reaching out to the public. I spent a lot of time on the road giving lectures to civic organizations who wanted to know all about this new and exciting airplane. I saw what good effective engineering was, too. One day in the wing group I saw a group of engineers pouring over a full size layout of the 727 wing skin. The "wing guy", Omar Byglund,was giving instructions on what he wanted and I heard him say, " I don't give a damn what stress guys say, I want this pad up extended 30 inches and the runout extended more." Here was a chief engineer, sleeves rolled up and on his hands and knees giving more orders on how he wanted things to be done. I asked him how he knew what should be done in that area and he smiled and said, " Some of this business is simply BLACK ART. I could feel what that skin needed." And there was a lot of that kind of art that happened during the design of the 727.The point that I want to emphasize is that those engineers that I mentioned along with many others weren't afraid to put the necks on the line and they stood by their decisions and backed them up with their skill and talent. I'm certain that Douglas, North American, Grumman, and Lockheed had men like this also but Boeing had strength at the top that supported their strengths on the factory floor.

 

Thanks, Bob...

 

I remember back when I worked at Grumman, the belief was that all the major companies back then had top notch engineering, but that Boeing had better marketing people.

Another reason why the DC-8 outlasted the 707 was its stretchability; it had longer landing gear legs that allowed the substantial stretch of the -61 and -63. The 707 was lower to the ground and couldn't be stretched like that.

On the other hand, very few DC-8s were used in the military, while many 707s (and I'm not even counting the C-135/model 717 variants) made it into the U.S. military inventory, such as AWACS, TACAMO and, of course, VIP versions.

 

I knew about the short landing gear short- coming that the 707 had and that was one of the major short-comings of the airplane. I worked on a study of bending the fuselage of the lengthened 767 and I thought of the 707 at the time. The 707 gang hated to add length to the MLG because of added weight. I remember something like 65 pounds for every inch of main gear oleo stretch. Weight and drag were high priority enemies of the 707.

 

Jim, I'm not sure who I am sometimes. I have so damn much stuff going on that I am stretched way too much. I have not done a good job of juggling the writing and artwork and the book is waiting until I gather all the pictures and art that should go with it. I have bumped into two projects that I'm trying to put something together for...big paintings and prints sales. I guess that I have to get some help with the book. It is all edited and formatted but I haven't pursued the acquisition of someone who will be foolish enough to attempt to publish it. I'll keep going with it.