Boeing 707 - the father of all Boeing civil jets 

Omg😅

LOL.. and loud is certainly right. :)

😂👈

If we’re talking about being loud in the bedroom that’s another bonus.

I love the loud noise of both of them!

Nice :)

same here together with the DC-8 61/62/63 - when you saw this birds on aproaching with their 4 smokey engines and the nice sound .... :)

I envy you.

I flew on a 720 when I was a kid, on Western Airlines between Los Angeles and Mexico City. I was only 6, and have a few memories of the trip. Outbound to Mexico City it was daytime and I remember seeing the clouds outside. On the return trip we stopped in San Diego and it was raining at night when we landed.

You are right, their turbo jet engines were smokey and noisy too. Those were the early days of jet engines, and later on I remember when the first wide bodied aircraft came that were powered by the much efficient bypass turbofan engines, that are also much quieter. The Boeng 707 was a well designed and well balanced airplane much loved all over the world.

Sky God, bird man

300,000 years of yearning for the sky. And I got to live through the golden age of it.

There was no barrel roll

Congratulations 🎉👏🎉👏 of being the top comment!!!! 😁😁😁 (As of now 😈😈)

@@TheMatsushitaMan there was

@@itstomatogear6806 I saw it in another video

@@TheMatsushitaMan see yourself 2:38

Mark B. The Brits being salty that their Comet got out-competed in the market.

I might do it just to get you mad. Have a good one man.

Someone that cringes at the mistakes in the history he makes. The KC-135 and 707 were entirely different but concurrent programs. the confusion was caused because the KC-135 air-frame was delayed and they tested the flying boom fuel transfer system on the 707 prototype to keep the program on schedule.

Gotta be Australians ! Saying that the plane continued to fly in third world countries while showing a Qantas plane already made me chuckle at the first watch 😂

DC8 fans?

Going from reciprocating props to the 707 was the equivalent of going from the model T to George Jetsons flying car. It changed everything. The 747 just increased the capacity, and for a brief time, the luxury

Agreed, classic times!

It's The King of the Skies.

Well, mate sorry for too late, what type you usually flying? For short ranges I prefer the -120/-120B. But for kinda long ranges I use the -320B-Adv/C.

Those E3A's are still a common sight in my area.

FUZZY LOGIC sorry but some still operate in airlines

707 420

maybe partial to the dc-8 because thats what you have the most seat time in?

I've always wanted to visit the beautiful Portugal)

You are officially invited to come and visit us. In my case i've always wanted to visit Russia, and I will!

By the way, your videos are great!

I'm half Portuguese

Yes

Me too

Pankaj Jaiswal Yes it did and I saw the 2 barrel rolls in person that day in August 1955 on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle during the hydroplane races !!! "Tex" Johnstons famous reply to Bill Allen Pres of Boeing asking "what the hell did you think you were doing ???" Tex's famous reply "SELLING AIRPLANES.....Sir"....... and sell airplanes they did !!!!

From a business stand-point, it makes sense to have a standardized fuselage configuration, and I'm sure there were differences that couldn't be seen under the fuselage skin. On the Newer Generations of the 737 (600, 700, 800, and 900 variants) the flight deck still has the so-called "Eye Brows" (the small windows above the windshield in the flight deck) but they can't be seen because they are covered up, if you're in the flight deck of a 737 NG, you'll see the cut-outs are still there but they're covered up. They were on the 707/720, the 727 and older 737s.

Magnum Mike That is because the 727 and the 737 use the cockpit and fuslage of the 707 with adjustments for length !!!

And it is the same cross section as the 757 just different nose section

Wow you must have been an experienced guy

Me too, on freighters. Now working on the Boeing 777, what a difference! Still have fond memories of the 707, but I preferred the DC8 which I also worked on at the time

Did you mean an aisle on the plane or a 6 hour trip to an isle somewhere?

Yep the kc135 was the original 707 or as they say the dash 80 they had to widen the dash 80 to get 6 abreast seating or airlines were going to buy the DC 8 so they kept to lines going one with the narrow body for the kc135 and the wider one for the 707 the only parts that were the same was the cockpit and the engines

Oh no, it was when you look at the big picture. 1. Firstly, McDonnell Douglas got it right capacity-wise, not Boeing. What the large legacy airlines needed by the Late Sixties was a DC-10, not a 747. Boeing originally designed and built the 747 as a competitor to the Lockheed's C-5 Galaxy, for military transport, and lost the competition. Subsequent talks with Pan Am's Juan Trippe was a rebound. 2. Pan Am's large order of 747's (that it didn't need at the time) led to sub-leasing some units to American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, to tie them over until they received delivery of their own 747's from Boeing. 3. Boeing needed Pan Am on side because the carrier was the leading international airline servicing mega city pairs. If you were a competitor, you were forced to fight fire with fire, so you inevitably bought the 747 yourself. Boeing sales team clearly understood this predicament! 4. The vast majority of Pan Am's international competitors were backstop by their respective federal governments because they themselves were wholly-owned government entities (keep that in mind for the next crucial point). 5. Then came the unforeseen 1973 oil crisis (designed to prop up and establish the US Dollar as the Petro Dollar) that saw a fourfold increase in petroleum cost. The immediate effect was a deep worldwide recession and a severe downturn in international leisure travel (what 747's needed to be economically viable). In the case of Pan Am, it simply had too many 747's flying too many seats too often. Regardless if these aircraft were flying or not, Pan Am still had to find a way to pay for their steep cost! What's more, it was impossible to dump surplus aircraft in such a dire market environment. After all, only a fool embarks on an expansion program in a declining market. 6. As a result of 1973, Pan Am was not able to balance its books again until 1977. And, not without extraordinary measures, such as selling aircraft (long after 1973) and the InterContinental hotel chain. That said, this left Pan Am in a weak economic position regardless--thank you 747!! 7. It is doubtful that Boeing would have proceeded to build and offer the 747 without Pan Am's involvement. 8. Unlike Pan Am, TWA bought less 747's and had a domestic feeder network to service its international hubs. Pan Am was not permitted to do this before airline deregulation, though it tried on a number of occasions to form a merger with other domestic carrier, only to be torpedoed by the CAB repeatedly. 9. The merger with National Airlines was a measure of desperation on Pan Am's part, and not really helpful for either airline. 10. Pan Am also had expensive unions to contend with. New upstarts that followed deregulation had no such issue. This further weakened Pan Am's balance sheet, along with other subsequent recessions. To combat additional financial loses, Pan Am sold its Pacific Division to UAL, complete with aircraft, for a nice tidy cash sum of $750 million--a steal for UAL. 11. The final straw was U.S. Government foreign policy that led to the Lockerbie bombing incident. In the aftermath, millions of travellers avoided Pan Am altogether, which they correctly perceived as a major terrorist target. Unfortunately, a weakened Pan Am could not last very long under such circumstance. 12. Interestingly, the Lockerbie incident involved a 747! I rest my case.

Rude did you know commenting like that can get your comment spam?

LRG well, all what did you said was true, but, it wasn't 747's fault who killed Pan Am, it was because terrible management, time and also circumstances like 1973 oil crisis, 1978 airline deregulation and Chernobyl disaster.

It was also just too big. 50% load factors are the norm for Pan Am for the 747. It was largely an ego play by Trippe

@@lrg8734...Nice copy and paste

monibstar Airplane?? I love that movie.

punyhunk is best and was the airline's name something TGA? Trans Global Airline??

+Mohabat khan Malak *"About the barrel roll the test pilot performed, I think it was preplanned by Boeng."* Not really. In a famous interview the pilot, Tex Johnston, describes how he was called to the office of Boeing's president, Bill Allen, and asked "what he thought he was doing" when he did that barrel roll. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NcLQLcUYRSw.html *"There are a host of components in an aircraft that need to be level which a roll would upset, instruments, tanks, wires and cables, plus pens, clipboards, manuals plus other test equipment and fittings in the back cabin."* No, not in a properly executed barrel roll. During the maneuver the airplane is kept at positive 1g and in coordinated flight during the whole time. There are famous videos videos of Bob Hoover actually pouring tea from a jar into a glass during a barrel roll as he flew the maneuver with one hand, and at the same time, with the other, filled the glass with tea from the jar. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V9pvG_ZSnCc.html

I think you are reffering to a loop maneuver, where the aircraft can speed up and build "+G". In a barrel roll (in a straight line) the G force remains constant. Tex Johnston's test flight was by all means incredible and pioneering of the new and better jet age, but test pilots especially of large aircraft are given a briefing and work closely with the design and engineering team at the construction stage, months before. The first flight also strictly follows parameters laid down by the design engineers. At the time, there was stiff competition between the British contender the Comet and the US manufacterers. The Comet was not a success due to early days design faults which saw some horrific crashes. So it is plausable that Boeng wanted to win the hearts and minds of customers by demonstrating the agility and capabilities of its aircraft.

+Mohabat khan Malak No, I mean what I said: a barrel roll. You can do the maneuver with a constant, +1g force and coordinated flight during the whole maneuver. Did you not see Bob Hoover filling a glass with tea during a roll in the video (I posted the link earlier)? How do you suppose that would be possible if the maneuver had anything other than positive g?

@@mohabatkhanmalak1161 Tex Johnston was very familiar with the barrel roll of large aircraft as he was test pilot on the B47 where they worked with the airforce in developing an emmalman barrel roll delivery of A Bombs. They from level flight at speed pulled up into a loop and released the bomb, tossing it and at the top of the roll barrel rolled back upright and sped away !!! And they tore up winhs on the B47 doing them. See the video here on You tube of "Combat manuevers of the Boeing B47" and watch it done !!!!

I very much doubt it was pre-planned by Boeing. When Tex Johnston pulled the aircraft into the barrel roll, Bill Allen, watching on the ground, thought his heart was going to stop. When Johnston came back and repeated the maneuver, ruling out any chance it could have been accidental, Allen was livid. If anyone else but Johnston had had any involvement in planning this example of showmanship, Allen would have got to the bottom of it. And afterwards, whenever a Boeing aircraft was going to be demonstrated at an airshow, other event or to a customer, the standing order was, 'No rolls'.

I'm not familiar, that is a museum? Great to know it will be preserved for many to see!

@@donaldstanfield8862 Yes,an aviation museum. 745 volunteers who restore many aircraft to flying condition. They have the only flying Super Constellation in the world

That depends on the listener and where they are from; it grates on me a bit but I don't let it detract.

No worries, stay home then!

737 vs Embraer E-Jet, I'll always choose the latter when possible, they are just a better ride, and don't know why, but the majority of "Hard" landings I've experienced have been in a 737.

@@twotone3471 I haven't tried the Embraer yet but I agree with you. Worst plane I have ever flown was a 737-400. Horrible. Even the MD-92 was far more comfortable. The majority of bad flights happened to me while flying in B737-800. Hard landings, not enough shoulder room, no place to store your belongs, horrible a/c (too hot in Summer, too cold in Winter) and noisy as a heavy metal concert. 747-400 and 747-8i were better but still nothings to write home about.

i like Airbus and Boeing so i don't care about the aircraft (but not max)