747-100 payload and climb performance
Both TWA and Pan Am used their 747-100s on this route in the 1970s, but BA never put the 747-100 on LAX, it was considered beyond range. It was a significant part of why BA used to do a daily hire of an Air New Zealand DC-10-30 for several years in the late 1970s on the LAX route until their Rolls-powered 747-200B came along (when this was the first route they were deployed on).
There were apparently a range of concerns by ATC at Heathrow on warm summer afternoons over the prospects of an engine failure on departure, by no means unknown on the early JT9D 747s, especially if they were on easterlies heading out over the urban area, over the performance of these US operators' departures, inevitably at MTOW. Once they had gone everyone breathed a little easier, and there would be comments about departures "via the Piccadilly Line", or when Pan Am were still doing the route (they gave it up around 1975 in a route swap with TWA) that it was a "Hedge Clipper".
Those Air New Zealand DC-10-30s could still be somewhat marginal themselves, and needing to do a fuel stop, typically at Prestwick, was not unknown. The normal first course of action was to leave off some freight.
There were apparently a range of concerns by ATC at Heathrow on warm summer afternoons over the prospects of an engine failure on departure, by no means unknown on the early JT9D 747s, especially if they were on easterlies heading out over the urban area, over the performance of these US operators' departures, inevitably at MTOW. Once they had gone everyone breathed a little easier, and there would be comments about departures "via the Piccadilly Line", or when Pan Am were still doing the route (they gave it up around 1975 in a route swap with TWA) that it was a "Hedge Clipper".
Those Air New Zealand DC-10-30s could still be somewhat marginal themselves, and needing to do a fuel stop, typically at Prestwick, was not unknown. The normal first course of action was to leave off some freight.
I always thought that there must have ben a reason why BA would not do LAX in the 741 , presumeably a bit more cautious than PA TW and of course they knew they had the much improved 200 series coming along , which iirc the Americans never ordered .
I also recall that the PA ones used to sue some odd non standard departures instead of the usual SIDs (Daventry I think in those days) .
Also was there the same east/westbound flight time discrepancy on LHR LAX as on LHR JFK or does the semi polar routing avoid the Atlantic winds-I should know I ve done the trip often enough but not lately.
PB
I also recall that the PA ones used to sue some odd non standard departures instead of the usual SIDs (Daventry I think in those days) .
Also was there the same east/westbound flight time discrepancy on LHR LAX as on LHR JFK or does the semi polar routing avoid the Atlantic winds-I should know I ve done the trip often enough but not lately.
PB
The main thing about LHR-LAX routing is that westbound seems to generally go well north of the Great Circle, typically crossing Baffin Island, while eastbound is often well south of The Circle. This is presumably due to prevailing winds. Yes, westbound is generally longer. I've actually passed overhead Montreal eastbound, while (to keep on thread) in a TWA 747-100 once we made a refuelling stop eastbound very far south, at Bangor ME.
The 747-100 could go LHR-LAX, it just couldn't do it with anything close to a commercially viable payload. BA got involved with the ANZ DC10 lease/codeshare setup until the 236's turned up and I guess the American carriers just accepted a loss on the route.
