PDA

View Full Version : Boeing 707 Stopping Distance all engines from V1


Centaurus
20th Dec 2009, 12:36
Many years ago, a Yugoslav registered B707 made a high speed aborted take off at JF Kennedy Airport, New York. The crew heard a sudden loud noise in the cockpit similar to an explosion. The captain aborted the take off three seconds after the V1 call. The 707 over-ran the 4442 metre length runway and caught fire. All 186 on board escaped. Among other things the investigation found that a brake defect meant two of the eight wheel brakes were ineffective, contributing to the reason for the over-run.

The NTSB report stated the scheduled stopping distance following a rejected take off did not take into account the use of reverse thrust. My question is how much is the scheduled stopping distance from V1 for a Boeing 707 on a dry runway, reduced by full reverse on all engines on a max structural gross weight take off?

For example, on a rejected take off at max structural weight full reverse both engines on the Boeing 737-300 is only worth 180 feet on a dry runway.

And by the way, the cause of the sudden loud noise in the cockpit which caused the 707 pilot to abort, was the sudden unlocking of the first officer's sliding window...

Perhaps that is why in later years, Boeing recommended an unlocked cockpit window above 80 knots is not sufficient cause to reject a take off.

411A
20th Dec 2009, 16:43
Depends on the specific type.
Example.
B707-320 straight-pipe engines (JT4A), the reverse thrust makes quite a lot of noise, however adds little to the actual stopping distance.
Whereas, on the B707-320B (fan-powered airplane) reverse works a little better.
How much at 333,100 pounds, MTOW?
600 feet, maybe.

B-HKD
20th Dec 2009, 17:06
I have read some pretty amazing stories from skippers, and their days flying the 707 with its not so amazing landing performance. Most of them carried two pairs of shorts.

Anybody care to share some?

411A :ok:

klaus16
20th Dec 2009, 18:30
You cannot answer this question without information of other technical facts.
-which anti skid system installed?
-runway condition
-power rating (reduced/flextemp)
-wind component?
-exact aircraft type?
---and another 20 or so details

And about the reversers: On dry runways the use of reversers is NOT included in the aborted stopping and landing distance.
For wet/slush/snow/ice/standing water -conditions half of the reversers (4eng =2 / 2/3eng = 1) are included.

The relatively good stopping distances of the B707 were the result of the relatively low take off speeds due to the large wing

411A
21st Dec 2009, 04:29
The relatively good stopping distances of the B707 were the result of the relatively low take off speeds due to the large wing

Depends on the specific type of 707.
707-320 straight-pipe engines (JT4A powered) had minimal leading edge devices (except for South African Airways aircraft) so takeoff/landing speeds were considerably higher than fan-powered aircraft.

Earlier aircraft had foot-thumper anti-skid, later aircraft had type II, much better.

When you say '707' one had better specify which model (and for what original airline)...many differences.

411A
21st Dec 2009, 07:37
And about the reversers: On dry runways the use of reversers is NOT included in the aborted stopping and landing distance.
For wet/slush/snow/ice/standing water -conditions half of the reversers (4eng =2 / 2/3eng = 1) are included.


Not true with the FAA on the 707 type...reverse thrust not used for performance data, wet or dry runway.
The 707 is a CAR4B certificated airplane, not 14CFR25.

Anybody care to share some?

One time only, landing to the east at the old Taipei airport.
Calm wind, raining, touchdown at 500 feet on speed...nil deceleration.
Hydroplaning.
Max reverse to the stops, foot-thumpers thumping...stopped just at the end.
Close.
Went to hotac bar for tall cool 'uns.
Several.:}

Peter47
21st Dec 2009, 08:08
A little off subject, not really to do with rejected take-offs, but 707 landing performance generally, there is a good video on Youtube of Bruce Dickinson attempting a landing on a short runway (in a simulator) that is well worth watching.

YouTube - Flying Heavy Metal Episode Two: Jet Set-Part 1 High Quality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isCVdm_fWqY)

N1EPR
26th Jun 2018, 22:41
Once I landed a DC9-51 with the auto brake setting at MAX. It was into a driving rain onto a runway which I suspected had a tailwind component. The runway length was a lot more that adequate for the this plane.
After landing the brakes came on as advertised throwing me against the shoulder harness which locked up and prevented me from reaching the autobrake switch. The maximum braking was released when we slowed to 20 knots or so. This caused the extreme braking to suddenly stop. We had to taxi up to the first exit taxiway. The braking was violent to say the least. A very large number of the SLF made comments that indicated they did not approve of the landing. That was the last time I ever used MAX braking.

LeadSled
27th Jun 2018, 09:15
411A,
The B707 (except, perhaps, the very earliest) was SFAR 422B, not CAR 4B, for what it is worth, and FAR 25 certification doesn't mean much unless you nominate which amendment is applicable.
The real take-away is that certification performance standards are now far more realistic than "back in the day".
Tootle pip!!

MaximumPete
27th Jun 2018, 10:17
Anything over 80kts and you start looking in the books for brake energy limits. They're the figures with loads of noughts on the end. There are several options depending on the speed you initiated. That where the flight engineer comes in very handy as he hopefully will have noted the speed.

Pugilistic Animus
27th Jun 2018, 11:11
Leadsled I don't believe that 411A got your message as he has passed away now long ago

stilton
27th Jun 2018, 11:25
Leadsled I don't believe that 411A got your message as he has passed away now long ago



Somewhere in a Tristar far far away hes
pondering a reply

aterpster
27th Jun 2018, 14:23
I have read some pretty amazing stories from skippers, and their days flying the 707 with its not so amazing landing performance. Most of them carried two pairs of shorts.

Anybody care to share some?

411A :ok:
I have about 2,600 as first officer on all verstions TWA operated:

707-131 (domestic "water wagon")
707-131B (domestic fan jet)
707-331 (international "straight pipe")
707-331B (international fan jet)

All of them were a delight to fly, except the 707-131 on heavy takeoffs on a hot day.

Fantome
27th Jun 2018, 18:38
Somewhere in a Tristar far far away he’s
pondering a reply

Spot on Old Cheese. (Memories are made of this.)

Capn Bloggs
28th Jun 2018, 04:46
Leadsled I don't believe that 411A got your message as he has passed away now long ago
True. I would have loved to read Leddie trying to banter with 411A. 411A would have ripped him to pieces! :)

megan
28th Jun 2018, 07:01
TCDS 707-100 Long Body, -200, -100B Long Body, -100B Short BodyCAR 4b dated December 1953, Amendments 4b-1, 4b-2 and 4b-3 thereto; the Special Conditions and the provisions of Amendments listed in Attachment A of CAA letter to Boeing dated October 30, 1957; and the provisions of Item 2 of Special Civil Air Regulation No. SR- 422. 707-100B Long Body and 707-100B Short Body comply with all of the above except that Boeing chose to comply with Item 2 of Special Civil Air Regulation No. SR-422B in lieu of SR-422. Type Certificate No. 4A21 issued September 18, 1958. Date of Application for Type Certificate July 19, 1955; amended March 12, 1959, for Model 707-100B Long Body and 707-100B Short Body.707-300, -400, -300B, -300CCAR 4b dated December 1953, Amendments 4b-1, 4b-2 and 4b-3 thereto; the Special Conditions and the provisions amendments listed in Attachment A of CAA letter to Boeing dated October 30, 1957; and the provisions of Item 2 of Special Civil Air Regulation No. SR-422B. Type Certificate No. 4A26 issued July 15, 1959. Date of Application for Type Certificate May 15, 1956

LeadSled
29th Jun 2018, 08:49
True. I would have loved to read Leddie trying to banter with 411A. 411A would have ripped him to pieces! :)
Well, folks, I learn something every day. Why would I know who 411A was, and that he is no longer with us?? Bloggsie obviously enjoyed himself, having decided on the outcome of something that never happened ---but whatever makes you feel good.

RE. SFAR 422B, as I recall, it was a rather long document, and formed the major part of the subsequent CFR 25. The early DC-8/B707 were a very big leap, from what went before, there was a lot of "feeling your way in the dark", witness the major aerodynamic problems if the DC-8.
Tootle pip!!

PS: What I can say from hard experience, NO B707 had good brakes compared to the present day, and on the one occasion I was involved in an abort at MBRW at V1 ( B707-338C in Perth, Bloggsie) we had no runway to spare. The brakes on the early -100/300 were particularly "ordinary".

Goldenrivett
29th Jun 2018, 09:19
I was involved in an abort at MBRW at V1 ( B707-338C in Perth, Bloggsie) we had no runway to spare.
Surely that proves the brakes performed as designed and the performance figures were correct. What else did you expect?

You would only have lots of runway spare when you are using Flex and the OAT is much cooler than the assumed temperature.

MaximumPete
29th Jun 2018, 15:46
I flew the B707-321 with the P&W JT4A power plants and had some very "interesting" take-offs from Nairobi on a hot day. The plus side was that you could go higher earlier than the fan engine aircraft which was just as well when you looked at the fuel burn. I later flew the ex-QANTAS 707-338 with the P&W JT3D-3B which, although requiring long take-off runs was a lot better on take-off, more leading edge goodies. The philosophy was that you abandoned before V1 for really serious stuff like engine fires etc. If you abandoned with say a hydraulic failure there was a good chance you'd end up in the boss's car park, not a good career move! Just a few thoughts from an old but not bold pilot.

MP