are new big jets easier to land than a 707

[lynn789]

years ago a pilot going from connies to the 707 said he was horrified, the 707 landing being mostly a controlled crash onto the end of the runway and the anticipation required being like driving a heavy truck on an ordinary road at 100 mph with no brakes
not to mention dutch roll, coffin corner,angle of attack , etc.

have things improved, are the new big jets easier to land?

[arem]

I spent 14 years flying the 707 400 series and 320B/C's - it could produce some real greasers but had the humbling experience of just when you thought you had it made, it would remind you you weren't to get cocky by crunching one in for no apparent reason. Like I said - humbling

The easiest to land was the 747-400 - an absolute lady - if it crunched in , you had definitely done something wrong.

The worst to land was undoubtedly the 737 - although I only flew the -300 series - an absolute pig! - although plenty of my F/O's managed to grease it on - I rarely did! - too many years being spoilt by that big winged 744

[411A]

Nothing wrong with the later models of the B707...the earlier ones with the parallel yaw damper could be a problem in gusty surface wind conditions....a rockin' and a rollin' down final with the yaw damper swicthed off (as it had to be) comes to mind.:}:eek:

[fireflybob]

All been said really but have to agree with 411a - nothing like landing the 400 series with the yaw damper disengaged in a cross wind (not to mention engine out!) - but they were a joy to fly!

[millerscourt]

Got a couple of thousand hours on the 320-C.with P&W engines. Was interesting doing a visual in places like Athens 15R in gusty conditions.

[Centaurus]

When I first flew the 737-200 in 1977 the training captain was a former Boeing Seattle instructor and in fact his name is on the first FCTM published.
He flew for my airline after leaving Boeing. His landings were terrible - his technique was no flare - just hit the 1000 feet marker at 700 fpm rate of descent. The oxy masks occasionally dropped if I recall. He saw no problem with these assault landings and explained that Boeing were so insistent on hitting the 1000 ft marker that no flare was the only way. He said the aircraft was being sold to countries in the third world where Boeing had no control of pilot handling skills. The main worry in those countries was too fast landing speeds and subsequent potential for over-runs from floating and landing long. Hence Boeing accent on hitting the 1000 ft marker on speed and firm touch down.

In fact the 737 was a quite normal aircraft to land providing the pilot had average handling skills and I was able to make reasonable landings most times apart from a few real bangers if the power was cut too early or the wind dropped sharply below the level of the palm trees on tropical islands. .

[DC-ATE]

are new big jets easier to land than a 707

You notice he said...707...not DC-8.

DC-8s were a piece of cake to land !! :cool:

[Bergerie1]

DC-ATE, So was the VC10!

[PappyJ]

Boeing had no control of pilot handling skills. The main worry in those countries was too fast landing speeds and subsequent potential for over-runs from floating and landing long. Well, I'm certainly glad that we don't have those sorts of things happening anymore. :rolleyes:



DC-8s were a piece of cake to land !! Yes they were! Next to the 74 classic, it was my favourite aircraft to fly. Then along came the 330; that changed everything. :)

[PappyJ]

DC-8, Classic 74, 330. You're a big boy now; you can figure it out.

[40&80]

An Irish pilot told me the Short 330 was the best ever aircraft in a strong cross wind because you hid from the wind by standing beside it.

[Herod]

I only flew the 3-60, but I'm told that the 3-30 was fun to land in a crosswind. As soon as you selected reverse, there was no airflow over the rudders. Oh joy. Apologies for thread creep. On a more serious note, anyone converting from a big prop to a big jet should really have read "Handling the Big Jets" or some such manual. Different aircraft, different techniques.