Boeing 707-320C

[Bazzarius]

Hi everyone, I have a question.
On the Boeing 707-320C (with JTD3 motors) the outer port wing nacelle pylon has a straight top compared to the inners. This appears to be only on the port side and not the starb. Anyone know the reason why it's just the port side?

Thanks.

[treadigraph]

Three turbocompressors for pressurisation. Explained by the late 411A here:

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/149995-707-engine-pylons.html#post1582306

[exwessex]

Hi Bazzarius.Engine pylons 2,3 and 4 contain a 'turbo compressor '-this is an engine bleed air powered air pump supplying air to the air-conditioning packs-when the first generation jet airliners came into service bleed air from the engines wasn't allowed to go straight into the cabin as there were concerns about contamination.

[Bazzarius]

Thankyou. My apologies I hadn't realised that the subject had already been raised. Anyway, mystery cleared up.

[ZeBedie]

Hi Bazzarius.Engine pylons 2,3 and 4 contain a 'turbo compressor '-this is an engine bleed air powered air pump supplying air to the air-conditioning packs-when the first generation jet airliners came into service bleed air from the engines wasn't allowed to go straight into the cabin as there were concerns about contamination.

And 30 years later, the person who'd decided that said 'told you so'

[Alan Baker]

Just for completeness, it was not just the -320C, but the -320B as well. While we are on the subject the 720B generally only had turbo compressors on the inners.

[treadigraph]

Thankyou. My apologies I hadn't realised that the subject had already been raised. Anyway, mystery cleared up.
No apologies needed, not something I knew (or perhaps had forgotten) and every day is indeed a school day.

[rog747]

However there are some 707-320C's that were built as all-cargo (such as those for Pan Am 707-321C)
and those built for AA (707-323C's both Pax and all-cargo) had TC's only on engines #2 and #3.

Also AA's 707-323B's also only had 2 TC's.

the 707-138B had 3 TC's

[bafanguy]

...an engine bleed air powered air pump supplying air to the air-conditioning packs-when the first generation jet airliners came into service bleed air from the engines wasn't allowed to go straight into the cabin as there were concerns about contamination.

Same for the CV880, IIRC.

[dixi188]

I seem to remember a VIP 707 with 4 TCs, Maybe Saudi royal flight.

[dixi188]

The photo's of the BOAC B707-436 with RR Conway engines seem to show 4 TCs.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

I've flown in a Boeing 707-338C back in the early-1970s on two separate occasions.

I also twice flew in a Douglas DC-8-52.

Somehow, flying on international routes was much more fun back then.

Today it is like a journey in a bus which flies, and crammed-in too. You just want it to end.

[India Four Two]

I had never noticed the difference in the Number 1 pylon before! :(

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1316/screenshot_2023_03_18_at_00_40_48_copy_b9027c33795242d317100 2289ec34d0d9a43274c.jpg

[Asturias56]

I've flown in a Boeing 707-338C back in the early-1970s on two separate occasions.

I also twice flew in a Douglas DC-8-52.

Somehow, flying on international routes was much more fun back then.

Today it is like a journey in a bus which flies, and crammed-in too. You just want it to end.

I did a fair bit of lfying in the back of 707-300's. they were pretty good but they were cramped, especially width wise, the storage was poor and who can forget the pull down movie screen at the front ......

Every aircraft I've flown since on long haul has been a very significant improvement

[ZFT]

I did a fair bit of lfying in the back of 707-300's. they were pretty good but they were cramped, especially width wise, the storage was poor and who can forget the pull down movie screen at the front ......

Every aircraft I've flown since on long haul has been a very significant improvement

Interesting. Flew in many 707s, mainly to and from Africa and cannot ever recall movie screens.I disagree with you about them being cramped, there was much more room than today's awful experience at the back end..

[pax britanica]

They were pretty cramped width wise (737 is the same fuselage isnt it) but they definately had far more leg room pitch 32-34 being very common. And they were so so noisy especially the 400 series coneway powered and the non fan P&W 300s .

I prefered the DC 8 so long as you got a window seat by a window and of course neither came close to the VC10, which prompts me to anwer the question why did the 707s have turbo compressors and not the VC10. As I recall the DC 8 had them under the cockpit giving the airfcraft a sort of odd toothy look

Maybe they were right about the cabin contamination though

[Prangster]

OK can we now play a game of spot the difference with other aircraft? Spent time making noise recordings of competitors engines (as you do) and never ever noticed the odd man out!

[sandringham1]

[QUOTE=why did the 707s have turbo compressors and not the VC10. [/QUOTE]


VC10's had Godfrey screw compressors in the wing root fed by air from a small intake in the wing leading edge, what I cannot remember is how the compressor was powered.

[exeng]

Evening Sandringham,

I believe the Godfrey compressors were fitted above the engines and not in the wing root. I only worked on the VC10 as a BOAC apprentice so stand to be corrected. I recall that the compressors were mechanically driven by a shaft from the main engine gearbox.. I believe the air conditioning units were fitted in the wing root. I used to test the Godfrey blowers when working in the BOAC 'component test house' - on one occasion a blower actually blew up on test after the two parts of the compressor touched (there was only a few thou clearance between what we called the mangles) - it was a mess. Only we Brits could design such a thing and actually fit it to a passenger airliner. We also used to test the turbo compressors as fitted to the B707 - a much simpler and more effective design in my opinion. Anyway a bit of thread drift for which I apologise.

Back on thread. As far as turbo compressors fitted to B707 variants - when I worked in the BOAC hangers all B707-436's and 336's had 3 turbo compressors fitted to engines 2,3 and 4 whereas all B707-320's (they were foreign operators) had 2 turbo compressors fitted to engines 2 and 3 only.


Kind regards
Exeng

[dixi188]

I wonder why the 707-436 had the same TC fairing on all 4 engines but only had 3 TCs fitted. Was it a style thing to make it look symetrical?

[Bergerie1]

exeng,

You are correct. The VC10 had four engine driven Godfrey Blowers, one on each engine driven through a gearbox.

[Asturias56]

Interesting. Flew in many 707s, mainly to and from Africa and cannot ever recall movie screens.I disagree with you about them being cramped, there was much more room than today's awful experience at the back end..

Well that depends, as now, on the airline. Of course we paid a lot more in real terms than today tho for absolute discomfort the 1 across seating in a slave 747 took some beating. Luckily only a few airlines went that way

[DaveReidUK]

the 1 across seating in a slave 747 took some beating. Luckily only a few airlines went that way

Presumably they rapidly went bust. :O

[sandringham1]

I wonder why the 707-436 had the same TC fairing on all 4 engines but only had 3 TCs fitted. Was it a style thing to make it look symetrical?
The -436 nose cowls were all manufactured the same with the TC intake an integral part of the whole engine intake ring assembly so one must have been blanked although I cannot remember that, the JT3D engine intake was just the ring with the TC intake a separate thing installed when the TC was there or just the fairing if not.

[Quietplease]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1299/38ab2a61_4151_431a_b7c0_bbb80db7dd90_ed2533af8cb42e4f77c2563 077c219a3b153cd1a.jpeg

[WHBM]

Interesting. Flew in many 707s, mainly to and from Africa and cannot ever recall movie screens.I disagree with you about them being cramped, there was much more room than today's awful experience at the back end..
Movie screens on the 707 were commonly retrofits, and so not all had them. I think the first BOAC ones were their last two bought new after their first 747s (with movies of course) which came along for the new London-Moscow-Tokyo route. US operators, particularly American and TWA, seem to have been the pioneers. I guess there were a number of different airline specs rather than a Boeing standard.

Even charter-config 707s were better than today's economy layout, especially what gets fitted as standard now in 787s, which I refuse to book again long haul.

[Jhieminga]

I believe the Godfrey compressors were fitted above the engines and not in the wing root. I only worked on the VC10 as a BOAC apprentice so stand to be corrected. I recall that the compressors were mechanically driven by a shaft from the main engine gearbox.. I believe the air conditioning units were fitted in the wing root.
All correct. The Godfrey compressors were fitted at the 10 o'clock position on each engine (looking forward), driven be a quill shaft from the internal wheelcase. The airconditioning system had two refrigeration units in the wing roots with associated inlets, and the rest of the pipework and such was in the vapour cycle bay adjacent to the wing roots in the fuselage, between the aft end of the FWD freight hold and the pressure bulkhead that sealed off the forward end of the wing cutout in the fuselage.

[WHBM]

Movie screens on the 707 were commonly retrofits, and so not all had them. I think the first BOAC ones were their last two bought new after their first 747s (with movies of course) which came along for the new London-Moscow-Tokyo route. US operators, particularly American and TWA, seem to have been the pioneers. I guess there were a number of different airline specs rather than a Boeing standard.

Just to add, the first in-flight movies were (inevitably) on TWA, given their longstanding commercial relationship with the film industry which Howard Hughes developed for them - I think he was still substantially involved financially with the airline in 1961, when this started, and inevitably on the prime movie industry route, New York to LA. I think at first there was only one screen, which avoided any synchronisation issues, and it was only shown in first class, which for a long period with TWA on this route was something of a film industry private club. Amazingly the tradition still continues with TWA's successor, American, on the same route, with custom-outfitted A321s with an oversize first class cabin, and all the commercial contacts still in place from a dedicated American team in LA.

[tdracer]

Even charter-config 707s were better than today's economy layout, especially what gets fitted as standard now in 787s, which I refuse to book again long haul.

The difference is, if you correct for inflation and such, what you spent for a coach ticket 50 years ago would probably get you a first class seat today - probably with some left over to pay for your Uber to/from the airport. This despite the cost of fuel going up much faster than inflation.
~45 years ago my dad bought me a coach ticket from Seattle to Washington DC so I could join my parents when they were there curtesy of the company he worked for. The price of the ticket was roughly equal to what I was paying for a years tuition and fees at college at the time...:eek:

[pr00ne]

I've flown in a Boeing 707-338C back in the early-1970s on two separate occasions.

I also twice flew in a Douglas DC-8-52.

Somehow, flying on international routes was much more fun back then.

Today it is like a journey in a bus which flies, and crammed-in too. You just want it to end.

Odd, I find it the complete opposite. 707's, DC-8's, VC10's etc were all extremely cramped, narrow and noisy. By comparison the latest Boeing and Airbus wide bodies are FAR more comfortable, quieter and so much more roomy. I've even flown economy in an Etihad A380 and found it to be extremely comfortable, even when full.

[ZFT]

Maybe my aged memory is fading but I recall seat pitch at the back end of a typical 707 was 34 inches. On the so called improved wide body experience today the seat pitch is no where near as generous and certainly no where near the width either.

I would gladly sacrifice a bit of noise and lack of IFE for comfort.

[Asturias56]

But its the airlines who choose seat pitch and the one thing they know is that its the cost of a ticket that drives buyers. Enough airlines have been founded and failed on a model of Business only or more space in Economy. I'm afraid 95% of passengers go on price first, second and third. For the airlines sticking in a few Enhanced Economy seats is enough to cater for those who want a bit more space. But the extra price you pay is closer to the 1970's Economy price inflated for 50 years whereas Slave is still much the same price on the ticket as it was in 1970.

[pax britanica]

I think one of the factors aside from generous seat pitch that made things seem better back then was that flights were often not very full. Not the case today

Also some aircraft-DC9 MD80s were relaly nice if you got a seat in front of the wing (about 75% of them) on the two seat side , . 767 economy /economy plus if you had a window pair was very nice.
The 787 is , at elast in BA config horrible. The 380- easily the best although I haven't tried the 350 yet

[WHBM]

But its the airlines who choose seat pitch and the one thing they know is that its the cost of a ticket that drives buyers. Enough airlines have been founded and failed on a model of Business only or more space in Economy. I'm afraid 95% of passengers go on price first, second and third.
This is a longstanding myth of those not from the commercial side. If it was true there would be no market for premium classes at all. Separately, we find carriers, particularly transatlantic ones, saying routes are unviable precisely because they have insufficient premium class ticket demand.

[Asturias56]

Perhaps - but back on topic the 707 proved the market for large scale, long distance travel - after that it was always bigger aircraft.

And worse service

[WHBM]

Douglas on the DC8 appeared to have the cabin air intakes on the underside of the nose. Not sure how they got the compressing power away from the engines.

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Douglas on the DC8 appeared to have the cabin air intakes on the underside of the nose. Not sure how they got the compressing power away from the engines.

It is a few years since I last read this document, but you may be able to find the answer here: Gary Sommerville’s DC-8 experience. updated OCT 2018.pdf - Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMlSZyihKR7x6O-ykkSjPVRoIKtrVvn1/view)

[India Four Two]

Concerning early inflight movies with pull-down screens, I'm surprised no one has mentioned those staggeringly uncomfortable plastic tubes you had to stick in your ears. I would often forgo watching the movie just to avoid using them.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/907x600/apex_experience_v9e1_throwback_8f9f40316e8b39deca8a922c1727b ac5ef8b95fe.jpg

https://apex.aero/articles/sound-tube-surprising-history-airline-headsets/

The last time I used one of these was during an MRI, for the reason the article points out.

[Asturias56]

Oh god - I 'd managed to get those out of my memory..............

[dixi188]

Slight drift.
On a BA 747-100 the movies were projected onto a screen at the front of each cabin and on one occasion, just as the film started, the displayed map image had a hole burn through it like the begining of the TV series Bonanza. I could see the screen in the next cabin forward and this was a different scene. Then there was sudden mild panic as smoke started to come from the projector as the film had jammed and caught fire. It was turned off and the fire went out before the cabin crew had got an extinguisher. The FE came back to have a look and we continued to London without the movie, just more drinks.

[WHBM]

It is a few years since I last read this document, but you may be able to find the answer here: Gary Sommerville’s DC-8 experience. updated OCT 2018.pdf - Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMlSZyihKR7x6O-ykkSjPVRoIKtrVvn1/view)
Fascinating lengthy account. None of the household chores got done while it was read. Marginally relevant to a 707 discussion, but I never understood what made Air New Zealand go for the DC8. I think they were maybe the only operator in the Southern hemisphere who bought a new one, and as the never did so until 1965, when New Zealand got its first proper jet runway, they must have realised how the market was going. Especially with Qantas on the 707, and the article discusses how at many stations they used Qantas resources, who therefore had to be specially dual-qualified. They were helped out technically with their small fleet (three ?) by United at LAX and elsewhere, again as in the article, rather a tenuous link. Boeing must have quoted for the replacement of the TEAL Electras, so I wonder who thought the DC8 offering more sensible, and why.

"The best airliner in the world would be designed by Lockheed, manufactured by Boeing, sales & marketing by Douglas" says quite a bit ...

[megan]

Not sure how they got the compressing power away from the enginesThe DC-8 used bleed air from the engines to spin the turbo compressors located behind the radar with the rest of the air cycle machinery. A post elsewhere on the net.Each of those chin scoops have three holes. There is a large opening in the middle which takes in air for the air-to-air heat exchanger on that side. There are also two smaller holes that are the individual inlets for the turbocompressors. On the DC-8, there are a total of 4 turbocompressors. The Boeing 720 series had two turbocompressors and most 707 series aircraft had three.

It should be pointed out that the DC8/Boeing 707/720 generation of aircraft didn't bleed air directly from the engines for pressurization and air conditioning. Rather, a small amount of engine bleed air was used to spin turbo-compressors which drew in fresh air, compressed it and raised it's temperature. This air, cooled via heat exchangers and freon units, was directed to the cabin distribution system.

The Boeing 727, 737, and DC-9 generation of planes using JT8 series engines were the first to use bleed air from the engine itself, through air conditioning "packs" to directly pressurise the cabin and for temperature control.

In later years, when the JT3 engines, on DC8s, were replaced with CFM-56 powerplants, the turbocompressors and freon cooling units were removed and replaced with "packs" that allowed engine bleed air to be used for temperature control and cabin pressurization. The DC8 chin scoops were modified to close off the turbocompressor inlets.WHBM, Air New Zealand DC-8 was my first ever jet ride, January 1967 Sydney - Aukland - Los Angeles, perhaps Honolulu as well, can't recall, then next day a Delta DC-8 Los Angeles - Houston where thunderstorms necessitated a steep descent from cruise with reverse thrust, sure didn't know a jet could do that.

[India Four Two]

It is a few years since I last read this document, but you may be able to find the answer here: Gary Sommerville’s DC-8 experience. updated OCT 2018.pdf - Google Drive (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMlSZyihKR7x6O-ykkSjPVRoIKtrVvn1/view)

Thanks for that mate. I've just wasted a delightful three hours reading and occasionally re-reading that 80 page document. The descriptions of the trials and tribulations of a DC-8 FE are very interesting, as are the descriptions of layovers in various Southeast Asian cities that I am very familiar with. The second paragraph of this description brought back an amusing memory:


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/821x808/screenshot_2023_03_24_at_21_29_48_988d909bb75670796d560ee3cd 6d61fecab55a81.png

In the mid-80s, my family and I returned to Canada after six years overseas in Brisbane and Jakarta. My kids were experienced world travellers by then, having flown round the world three times.

My son who was six, was in his first year in the strange-to-him environment of a Canadian Elementary School. His home-room teacher told us that one day she showed the class some CP Air travel posters of various destinations across Canada. She described how my son was completely disinterested in the proceedings, until she showed the class a poster of Hong Kong, at which point he became very animated and told the class in great detail about Hong Kong and in particular mentioning the smell as the aircraft landed at Kai Tak!

[WHBM]

... next day a Delta DC-8 Los Angeles - Houston where thunderstorms necessitated a steep descent from cruise with reverse thrust, sure didn't know a jet could do that.
If I'm not mistaken it was not reverse "thrust" as the DC8 would only operate idle reverse, just on two of the four engines. Of course, one would not know from the cabin seeing the reversers deploy that this was the case. I read the DC8 was the first jet to do this. I don't know how much retarding force idle reverse actually provided.

[BSD]

If I'm not mistaken it was not reverse "thrust" as the DC8 would only operate idle reverse, just on two of the four engines. Of course, one would not know from the cabin seeing the reversers deploy that this was the case. I read the DC8 was the first jet to do this. I don't know how much retarding force idle reverse actually provided.


Never flew the DC-8 but I believe it did not have speedbrakes/flight spoilers - hence inboard engine inflight reverse. The company I flew for had 2.

On a "dead-heading" sector cockpit ride back home into Stansted, London ATC's descent clearance "Cross Detling FL120 or below" saw it applied and I recall impressively down the old bird went...

Being essentially drag based, I imagine it's effectiveness was airspeed related, drag increasing at the square of the speed etc. I think Douglas (or McDonnel-Douglas by then) banned it's use in flight eventually over concerns about turbulence over the tail.

Meanwhile, back to the 707: Those turbo-compressors were presumably the source of air for the conditioning system. Powered by bleed air when the engines were running, could they provide cooling air on the ground with the engines shut down? Pneumatic manifold perhaps?

The 707 was an incredible piece of work. I recall reading an article years ago suggesting it should be considered one of the 10 best engineering solutions ever achieved. It took all sorts of incredible inventions, the jet engine, the swept-wing and so on, wrapped them up and continued to improve them, in a thoroughly workable, practical globe-spanning package. A huge tribute to Boeing, its engineers, its people and the airlines that originally flew them.

[brakedwell]

Using airborne reverse of the inboard engines on the DC8 was very efficient, but could feel uncomfortable. I think I only used it a couple of time in four years on the type.

[dixi188]

The CFM powered DC-8-70s were prohibited from using reverse in flight. I was on the jump seat of a UPS DC-8 descending into STN and the captain pulled the inboard reversers up, the FE slapped them down again.

[WHBM]

The 707 was an incredible piece of work. I recall reading an article years ago suggesting it should be considered one of the 10 best engineering solutions ever achieved. It took all sorts of incredible inventions, the jet engine, the swept-wing and so on, wrapped them up and continued to improve them, in a thoroughly workable, practical globe-spanning package. A huge tribute to Boeing, its engineers, its people and the airlines that originally flew them.
I understood it was just a gradual evolution, come up through the B-47, B-52, KC-135, and then the 707, so Boeing came back into the civil market they had been pretty marginal with previously, but with a lot of big jet experience.

I did read that there was a Boeing board decision in the early 1950s to buy their own wind tunnel. For US tax reasons it was attributed as an educational tool, in the ownership of the Washington State University in Seattle, but Boeing paid for it and ran it. With its own building, would have been a considerable expense. Douglas meanwhile didn't buy one, but just bought time on the NASA etc wind tunnels, and I read that accounted for some differences. The DC8 did have a range of aerodynamic shortfalls at the margins, and various modifications over time. Northwest, for example, chose the DC8 early on, and found it couldn't as promised do their key transpacific route from Seattle to Tokyo, with no alternative to going well out of the way and fuel stopping at Anchorage, Alaska, which didn't fit with the timetabled connections at both ends. Very early on Northwest dumped their DC8s and bought the start of a substantial 707 fleet.

[tdracer]

I did read that there was a Boeing board decision in the early 1950s to buy their own wind tunnel. For US tax reasons it was attributed as an educational tool, in the ownership of the Washington State University in Seattle, but Boeing paid for it and ran it.

Just a minor clarification - it's not "Washington State University in Seattle" - it's the University of Washington in Seattle.
Washington State University is on the other side of the state in Pullman - UW and WSU are big rivals so confusing the two can be fighting words in some quarters :eek:

[WHBM]

Just a minor clarification - it's not "Washington State University in Seattle" - it's the University of Washington in Seattle.
Washington State University is on the other side of the state in Pullman - UW and WSU are big rivals so confusing the two can be fighting words in some quarters :eek:
Oh dear. Apologies to an alumni seem in order !

[Schroedinger]

I nicked several sets so I could properly tune the SU's on my TR3.

[Mooncrest]

I always enjoyed seeing the 707 and 720 on charter and inclusive tour duty in the 70s and 80s. Laker, Monarch, JAT, Dan Air, British Airtours, Air Atlantis et al. And Aer Lingus too. Not necessarily operating on routes for which the aeroplane was designed but, in many instances, bought and well and truly paid for. Lovely aeroplane. And the 727 too.

[BSD]

Tax, Boeing and wind-tunnels:

As I understand it, the profit Boeing made from selling B-17s to the US government in WW2 was colossal as too was the tax due on those profits.

By investing in items like the wind-tunnels talked of here, R&D etc, it was able to write-off the costs against its tax bill.

That investment brought about the B47, the 367-80, the 707 and ultimately a few more magnificent aeroplanes.

Please could we have the old Boeing co. back but preferably without another WW to generate the profits to offset against tax to bolster R&D?

[Asturias56]

Boeing also benefited from the organised trawl of German research data in 1945 - it was a major influence on the wing design for the B-47

[condor17]

Had one pax. flt. in an Air Canada DC8 , into Toronto . Noticed the reverse thrust come in ...'' Hello , it's just like our Tridents '' we said .
Trident engines 1 and 3 could be put into reverse and 10,000 HP RPM applied . Extremely effective , 365 kts IAS , Speedbrake and 10,000 reverse gave descent rates of over 17,000 ft per minute .
Apols for 707 drift .

rgds condor .

[WHBM]

Talk of 707 wing design also brings to mind a point made in that DC8 article linked above, where the writer states that as the DC8 didn't have quite the wing sweep of the 707, it didn't suffer to the same extent from the various aerodynamic issues that seemed to arise from this. And although not an aerodynamicist myself, it does seem that current generation models do not have the same amount of sweep that the 707 did. Could it be that Boeing put in a bit too much compared to the optimal ?

For example, the A321XLR, which seems to do pretty much what a 707 did in terms of size and range, has sweep of 25 degrees, compared to the 707 35 degrees.

Tax, Boeing and wind-tunnels:

As I understand it, the profit Boeing made from selling B-17s to the US government in WW2 was colossal as too was the tax due on those profits.

By investing in items like the wind-tunnels talked of here, R&D etc, it was able to write-off the costs against its tax bill.

That investment brought about the B47, the 367-80, the 707 and ultimately a few more magnificent aeroplanes.

Please could we have the old Boeing co. back but preferably without another WW to generate the profits to offset against tax to bolster R&D?
But that's pretty much (given that I do know a bit more about finance than aerodynamics) what governments all round look to encourage, and do, that instead of 'too much' profit, paid back to shareholders who often don't know how to spend it wisely, it instead gets spent on developing a successful business further, buying new capital equipment and thus stimulating the rest of the economy, and such like, for both the originating business and their suppliers of new capital equipment. As here.

It has been a point of discussion in recent times that whereas major businesses in the USA and principal European countries were offered this because they tended to spend on such items within their own country and economy, to the advantage of those who their government represents, nowadays such purchases are far more commonly imports from overseas, not giving the same advantage.

[condor17]

Had a saved email , with an article on the DC8 going to Mach 1 .
Sadly the link is no longer active . Maybe others can find it .

rgds condor .

[tdracer]

Had a saved email , with an article on the DC8 going to Mach 1 .
Sadly the link is no longer active . Maybe others can find it .

rgds condor .
Don't have a link, but read about it not long ago - it was a planned maneuver with some testing a precautions taken in advance.

It still almost ended up in tears when they lost tail effectiveness and had to use stab trim to pull out of the dive.

BTW, I spent a lot of time looking through 747-8 flutter flight testing data. I didn't see anything at Mach 1 or above, but there was a whole lot of data in the 0.99 Mach range.

[India Four Two]

Here's a link to the Mach 1 story:


I Was There: When the DC-8 Went Supersonic


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/i-was-there-when-the-dc-8-went-supersonic-27846699/

[WHBM]

It still almost ended up in tears when they lost tail effectiveness and had to use stab trim to pull out of the dive.

Notably a DC8-40, with Rolls-Royce Conways (like the 707-420). Wonder why they chose that minority variant. Does this make Rolls the only engine manufacturer whose commercial production products have gone supersonic?

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

Thanks for that mate. I've just wasted a delightful three hours reading and occasionally re-reading that 80 page document.

Garry Sommerville wrote a number of articles covering his years as a Flight Engineer on TEAL/Air New Zealand's Lockheed L.188 Electra, Douglas DC-8-52, McDonnell-Douglass DC-10-30 and Boeing 747-219 airliners, with the DC-10 and Boeing 747 articles being so huge, they are spread over a number of documents. If you published all of them as a book, it would be a very-substantial tomb. You can access and download all of them from here, but be warned, you will spend many days devouring their fascinating contents: http://flight-engineers-air-nz.********.com/p/blog-page_3.html

[bean]

Garry Sommerville wrote a number of articles covering his years as a Flight Engineer on TEAL/Air New Zealand's Lockheed L.188 Electra, Douglas DC-8-52, McDonnell-Douglass DC-10-30 and Boeing 747-219 airliners, with the DC-10 and Boeing 747 articles being so huge, they are spread over a number of documents. If you published all of them as a book, it would be a very-substantial tomb. You can access and download all of them from here, but be warned, you will spend many days devouring their fascinating contents: http://flight-engineers-air-nz.********.com/p/blog-page_3.html
What are the asterixs hiding?

[India Four Two]

bean,

The asterisks are hiding the name of a blogging site that, for some unknown historical reason, is anathema to PPRuNe's management. However, it's easy to get around this bizarre restriction by using a URL shortening site like http://bitly.com which hides the offensive name:

AIR NEW ZEALAND's FLIGHT ENGINEERS: A DIRECT LINK TO GARY SOMMERVILLE'S ARTICLES: (http://bit.ly/3Zo9kzx)

[Bergerie1]

tdracer,

Do you have any information on the 747-8 flutter flight testing data that you can share? I would be very interested to know how the 747 performed and handled in the 0.99 Mach range.

[condor17]

Then there was the 747SP , which stalled and departed , followed by hi speed with bits falling off in the pullout ..

rgds condor .

[tdracer]

tdracer,

Do you have any information on the 747-8 flutter flight testing data that you can share? I would be very interested to know how the 747 performed and handled in the 0.99 Mach range.
No - that was all left behind when I retired, and even if I did have anything I'm quite sure it's considered Boeing Proprietary. Besides, the stuff I was looking at was very engine focused - I was comparing the FADEC sensed Pamb with the aircraft trailing cone measurements to see if we needed to adjust the FADEC calibration curves and tolerances.
During the 747-400/PW4000 flight testing, when they did the high speed flutter testing they set 'ENG CONTROL' on all four engines at pretty much the same time because shock waves on the engine cowling really mess with the FADEC sensed Pamb... My then boss got a pretty panicked call from Flight Test wanting to know what the :mad: was going on - he replied to the effect he didn't know, but tell them to land!

[Quietplease]

The 707 was a wonderful bit of agricultural engineering. If something went wrong there was almost always a mechanical back up and a flight engineer.
Gear stuck up - open the panels in the flightdeck floor and wind it down. Gear doors stuck - back to in line with wing trailing edge, lift the panels and release the door locks. Down into Lower 41 for the nosegear.
Most bits of the pressurisation and aircon had a manual override.
Jammed stab - split the spoilers and fly it on the speed brake lever.
No hydraulics- electric back up for flaps.
Bleeds were definitely used for aircon and pressurisation. Qantas first 338C delivery flight from SEA to SYD was the first commercial aircraft non-stop US to Australia. Memory a bit rusty but I think they were running on one bleed and cabin altitude about 10,000 to save fuel.
I flew the DC8, much more forgiving in the flare than a 707. I was on the engineers panel for a couple of DC3 to DC8 conversions and was braced for the impact as they flared for a three pointer.
Use of inflight reverse for emergency descent was pretty scary, felt as though it was shaking itself to bits.
Much preferred the 707.
Boeing engineering definitely benefitted from the UK brain drain in the early 60s. I used to glide from Wenatchee, just up the road from Moses Lake, and quite a few of the Boeing gliding club were Brits.

[rog747]

I always enjoyed seeing the 707 and 720 on charter and inclusive tour duty in the 70s and 80s. Laker, Monarch, JAT, Dan Air, British Airtours, Air Atlantis et al. And Aer Lingus too. Not necessarily operating on routes for which the aeroplane was designed but, in many instances, bought and well and truly paid for. Lovely aeroplane. And the 727 too.

The holiday brochures back then made a 'big thing' about flying you on your Summer holiday on a 707 or 720B to get you to book with them, rather than with a competitor with smaller aircraft.

Global Holidays used Caledonian Airways 707C's at summer weekends from LGW MAN & GLA to PMI ALC IBZ and TCI (flying quite a few 'W' patterns, ending with huge knock-on delays)
Lord Brothers Holidays used Laker's 707's from LGW and MAN
Cosmos announced Monarch's 720B purchase in 1971 as ''Look what we've bought for you!'' - flying these as far as St Lucia on package holidays.
Enterprise replaced the BEA Airtours Comets in 1971 with the ex BOAC 707-436's
Dan Air, Donaldson, and Lloyd International's 707's were often seen at PMI and TCI
Britannia Airways 707C's did not do a lot of work, but again were seen at PMI and TCI and flew long haul package holidays to Jamaica for Thomson Skytours to Montego Bay where they had built their own hotel.

BMA in 1982 refurbished their 3 707C's fitted with a new wide look cabin, new larger 757 exit doors, new seats and galleys and these were used on Med and Canary Islands IT's from BHX EMA and MAN, plus they subbed for other holiday airlines too, and also did Ski flights in the winter.
They also flew summer ABC Transatlantic charters from LGW and MAN to LAX JFK BOS YYZ and YVR.

[ATNotts]

BMA in 1982 refurbished their 3 707C's fitted with a new wide look cabin, new larger 757 exit doors, new seats and galleys and these were used on Med and Canary Islands IT's from BHX EMA and MAN, plus they subbed for other holiday airlines too, and also did Ski flights in the winter.
They also flew summer ABC Transatlantic charters from LGW and MAN to LAX JFK BOS YYZ and YVR.

Configured as Y212. Most charter configured 707s were ca. 189 if I recall correctly. Did any airline cram more PAX in than British Midland?

Remember fondly the days of the BD 707 base at BHX. Crews were a great bunch of people to socialise with!

[rog747]

Configured as Y212. Most charter configured 707s were ca. 189 if I recall correctly. Did any airline cram more PAX in than British Midland?

Remember fondly the days of the BD 707 base at BHX. Crews were a great bunch of people to socialise with!

No, BMA's 212 was the most ever. This entailed re-fitting the aft of the wing hatch with the new 757 type exit door with slide (same as Door 3L/R on a 757)
186/189 was the norm for a 320/430 series
170 to 179 for a 120B/720B
154 for a 138B

[dixi188]

I remember working at Airline Engineering, (Monarch) back end of 1979. They aquired another B720B from Maersk.
We were fitting the seats and PSUs for 179 seats but when we got to the back of the LH side the seat rails stopped about 2 ft short of normal so we were told to just move all the seats forward to make them all fit.
I think the seat pitch was about 28 ins for quite a few rows. This aircraft was going on charter for P&O cruises to the Far East. I'm glad I wasn't a passenger being 6ft 2in.

[rog747]

I remember working at Airline Engineering, (Monarch) back end of 1979. They aquired another B720B from Maersk.
We were fitting the seats and PSUs for 179 seats but when we got to the back of the LH side the seat rails stopped about 2 ft short of normal so we were told to just move all the seats forward to make them all fit.
I think the seat pitch was about 28 ins for quite a few rows. This aircraft was going on charter for P&O cruises to the Far East. I'm glad I wasn't a passenger being 6ft 2in.

Yes, I knew about that - The 720B really was for a max of 170 pax. 179 was pushing it.

[WHBM]

I remember working at Airline Engineering, (Monarch) back end of 1979. They acquired another B720B from Maersk.
We were fitting the seats and PSUs for 179 seats but when we got to the back of the LH side the seat rails stopped about 2 ft short of normal so we were told to just move all the seats forward to make them all fit.
I think the seat pitch was about 28 ins for quite a few rows. This aircraft was going on charter for P&O cruises to the Far East. I'm glad I wasn't a passenger being 6ft 2in.
The initial trio for Monarch were 720-051B acquired in 1972 from Northwest, first in and last out in 1983, which Monarch got good value from. The 1979 Maersk aircraft appeared to be from the same model number and initial purchaser, but had a different background, for the initial three were from a foursome which Northwest found surplus before delivery, so had been fitted out and sub-leased new to TWA (otherwise not a known 720B operator, and who Howard Hughes had caused to get into some financial difficulties with Boeing for new 707 deliveries) for some years, before Northwest finally took them on. The Maersk one was new direct to Northwest. Maybe a galley, a coat cupboard, or similar had been there in Northwest's own cabin spec, and they had just lived with the little difference afterwards.

Of course Monarch may have refitted the rails themselves some time earlier. I gather AEL could do pretty much anything short of building a new aircraft.

[dixi188]

I guess new seat rails could have been fitted but the aircraft was due out of the hangar to go into service.
I also remember that the blue paint was sanded down over a weekend ready for painting. On the Monday morning everything in hangar 61 was covered in blue dust, including our toolboxes, the seats and cabin furnishings.
I only worked there for 9 weeks, then went to BCAL where things were much more organised.

[SOPS]

I’m loving this thread .. 10 out of 10!!

[Alan Baker]

The 720/720B was limited to 149 seats in the configuration that most were delivered, i.e a single overwing emergency exit on each side. Most original customers configured the aircraft in a first/coach split that did not approach 149 seats (with the seat pitch standards of the day). Monarch had it's 720Bs modified to two overwing exits before delivery.

[WHBM]

As specifically about the 707-320C here, one has to ask why the convertible/cargo model became the default, rather than the all passenger 707-320B. It wasn't like that initially, it changed over in the mid-60s, and I suspect quite a number of aircraft never operated as cargo. It wasn't as if there was no downside - the additional -320C weight of door and floor strengthening was such an issue for BOAC that when London-Moscow-Tokyo began that although they had a number of P&W 707C in hand by then, a good proportion configured for passengers, they needed to order two new 707-320B for the service, which were actually delivered a year after the first BOAC 747s. Some 707Cs were initially used as stand-ins on the service, but they might need to leave the freight behind, as the difference in capability was notable.

Someone at BOAC bought a 707C to add to their fleet from Saturn, the US supplemental, on it seems little more due diligence than "it's a 707C, innit ...". It was apparently a notably different aircraft for cockpit layout and similar, to the extent that differences course was needed for both pilots and FEs.

The US military did an evaluation in the mid 1960s and decided the 707C was their choice for long haul capacity, at a time of substantial Vietnam build-up, run by mainstream carriers. Several thus ordered and received quite significant fleets - Pan Am, Continental, Braniff, plus supplemental World Airways. Just after their delivery the DC8-63F became available and the military changed their mind at the contract renewal to these, now to be run by the pool of supplemental carriers, and apart from this overtaxing Douglas at Long Beach whose sales team committed to them all getting delivered together, the 707Cs the initial carriers had got were now a bit of an orphan on their shorter route structures - Pan Am were OK for what to do with them now, but Braniff and Continental were rather left high and dry, and after various long-haul route applications which didn't come off they became early secondhand stock sold to various operators.

[Alan Baker]

I imagine that the reason that airlines bought 707-320Cs rather than -320Bs was the greater resale value, The future of passenger travel in the early/mid sixties was supposed to be supersonic, which is why the 747 was designed to have the capability for nose loading of main deck cargo. Ultimate payload range was not really a factor in those days as so many long haul routes were multi stop.

[ATNotts]

I imagine that the reason that airlines bought 707-320Cs rather than -320Bs was the greater resale value, The future of passenger travel in the early/mid sixties was supposed to be supersonic, which is why the 747 was designed to have the capability for nose loading of main deck cargo. Ultimate payload range was not really a factor in those days as so many long haul routes were multi stop.

Wasn't the reason the 747 was designed with nose loading capability that at the time Boeing were pitching for a large military transport, which was actually awarded to Lockheed for the C-5A? As an aside I recall that when Seaboard World operated the 747-200F the idea was to be able to load 2 x 20ft ISO size containers side by side through the nose, don't know if that ever happened though.

[Asturias56]

that came before - Mr B always said that the 747 was a clean sheet design but I think they realised it might also make a great freighter one day

[tdracer]

Wasn't the reason the 747 was designed with nose loading capability that at the time Boeing were pitching for a large military transport, which was actually awarded to Lockheed for the C-5A? As an aside I recall that when Seaboard World operated the 747-200F the idea was to be able to load 2 x 20ft ISO size containers side by side through the nose, don't know if that ever happened though.
That story is basically a popular myth - about the only part of the Boeing C-5 proposal that made it into the 747 design was the JT9D engines. The rest of the 747 was basically a clean sheet - in fact what Juan Trip wanted wasn't a huge widebody, it was a double decker - basically two 707 fuselages stacked one on top of the other. It was Joe Sutter - as the 747 chief engineer - that came up with the idea making it a really wide single deck and managed to sell the concept to Trip.
At the time of the 747 development, Boeing was hot and heavy into the SST development (and in fact Sutter had to fight dearly for resources since most of the money and manpower was devoted to the SST )(same thing happened during the 747-8 program - most of resources went to the 787 - there was great satisfaction among the 747-8 team when we certified before the 787 despite the 787 getting most of the resources and a several year head-start). Further, as Asturias notes, it was believed the 747 would have a relatively short shelf life as a passenger aircraft as future long range travel would be by SST. Hence the 747 was provisioned to make a good freighter from day one (something Airbus failed to do with the A380).

[Discorde]

The future of passenger travel in the early/mid sixties was supposed to be supersonic, which is why the 747 was designed to have the capability for nose loading of main deck cargo.

From Air Pictorial May 1964: (https://www.steemrok.com/airpic/6405/may64.html)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/433x219/vc10_sst_96700b1c8a332d5ea012e76420f08d5848b03b95.jpg

[rog747]

BOAC bought a 707-379C G-AWHU off the shelf (already painted and built for Saturn but their order for 3 was NTU) to urgently replace the lost G-ARWE,
Likewise G-AYLT was the last 707 bought by BOAC to replace the SVC10 lost at Dawson's Field, Jordan.

As WHBM outlined >
The 707-320B has the range benefit over the -320C but many Legacy airlines bought both types.
The -320C at the time was chosen early on by a lot of airlines to also enable MAC work (US Troop movement charters)
The Vietnam War was in full swing - However the trend changed to ordering the DC-8 63CF series especially for US supplemental charter airlines.
Some airlines cancelled their 707C orders to buy the superior DC-8.

Trek Airways had ordered a new 707-350C from Boeing for its JNB-LUX route in association with Luxair, but the aircraft went from the production line to SAA to replace their brand new 707-344C 'Pretoria' lost at WDH in 1968.

[ZFT]

..and if IRC that specific accident resulted in the 14 flap gate modification.

[Asturias56]

well that Air Pictorial goyt it a bit wrong - "likely to be the last long range, sub-sonic jet airliner in the Western World"...................... ;)

[WHBM]

The 707-320B has the range benefit over the -320C but many Legacy airlines bought both types.
As I understand it, it wasn't just the range on Tokyo to Moscow itself that was marginal for a BOAC 707-320C. The diversions and service recovery allowed at Moscow were pretty poor, so I believe they always carried fuel for Helsinki, and in fact operationally preferred to go just a bit further still to Copenhagen if possible. At least one diversion made it as far as Amsterdam I once read - did anyone actually get right through to Heathrow ?

[Liffy 1M]

I imagine that the reason that airlines bought 707-320Cs rather than -320Bs was the greater resale value, The future of passenger travel in the early/mid sixties was supposed to be supersonic, which is why the 747 was designed to have the capability for nose loading of main deck cargo. Ultimate payload range was not really a factor in those days as so many long haul routes were multi stop.

And the resale rationale was borne out to be justified, as many 707-320Cs went on to fly with a succession of cargo operators into the 1990s and early 2000s, while the passenger aircraft tended to be retired rather earlier. That said, the buying-up of JT-3D-engined 707s for the C-135 re-engining programme of the 1980s saw a large number of 707s retired when they must still have had plenty of life left on the airframe.