BOAC B707-436 Early LAX operations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EGTD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC B707-436 Early LAX operations
The 1962 summer schedules for BOAC show a 3 x weekly service BA591 LHR/LAX with a scheduled time of 13.00hrs westbound, and 10.30 eastbound, as well as a 2 x weekly service BA583 LHR/SFO, with scheduled times of 14.05 westbound and 10.30 eastbound. The SFO service westbound has a note "technical stop en route", [ which I think was at YUL ], the LAX service does not.
Does anyone know if the westbound LAX service did actually operate non-stop westbound, and if not, where did it tech stop ?
Does anyone know if the westbound LAX service did actually operate non-stop westbound, and if not, where did it tech stop ?
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Given the 707's range was about 3500 - 3750 miles and the distance from LHR to LAX is 5400 miles, there would have had to have been a re-fuelling stop.
Montreal or Toronto would make sense (from a great circle perspective), if not one of the US eastern seaboard airports.
SD
Montreal or Toronto would make sense (from a great circle perspective), if not one of the US eastern seaboard airports.
SD
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know an ex BOAC 707 Captain, now aged 90 and put the question to him. He has just checked one of his many logbooks. Incidentally he achieved a speed record in the early 1960s flying LAX-LHR in 9hrs 15 minutes, (airborne not chock to chock). He says it might have been SF0-LHR though.
Back to the question. He operated BA 591 LHR-LAX on Jun 3rd 1962 in B707 G-APFG. It went via JFK which is where he got off. Strangely his next sector was from JFK-Kingston. He reckons he must have been supernumary on the BA591 as he has the Captain's name down as Buxton and not himself.
Back to the question. He operated BA 591 LHR-LAX on Jun 3rd 1962 in B707 G-APFG. It went via JFK which is where he got off. Strangely his next sector was from JFK-Kingston. He reckons he must have been supernumary on the BA591 as he has the Captain's name down as Buxton and not himself.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
suninmyeyes: Strangely his next sector was from JFK-Kingston
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the 707's range was about 3500 - 3750 miles and the distance from LHR to LAX is 5400 miles, there would have had to have been a re-fuelling stop.
We speak of distance in air transportation in nautical miles (not statute) so the distance from LHR to LAX is more like 4800NM.
In addition, as I have flown (as a Captain) some of these older B707 intercontinential models, LHR-LAX was at the extreme end of the distance possible, however it was done on a regular basis, providing however...optimum levels were possible from ATC, a min distance routing was selected, the weather at destination was forecast to be favorable, re-dispatch procedures were used (to minimise contingency fuel uplifted) and finally, the required distance to the alternate selected was minimal.
The LHR-LAX sector normally would fit this profile above, so yes, the route was normally flown non-stop, on some days.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I was told by ops people in BA - who would have been around at the time of the direct services - that refuelling would be requested for as soon after arrival as possible, when the wings were still cold and you could get more fuel in. Were they kidding me?
When I joined in the late 1960s the direct services had gone and didn't reappear until the 707-336s arrived.
When I joined in the late 1960s the direct services had gone and didn't reappear until the 707-336s arrived.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
411A,
You're right, of course - I was looking at figures for the 120B and 320 (and mixing statute and nautical miles
).
Boeing's own figures show that 3500-3750 NM are correct for the 120B and 320 (JT4A-11 engines), but the 320B (Advanced Passenger) does indeed have a range (with typical 141 passenger load) of 5000NM at max. take-off weight. It would have had a takeoff runway length requirement of about 2 miles at sea level, Standard day, or a further 1/4 mile +15C!
I admit that I'm rather confused, as all the 320s had the enlarged wings and increased tank capacity (over prior models), but it seems that until the 320B introduced different engines (JT3D-3B) as well as a stretched fuselage, and the "Advanced" introduced leading-edge flaps, the range was still under 4000NM
The Max. take-off weight increased from 316,000 (320) to 333,000 lbs (320B AP), does that 17,000lbs equate to 1250 NM?
I found the Boeing 707 Performance Charts on the Boeing website.
The figures are for P&W engines, I assume that RR Conways would be reasonably similar - isn't that what BOAC used on their -400's?
SD
You're right, of course - I was looking at figures for the 120B and 320 (and mixing statute and nautical miles
).Boeing's own figures show that 3500-3750 NM are correct for the 120B and 320 (JT4A-11 engines), but the 320B (Advanced Passenger) does indeed have a range (with typical 141 passenger load) of 5000NM at max. take-off weight. It would have had a takeoff runway length requirement of about 2 miles at sea level, Standard day, or a further 1/4 mile +15C!
I admit that I'm rather confused, as all the 320s had the enlarged wings and increased tank capacity (over prior models), but it seems that until the 320B introduced different engines (JT3D-3B) as well as a stretched fuselage, and the "Advanced" introduced leading-edge flaps, the range was still under 4000NM
The Max. take-off weight increased from 316,000 (320) to 333,000 lbs (320B AP), does that 17,000lbs equate to 1250 NM?
I found the Boeing 707 Performance Charts on the Boeing website.
The figures are for P&W engines, I assume that RR Conways would be reasonably similar - isn't that what BOAC used on their -400's?
SD
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The BOAC 320s (336s) had much better range than the 420s - when they arrived it opened up the West Coast, Anchorage-Tokyo and eventually the trans-Siberian services which the 420s couldn't do (or in the case of the West Coast services, could do ... just ... on a good day).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: EGTD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing 707-436 LAX operations
Thanks to everyone for their input, but I'm not a great deal clearer about the BOAC 1962 schedule for the route.
I've now seen the Winter 62/63 schedules, which are much in line with the summer ones, with the W/B LAX service scheduled for 13.15 hrs and the W/B SFO still shown as 14.05 hrs, although the LAX route also has the note re technical landing en-route.
The problem is that it is not possible to have scheduled the LAX service via JFK in 13.00 - the block times for the two sectors total at least 13.00 hrs alone, with no ground time. It would have been just possible to schedule via YUL, but only allowing 0.30 ground time, and 5.30 for YUL/LAX [ AF allowed 5.40 at that time ].
The other very strange point is why the SFO schedule was between 1.05 and 0.50 longer than LAX - it would have been possible to operate this one via JFK, but again only with 0.30 ground time at JFK [ at JFK ??! ].
It also seems strange that with a total of 5 flights per week to the West Coast, BOAC didn't seem to route via YWG, which with an 8.05 sector LHR/YWG would seem to have been well within the capabilities of the early Conway 707's, and with only a further 3.30 YWG/LAX [ 3.30 YWG/SFO ] would have saved considerable time on both routes.
All very strange !
Richard.
I've now seen the Winter 62/63 schedules, which are much in line with the summer ones, with the W/B LAX service scheduled for 13.15 hrs and the W/B SFO still shown as 14.05 hrs, although the LAX route also has the note re technical landing en-route.
The problem is that it is not possible to have scheduled the LAX service via JFK in 13.00 - the block times for the two sectors total at least 13.00 hrs alone, with no ground time. It would have been just possible to schedule via YUL, but only allowing 0.30 ground time, and 5.30 for YUL/LAX [ AF allowed 5.40 at that time ].
The other very strange point is why the SFO schedule was between 1.05 and 0.50 longer than LAX - it would have been possible to operate this one via JFK, but again only with 0.30 ground time at JFK [ at JFK ??! ].
It also seems strange that with a total of 5 flights per week to the West Coast, BOAC didn't seem to route via YWG, which with an 8.05 sector LHR/YWG would seem to have been well within the capabilities of the early Conway 707's, and with only a further 3.30 YWG/LAX [ 3.30 YWG/SFO ] would have saved considerable time on both routes.
All very strange !
Richard.
Last edited by captain.speaking; 18th Jun 2009 at 10:57.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I joined BOAC in 1967 so my info is a bit distant
The -436 unless nearly empty wouldn't have made either LAX or SFO nonstop.
The SFO service was part of a transPacific routing to Tokyo ie LHR-JFK-SFO-HNL-(Wake Island)-HND-HKG
The LAX service was a terminator at the time and I think went via YUL, but didn't last very long - I think until the mid '60's
SFO was also used when we started the SYD service through the west but when the VC-10 took over that route then LAX came back on line, but still via JFK.
The -336 pax versions came in in the late '60's/early '70's and were used on the LAX non-stop routes - however initially we were always routed outbound via YWG,YYC or YUL and home via YOW - not that the aircraft couldn't make it but the cabin crew refused to!!!!!!!!
When that was sorted out we still went via (usually via YWG) outbound but nonstop homeward. The westbound stop had a hidden benefit - we could fill her up whereas nonstop would involve a payload penalty. Homeward bound no problemo! - 747's and DC10's solved all those problems!!
The -436 unless nearly empty wouldn't have made either LAX or SFO nonstop.
The SFO service was part of a transPacific routing to Tokyo ie LHR-JFK-SFO-HNL-(Wake Island)-HND-HKG
The LAX service was a terminator at the time and I think went via YUL, but didn't last very long - I think until the mid '60's
SFO was also used when we started the SYD service through the west but when the VC-10 took over that route then LAX came back on line, but still via JFK.
The -336 pax versions came in in the late '60's/early '70's and were used on the LAX non-stop routes - however initially we were always routed outbound via YWG,YYC or YUL and home via YOW - not that the aircraft couldn't make it but the cabin crew refused to!!!!!!!!
When that was sorted out we still went via (usually via YWG) outbound but nonstop homeward. The westbound stop had a hidden benefit - we could fill her up whereas nonstop would involve a payload penalty. Homeward bound no problemo! - 747's and DC10's solved all those problems!!
Actually the 747 did not solve the problem for BA until their 747-200s came along some 8 years after the original fleet. It was strange, for TWA operated 747-100s London to LAX without problem, but under BA's procedures it did not have the endurance.
It was because of this range issue that BA got into the the daily lease arrangement with Air New Zealand in the mid-1970s for DC-10s on the route, which operated for several years (which I rode several times). Even the DC-10s used to get squeezed for capacity westbound, and if full pax freight would sometimes have to be left behind.
Regarding the LAX service, sure the 707-420s could have refuelled westbound, but even more surprising is that they scheduled nonstop eastbound, which I would have thought would have been beyond them as well. The eastbound block time is much the same as that which the TW 747s did nonstop at the end of the 1970s. But if they really could do this eastbound, could they have been nearly able to do it westbound ? Could that refuelling stop have been at Prestwick, which I believe was a BOAC base then ?
Did they also take no freight, to extend their endurance ? Pan Am and TWA were starting nonstops with 707-320Bs this year, it could have been a BOAC uneconomic but commercially-driven response.
Winnipeg would have been a difficult choice for an intermediate crew change in the winter, as in those days it was very unreliable due to weather, and diversion to the alternate with no ongoing BOAC crew available would have been a logistical nuisance.
It was something along those lines, to do with chilled fuel (ie the fuel was cold rather than the tanks), which was able to be supplied. There was a thread aout this here recently.
It was because of this range issue that BA got into the the daily lease arrangement with Air New Zealand in the mid-1970s for DC-10s on the route, which operated for several years (which I rode several times). Even the DC-10s used to get squeezed for capacity westbound, and if full pax freight would sometimes have to be left behind.
Regarding the LAX service, sure the 707-420s could have refuelled westbound, but even more surprising is that they scheduled nonstop eastbound, which I would have thought would have been beyond them as well. The eastbound block time is much the same as that which the TW 747s did nonstop at the end of the 1970s. But if they really could do this eastbound, could they have been nearly able to do it westbound ? Could that refuelling stop have been at Prestwick, which I believe was a BOAC base then ?
Did they also take no freight, to extend their endurance ? Pan Am and TWA were starting nonstops with 707-320Bs this year, it could have been a BOAC uneconomic but commercially-driven response.
Winnipeg would have been a difficult choice for an intermediate crew change in the winter, as in those days it was very unreliable due to weather, and diversion to the alternate with no ongoing BOAC crew available would have been a logistical nuisance.
Originally Posted by TheSSK
I was told by ops people in BA - who would have been around at the time of the direct services - that refuelling would be requested for as soon after arrival as possible, when the wings were still cold and you could get more fuel in. Were they kidding me?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah - Memories of the B747-100 LHR-LAX flights. TWA and Panam
TW761 and PA121, climbing like a brick not reaching initial cruising level FL280 or 310 until near the Scottish border.
TW761 and PA121, climbing like a brick not reaching initial cruising level FL280 or 310 until near the Scottish border.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
It was something along those lines, to do with chilled fuel (ie the fuel was cold rather than the tanks), which was able to be supplied. There was a thread aout this here recently.
Here's a link to an earlier thread:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/34873...l-density.html
SD
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admit that I'm rather confused, as all the 320s had the enlarged wings and increased tank capacity (over prior models), but it seems that until the 320B introduced different engines (JT3D-3B) as well as a stretched fuselage, and the "Advanced" introduced leading-edge flaps, the range was still under 4000NM
The early Intercontinental 707-320 and -436 models had the same fuselage length, but a different fuel tank capacity.
-436, yes normally operated non-stop LHR-LAX....just (as I have described previously).
In addition, AirFrance operated their 707-328's non-stop to SFO as well, from ORY....just.
Likewise, ORY-LAX...just, using JT4A-17 engines.
I remember these flights well, as they would request a direct routing LAX, as they were a tad short on fuel.
PS:
All of these early -320/436 (etc) models had partial LED's (leading edge devices)...except, those aircraft originally delivered to South African...these had full span LED's.
Gotta know your airplane....and yes, later on, I flew 'em all, after they were later sold to 'new' operators.
NB.
'Advanced' referred to the cowl design.
Original...(on fan engined airplanes)...old cowl (small inlet doors).
Advanced cowl...large inlet doors.
Made a big difference to takeoff performance.
Big time.
Scheduled times between Europe and the Pacific Coast in 6/62:
LAX-LHR-- PA 3/wk 10:30, TW 2/wk 11:55, BA 3/wk 10:30
LHR-LAX-- PA 11:35, TW 13:12, BA 13:00
SFO-LHR-- PA 1/wk 11:25, BA 2/wk 10:30
LHR-SFO-- PA 11:20, BA 14:05
SEA-LHR-- PA 2/wk 9:30
LHR-SEA-- PA 10:25
LAX-ORY-- TW 2/wk 11:05
ORY-LAX-- TW 14:37
(All these are based on an 8-hr clock difference to LHR and 9-hr to ORY-- I guess they had Summer Time in Paris?)
All those flights are shown in the Quick Ref OAG as nonstop, which presumably doesn't mean a whole lot. Nobody had 707-320Bs by then, did they? Air France got their first -320Bs by early 1963, and they probably didn't start LAX-ORY nonstop until then; any reason to think they ever tried to fly JT4As nonstop in either direction?
FWIW Flight for 23 March 1961 says BOAC flew LHR-YUL-LAX; in 1962 The Aeroplane mentioned that about 90% of BOAC's LAX-LHR flights until then had been actual nonstops. Also, PA made the first known jet nonstop LHR-LAX on 1 Jan 1961-- average headwind component during the flight was zero, it says, but they departed with full tanks, 155000 lb, and arrived with... 13000 lb I think it was.
While you're wondering about such things, give a thought to El Al's 707-420s TLV-IDL. Anyone know how often they did that nonstop?
LAX-LHR-- PA 3/wk 10:30, TW 2/wk 11:55, BA 3/wk 10:30
LHR-LAX-- PA 11:35, TW 13:12, BA 13:00
SFO-LHR-- PA 1/wk 11:25, BA 2/wk 10:30
LHR-SFO-- PA 11:20, BA 14:05
SEA-LHR-- PA 2/wk 9:30
LHR-SEA-- PA 10:25
LAX-ORY-- TW 2/wk 11:05
ORY-LAX-- TW 14:37
(All these are based on an 8-hr clock difference to LHR and 9-hr to ORY-- I guess they had Summer Time in Paris?)
All those flights are shown in the Quick Ref OAG as nonstop, which presumably doesn't mean a whole lot. Nobody had 707-320Bs by then, did they? Air France got their first -320Bs by early 1963, and they probably didn't start LAX-ORY nonstop until then; any reason to think they ever tried to fly JT4As nonstop in either direction?
FWIW Flight for 23 March 1961 says BOAC flew LHR-YUL-LAX; in 1962 The Aeroplane mentioned that about 90% of BOAC's LAX-LHR flights until then had been actual nonstops. Also, PA made the first known jet nonstop LHR-LAX on 1 Jan 1961-- average headwind component during the flight was zero, it says, but they departed with full tanks, 155000 lb, and arrived with... 13000 lb I think it was.
While you're wondering about such things, give a thought to El Al's 707-420s TLV-IDL. Anyone know how often they did that nonstop?
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
23,855 USG is the figure quoted for max. fuel in the Boeing figures for the 707 320 series. At 6.667lbs / USG that comes out at 159,041 lbs.
Were they operating RR Conways? Again, the Boeing figures suggest a max. range (with normal passenger load) for the RR 420 of under 4000NM!
SD
El Al's 707-420s TLV-IDL
SD