Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Goodbye BA Jumbos

Old 17th Jul 2020, 23:10
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,221
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
The press reports all say 31 aircraft are being retired. Do (did) BA really have that many on the books when COOVID appeared? How many were actually operational?
Hartington is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2020, 23:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by fatmanmedia
the Convair CV-990 Coronado was faster.
That's debatable. Wiki quotes the cruise speed for the CV-990 as Mach 0.84. Depending on the model, the 747 'normal' cruise is between Mach 0.84 and 0.86 (the target during initial design was 0.87).
tdracer is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 03:05
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
That's debatable. Wiki quotes the cruise speed for the CV-990 as Mach 0.84. Depending on the model, the 747 'normal' cruise is between Mach 0.84 and 0.86 (the target during initial design was 0.87).
IIRC, the -100 through -300 had a noticeably higher max cruise than the -400, due to wing changes on the -400 I think? (Please correct me, those who flew them).

I do remember watching a documentary a few years ago that covered what happened with President Bush and Air Force One (being the VC-25A/747-200) on 9/11. They spent a number of hours flying random paths around the middle of the USA to keep the President safe, at max possible cruise from what they said, and they were being escorted by groups of fighters scrambled from various bases as they moved across the country. At one point a group of escorting F-16s had to ask the VC-25A to slow down - they were only able to pace it by constantly popping in and out of first stage afterburner, with the horrendous fuel penalty that entailed. One of the F-16 pilots was on the documentary saying 'I didn't know a 747 could go that fast'.
Stuart Midgley is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 03:46
  #24 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,126
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
You just knew that the aircraft would be fine and safe I have enjoyed all seating areas. I was not sad though, to see the end of those dreadful 'air-tube' headphones. Although to my 18 year old self, they and the film were a great development!

Mention of the one in Joburg that met the building in the dark, it was parted out on site. But I found it very comforting that the building was severly wrecked and, whilst the wing was buried in the building, the fuel tanks held and the wing stayed attached. Old school metal and yes I know they took a lot of go juice to haul that along - but it was worth it! That machine changed commercial aviation in ways that Boeing and PanAm could never have imagined.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 05:58
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rolling20
So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde. It was also the biggest before the A380. The former is long gone, the latter probably not long left. The 747 flew in February 69. So where is the progress?
787 and 350 are much more efficient in terms of energy to take stuff a long way. That’s progress.
Freehills is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 07:11
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by Stuart Midgley
IIRC, the -100 through -300 had a noticeably higher max cruise than the -400, due to wing changes on the -400 I think? (Please correct me, those who flew them).
The wing was basically unchanged on the -400 (aside from the added winglets - and the winglets didn't really do much) - it was the -8 that got an aerodynamically re-profiled wing. The passenger 747-400 (and -300) had slightly better cruise drag relative to the -100/200 because the longer upper deck resulted in better area ruling at higher Mach numbers. Between about Mach 0.82 and 0.87 it all boiled down to fuel burn vs. speed.
During the 747-8 flight testing, I looked at flight test data from the flutter testing at Mach 0.98+ (presumably in a shallow dive - that was SOP for high speed flutter testing). I don't remember the altitude (it wasn't relevant to what I was looking for in the data - I was just interested in very high Mach number data). I was also on a 747-8 flight test where we cruised for over an hour at 37k/Mach 0.84 with an engine shutdown (granted, we were fairly light).
tdracer is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 07:23
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: london
Posts: 718
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Freehills
787 and 350 are much more efficient in terms of energy to take stuff a long way. That’s progress.
I don't see that as progress. It may be progress for the bean counters, but not for the flying public.
rolling20 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 07:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 82
Posts: 1,251
Received 44 Likes on 17 Posts
I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none. And its system redundancy was second to none. The only handling vice that I could find (if it was a vice at all) was that the nose wheel could skate along the surface if you tried to turn when taxiing at too fast a speed.

It was very stable to fly, was an excellent instrument flying platform, yet, had sufficiently powerful enough controls to handle in a sprightly fashion like a much smaller aircraft. In fact, when seated in the snug cockpit, it was difficult to believe there was so much aircraft following along behind! I was privileged to be IRE/TRE and airworthiness air test qualified. It was during C of A air tests that one could fully appreciate its handling qualities. It stalled immaculately in all configurations, except when clean – when it wouldn’t really stall at all! The minimum speed had been defined by the point when the slow and stately buffeting was considered unacceptable.

Unlike the 707, it had no Mach tuck, even at M0.97, and unlike the VC10 it did not Dutch Roll. It was remarkably straight forward to fly, even with two engines failed on the same side, and it was approved for 3 engine ferry flights. However, those kinds of things were towards the edge of the envelope, not normally encountered in normal route flying, but it was comforting to know there were such large margins.

Areas that did require precision flying were the approach and landing – naturally; and also on departure during flap retraction when the margin between the minimum speed and the flap limiting speed for the configuration could be fairly small at high weights. I forget the exact figures, but I seem to remember something like 7 kts.

Probably the failure that was of most concern was the possibility of an engine failure close to V1, at high weight, at a high altitude airfield. Clearly, the numbers were well worked out, but stopping an aircraft weighing over 350 tonnes from somewhere around 200 mph was not something to be undertaken lightly. Fortunately I never had to do it – other than on the simulator on routine competency checks.

A really wonderful aircraft to fly. And all the more remarkable when one remembers how long ago it was designed. Joe Sutter and his team got it absolutely right.
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 08:03
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hartington
The press reports all say 31 aircraft are being retired. Do (did) BA really have that many on the books when COOVID appeared? How many were actually operational?
I believe BA had 32 in service at the time the borders started closing, but one (G-CIVM) had been due to retire within a couple of months, and so was scrapped in the middle of March instead, which then took the number down to 31 at the start of the UK lockdown.
GS-Alpha is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 08:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In 1969, we, a group of aeronautical students of the Delft University, went to the Le Bourget airshow. Standing along the taxirunway the prototype 747 passed by. The whole crowd let out a deep sigh, it was só huge!
washoutt is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 09:57
  #31 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
The first time I saw one was at Halton not long after it had arrived in service.....unfortunately, the "somewhat elderly " civilian instructor didn't appreciate my powers of observation ....and his metronomic incantations being disrupted when I informed the class of its presence

Never got work on them in depth only when passing through or night stopping. However, one aspect that did put the size into perspective, for me at least, was the compartment behind the rear px bulkhead..... and the size of the screw jack / box section for the horizontal stab. Took HM Customs up there a couple of times as part of their training and remember being asked if I went up there on a regular basis. I said no, but, equally, nobody would be suspicious if I or any engineers did. HMRC kindly informed me some enterprising souls at AMS ? had worked this one out and decided the box section on the stab would make a convenient storage area for the products of a certain South American country noted for its exports of such.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:34
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by rolling20
So the 747 was the fastest passenger airliner, after Concorde.
I think its the fastest still in service since the retirement of Concorde.

I think the VC10 was faster, and it was only just prior to Covid in Feb this year that appropiately it was a BA 747 that broke the 40 odd year old non-Concorde trans altlantic crossing record held by a VC-10 due to the jetstream from that mega storm in Feb.


GeeRam is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 10:37
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by TheOddOne
BTW, all the roads round Heath Row had names starting with the letter pertaining to their compass orientation, quite clever really so you had an idea where abouts to go. The exception was Beacon Road, on the South Side...
And Vanguard Way on the East Side
GeeRam is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 14:04
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Marlow (mostly)
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Hate to break it to you but the Groundgripper Trident 1 cruised at 0.88M for a while when I was first on it..... (65-67).... gets tin hat and makes for bunker, from where his shout of "but I loved flying the Queen of the Skies too!" is drowned by chorus of boos.... !! .
slast is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 15:00
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 517
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes the Trident's Mc was 0.88 but as noted above, the Convair 990 with Mc=0.91 had already been there! Same nominal angle of sweep at 35º of course cf the 747's 37.5º
Allan Lupton is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 15:17
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa
Posts: 138
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
I still find it truly remarkable that an airliner that first flew 5 months before Neil and Buzz set foot on Tranquility Base, is still around at all!
I never got to fly in one, although I have flown in a A380, and the Dowager Queen of the Skies, the VC10!
I saw my 1st 747 in the summer of 1970, coming home from a school trip to London..it was so unmistakeable, cruising around Ockham stack..ahh happy days!
ATSA1 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 15:24
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
I posted a bit of a eulogy to the wonderful 74 in BA service some weeks ago and got some legit criticism for being premature, sadly I was right . From my first flight , KHR-JFK (Carnasie 13L approach thrown in) on thanksgiving day 1971 to October 2018 I spent many many hours from behind the wing to F and upstairs on Ba and other 74s so I am sad to see it go. It has of course had its time and BA were really something of an anachronism from hanging onto them . The 380 much more comfortable but with its own problems is nice but not a fan of the triple & which seems to me to wallow around a lot and I was not overly impressed with the 787 , too narrow for BAs sardine business class.

If I am honest I liked the Tri-Star best of that era but it didnt last that long and the 74 took me literally to every corner of the world and I will miss seeing and hearing them and LHR wont be quite the same
pax britanica is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 15:47
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 1,231
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Bergerie1
I flew the 747 for 14 years, it was a truly remarkable aircraft. It was not just its size, but its remarkably good handling qualities. In contrast to the earlier types I had flown, which all had some handling vices, the 747 had none. And its system redundancy was second to none. The only handling vice that I could find (if it was a vice at all) was that the nose wheel could skate along the surface if you tried to turn when taxiing at too fast a speed.

It was very stable to fly, was an excellent instrument flying platform, yet, had sufficiently powerful enough controls to handle in a sprightly fashion like a much smaller aircraft. In fact, when seated in the snug cockpit, it was difficult to believe there was so much aircraft following along behind! I was privileged to be IRE/TRE and airworthiness air test qualified. It was during C of A air tests that one could fully appreciate its handling qualities. It stalled immaculately in all configurations, except when clean – when it wouldn’t really stall at all! The minimum speed had been defined by the point when the slow and stately buffeting was considered unacceptable.

Unlike the 707, it had no Mach tuck, even at M0.97, and unlike the VC10 it did not Dutch Roll. It was remarkably straight forward to fly, even with two engines failed on the same side, and it was approved for 3 engine ferry flights. However, those kinds of things were towards the edge of the envelope, not normally encountered in normal route flying, but it was comforting to know there were such large margins.

Areas that did require precision flying were the approach and landing – naturally; and also on departure during flap retraction when the margin between the minimum speed and the flap limiting speed for the configuration could be fairly small at high weights. I forget the exact figures, but I seem to remember something like 7 kts.

Probably the failure that was of most concern was the possibility of an engine failure close to V1, at high weight, at a high altitude airfield. Clearly, the numbers were well worked out, but stopping an aircraft weighing over 350 tonnes from somewhere around 200 mph was not something to be undertaken lightly. Fortunately I never had to do it – other than on the simulator on routine competency checks.

A really wonderful aircraft to fly. And all the more remarkable when one remembers how long ago it was designed. Joe Sutter and his team got it absolutely right.
Thanks for that very interesting post.
Mikehotel152 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 17:07
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,222
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
In 1968 I was detached to Hong Kong and on the apron at Kai Tak was the painted outline of a 747. This was so the airport authorities could work out where to put this and that.

I thought that they were stupid; no aeroplane could be that big!
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2020, 18:25
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 198
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think it important to remember the Boeing 747 had four engines
Mike6567 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.