spiral instability

[411A]

I have no doubt that these aircraft had their foibles but suggesting that today's pilots would not be able to fly them....

IF taught properly, they would be able to fly 'em, but the training budgets would go out the window.
It would be interesting to watch a brand new F/O with low hours (as found today at many European air carriers) have a go...these folks adapt quite easily to a fancy FMS, but it should be remembered that they lack the necessary flying skills for these older jets and their handling problems.

[BelArgUSA]

Gents -
xxx
I am in complete agreement with 411A´s opinions regarding the difficulty to fly an old 707 with parallel yaw damper, when you are to disconnect that yaw damper before landing. Long time since I flew the "old 707 models" but recall that it was one of the last items on landing checks.
xxx
Early Learjets (23/24) were similar in being extremely unstable in final, when the yaw damper was required to be OFF, as they also had a parallel yaw damper. In these Lears, a dead Y/D was a NO GO item...
xxx
If you want "to see" how such 707s were doing in short final with a parallel yaw damper "OFF", and how unstable they were, try to locate the short movie made of the remote controlled 720-061 of the FAA that was crashed in the early 1980s in California. The last 300 ft AGL depict the very unstable approach, obviously piloted by remote control - but definitely not by an experienced 707/720 pilot" - and illustrates how difficult they were to control.
xxx

Happy contrails

[Meikleour]

There seems to be some thread drift away from the original query which was about when parallel yaw dampers were used! I seem to remember a rudder pedal force of 150lbs being required on the B707 with an outboard engine out - serious `leg shake` quickly followed if the rudder was not trimmed soon thereafter. Somewhat more physically taxing than what I now do on my Airbus! What I think 411A has been alluding to is the greater emphasis on pure aircraft handling on the older generation of aircraft (due mainly to the very crude automatics) compared to the way that we are trained to operate modern aircraft. I am sure that there are not many civilian pilots trained in the last 15 years who will have hand flown: emergency descents in the aircraft, two engine out landings (on a quad) and simulated jammed stabiliser landings on an aircraft. These things were quite common due to poor simulator fidelity - but they did result in many accidents and were VERY EXPENSIVE on the training budget.

[Pugilistic Animus]

150 lbs of force---I had thought that in the original certification of the 707 it was up to near 180lbs

[411A]

I had thought that in the original certification of the 707 it was up to near 180lbs

It was...with the parallel yaw damper engaged.
These aircraft were certificated under CAR4B, where the requirement of a max rudder pedal force of 150 pounds was noted...hence, yaw damper OFF for takeoff and landing.
The 35 foot screen height (versus 50 feet for pistons/turboprops) was part and parcel of these old airplanes...the runways were too short to achieve 50 feet, so 35 was in the cards from the beginning.

A known fact by those that were around at the time.

[richatom]

IF taught properly, they would be able to fly 'em, but the training budgets would go out the window.
It would be interesting to watch a brand new F/O with low hours (as found today at many European air carriers) have a go...these folks adapt quite easily to a fancy FMS, but it should be remembered that they lack the necessary flying skills for these older jets and their handling problems.

I expect that if they followed the same training as you had, they would be able to fly them just as well. Pilots of your era were not genetically or biologically superior to pilots of today

But I would agree that if you pulled a pilot out of an Easybus and put him in a 707, he would struggle and might even crash. But I expect if you were put in a Sopwith Camel, you would also struggle and might even crash. This is a bit of an inane argument really!

[411A]

I expect that if they followed the same training as you had, they would be able to fly them just as well. Pilots of your era were not genetically or biologically superior to pilots of today

No, not biologically superior, but they had quite a few large transport piston/turboprop hours under their belt prior to moving to jets....3-4000 hours in most cases.
In short, a good deal more handling experience than what you find today, especially in Europe, where 250 hour 'wonders' can be found.
These folks succeed simply because modern transport jets have been manufactured with the poor flying qualities of yesterdays jets, designed out, from the start.
Nothing more, nor less.