The Boeing 707 ventral fin story
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
707-200
Hola Glue Ball -
xxx
Yes, Braniff 707-227... 4 or 5 of them, one crashed on tests or delivery.
Braniff wanted extra muscle for hi-altitude operations in South America.
So Boeing offered the JT4A power as option... on the 200.
Was about 15,500 lbs of thrust.
But came the JT3D fans, with 17-18,000 lbs, and fuel economy...
xxx
I think the idea of these engine options came from Douglas DC-8s...
There was the DC8-10, domestic range JT3C, water injection, like 707-100.
Then came the DC8-20, domestic extra power JT4A, like the 707-200.
Douglas offered the oceanic range DC8-30 with JT4A, like the 707-300.
And obviously, the DC8-40 with Conways, like the 707-400...
xxx
Flew the DC8 too, but never these old straight pipes.
I just had a few hours on the DC8-50 fans with JT3D. Not too impressive.
Most of my Diesel-8 flying was on the 60/70 series.
Hated the DC8-61, "a stretched-not too impressive" plane.
But liked the 62/63... and of course the 71/73.
xxx
Never got to fly the 72... Tried to join Aramco after PanAm demise...
But Cargolux gave me a better offer on the 747, then Argentina.
xxx
Happy contrais
xxx
Yes, Braniff 707-227... 4 or 5 of them, one crashed on tests or delivery.
Braniff wanted extra muscle for hi-altitude operations in South America.
So Boeing offered the JT4A power as option... on the 200.
Was about 15,500 lbs of thrust.
But came the JT3D fans, with 17-18,000 lbs, and fuel economy...
xxx
I think the idea of these engine options came from Douglas DC-8s...
There was the DC8-10, domestic range JT3C, water injection, like 707-100.
Then came the DC8-20, domestic extra power JT4A, like the 707-200.
Douglas offered the oceanic range DC8-30 with JT4A, like the 707-300.
And obviously, the DC8-40 with Conways, like the 707-400...
xxx
Flew the DC8 too, but never these old straight pipes.
I just had a few hours on the DC8-50 fans with JT3D. Not too impressive.
Most of my Diesel-8 flying was on the 60/70 series.
Hated the DC8-61, "a stretched-not too impressive" plane.
But liked the 62/63... and of course the 71/73.
xxx
Never got to fly the 72... Tried to join Aramco after PanAm demise...
But Cargolux gave me a better offer on the 747, then Argentina.
xxx
Happy contrais
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BelArg
How did the Conway DC8 compare with P&W types?
Still flying in Argentina ?
I know about the jet stream over the mountains that downed a BSAA Lancastrian going to Santiago. Stendek and all that.
How did the Conway DC8 compare with P&W types?
Still flying in Argentina ?
I know about the jet stream over the mountains that downed a BSAA Lancastrian going to Santiago. Stendek and all that.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seņor b377 -
xxx
No experience flying the Conway. I think our friend 411A can answer better.
All I know, it was an excellent engine, somehow more fuel efficient than JT4A.
BOAC, Lufthansa and Air India were 707 Conway users.
Alitalia was a major user of DC8-40s with Conways. And Canada...
xxx
I retired from last flight (747-200) last NOV...
Just a training consultant now, 747 classroom/simulators.
Will gladly ferry 747 or other old jets to/from desert cemeteries.
xxx
Will get retrained to fly my little Piper L-21 to scare myself.
Maybe tow gliders, or banners, low level over nude beaches.
I am a licenced bikini inspector, Brazilian rating, night qualified.
And next weekend is Carnaval - from friday night to wednesday morning.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
No experience flying the Conway. I think our friend 411A can answer better.
All I know, it was an excellent engine, somehow more fuel efficient than JT4A.
BOAC, Lufthansa and Air India were 707 Conway users.
Alitalia was a major user of DC8-40s with Conways. And Canada...
xxx
I retired from last flight (747-200) last NOV...
Just a training consultant now, 747 classroom/simulators.
Will gladly ferry 747 or other old jets to/from desert cemeteries.
xxx
Will get retrained to fly my little Piper L-21 to scare myself.
Maybe tow gliders, or banners, low level over nude beaches.
I am a licenced bikini inspector, Brazilian rating, night qualified.
And next weekend is Carnaval - from friday night to wednesday morning.
xxx
Happy contrails
Last edited by BelArgUSA; 20th Feb 2009 at 06:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BelArg
boy-o-boy it just goes to show that only a few guys have all the fun in this world !
And here I am flying a cheep wood desk. Still there is a
1-11 , Andover, VC10 tanker, a few Jaguars and Tornadoes parked out side. Planning my yearly escape to sunny SA next month to compensate for having been thoroughly refrigerated these last few months.
Shame British airways stopped direct flights LDN- BOG/CCS , its either Iberia via Madrid or Continental/Delta via Newark/Atlanta and no compimentary drinks on any of these flights any more.
boy-o-boy it just goes to show that only a few guys have all the fun in this world !
And here I am flying a cheep wood desk. Still there is a
1-11 , Andover, VC10 tanker, a few Jaguars and Tornadoes parked out side. Planning my yearly escape to sunny SA next month to compensate for having been thoroughly refrigerated these last few months.
Shame British airways stopped direct flights LDN- BOG/CCS , its either Iberia via Madrid or Continental/Delta via Newark/Atlanta and no compimentary drinks on any of these flights any more.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the C135 (KC135) was originally called Boeing 717.
True of False?
True of False?
There is no rational pattern to the model numbers assignment
Now I had it in my mind that the Boeing 720 was built as a competitor to the Convair 880/990 as a "domestic" 707.
I have also been told that it was a bit of a light-weight aircraft and that it was in fact built out of narrower gauge metal.
I know from friends that flew it that it was a bit of a rocket and would go straight up to F410 after take-off.
I have also been told that it was a bit of a light-weight aircraft and that it was in fact built out of narrower gauge metal.
I know from friends that flew it that it was a bit of a rocket and would go straight up to F410 after take-off.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAQ
Seņor b377 -
xxx
I occasionally visit Barranquilla, even drive to Cartagena, or Santa Marta.
Is Avianca to BOG, then connect to BAQ. Lovely places and people.
Have friend there, retired Avianca captain in Barranquilla.
Born in Beirut, ex-MEA. Large colony of Lebanese and Syrians there.
Indulge in a few cold Costeņas, Club Colombia... or Arak at times.
Even once got me an autographed picture of Shakira...!
If we are ever there same time, let's go to a good Lebanese restaurant.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
I occasionally visit Barranquilla, even drive to Cartagena, or Santa Marta.
Is Avianca to BOG, then connect to BAQ. Lovely places and people.
Have friend there, retired Avianca captain in Barranquilla.
Born in Beirut, ex-MEA. Large colony of Lebanese and Syrians there.
Indulge in a few cold Costeņas, Club Colombia... or Arak at times.
Even once got me an autographed picture of Shakira...!
If we are ever there same time, let's go to a good Lebanese restaurant.
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
880/990
JW411 -
xxx
The 720B was a race horse... Could do FL370/390 probably full gross.
That was only 234,000 lbs max takeoff. The 707-100s were 258,000 gross.
Empty operating was probably more than 25,000 lbs lighter than -100.
I recall sea level runway required full gross 720B was about 8,000 feet.
xxx
TWA was under Howard Hughes, was his idea for the CV880.
And American got a few CV990. Both were fast, very fast. Mach .88 cruise.
Normal cruise for 707/720 in early days was .84 in cheap fuel days.
xxx
CV880/990 had nice 5-abreast seating in economy seating.
But small capacity - CV880 maybe 110 pax, CV990 normally 120 seats.
Spantax with their CV990 could not exceed 139Y seats.
720 was certificated for 149Y seats, or 165Y seats with extra overwing exits.
xxx
Somebody once said "The 720 - was the original SP..."
Happy contrails
xxx
The 720B was a race horse... Could do FL370/390 probably full gross.
That was only 234,000 lbs max takeoff. The 707-100s were 258,000 gross.
Empty operating was probably more than 25,000 lbs lighter than -100.
I recall sea level runway required full gross 720B was about 8,000 feet.
xxx
TWA was under Howard Hughes, was his idea for the CV880.
And American got a few CV990. Both were fast, very fast. Mach .88 cruise.
Normal cruise for 707/720 in early days was .84 in cheap fuel days.
xxx
CV880/990 had nice 5-abreast seating in economy seating.
But small capacity - CV880 maybe 110 pax, CV990 normally 120 seats.
Spantax with their CV990 could not exceed 139Y seats.
720 was certificated for 149Y seats, or 165Y seats with extra overwing exits.
xxx
Somebody once said "The 720 - was the original SP..."
Happy contrails
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bel Arg
You're on - all the Clubs you can drink on me ...
Went to Barranquilla/Cartagena a few years ago with the wife stayed at the Prado/Caribe hotels. Old haunts from childhood. Not sure what we'll do this year but the Caribbean coast beckons. Bogota is our hub though.
Mean time enjoy your churascos in Buenos Aires and the carnaval!
You're on - all the Clubs you can drink on me ...
Went to Barranquilla/Cartagena a few years ago with the wife stayed at the Prado/Caribe hotels. Old haunts from childhood. Not sure what we'll do this year but the Caribbean coast beckons. Bogota is our hub though.
Mean time enjoy your churascos in Buenos Aires and the carnaval!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC8 vs. 707 cruise speed
Hola beachbum -
xxx
I did not fly the DC-8 in the "cheap fuel era" prior to NOV 1973...
So all I know, it was flown at much lower Mach nš than the 707's ".84"...
Possibly at Mach .80, maybe .82, although I doubt it was that high.
xxx
When I flew the DC8-50/61, we cruised them at .78...
But the 62/63 could be flown at .80... better wing profile.
And the 71/73 with the CFMs, you want .82, go for it.
xxx
The "Stretched" DC8s were great passenger planes... 250 cabin seats.
Cargo 55F/61F had "just" ok payloads, 707C had same payload, better range.
Took the 63F/73F to have better payload than 707C... 20,000 lbs extra.
xxx
As you say, there are some of these DC8-63F/73F left operating.
Still great airplanes. But not many years left for them.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
I did not fly the DC-8 in the "cheap fuel era" prior to NOV 1973...
So all I know, it was flown at much lower Mach nš than the 707's ".84"...
Possibly at Mach .80, maybe .82, although I doubt it was that high.
xxx
When I flew the DC8-50/61, we cruised them at .78...
But the 62/63 could be flown at .80... better wing profile.
And the 71/73 with the CFMs, you want .82, go for it.
xxx
The "Stretched" DC8s were great passenger planes... 250 cabin seats.
Cargo 55F/61F had "just" ok payloads, 707C had same payload, better range.
Took the 63F/73F to have better payload than 707C... 20,000 lbs extra.
xxx
As you say, there are some of these DC8-63F/73F left operating.
Still great airplanes. But not many years left for them.
xxx
Happy contrails
