707-300 Tail & Pod Strike Angles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
707-300 Tail & Pod Strike Angles
Hi all,
I've recently been learning the 707-300 series, with my primary study resource being a painfully antiquated set of manuals. I've been able to get the aircraft put together in my head, more or less, but two pieces of information I've been unable to find in any of my sources are the angles of pitch and bank at which one can expect to have a tail or pod strike, respectively. I'd work the numbers out myself, but I also lack the measurements to perform the necessary trig.
Oh, and the plane in question is outfitted with the JT3D-7 series engines, not the CFMs. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I've recently been learning the 707-300 series, with my primary study resource being a painfully antiquated set of manuals. I've been able to get the aircraft put together in my head, more or less, but two pieces of information I've been unable to find in any of my sources are the angles of pitch and bank at which one can expect to have a tail or pod strike, respectively. I'd work the numbers out myself, but I also lack the measurements to perform the necessary trig.
Oh, and the plane in question is outfitted with the JT3D-7 series engines, not the CFMs. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
pot232,
The figures in my old note for the -320(old cowls, not new noise reduction cowls) was 9 degrees roll, in the landing attitude, with the main oleos compressed. The inboard engine tailpipes strike first.
Wings out of level (X-wind cockup) on takeoff or landing, O attitude, 11.5/12 degrees, the outboard pods fan cowl scrape first.
For a tail-strike, as 411A said. With the small elevators, a tail-strike needed very vigorous mishandling or an aft C.of G and a miss-set stab, but the aircraft was geometry limited.
It is in the original Boeing Intercontinental 320 manual. Ask Boeing for a copy of the page from the Training Manual.
Tailwise, the original 300 (none left flying - are you certain your mean 300, not 320, -300 had P&W JT-4, or RR Conway engines, as far as I know, only the KC-135 was ever re-engined with JT3D-3B or -7) was less of a problem, and on the -120/720 and the -138 very difficult, but not impossible, to drag the a-----.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Loved the B767, theoretically impossible to scrape a pod --- made up for it by being quite easy to scrape the tail.
PS2: Many JT-3 straightpipe -120/720/138 were re-engined, with the original engine converted to JT3-MC6.
The figures in my old note for the -320(old cowls, not new noise reduction cowls) was 9 degrees roll, in the landing attitude, with the main oleos compressed. The inboard engine tailpipes strike first.
Wings out of level (X-wind cockup) on takeoff or landing, O attitude, 11.5/12 degrees, the outboard pods fan cowl scrape first.
For a tail-strike, as 411A said. With the small elevators, a tail-strike needed very vigorous mishandling or an aft C.of G and a miss-set stab, but the aircraft was geometry limited.
It is in the original Boeing Intercontinental 320 manual. Ask Boeing for a copy of the page from the Training Manual.
Tailwise, the original 300 (none left flying - are you certain your mean 300, not 320, -300 had P&W JT-4, or RR Conway engines, as far as I know, only the KC-135 was ever re-engined with JT3D-3B or -7) was less of a problem, and on the -120/720 and the -138 very difficult, but not impossible, to drag the a-----.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Loved the B767, theoretically impossible to scrape a pod --- made up for it by being quite easy to scrape the tail.
PS2: Many JT-3 straightpipe -120/720/138 were re-engined, with the original engine converted to JT3-MC6.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you both very much for your replies! I would have initially thought that such a large aircraft with relatively short struts would be a bit more restrictive in both respects. The only Boeing document I have at the moment is a rather generic PDF that covers systems and procedures, but offers relatively little in this context.
Yes LeadSled, I was actually referring to the -320, thank you for catching that. The aircraft in question has the newer-model cowlings, so I assume the roll restriction will be a little bit tighter in this case. I'll see if I can find anything else from Boeing - tracking down original versions of their training literature seems a bit harder since they switched so many of their older materials over to more "standardized" revisions that seem generally lighter on such details.
Come to think of it, I've yet to go through, in my brief career, a type rating program that volunteered these figures without my needing to dig for them. I've always had to pick the brains of the line pilots or go through the aforementioned trigonometrical workings. One would think this information would be presented with a bit more emphasis...
Yes LeadSled, I was actually referring to the -320, thank you for catching that. The aircraft in question has the newer-model cowlings, so I assume the roll restriction will be a little bit tighter in this case. I'll see if I can find anything else from Boeing - tracking down original versions of their training literature seems a bit harder since they switched so many of their older materials over to more "standardized" revisions that seem generally lighter on such details.
Come to think of it, I've yet to go through, in my brief career, a type rating program that volunteered these figures without my needing to dig for them. I've always had to pick the brains of the line pilots or go through the aforementioned trigonometrical workings. One would think this information would be presented with a bit more emphasis...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would think this information would be presented with a bit more emphasis...
In thier ops manual for the airplane was the pitch and roll limitations...14 degrees roll* as I recall (you will get a wing tip before an engine pod) and for pitch, struts compressed, 11.5 degrees, struts extended, 13 degrees.
Handy information to know...
NB.
* The L1011 uses the wing down method for drift correction during autolands...and having personally done so at 35+ knots...it does so very precisely.
Every time.
