Now Let's Talk About Planes/Airlines

Gather App
Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

Enjoyed looking through Kansas Aviation Museum page, thanks for posting the link!

Here is a link to the Museum of Flight here in Seattle, and a picture of the first 747 a BA Concorde, and a few other historical aircraft, including an early Air Force One taken near Boeing Field in Seattle.

http://www.museumofflight.org/about-us
11-13-2008-11-31-38--kenb.jpg
 
Laundress:

I am going to have to be careful not to write too much here here as you've touched on another big hobby of mine (note my e-mail address which indicates my favorite aircraft).

You may be glad to know that a handful of PanAm's B747-121s are still flying around, though perhaps not for much longer. A number of them were converted to freighters after the PA collapse, and about a half-dozen or so went on to serve very long, distinguished careers with UPS as package carriers. They are being replaced right now by new deliveries of 744Fs, but I think one or two are active until after the Christmas rush. They are over 35 years old! Evergreen had a similar number also, and may still have a couple active. Kalitta and Polar had a couple also, and I know of at least one that was recently put into storage at Marana, AZ.

Carrying freight is not the glamorous use as it was to carry pax in the 70s, etc, but neither is carrying pax today what it once was. It's nice to see an early 70s '741 fly into Charlotte on the occasional freight charter. I'm glad that at least someone is using the aircraft.
 
Ken -

Thanks for the cool pic of the Museum of Flight!! What's odd to note is that B727 #2 (it's either #1 or #2) is up there somewhere being restored to flyable status, but is not considered part of the collection which has the prototype 737 and 747 as you pictured, and instead they have a late-build 727-200 which was donated by American.
 
I also have steered clear of DC-10's and have never set foot on one. I always thought the Tri-Star's rear engine looked better secured than on the DC-10's. As we found out in 1979, I believe, it was the wing mounted engines on the DC-10's that were the real problem. Just way too many wrecks or incidents with the DC-10 for me to go anywhere near one.

I used to love to fly in the age of regulation and the C.A.B. You just knew the redundancies of aircraft design and the integrity of every airline employee were things you didn't need to question. These days, I wonder if the thug types slinging baggage into the cargo hold even care about making sure the hatch is securely closed. I hate flying anymore, and am really glad California voters approved high speed rail last week.

I did a lot of flying to Mexico on Hughes AirWest back in the 70's. The fleet of flying bananas, predominantly DC-9's, some of them really old and small. We'd hop our way down, drinking free champagne the whole way, stopping in Phoenix, maybe Tucson, La Paz and Mazatlan before reaching our destination. It was fun back in those days as I was not yet 20 and enjoying all the take-offs. Now I just want to fly non-stop and get the whole thing overwith.

Hughes Airwest also inherited some funky old stock from the various small airlines that combined to form it. Locally we had old Fairchild F-27's with the high wings making short hops. I flew on them a couple of times to Reno and back. The Rolls Royce engines sounded like a power drill flying overhead as they prepared to land. Inside they were seriously loud and not very comfortable, but since they cruised at around 15K feet the flight to Reno afforded some nice close-up (but not too close) views of the high Sierras with no wing blocking things.

The best thing to happen to modern flying for me has been Southwest's move to letting me print up my own boarding pass so it's a little bit less of a cattle-call now.
 
rp2813 - You needn't worry about flying on any DC-10s anymore unless you're on an obscure charter airline, a military KC-10 opp, or a troop transfer from the middle east. Northwest was the last major US operator when they were removed from service about one year ago.

You say that the Tristar's appearance looked better, but nearly every DC-10 built has outflown nearly every L1011, and continues to do so, whereas the VAST majority of Tristars are either scrapped and gone or parked in the desert. Many DC-10s have passed the 100,000 flight hour mark, which is quite a testament to the robustness of McD's design.

The engine loss in Chicago that you mentioned was related to American's engine/pylon removal procedures, NOT the structure of the plane, however pylon re-design was done anyway to prevent maintenance damage in the future. That was 1979 - there hasn't been a similar issue since.

The majority of the 400+ DC-10s built continue to serve, many as freighters, and will for a long time to come.
 
Gordon, that UA 721 is over on the other side of the field next to the Comet. Supposedly under restoration. I certainly hope so-----especially that Comet. When I was last there you could put your fist through the belly it was so corroded.
 
Gordon, thanks for the info on the DC-10's. I think the reason the Tri-Stars were retired early by the airlines is because not enough of them were included in their fleets and, if you use Southwest's philosophy, it made more sense to have fewer types of aircraft and manufacturers contributing to a particular fleet in order to keep maintenance costs down.

I think it was 1980 or 81 when I took my Tri-Star trip from SFO to Chicago. It was on TWA. I don't think too many other airlines ordered them. PSA had a couple but didn't hang onto them for long. What I remember about that TWA plane was that it was one of the last to still have the old TWA paint and logo scheme with the orbs around the lettering. By that time, most TWA planes had received the boring red tail look. The classic logo on the tail just added to the fun of hearing that droning sound it made. Closest I'll ever get to flying on a Constellation, I guess.

Ken, keep those reasons to travel up to your neck of the woods coming!

Ralph
 
The DC-10 turned out to be more popular because it was designed to be "stretched" into other versions from the beginning. OTOH, the L-1011 was designed just as one airframe without consideration to stretch it. In order to accomplish this feat, Lockheed had to redesign the wing which was costly to do. This caused the stretched versions to arrive late to market, hence airlines ordered the DC-10 because they needed aircraft then and now.
The DC-10 sure did have enough teething problems but after about 10 years MD got them fixed. And the MD-11, based on the DC-10 design didn't meet the airlines specifications, but cargo carriers love it. So you see those mainly with FedEx, KLM Cargo, etc.

Little known fact. The area where that AA DC-10 came down in 79' at Chicago O'Hare is now supposed to be haunted. More than just a few people have run into "people" asking how to get to the terminal building only to have them disappear into thin air. Some people who live in the area have said that they have heard moaning in the air.
Also around gate K-11 (where that flight departed from) some people have said they have seen a businessman talking on a pay phone. The he finishes his call and heads into the departure lounge at K-11 and disappears into thin air. For more read my link

I wouldn't hesitate to get on a DC-10, but I would hesitate to get on any airline with a flight number of 191. American, Delta, Comair have all had fatal crashes with that flight number.

http://www.prairieghosts.com/flight.html
 
Steve -

I saw a fairly lenghty report (don't remember from where but it was a PBS-like presentation) recently that talked about United's 721 at the museum. I didn't hear anything about the specific belly corrosion, but I did hear that they were having issues with missing parts that United had removed once the plane was delivered there. To remedy that, they bought a Fedex 727-22C to be used as a parts donor and the two were recently photographed nose to nose, work on-going.

I hope it happens - I have many memories of seeing United's 727s, one after another, at DEN-Stapleton in concourse B - nearly new 727-222As parked next to very early 727-22s, etc. I still get to see a 721 occasionally as Roush racing has three here, two of which are active during race season. They were the three that were flown by MGM Grand Air.

G
 
rp2813 - what you say about the L10s is very much part of the equation for their retirement. There are some other things played into the situation as well. From what I have read (could be true or not) the L10 was not as viable as a freighter as the DC-10. Lockheed's withdrawl from the airliner market in 1983 has something to do with that, and the lower production numbers does as well (250 vs. 430+). Also, the aircraft that Delta and TWA retired were largely time expired, though they had huge fleets, meaning they'd need a full overhaul before they could be flown extensively. Parts aren't as readily available today. Far fewer of the L10s were long-range capable, as a large number were made as domestic models for Eastern, TWA, and Delta. These versions were not as useful for freight, and were payload limited. One of the final reasons is parts shortages on the RB211-22B engines, few of which are around in serviceable condition.

Steve is right though, the L10 was regarded as an well built aircraft that was ahead of it's time in some ways.
 
It's been sometime since I was at the Museum Of Flight Restoration Center in Everett. The last time I was there the Comet was in the shop building having the flight deck overhauled. The UA 727 was sitting outside next to it. The Comet was in Aeronaves De Mexico colors. Have they repainted it to BOAC colors?
 
Ahhhhh, the good old days of flying when it was actually FUN! The Flight Attendants were not only well trained but pleasant and professional and ALWAYS well dressed. I remember as a kid flying Muse Air/TranStar from HOU-LAX many times in the mid-late 80's. I vividly remember spacious blue leather seats, very good food(first time to ever eat quiche) very pretty and friendly flight attendants. Plus, after every flight the flight attendant would stand in the jetway and pass out mints to all the passengers deplaning.

I also remember when I non reved in the 80's having to wear a jacket and tie. Or at least a TIE! That included coach class as well. Now, you can wear jeans and still get on the plane. My how times have changed. I would love it if airlines would stop worrying about selling tickets for dirt cheap prices and then turning around and charging fees for a lousy plastic cup of soda. Maybe if airlines would just include all of the fees in the cost of the ticket they wouldn't be suffering as much for cash and then they could focus on improving their customer service. Anymore, I would rather just drive in the comfort of my own car or take a train. But, that can sometimes take too long. Oh well...enough of my ranting!

Stephen
 
Whirlcool, they must have returned that Comet to its original livery since I last saw it. I am relieved to hear they did not let it rot away. I laughed when I saw it in BOAC livery as they did not operate the 4C series-----but AM did.

Since there is more discussion on the L10's I would point out that there are a number of reasons the L10 did not sell in the numbers the -10's did, not the least of which involved the exclusive agreement with RR to power them. AND when originally offered to the airlines, those engines (fan blades) used a material that no one had any experience with. In the end RR ended up reverting to more traditional materials to construct those blades which added weight.
Then the huge developmental expenses pushed RR into recievership and only a hastily arranged rescue package salvaged the whole damned program for both Lockheed and RR.
If Lockheed had offered another engine as an option it is possible McDac might just have bowed out of the competition. As it is, without the large order from UA McDac could not have proceeded.
Also, the original specifications provided to the manufacturers by Frank Kolk of AA were for a MEDIUM range "air-bus" capable of using the runways and terminals of the day, including LaGuardia---and with trans-continental capability. Those specs were for a "Big Twin", but in the end, lack of service experience with the new generation of high-bypass turbofans and the prospect of using the airliners on overwater routes (EA wanted to use them to Puerto Rico) forced the design team to settle on the three-engined design. (The original specifications were, in fact, exactly what became the Airbus A300 and propelled a brand-new airframe manufacturer into the mix!)

Eventually increases in engine thrust allowed for increases in gross weight and the range increased as well.
But Lockheed never planned on a long-range version (and McDac did as NW insisted on a version capable of intercontental range) from the beginning and in hind-sight that proved to be another serious mistake on the part of Lockheed management.By the time Lockheed responded with a much-compromised design for long-range use, the economics just wouldn't work when compared to the -10's-----unless Lockheed "gave them away" which is what they nearly did just to sell the pitiful few they did----mostly to PA.

The L10 also had a much heavier structure that used a chemical bonding process rather than rivets, and more system redundancy than the -10. Which proved well worth while as far as safety was concerned. The downside was higher operating costs. So after all the years of hauling passengers, the L10's did not lend themselves to freighter conversion as well as the -10's did with advantages in range and operating costs.

It also did not help that there just was not room for TWO different "Air-Bus" designs. So in the end, even though McDac sold more -10 airframes neither one of them made any money on the projects. Lockheed (unfortunately) exited the commercial market altogether. Too bad, as the economic down-turn right around the time these aircraft were introduced proved the 747 design way too large for most of the domestic operators that ordered them (mostly for competitive reasons) and if given the chance many of those carriers might have skipped the 747's altogether and gone right to the (smaller) McDac and Lockheed designs.
 
Gyrafoam:

Great analysis on the DC-10/L10 argument.
When the 747 first came out, almost every airline wanted one. It was a prestige thing. Most domestic airlines had them. Delta, Eastern, National, United, American, Northwest, TWA, Pan Am, etc. But the early models (-100 series) were really big gas hogs. The airlines learned that even in the era of cheap fuel they couldn't turn a profit on shorter domestic routes with them. So Delta, Eastern, National dumped theirs quickly. Just about the only airlines to keep them were airlines that had overseas routes such as Northwest and United.
I remember my very first 747 trip in July of 1970. We had gone to New York and went back to Chicago on a brand new TWA 747 JFK-ORD. I think that plane had been in service for two weeks or so. They even had a special rep onboard to answer any questions you may have about the 747. Big help he was, I asked him what the stall speed was, his response "Sir, this aircraft is brand new, it doesn't stall" I asked him what the final approach speed was and he said "From the outside it looks like it is flying slowly, but it is really flying fast". I think the guy wasn't prepared for my kind of questions. But if you asked him how big the a/c was, or how many people it could hold he knew those answers.
But the trip was amazing, and it left from the Saarinen TWA terminal at JFK which made you feel like you were way off in the future sometime. Anyway we had flown to New York on a AA 707 and came home on a TW 747.
 
Ireland's former flag carrier - Aer Lingus

Sadly, Ireland's Aer Lingus has begun the journey towards throwing away all of the nicer aspects of air travel. They've been cutting costs and generally becoming 'generic cheapo airline' in the last few years.

They're now threatening to outsource something like 1/3 of their staff, including replacing all of their transatlantic crews with US outsourcers who work for less than 1/2 the rate of a unionised Irish Aer Lingus crew. However, the airline's trade unions have served all out strike notice on the company, so its possible that they may have a rethink.

I don't know, but for me part of the charm of flying Aer Lingus on transatlantic routes is the fact that they are an Irish airline. Having Irish-based crews is very much part of that. I mean, if they're US crews, I might as well just fly a US airline. They'll have completely lost their connection with Ireland.

Sadly, I think it's the end of an era for aviation.

11-14-2008-04-53-56--mrx.jpg
 
The old 747 fleet

Aer Lingus' 747 fleet. They have since moved to an entirely airbus fleet.

11-14-2008-05-18-29--mrx.jpg
 
I remember seeing Aer Lingus 747's at Chicago O'Hare in the 70's. You couldn't miss them. They had a huge green shamrock on the tail. From what I have heard lately it sounds like they are trying to become a low cost carrier.
You'd also see Icelandic DC-8's there as well. They were a popular carrier for cheap flights to Europe.

Back when I was at North Central we used to have special services on certain flights. One of these were flights from Minneapolis and Detroit to Denver. They were ski'ers specials.
Each person would get a wine and cheese basket with several different kinds of wine and then they'd pass out special drinks, "The Northern Light" and "The Velvet Lift". These drinks were served in special plastic mugs that the passengers got to keep. Here is the recipe for "The Northern Light"

Heat up enough Apple Juice to fill up the mug 3/4 of the way
Add 2 jiggers Smirnoff Vodka
Combine the two and add a cinammon stick to the mug
Serve

"The Velvet Lift"
Heat up enough Cranberry Juice to fill up the mug 3/4 of the way
Add 2 jiggers Smirnoff Vodka
Combine the two and add a Apple Slice to the mug
Serve

With a standard class cabin and 36" seat pitch these flights were always very festive. Of course we poured off most of the passengers at Stapleton, but everyone was extremely happy!
 
OK, two questions. A friend of mine who was into aeronautics used to refer to the 727 as a "720." I told him Boeing made a plane that was actually given the number 720 and he didn't believe me. I've read that the 720 was a stubby 707. Does anyone know how common the 720 was?

I've only flown on a 747 twice. What I noticed about this plane is that after leaving the ground, it felt like we were chugging our way into the air. Conditions were clear. I also noticed that towards the back of the plane, you could really feel a fishtailing effect while cruising. Is this typical of the 747? These flights were on British Airways back in 1994. My partner and I were accompanying my dad to the 50th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy. The pilot on the way over knew he had a good number of WWII vets on the plane and made an announcement to honor them. It was quite the experience in Normandy and I came out of it with an appreciation I never had felt before when my dad would tell his war stories. I am so glad I went.
 
rp2813
I may be speaking out my butt, but I am not aware of a 720, now they did technically have a 717 which was never used for civilian flight, it was actually the KC135 tanker.

In reference to speaking out my butt. For some reason I typed that there were 204 Beech Starships built, don't know where I got that number it is actually 54, with only 5 still flying. The rest have been decommissioned, and/or donated.

My Dad worked for Boeing for 35 years in both commercial and military. They have a KC135 at the Kansas Aircraft Museum that rolled out of final here in Wichita in 1955. I told my cousin who was with me to look up. When you see the welds on the wing, more than likely my dad was the one that did them.

We lived in Spokane for a short time, my Dad worked on the remodification of the B52. He had his first heart attack while we were there and they transferred us back to ICT.
 
The Boeing 720 was a higher performance variant of the Boening 707. The 707 was designated the 720 when it was modified for short-to-medium routes and for use on shorter runways. Engineers reduced the fuselage length by 9 feet, changed the leading-edge flaps and later installed turbofan engines. So in essence is was a stubbier 707 with higher powered engines, or a hot rod version of the 707. I always wanted to fly the 707, but by the time I got to NW they had all been retired. But I did fly the 727 which has a flight deck very similar to the 707. Actually, the flight deck on the 707, 727, 737 are all very similar to each other. The front of the planes are exactly like each other.

The 727 was a true pilots plane. It wasn't the easiest plane to fly but it handled like a sports car. When you have all the slats/flaps hanging out in the wind they have an extremely high sink rate. You can get them into very tight airfields like Chicago Midway, Monroe, La, etc.

I have noticed when you have heavy crosswinds some aircraft can have a fishtail effect to them. In general aviation, the original V tail Bonanza has this effect and in the commercial aviation field the 747 and the DC-10 can also be affected by this. I think it's due to the large flat sideways profile that these aircraft have.
 
More on the 720

The first designation for the 720 was 707-020 (other 707s were 707-120, 707-320, etc.). The 720 was indeed shorter, but used the same fuselage cross-section but with lighter weight materials in the main structure, the wings, landing gear, etc. It was meant for true domestic short to medium range flights, whereas the earlier 707s were for longer haul domestic (coast to coast) or intercontinental flying.

The 720 was built first without turbofan engines, just like the 707 was. When later versions were fitted with tubrofans, they had the highest power to weight ratio of any Boeing, and may still hold that distinction today, I'm not sure with the 737NGs out there now.

Most observers could not distinguish the difference between a 707 and a 720 - it was easier to tell by tail numbers and airline operators. In the U.S., United, Western, Northwest, Continental and Eastern bought sizeable new fleets, and PanAm bought about 10 second hand. The last major U.S. original operator was Western, who retired theirs in 1980.

720s vanished fairly fast from the late 80s onward. Many were bought by the USAF for engines and spares for the KC-135. Others went to charter and second-tier operators. One of the last operational 720s was just scrapped, very unceremoniously, this past June in Phoenix after serving as an engine testbed (there is a video of it on Youtube). There are a couple others with Pratt & Whitney, and one VIP aircraft is stored (or was) in Malta I believe.
 
Thanks for the 720 info guys. I knew this plane existed because I remember my mom flying back to Chicago in 1967 on United and with my interest in air travel and aircraft I saw that the equipment for her flight was a Boeing 720. It's been the only Boeing civilian aircraft I can remember that didn't end in a 7.
 
Some Aer Lingus Advertising

Here's some classic Aer Lingus 80s advertising. All very 'classy'

 

Similar threads

G
dishomat dreams and ideas
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
3K
maytaga806
M
ea56
First Pie of 2021
Replies
24
Views
551
jamiel
jamiel
thomasortega
Happy, happy, happy and I want to share my happiness with you
Replies
6
Views
276
thomasortega
thomasortega
launderess
Let's Talk About Washing Machine Hoses
Replies
17
Views
1K
DADoES
DADoES
H
AEG T9DE87685 - My review
Replies
3
Views
373
olivia_davis
O

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top