Now Let's Talk About Planes/Airlines
- Thread starter launderess
- Start date
Help Support :
Gordon, it was the Comet that was so corroded. Strange to see a 4C painted in the old BOAC livery.
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.
Steve is right though, the L10 was regarded as an well built aircraft that was ahead of it's time in some ways.
whirlcool
Well-known member
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?
museairboy
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 10
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
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
Everything You Wanted To Know About DC-10's
This should keep you all busy for awhile.
Mama has to ring up Fedex and see what flight the above threaded pilot will be working! *LOL*
This should keep you all busy for awhile.
Mama has to ring up Fedex and see what flight the above threaded pilot will be working! *LOL*
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.
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.
whirlcool
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
whirlcool
Well-known member
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!
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.
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.
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
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.
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.
whirlcool
Well-known member
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.
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.
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.
