Did AA operate their 720Bs on transcontinental flights? If so, I assume they were fitted with the "AstroVision" entertainment product?

2/66 OAG shows 720B on flight 1 JFK-LAX and flight 9 EWR-LAX.

Yeah..they did and Western flew em from the west coast to Hawaii.
You can add NW IAD-SEA....NS.
source Western & NW scheds and older OAG's.

The B models had a little more range than the basic 720's......a little, mind you.
I can't find a UA 720 coast to coast without a stop or two.
safe

It was not unusual to find 720B's in coast to coast use, especially since AA had such a large 707/720 fleet to draw upon.

UA did do coast to coast with their 720's----although always with a stop at ORD if not more.

NW used to run a dinner flight out of IDL (JFK) to SEA non-stop, then on to PDX. There was also a red-eye non-stop SEA-IDL. All with 720B's. The NW 720B's were also used SEA/PDX-HNL and return. Early on, when the 720B's first came on-line, it was not unusual to see one do SEA-ANC-TYO and back either as there were just not enough -8's and the -320B's couldn't be delivered fast enough as far as NW was concerned.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 2): The B models had a little more range than the basic 720's......a little, mind you..

More than a little. Boeing payload- range charts in their website show the 720B having roughly 20% more range than the 720 (with equivalent payload).

The turbofan JT3D-powered 720B made it the hotrod of Boeing types in those years. The turbojet JT3C-powered 720 like UA's and EA's always seemed underpowered in comparison.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 2): I can't find a UA 720 coast to coast without a stop or two.

August 1963 UA timetable shows one LAX-JFK (then IDL) 720 nonstop (a redeye flight) That's the only coast-to-coast 720 nonstop in that timetable. There's no equivalent westbound flight. Otherwise, the longest UA 720 nonstops then were:

CLE-LAX - 1,783 nm (once daily, both directions)
DTW-LAX - 1,719 nm (once daily, both directions)

Quoting timz (Reply 1): 2/66 OAG shows 720B on flight 1 JFK-LAX and flight 9 EWR-LAX.

I'm sorry, but where do you find this information?

Once you have the OAG, you mean? It says the flights are "B2F", which was their code for 720B. Nobody knows how reliable that info was.

Quoting timz (Reply 6): Once you have the OAG, you mean?

No, I mean what is OAG, and how can I use or get it?

Quoting c5load (Reply 7): No, I mean what is OAG, and how can I use or get it?

O official
A airline
G guide....
It's a book with all airlines scheds, equipment class of service, times and the old ones like I collect have the prices.
Im pretty sure they have a website.
American Express Company publishes a similar book called Flight Guide. Its a little cheaper than the OAG.
safe

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):

Yep....in also in the July 63 book....UA 706
LV LAX 10 30p
AR ILD 6 35a
how bout that!

Quoting timz (Reply 1): 2/66 OAG shows 720B on flight 1 JFK-LAX and flight 9 EWR-LAX.

Interesting....The March 1966 AA sched shows AA flight one as a 707. HOWEVER by now(1966), AA was listing their 707's and 720B's as........707 in their scheds.
Nowhere in this sched could I find a 720B. A few years earlier AA listed both planes.
safe
you know folks, I just found ANOTHER box of old scheds.
I need to unload this stuff....your truly is running of birthdays(thats getting old to KARL737).
LOL...

NW also operated the 720B JFK-SEA nonstop in the 1960s. I think that was NW's only route before deregulation where they had nonstop coast-to-coast traffic rights (apart from JFK-ANC as part of the Transpacific service).

AA would use 720s on their BDL/LAX/BDL routes. They would vary them, actually from one day to the next. As I understand, this route was often very light and they would use the 720Bs. There were times of the year that having a dozen pax was kind of common. I am quite certain that they ran one as late as July of 1970 on the route.

Don't think range would have been an issue, weather permitting of course, for a 720B on transcon. Conair used to fly 720Bs in 179Y config, packed to the gills with 2-week charter guests, on CPH-BJL non-stop, and that's almost 2900NM great circle, with a flight time of around 7 hours if memory serves me right. Was always an intersting sight seeing that one go off - they sure did use all the runway they'd paid for.

On the homebound leg they quite often had to stop for fuel due t/o performance restrictions.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10): NW also operated the 720B JFK-SEA nonstop in the 1960s. I think that was NW's only route before deregulation where they had nonstop coast-to-coast traffic rights (apart from JFK-ANC as part of the Transpacific service).

NW also flew IAD-SEA nonstops before deregulation. This was one of NW's last 707 routes.

EI began jet service with new 720's. First crossing on December 14, 1960 from DUB to IDL via SNN. Despite the tight range limitations, especially west-bound in the winter, the three 720's served them well. I'm sure they were no stanger to Gander.
707's came online in '64 and were much more suited to the trans-atlantic route.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): August 1963 UA timetable shows one LAX-JFK (then IDL) 720 nonstop (a redeye flight)

8/63 Timetable OAG (schedules eff 5 Aug) doesn't show that-- instead it shows an SFO-IDL nonstop redeye 720.

Quoting timz (Reply 15): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): August 1963 UA timetable shows one LAX-JFK (then IDL) 720 nonstop (a redeye flight) 8/63 Timetable OAG (schedules eff 5 Aug) doesn't show that-- instead it shows an SFO-IDL nonstop redeye 720.

That's correct. My reference to LAX-IDL should have read SFO-IDL (flight number UA706).

I was reading over the Braniffpages.com site. In the Chuck Beard years is a commentary about the purchase of the 720. However it does not state what routes BN used them on. I seem to recall reading about BN using them on some of the South American routes, until the merger with PANAGRA. But that either the 707s or 720s were considered underpowed?
JD CRPXE

Quoting c5load (Reply 7): I mean what is OAG, and how can I use or get it?

Starting 1868 or so, the Official Guide of the Railways came out each month, listing nearly all the passenger schedules on the continent. The Official Guide of the Airways came out every month starting in 1929, listing most North American schedules and some international. Travel agents needed them in order to route passengers and sell them the right tickets-- they (the agents) couldn't very well have current timetables for each airline in the world. A fat one will be 5+ cm thick.

No idea how easy it is to find them at airline shows, but eBay has them: 1940s, 1950s appear now and then, 1960s seem to be rarer, 1970s now and then...

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 17): I seem to recall reading about BN using them on some of the South American routes, until the merger with PANAGRA. But that either the 707s or 720s were considered underpowed?

Braniff's standard turbojet 720s would have been unsuitable for most of their South America destinations, many of which were hot or high or both. On the other hand, the turbofan 720B (which BN didn't operate) had excellent hot and high performance and was used for years by Avianca which served several high-elevation airports in Latin America (their BOG home base is 8,361 ft. above sea level).

Pan Am also used their 9 720Bs (acquiired used from LH and AA) for several years on their Latin America and Caribbean routes where the 720B's performance was ideal.

Braniff did operate 4 short-fuselage 707-138Bs from 1969 to 1975 (purchased from Qantas). They would have had significantly better performance than their 720s although not quite as good as the 720B due to the higher structural weight.

My recollection is that American Airlines used the B720B almost interchangably with the 707-123B on domestic routes. In fact, they said 707 Astrojet on their side.

Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 17): either the 707s or 720s were considered underpowed?

Well BN's original 707-220's were not underpowered!

[Edited 2010-09-18 19:10:19]

Quoting timz (Reply 18): No idea how easy it is to find them at airline shows, but eBay has them: 1940s, 1950s appear now and then, 1960s seem to be rarer, 1970s now and then...

At last month's Airliners International convention in EWR, David Keller had lots of old OAGs from the 1950s onward for sale. They weren't cheap (he sold a 1964 OAG for $200), but if you want an old OAG, he would probably be your best source.

Quoting 113312 (Reply 20): My recollection is that American Airlines used the B720B almost interchangably with the 707-123B on domestic routes.

As a sidenote, an AA 720B (N7528A) was their first aircraft to wear their new (and still current) livery in 1968.

I didn't see it mentioned, but Western flew 720Bs on the LAX-MIA route started around 1976.

When did AA retire their 707's?

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 22): (he sold a 1964 OAG for $200), but if you want an old OAG, he would probably be your best source.

Gee, guy...I think I can make enough selling ALL mine for a F class R.T. to Rarotonga PLUS accommodations....., my dream vacation.
Thanks for the tip on what they can bear $$$$ wise.

I met David a couple of years back at a show.
safe

Quoting packcheer (Reply 25): When did AA retire their 707's?

I'm thinking 1980ish.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 27): I'm thinking 1980ish.

Pretty close - September 1981, IIRC.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16): /63 Timetable OAG (schedules eff 5 Aug) doesn't show that-- instead it shows an SFO-IDL nonstop redeye 720.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 16): Quoting timz (Reply 15): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): August 1963 UA timetable shows one LAX-JFK (then IDL) 720 nonstop (a redeye flight) 8/63 Timetable OAG (schedules eff 5 Aug) doesn't show that-- instead it shows an SFO-IDL nonstop redeye 720. That's correct. My reference to LAX-IDL should have read SFO-IDL (flight number UA706).

And it lasted no more than one month. The September 9, 1963 UA timetable shows flight 806 and was operated with a DC-8 Dp SFO at 1030pm and arriving IDL at 650am. I have a feeling the 720 made too many unplanned fuel stops or was load restricted.

I flew on many Braniff 720's, MKC-DAL, DAL-DEN. The DEN flights originated in MIA or other Florida cities. They also B-720's on ORD-DAL, the UA interchange DAL-DEN-PDX-SEA.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 9): Interesting....The March 1966 AA sched shows AA flight one as a 707. HOWEVER by now(1966), AA was listing their 707's and 720B's as........707 in their scheds. Nowhere in this sched could I find a 720B. A few years earlier AA listed both planes. safe you know folks, I just found ANOTHER box of old scheds. I need to unload this stuff....your truly is running of birthdays(thats getting old to KARL737). LOL...

When AA first introduced the B-720 Flagship, they were shown in the schedule, but when they were converted to the B model, they were not distinguished in the schedule, and the aircraft were labeled as 707 Astrojets, never 720 Astrojets, but the OAG did distinguish them My June 15, 1968 OAG does not show AA operating a BDL-LAX nonstop, only UA with a DC-8, shown as a D8F but all of UA's DC-8 were shown as D8F's even though the majority were -20 powered by JT-4's.

By 1968, the 990's were leaving, and more -123B's and 323B/C's had been delivered so it was no longer necessary to operate the 720-023B's on transcons.

I remember flying a United 720 from LAX to SFO in 1972 -- I think this was the last year they operated the type. I flew AA often during the period when they operated both types. There was never any reference to the 720B designation as I remember it -- they considered the type to be a 707 and called it as such -- at least from a marketing perspective.

Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 30): I remember flying a United 720 from LAX to SFO in 1972 -- I think this was the last year they operated the type. I flew AA often during the period when they operated both types. There was never any reference to the 720B designation as I remember it -- they considered the type to be a 707 and called it as such -- at least from a marketing perspective.

American didn't operate both types for very long. I believe they received either 10 or 15 JT-3C powered 720-023's that were converted to JT-3D Fan powered B models in 1961, within a year of delivery. I believe by January 1, 1962, all their conversions were completed.

Very interesting information !

When did AA park their 720s ?

The777Man

Quoting The777Man (Reply 32): When did AA park their 720s

I think 1976ish.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 29): I flew on many Braniff 720's, MKC-DA

That would be Braniff Flight #51 or #37. Somes a 707, sometimes a 720.
Time frame 1966-1967.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 29): AA first introduced the B-720 Flagship, they were shown in the schedule, but when they were converted to the B model, they were not distinguished in the schedule, and the aircraft were labeled as 707 Astrojets, never 720 Astrojets,

I have 1961 and 1962 AA scheds along with OAG/s from that time frame.
I always thought AA received 720B models from Boeing. ...no conversions done by AA on this plane.
The only conversation to fans was the early 707's...then came the name Astrojet.
I'm thinking the original name of the AA 707's before Astrojet was Luxury Jet.....In the 70's, the name was Luxury Liner.

I'll check the Boeing production book when I get home later for AA 720B-720 details.
I have to learn to scan to show you guys this early stuff. I have magazine ads, airline promos along with sched s
you 'kids' in your 20's and 30's will love.

safe

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 34): I have 1961 and 1962 AA scheds along with OAG/s from that time frame. I always thought AA received 720B models from Boeing. ...no conversions done by AA on this plane. The only conversation to fans was the early 707's...then came the name Astrojet. I'm thinking the original name of the AA 707's before Astrojet was Luxury Jet.....In the 70's, the name was Luxury Liner. I'll check the Boeing production book when I get home later for AA 720B-720 details. I have to learn to scan to show you guys this early stuff. I have magazine ads, airline promos along with sched s you 'kids' in your 20's and 30's will love. safe

The original 707-123's and 720-023's were called 707 Jet Flagships, and 720 Jet Flagships. With the introduction of the fan jet, they fan powered jets became known as Astojets. Luxury Jet was used on all narrow body planes after the introduction of the 747 and DC-10 Luxury Liners. At this time, AA put in the new over head bins, replacing the overheard racks,and Boeing style over head flight equipment pods containing the oxygen mask, reading lights, and air vents. They also installed middle seats that folded into to tables when they were not occupied.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 34): I always thought AA received 720B models from Boeing. ...no conversions done by AA on this plane.

Just to clarify-- you're saying AA didn't do the 720-to-720B conversion-- they let Boeing do it instead?

Quoting milesrich (Reply 29): it lasted no more than one month.

No more than a month after that, you mean. As I recall it's in the OAG for 15 May 63.

Quoting timz (Reply 36): Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 34): I always thought AA received 720B models from Boeing. ...no conversions done by AA on this plane. Just to clarify-- you're saying AA didn't do the 720-to-720B conversion-- they let Boeing do it instead?

AA took delivery of 10 720s in 1960 (later converted to 720B) and 15 720Bs in 1961.

Quoting timz (Reply 36): No more than a month after that, you mean. As I recall it's in the OAG for 15 May 63.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37): AA took delivery of 10 720s in 1960 (later converted to 720B) and 15 720Bs in 1961.

Yes...thank you the clarification from both you guys.
Now..here's what I found
The first AA ASTROJETS was put in service MARCH 12 1961. They were two 707's.
One was AA Flight 57..IDL-ORD-MEX ...out of IDL at 8am and arr MEX at 1:25pm
The flight turned at MEX and backtracked as AA52 out of MEX at 3:20pm to ORD and IDL
The other was AA flight 2 out of LAX 8:45am- -arr ILD 4:15....then turn back to LAX as AA flight7
lv IDL 6:45 and arr LAX at 9:10pm
That, gentlemen was the birth of the Astrojet. The schedule designated those flights as "707 ASTROJET".

I alway thought the 720 that AA flew was delivered from Boeing as a B model.
You helped me understand that was not the case.
safe
Source AA schedule Feb5,1961
Milesrich was correct about the name of the AA jets BEFORE Astrojet.....Jet Flagships.....and the Electra was called the Electra Flagship.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 31): American didn't operate both types for very long. I believe they received either 10 or 15 JT-3C powered 720-023's that were converted to JT-3D Fan powered B models in 1961, within a year of delivery. I believe by January 1, 1962, all their conversions were completed.

Yes -- what I meant by both types was 707 and 720B, not 720 and 720B. The 720B was operated by AA until about 1974 when the last ones were sold off. The HF aerials from much of the 707-123B fleet were transferred onto the 720B fleet to make them more attractive to second-hand customers overseas. If you look at later photos of the 707-123Bs on A.net (post 1974) you will see that many are missing the HF aerial on the vertical stab. The TWA 707-131Bs never had this HF aerial.

The original 720s did not fly long before they were converted to Bs, which was done only by AA and no other carrier who originally ordered the JT3C powered 720. Like you said it was about 1962 the conversions took place.

I flew from SFO/JFK on a TWA 720, way back in the late 60's or early 70's

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 33): I think 1976ish

I did a bit of investigating.

N7529A was sold 05/07/76
N7545A was sold 05/23/76
N7530A was sold 05/09/77
N7526A was sold 07/12/78

Some of these aircraft were taken out of service a number of years before being sold. Some were leased and returned.

In my investigation I discovered that at least a few of AA's 720B's had been sold off to PA as early as 1964!

Quoting toptravel (Reply 40): I flew from SFO/JFK on a TWA 720, way back in the late 60's or early 70's

Nope......the TW 720B's were in service from summer of 1961 to Sept and Oct of 1962. They went back to Boeing, then over to Northwest UNTIL 1968.
TW leased them from Boeing.
safe   

[Edited 2010-09-21 05:34:07]

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 42): Quoting toptravel (Reply 40): I flew from SFO/JFK on a TWA 720, way back in the late 60's or early 70's Nope......the TW 720B's were in service from summer of 1961 to Sept and Oct of 1962. They went back to Boeing, then over to Northwest UNTIL 1968. TW leased them from Boeing. safe [Edited 2010-09-21 05:34:07]

As I remember, there were only four of them leased to TWA before they received their 707-131B's. Northwest must have agreed to the lease because they were delivered to TWA as 720-051B's, not 720-031's so they were ordered and build for NW, not TWA. Remember in the 1960-61 era when these planes were built, TWA was in a financial morass. Hughes ordered the jet airplanes through Toolco and then leased them to TWA and Hughes couldn't get financing for any more airplanes.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4): August 1963 UA timetable shows one LAX-JFK (then IDL) 720 nonstop (a redeye flight) That's the only coast-to-coast 720 nonstop in that timetable. There's no equivalent westbound flight.

Interesting...perhaps an indication that eastbound transcon non-stop was "pushing the envelope" of the turbojet- (non-fan) powered 720's range... whereas westbound non-stop was beyond its range capability?

As for the turbofan-powered 720B, there was a brief time in which it had the longest range of any airliner then in service.

Quoting packcheer (Reply 25): When did AA retire their 707's?

With their September 9, 1981 timetable: http://airtimes.com/cgat/usa/american/aa810909.jpg

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 2): Yeah..they did and Western flew em from the west coast to Hawaii.

Western also used their 720Bs between LAX and MIA for a time, non-stop both ways, on off-peak day(s) of the week.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 43): they were ordered and build for NW, not TWA. Remember in the 1960-61 era when these planes were built, TWA was in a financial morass.

Correct. NW's finances were very tight too, during this time period so the lease worked out well for everybody. NW had just had TWO disasterous and highly publicized L-188 accidents and the -8's were not quite as long-legged (trans-Pacific) as had been promised AND four of them was not enough. Everybody wanted jets! Boeing didn't want the -7C's on trade and you couldn't get anything for them, so Nyrop ordered cargo conversions on them. In the meantime NW bidded it's time waiting for the tourist market to improve so it could take delivery on a new fleet of 707's. As luck would have it NA was shopping for -8's and NW was able to un-load them profitably.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 44): As for the turbofan-powered 720B, there was a brief time in which it had the longest range of any airliner then in service.

I would question that. The first 720B wasn't delivered until February 1961. By then, Boeing had delivered 60 707-320s and 24 -420s,and Douglas had delivered 50 DC-8-30s and 13 DC-8-40s. Boeing payload-range charts show all 4 of those models with at least several hundred miles longer range than the 720B with typical passenger payload.

The L-1649A and DC-7C were also still in service then and had significantly longer range than the 720B, as did the Tu-114 turboprop.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 46): The L-1649A and DC-7C were also still in service then and had significantly longer range than the 720B, as did the Tu-114 turboprop.

If it had a prop, the 7C was the champ in this category. Its speed wasn't so slow either.
safe

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 47): the 7C was the champ

Now Safe, I'm not trying to be dissagreeable, however the max. fuel range for a -7C is 5640.
The max fuel range for a 1649 is6180.
As stated the -7C was a bit faster though.

I believe TWA still holds the record for longest scheduled block to block - 23 hours 19 minutes, London to San Francisco using the L-1649. Started in 1957, IIRC. Russ Farris

[Edited 2010-09-21 20:38:31]

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 49): I believe TWA still holds the record for longest scheduled block to block - 23 hours 19 minutes, London to San Francisco using the L-1649. Started in 1957

It is interesting to note (in the book Boeing 707 & 720, by George W. Cerarley, Jr.) that the first route for Pan Am's "Intercontinental" turbojet-powered 707-321 (08/27/1959) was LAX-SFO-LHR...which presumably required a tech stop more often than not...as implied by the notation in the same book that "Pan American's [turbofan-engined] 707-321Bs made possible nonstop California-London...flights."

The date 1957 for TWA's first SFO/LAX-LHR/ORY L-1649A "Polar Route" flights is no doubt correct inasmuch as their first "Starliners" began arriving in May 1957; Pan Am launched their competing LAX/SFO/SEA-LHR/ORY service in September 1957...not sure which -- if either -- airline was first with the service... either way, it was SAS who were "First Over the Pole," on the CPH-LAX route, via SFJ and YWG tech stops.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 48): the max. fuel range for a -7C is 5640. The max fuel range for a 1649 is6180.

As these numbers relate to the Pan Am vs. TWA competition on the "Polar Route" ...indeed TWA's L-1649As were apparently able to operate LAX/SFO-LHR/ORY nonstop more often than Pan Am's DC-7Cs...especially westbound... LAX/SFO-LHR/ORY was slightly beyond the 'realistic' range of the '7C in 'everyday' service (~4800 mi. according to my source) whereas Pan Am's SEA-LHR route was just 'within the envelope' for the '7C's range with typical payload, assuming a favorable jetstream aloft.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 48):

Is that a fact? And here all this time(since the late 50's) I thought the 7C could outdistance the big connie.
Well, sonofagun...ya learn something new each day, even at my age!!
thx for the education.
safe   

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 42): the TW 720B's were in service from summer of 1961 to Sept and Oct of 1962.

While in service with TWA, the (4) 720Bs leased from Boeing were used on at least one non-stop transcon route (in their August 29, 1962 timetable)... the routing was SFO-LAX-BOS... the westbound transcon 720B from BOS was more of a "milk run," routed BOS-BWI-STL-MKC-LAX.

According to the above-mentioned timetable, the primary niche for TWA's 720Bs was BOS/IDL-STL/MKC and STL/MKC-LAX. TWA's first 720B service was August 18, 1961 on the IDL-MKC route.

There were four 720B at TW. Tango-Bravo...when I get home tonight, Ill shoot you a private about a TWA sched misprint about the same time period you mentioned
Its confusing.
safe

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 45): Correct. NW's finances were very tight too, during this time period so the lease worked out well for everybody. NW had just had TWO disastrous and highly publicized L-188 accidents and the -8's were not quite as long-legged (trans-Pacific) as had been promised AND four of them was not enough. Everybody wanted jets! Boeing didn't want the -7C's on trade and you couldn't get anything for them, so Nyrop ordered cargo conversions on them. In the meantime NW bided it's time waiting for the tourist market to improve so it could take delivery on a new fleet of 707's. As luck would have it NA was shopping for -8's and NW was able to unload them profitably.

Nyrop was too late on trying to trade the 7C's for jets. AA traded in 25 of their original 7's for 707's, and United traded in quite a few of their 7's on DC-8's, but by 1961, the market was flooded. I remember when Eastern tried to unload their DC-7B's, when they were only 7-10 years old, and they were worth only about $100K a piece. I specifically remember when Arthur Allyn, the owner of the Chicago White Sox, bought one through is Artnell subsidiary in about 1965. Eastern had a fleet of 50 airplanes or so, just like AA and UA did, but unlike UA and AA, did not have 6's and 6B's to operate, just the Super Connies, and the 20 Convairs delivered in 1957 to replace the Colonial DC-3's and 4's, as their L-749 Connies were dumped in 1961.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 41): I did a bit of investigating. N7529A was sold 05/07/76 N7545A was sold 05/23/76 N7530A was sold 05/09/77 N7526A was sold 07/12/78

Many of the 720-023B's were first leased, and then sold to Middle Eastern carriers, and a number of them were destroyed at Beirut by the IDF, once in retaliation for shooting down or bombing an Israeli 707 or 720. Some of the 720B's were actually leased as replacements for the ex AA 990's which had been leased to the same carriers. I believe AA did this because of the greater maintenance needed to keep the 720's airworthy vs the 707's, as their large fleet of 707's was mostly used on medium range flights after the delivery of a fair amount of DC-10's.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 47): If it had a prop, the 7C was the champ in this category. Its speed wasn't so slow either. safe

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 48): Now Safe, I'm not trying to be dissagreeable, however the max. fuel range for a -7C is 5640. The max fuel range for a 1649 is6180. As stated the -7C was a bit faster though.

Neither airplane was all that fast on these long range flights. While DC-7's were flown at their 365 MPH crusing speed on coast to coast domestic flights, they were slowed down quite a bit on the long range flights, in "deference" to their "pesky" CW-3350 TC engines that often were feathered. Flying from IDL to LAX, they could land in PIT, CLE, TOL, DTW/YIP, MDW, MLI, CID, STL, DSM, OMA, MKC, DEN, LAS, PHX, etc. In other words, there was an airport capable of taking in the big Dougs every 50-100 miles across the country, not so between Gander and Shannon.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 56): Neither airplane was all that fast on these long range flights.

In terms of piston airliners with range, they were the fastest. The 7C out distanced the DC7 and 7B models.
Also,different power ment a faster plane....which the 7C was............bigger too.
I did not know the L1649 had the greatest range of piston airliners. Imperial Eagle helped me out there.
And I'm the guy who watch the connies come and go from MKC in the late 50's! DUUUHHH.
safe

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 50): either way, it was SAS who were "First Over the Pole," on the CPH-LAX route, via SFJ and YWG tech stops.

And Canadian Pacific was second on YVR-AMS in 1955, a year after SAS. CP also made a fuel stop initially, usually at SFJ, until DC-8s arrived in 1961 and replaced the DC-6Bs used for the first few years, and then Bristol Britannias around 1958. The Britannia could occasionally do it nonstop if winds were favorable.

http://propspistonsandoldairliners.b...ckheed-l-1649-vs-douglas-dc-7.html

Safe, I suggest you read this 55 year old article about the cruising speed of the DC-7C. Just as I stated, in order to get the range over 4000 miles, the speed had to be greatly reduced. Granted the article was written before the airplane was introduced, but the figures are from Douglas. The 7C in order to achieve the 4000+ range with a decent payload had to fly at 10,000 feet and run at only 253 MPH block speed. The L-1649 was almost 50 MPH faster and that is what led Howard Hughes to order the 25 he did and spend so much money because he thought he was going to blow Pan Am out of the water marketing wise, and what happened instead is he got the old proverbial back seat when the jets came and he didnt have enough of them and had to use the Connies on some routes. The DC-7 and 7B could fly make some time on domestic routes but where long distance over ocean legs required fuel reserves etc., the airplane didn't fly all that fast. If the airplane could long range cruise at 365 mph, it could have made the flight from IDL to LHR with no tail wind in about 9 hours. The scheduled time in 1958 LAX to LHR was 19:20 minutes. The distance is 5456. In those days, they didn't pack an hour into the schedule for traffic. The cruising speed is less than 300 MPH. The return was scheduled at 21:25. On the other hand, the distance from IDL to SFO is 2586 and that flight was scheduled with a DC-7 at 9:15 Westbound and 7:35 Eastbound.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 54): Nyrop was too late on trying to trade the 7C's for jets

Yes, but they were needed untill the long-range version of the 8's was available to be delivered to them, and then Douglas didn't want them back anyway. They didn't even want to build 'em in the first place.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 54): did not have 6's and 6B's

Well, save for the leasing arrangements for the 2 -6B's from PA in '55 and 7 -6B's leased until '62 from TA.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 59): The L-1649 was almost 50 MPH faster

Yes, well, that's what the sales team from Lockheed promised, but it did not turn out to be fact.
The Connie had more drag to deal with than the -7C and in ops it was the -7C that turned out to be a few knots faster at LONG-RANGE cruise.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 56): "pesky" CW-3350 TC engines that often were feathered

And, irregardless of how much fuel was in the tanks, it was often the OIL that dictated how far to go to the next stop.
The biggest tank you could get on a -7C was 226 gallons. If you were having to fly at a higher power setting (which was not something you would want to do with the 3350's) you would be burning the oil at a higher rate.

The engines were tweaked and modified constantly as the folks at C-W kept trying to squeeze more horses out of 'em, mostly to appease the folks on the trans-con "raceway" (AA,TW, and UA). Eventually even these guys got sick of the pile of 3350's to repair.
In any event, everybody had to learn to de-rate the 3350's early-on in the game------so all the bravado about how fast the aircraft could go quietly dissapeared as everybody went down the learning-curve.
UA had warned everybody that the engines would be prone to cylinder failure when run at high-power settings and it proved to be true.
PA finally tought everybody how far to de-rate them because they were concerned with trans-oceanic range to begin with.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 60): Quoting milesrich (Reply 54): Nyrop was too late on trying to trade the 7C's for jets Yes, but they were needed untill the long-range version of the 8's was available to be delivered to them, and then Douglas didn't want them back anyway. They didn't even want to build 'em in the first place.

In Northwest's 1960-61 timetables, all DC-8 flights between SEA and Tokyo were routed via ANC, in both directions, whereas all non-stop flights, also in both directions, listed DC-7C as the equipment. (At the time, SEA and ANC were NW's only U.S. gateways to Tokyo and East Asia).

So... Did NW's DC-8-32 "Intercontinentals" lack the range to fly SEA-Tokyo non-stop in one or both directions? ...and... were NW's DC-7C SEA-Tokyo flights actually operated non-stop (conditions aloft permitting) or was there a 'tech/refuelling only' stop not shown in the flight schedule?

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 41): Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 33): I think 1976ish I did a bit of investigating. N7529A was sold 05/07/76 N7545A was sold 05/23/76 N7530A was sold 05/09/77 N7526A was sold 07/12/78 Some of these aircraft were taken out of service a number of years before being sold. Some were leased and returned. In my investigation I discovered that at least a few of AA's 720B's had been sold off to PA as early as 1964!

American's 1970 annual report says that they had 19 720s in service as of Dec 31, 1970. Their 1972 annual report shows none in service, but eight "for sale or on lease". In 1972, AA also had 26 BAC One-Eleven 400s, and four ex-Trans Caribbean DC-8s, "for sale or on lease".

So, it appears AA removed their 720s from service in 1971 or 1972, as AA took delivery of DC-10s.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 61): In Northwest's 1960-61 timetables, all DC-8 flights between SEA and Tokyo were routed via ANC, in both directions, whereas all non-stop flights, also in both directions, listed DC-7C as the equipment. (At the time, SEA and ANC were NW's only U.S. gateways to Tokyo and East Asia). So... Did NW's DC-8-32 "Intercontinentals" lack the range to fly SEA-Tokyo non-stop in one or both directions? ...and... were NW's DC-7C SEA-Tokyo flights actually operated non-stop (conditions aloft permitting) or was there a 'tech/refuelling only' stop not shown in the flight schedule?

In 1963, there were no nonstop flights between Seattle and Tokyo, all flights were via Anchorage. Did the 707-320B have the legs for that flight on a regular basis without making a technical stop? When did Pan Am begin their SFO-TYO nonstop? I know they operated the 747-121 nonstop in the early 70's, but that was a stretch even for that airplane.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 61): So... Did NW's DC-8-32 "Intercontinentals" lack the range to fly SEA-Tokyo non-stop in one or both directions? ...and... were NW's DC-7C SEA-Tokyo flights actually operated non-stop (conditions aloft permitting) or was there a 'tech/refuelling only' stop not shown in the flight schedule?

Douglas could not meet the range guarantees with the 8's. They ended up with a lot of unexpexted drag when the a/c was ops in a max range mode. Well NW needed the max range because of the trans-pac routings. Douglas worked out a mod. They extended the wing, put on new wing tips and and then changed the leading edge of the wing. All this was well and good but really too late for NW's original ops. as the first mods didn't get moving until late in '59 and PA was screaming to get theirs done first. NW took delivery of their five -8's in the last half of 1960/early '61.

NW kept a base at SYA all during the post war years. It was a collection of rocks with a runway, weather station,maintenance area, some huts to live in and a company store. It became a welcome stop for many a -377 or -4 or a 1049G.The -7C's were regular customers there for fuel, oil and engine replacements. In any event, even that wasn't close enough sometimes. NW did not have very good luck in the early 1960's. After the two disasterous L-188 crashes, in '63 they lost the 720B over the everglades and just on the heels of that disaster they ditched a -7C on Military Contract near ANN with the loss of all 101 on board. And people used to wonder why Nyrop was so suspicious of everything. (After all the initial "bugs" of which NW endured plenty, and door/floor/cable issues on the -10s Nyrop never trusted them over-water and it wasn't until he retired that NW began to use them that way.)

Quoting milesrich (Reply 63): Did the 707-320B have the legs for that flight on a regular basis without making a technical stop? When did Pan Am begin their SFO

Yes, the 320's could go non-stop on a regular basis and kept the trees at the ends of the runways at SEA clear of leaves for years. When maxed-out the 707's could be real lead-sleds------and they had the range.

Miles....your post 59....
If that's true, why did the 7C outsell the L1649 connie by a substantial margin?
If the 7C was the dog you tell is it is, why the success OVER the big connie?
The L1649 appealed to only a handful of carriers...Lufthansa, TWA and perhaps Qantas comes to mind.
Many more airlines than that bought the 7C
The jets were coming doesn't count as an answer. That's understood from 1957 or later..

You mentioned again, the DC7. That plane is NOT the subject and whole different thread of info for the readers.

ALSO....when I worked at the MCI TWA maintenance base, I can tell the A-Net people and you this...
The mechanics hated the L1649. It trickled down that the brass hated it too. It cost TWA alot of $$$ to keep it flying
compared to the also large 1049 and 1049G.The company touted the"Jetstream" so much they were stuck with it and could't wait for the jets to show up which they did in the spring of 1959 for Trans World.
The fave with TW was the 749A. It worked(less maintenance) quite well compared to all the other piston birds TW had in service in the mid 60's..

source...TW mechanics and other TW employees at MKC,MCI, IND and JFK(TW folks I talked to face to face in my
travels).
safe

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 44): Western also used their 720Bs between LAX and MIA for a time, non-stop both ways, on off-peak day(s) of the week

They were also heavily used on the SLC and LAX to MSP routes as well..

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 65): If that's true, why did the 7C outsell the L1649 connie by a substantial margin?

The fact that the DC-7C went into service a year before the L-1649A was no doubt a big factor. The 1649A was just too late considering the imminent arrival of jets. The DC-7C had already been in service for about 6 months before the L-1649A even made its first flight.

Many original DC-7C customers were also strong Douglas customers (Pan Am, SAS, Swissair, KLM, Northwest, Alitalia, JAL, Sabena) and were already operating sizable fleets of DC-6s or DC-6Bs so there would be commonality benefits rather than switching to a completely new type that they knew would only be in frontline service for a very short period.

While Northwest had operated a very small fleet of 4 L-1049Gs, I seem to recall reading that they weren't happy with them. They were sold after only 3 or 4 years with NW. And while KLM had operated the L-749 and L-1049G, they were traditionally a stronger Douglas customer.

The 4 original L-1649A opeators (TWA, Lufthansa, Air France) were all using the L-1049 on longhaul routes and had never operated the DC-6/6B. The second Italian carrlier, LAI, had ordered 4 L-1649As but they merged with Alitalia which had ordered DC-7C and LAI's 1649As were delivered to TWA. Varig also ordered 2 L-1649As but switched the orders to L-1049Gs for standardization.

The DC-7Cs constant-width fuselage section also had some advantages over the L-1649A's complex fuselage profile (like all other Connies). The DC-7C could accommodate 5-abreast seating throughout the cabin while the rear cabin of the L-1049/1649 was too narrow due to the tapering fuselage. The last row of the 1649A couldn't even take 4-abreast first class seats. That row usually had a 2-1 layout.

Wouldn't be surprised if the huge 150 ft. wingspan of the totally new 1649A wing (23 ft. greater span than the DC-7C which was itself 10 ft. more than the DC-4 and DC-6) may also have been an issue with some potential customers. Hangars weren't as big in those days.

Viscount724[/quote]

Thank you for that info. I may be runnin out of birthdays, but I still seek knowledge, especially in "my" era,
the 50's and 60's.
Thanks again!
safe

Quoting milesrich (Reply 59): The 7C in order to achieve the 4000+ range with a decent payload had to fly at 10,000 feet and run at only 253 MPH block speed.

I recently re-read an interesting 1999 autobiography written by a retired BA captain, one of their few pilots who flew the original ill-fated Comet 1 and later became one of BA's original Concorde captains for several years until he retired in 1980. He has a chapter on all the types he flew, including about 20 pages on the DC-7C which he flew for about 4 years before moving to the Comet 4, 707. and finally Concorde (he missed the VC-10 and 747). BOAC bought 10 DC-7Cs due to late deliveries of their Britannias. He was promoted to captain in 1959 while flying the DC-7C which was only used on their transatlantic routes and between New York and the Caribbean/Bermuda.

Two brief excerpts on his DC-7C experiences:

The nonstop flights from London to New York were usually made at about 8,000 to 10,000 feet. This kept us out of the stronger upper winds but reduced the true airspeed, causing some very long crossing times. Thirteen hours was average but fourteen hours or more could be experienced.

The "Seven Seas" was not free from engine problems. The cylinders had cast iron scraper rings that wore, causing high oil consumption. This required carriage of a central auxiliary oil tank (26 U.S. gallons) from which individual engine oil supplies could be replenished. The shut-down rate per 1,000 hours flown was very high. My personal experience during my time on the type included twelve three-engine landings, for a variety of causes.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 67): The 4 original L-1649A opeators (TWA, Lufthansa, Air France)

Too late to edit. That should read "3 original L-1649A operators".

[Edited 2010-09-23 17:28:36]

[Edited 2010-09-23 17:32:43]

[Edited 2010-09-23 17:34:24]

Quoting milesrich (Reply 63): When did Pan Am begin their SFO-TYO nonstop?

Yeah, the westward nonstop probably didn't start until they got -321Bs; in 3/61 they had a weekly nonstop eastward only. (When PA started flying 707s out of TYO the longest runway was 8400 ft, so they weren't any cinch even to do TYO-HNL nonstop. They must have extended it soon after that.)

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 64): Yes, the 320's could go non-stop on a regular basis and kept the trees at the ends of the runways at SEA clear of leaves for years. When maxed-out the 707's could be real lead-sleds------and they had the range.

In the late '60's, my family and I watched the evening departing NW flight (SEA -> TYO) many times from the SEA terminal dining room. A cheap Saturday evening out was a trip to SEA and dining; if we waited to be seated we could be seated next to the windows overlooking the ramp. IIRC, NW was to our right and we could see them loading upper deck cargo - located on the left hand side of First Class - and other work leading up to departure. Then the -351C would be pushed back and taxi to the north end. In a little while we would hear the south bound aircraft and watch as it went by still hugging the runway with the nose oleo stretched out. You could see the relative wing twist of the wing tip in relation to the fuselage. Lift-off was way down the runway with an immediate flat turn to the west and around to the north. All of the time the aircraft was in sight from our vantage point. At the time it was really exciting to watch... and pretty inexpensive entertainment.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 65): Miles....your post 59.... If that's true, why did the 7C outsell the L1649 connie by a substantial margin? If the 7C was the dog you tell is it is, why the success OVER the big connie? The L1649 appealed to only a handful of carriers...Lufthansa, TWA and perhaps Qantas comes to mind. Many more airlines than that bought the 7C The jets were coming doesn't count as an answer. That's understood from 1957 or later.. You mentioned again, the DC7. That plane is NOT the subject and whole different thread of info for the readers. ALSO....when I worked at the MCI TWA maintenance base, I can tell the A-Net people and you this... The mechanics hated the L1649. It trickled down that the brass hated it too. It cost TWA alot of $$$ to keep it flying compared to the also large 1049 and 1049G.The company touted the"Jetstream" so much they were stuck with it and could't wait for the jets to show up which they did in the spring of 1959 for Trans World. The fave with TW was the 749A. It worked(less maintenance) quite well compared to all the other piston birds TW had in service in the mid 60's.. source...TW mechanics and other TW employees at MKC,MCI, IND and JFK(TW folks I talked to face to face in my travels). safe

The 7C was out a year before the 1649. Airlines that operated Douglas airplanes were not interested in buying a more complicated airplane from Lockheed. All Turbo Compound CW3350 aircraft had problems with the engines. The non TC 3350 was not as reliable as the PW 2800 either, which is why so many more DC-6's were sold than Connies, even though the Connie came out first. TWA may have liked the 749's but most airlines got rid of them long before TWA and PNA/Western did, while Douglas customers kept their Sixes longer. Eastern, for example, got rid of the 749's in 1961. To say, the Jets coming in two years was not relevant is ridiculous, but in those days, it was thought that having an advantage for even a year was worth the investment in new aircraft. I|ATA controlled the fares intenationally, and the CAB in the USA.

Only 121 7Cs were built. Pan Am was by the far the largest customer. It is well known that two to three years after the aircraft was introduced, it was obsolete.

But not having anything else to compete forced airlines like BOAC to buy them, when the Britannia deliveries were delayed. BOAC felt it could not afford to not be able to offer nonstop westbound flights trans Atlantic in competition with Pan Am. Remember, BOAC used Strats for their trans Atlantic flights prior to the 7C.

Why did TWA buy 1649's, because they felt their Super G's were not competitive with Pan Am and other carriers 7Cs, but every agrees it was a mistake. Also, while Jets were on order, no one was sure they would be successful.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 72): so many more DC-6's were sold than Connies

And another big part of the story was the Douglas product was a slightly more modern design (after all, the Connie was really late 1930's technology) and the Douglas product had a constant-diameter cross section to the fuselage. Then there was another issue.
In those days when you sat down with the folks at Douglas they were the "can do" manufacturer.
Lockheed,on the other hand, would sit there and argue all they "could not" or "would not" do for you and that turned a lot of people off. Lockheed never did lose that stigma all during the Constellation sales era. It was irritating as hell.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 72): Why did TWA buy 1649's

Not the least of which was the quirkyness of Howard Hughes, and his idea that he could somehow control the jet aircraft market.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 72): no one was sure they would be successful

Well, I think a lot of people knew they would be "successful"------it was how "dependable" they would be that caused a lot of foot dragging. Considering the huge amounts of money involved everyone was overly cautious, and there was also a matter of public acceptance. It did not help that the highly-publicized Comet issues were still fresh in the minds of the traveling public -----and the GO's of the world's airlines as well.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 73): It did not help that the highly-publicized Comet issues were still fresh in the minds of the traveling public -----and the GO's of the world's airlines as well.

Which is exactly my point, it was a "brave new world" in the airline business. In 1955, the Comet disaster was just year ago, and while the Dash-80 Prototype had flown, there was still a lot of uncertainty. Additionally, the thought was that Jets would be limited to long distance routes and that propeller driven airplanes would still handle the short and medium hall stuff. Few airports had runways long enough to handle the Jets. When Pan Am ordered 25 DC-8's and 20 707's, it was considered a gamble.

Douglas was the king of the industry and had full production lines booked through most of 1958. American had not as yet committd to the 707, United had just ordered the DC-8.

Had the airlines known that the public, within ten years, would demand jet service on all but the shortest flights, American would never have ordered the L-188 Electra.

But this thread is getting way off track.

It started on whether 720B's did nonstop transcons, then whether they did transatlantic and Hawaiian services, and then what they replaced.

The success of the Constellation, especially the Super, was mainly due to the large orders from the USAF and USN for the C-121 varients.

But I disagree when you claim that the Connie was an older design. The really unrelated DC-4E flew in 1938, but the revised and redesigned C-54 first flew in 1942 and was in service a year before "old 1961" first took off. The DC-6 was a pressurised C-54 with square windows and a slightly modified tail assembly, but the fuselage and wings were identical, the Six just being stretched a bit. The DC-6B was a slightly stretched DC-6. The DC-7 and DC-7B were a DC-6B with a slight stretch, and different engines, but the airframe was the same. All those airplanes had the same wings.

Only the DC-7C had a modified wing and enlarged tail assembly. When the 7C was developed, it was thought that it would be eventually powered by Turboprops, but problems developing the powerplants forced Douglas to stick to the CW 3350 Turbo Compounds that has been installed in the earlier model DC-7 and 7B, and in the Super C-H Constellations. Had the turboprop been available, more aircraft would have been sold, and the aircraft would have had a much longer passenger carrying service life. Remember that Lockheed did install a couple of different turboprops on the C-121's for testing including the Allisons used for the C-130, P-3, and L-188, as well as PW engines that must have proven unsuccessful.

The long and short of it is that only 121 or 122 7C's were built, and only 216 DC-7 and DC-7B's. Of the 216, 164 went to UA, AA, and EA. Delta took 20, and Pan Am/Panagra 12. The 24 went to a few other carriers in small quanties. One of Rickenbacker's biggest errors was ordering so many DC-7B's. But again, in the 1950's mindset, an airplane that could save 20 minutes between NYC and MIA was a must have for competitive reasons. By 1960, it was very difficult to sell used DC-7s as AA, UA and EA discovered, and the first flight of the 727 was almost three years away.

Today, we know that 747's are quite a bit faster than any other transoceanic airplanes and not one carrier to my knowledge advertises their faster trips with them. If speed were important, airlines would never have operated 737-300 and 400's on long flights. Again, it's a different industry.

But the DC-7 series was not a financial success. It was an interim airplane that cost the airlines big bucks to fly and maintain. Passengers enjoyed the ability to fly nonstop coast to

MILES....you forgot something about the C-54 and DC4...they did not have reversible props and the six did.
I know Capitals did not nor did TW's.
safe

Quoting milesrich (Reply 74): But I disagree when you claim that the Connie was an older design

O.k. you are entitled to disagree. Another point of our disagreement would be the C-54/DC-4. This airplane was not intended to be a competitor to the Connie. The DC-6 was intended to be a competitor to the Connie and the -6 was fourties technology for the most part. And if Douglas made a success of stretching airplanes, Boeing took a lesson right out of Douglas' playbook and ran with it.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 74): The DC-6 was a pressurised C-54 with square windows and a slightly modified tail assembly, but the fuselage and wings were identical,

Yeah, well there was more to it than that.
Many updated systems on the -6. One important step was hot-air ducted de-ice. Gone were the old boots.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 66): MSP routes as well

MSP was a great place to find 720's, 720B's and 707's. Not at all like ATL which was a bastion of -8's. If not for NW ATL would hardly ever have seen a big Boeing, back in the day. At least EA and UA brought in some 720's.

Quoting isitsafenow (Reply 75): MILES....you forgot something about the C-54 and DC4...they did not have reversible props and the six did. I know Capitals did not nor did TW's. safe

I am aware of that, but that is because they had completely different power plants. DC-4's did not have reversible props, but that had to do with landing requirements. My point was that the DC-7B was nothing more than a "plugged" DC-4 with CW 3350's, cabin pressurization, and a DC-6 Tail and windows. They had the same fuselage sturcture and wings.