Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?  
User currently offlineEWRlovr From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 21 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

hey guys,

I was just wondering if 707s and dc-8s were considered heavies back when they first came out, especially since they were the biggest planes compared to dc-7's and connies. thaks for your answers!!!  Smile

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMFEFlyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 367 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

I think they were heavies, because like you said they were the larger planes from the late 50's and 60's and so on.


Valley Approach.....
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

I'm guessing that the issues the 'heavy' designation was meant to help prevent were not as well known back then and thus no such designation was used. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

Hi!

SATX is correct if you're talking about turbulence issues that only came after the accident of the DL DC-9 with the AA DC-10. I don't even think that when they started to be in the comercial circuit if they even had that designation. I do think that because they were jets the ATC would make special mention to that due to traffic regulation ( jet's /props knowing that props were quite slow and jets quite fast..... keep the distances! ).
Regards


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

These are actually some pretty big airplanes even for today, some people don't really realize how massive these things are.

The heaviest of DC-8s, the -73, has an MTOW of 355,000lbs. Not sure on the heaviest 707, but it looks to be the E-6 Mercury variant, which weighs in at 342,000lbs. These weights are in the same category as the A300 and 767-300 (and in many cases, the DC-8 and 707 are the heavier airplanes).

They definately get the "heavy" tagged onto their callsign on the radio.


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

CV990..I don't remember that one. Do you have any details?
The only thing I remember was the North Central Convair that was flipped into a hanger at O hare landing on 13L. The wake was believed caused by a Continental 707 or 720B which landed or took off ahead of it. There was a high school band practicing in the hanger for a Christmas parade and a few of those people were killed along with some pax on the convair. That was Dec of 68.
After the O'hare incident, I remember hearing the work HEAVY on the radios.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

DC-8 is definitely considered "heavy" now... Especially the UPS DC-8 departing CLE at 11:30 PM every night...  Wink


redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineSkidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Of course they were heavies of their day. They were miles bigger and heavier than most of the piston-props and any turbo-props around. Indeed they were bigger than the Comet.

I'll never forget the sound of a 707 taking off. It always reminded me of someone dropping a big load of iron girders. Big grin

Andy  old 



Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Hi Isitasafenow!

Yes a have details on that accident. This happened in May 30, 1972 at Greater Southwest International Airport in TX, and both DL and AA were that day doing a trainning day, DL with DC-9-14 N3305L and AA with a DC-10-10. The DC-10 was already there when DL DC-9 arrived, after some t/offs and landings with some space between airplanes DL airplane asked for a runway change, and that put him close to the DC-10, about 2,25 nm, that's when the crashed happened, the DC-10 was just lifting off again when the DC-9 was landing and the wake-turbulence from the DC-10 got the DC-9 to crash! If you have Air Disaster Volume 1 there's is a complete report on that!
Regards


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard



User currently offlinePhilb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

In terms of ATC and certification, the term "heavy" really only came in during the early 1970s.

It started when airlines that had been using 707s and DC8s started using widebodies on flight numbers that were usually, or had been, narrow body operated.

In some jurisdictions it was not mandatory to give the aircraft type on first contact and crews would offer this as an additional help to the controller, even though the controllers' strips detailed the aircraft type.

Controllers found this helpful in terms of separation and climb/descent performance and it became a convention to use the term for 747s, DC10s and L1011s well before the real issues of wake turbulence were brought to the forefront.

By the mid 1970s heavily laden narrow bodies would use the term (I even heard a Belfast use it once!) to denote more sluggish than usual performance instead of the more usual "we are rather heavy today" but this was dicouraged.


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

CV990...Thanks Jose. I do remember a DL short nine incident at Fort Worth but did not know the details and the apparent involvement of an AA DC 10.
Thank you again. I shall get some info and read up.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Also, after a string of accidents involving general aviation planes, it was decided that the 757 should also be considered a "heavy".

The designation "heavy" now refers to jet airplanes that are large enough to cause wake vortex problems. Lighter airplanes, following behind, know that they must maintain a certain height above the path of the heavy jet.

To my knowledge, the 757 is the only narrow body classified as a heavy. Are there any others?



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1941 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

The DC-8-60/70's were and are referred to as "heavies." The 707's in passenger service were not.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2211 times:

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 4):
The heaviest of DC-8s, the -73, has an MTOW of 355,000lbs.

That makes it a heavy then. Makes sense as the Super DC-8s were the largest narrowbodies until the 753 came into being

707s were about the size of a 738, even with greater fuel capacity, definately not a heavy



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSoyuzavia From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 7):
They were miles bigger and heavier than most of the piston-props and any turbo-props around.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Makes sense as the Super DC-8s were the largest narrowbodies until the 753 came into being

You are both almost correct.

The narrowbody Tu-114, with a MTOW of over 170,000kg (375,000lb), was heavier than all 707 and DC-8 variants, and it was longer/wider than some of the variants, and although it was a turboprop, it was indeed faster than some of the 707/DC-8 variants.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 14):
You are both almost correct.

The narrowbody Tu-114, with a MTOW of over 170,000kg (375,000lb), was heavier than all 707 and DC-8 variants, and it was longer/wider than some of the variants, and although it was a turboprop, it was indeed faster than some of the 707/DC-8 variants.

If the max number of passengers certificated to FAA/JAA standards was more than 259, I stand corrected



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Hi!

Yes, most of us tend to forget the TU114 but that "thing" was really a beast compared with the DC-8 or the 707, and like Soyuzavia said the plane although was a prop it would fly faster than a good part of jets at that time!!! I remember one day reading in a magazine that the military version of the TU114, the TU95, when it was controlled by RAF over the North Sea the pilots could actually EAR the rumbling of those huge counter-prop engines, can you imagine? Flying a fighter that already is quite noisy and then still ear those engines???? Must have been a awesome experience!!!
Regards


User currently offlineSoyuzavia From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
If the max number of passengers certificated to FAA/JAA standards was more than 259, I stand corrected

The maximum capacity of the Tu-114 was 220. In terms of passenger capacity, sure some the others are/were 'bigger', but in terms of overall size, weight, and also speed, the Tu-114 dwarfs even the 757-300 -- it is the heaviest narrowbody passenger aircraft ever built and put into service, with the Il-62, which replaced the Tu-114, coming in a very close second (a couple of thousand kgs under the 114).


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DC-8s And 707s-how Long Will They Still Be Around? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 20:04:33 by Ferret
Delta's DC-8s And DC-9s posted Sat Sep 9 2000 18:53:59 by Delta777-XXX
Re-engining 707s And Turbojet DC-8s posted Mon Mar 29 2004 20:47:30 by Timz
707s And DC-8s posted Thu Apr 11 2002 03:27:05 by Dc863
Any 707s And/or DC-8s Still In Pax Service? posted Tue Jan 8 2002 14:08:48 by TR
Pan Am And DC-8s posted Sat Dec 17 2005 20:53:21 by Lahaina
Early 707s / DC-8s - No Escape Slides? posted Fri Sep 24 2004 07:54:41 by Flyboy1980
What Films Feature Turbojet-Powered 707s & DC-8s? posted Mon Apr 17 2000 05:26:18 by Happy-flier
How Many DC-10s And MD-11s Were Built? posted Sun Feb 27 2000 06:25:53 by 747-600X
Why So Many DC-8s As Frieghters? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 21:52:06 by Falstaff