EWRlovr From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 21 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1850 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!!!
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1827 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...
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1782 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
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1750 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.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1745 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.
Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1724 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.
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1683 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
Philb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1601 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.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1498 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.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1486 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!
Soyuzavia From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1298 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.
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
CV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1248 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
Soyuzavia From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 593 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1217 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).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 21 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 593 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
