Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B707-400s With RR Conways - Lifespan?  
User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

Seems that this variant lasted a fairly short life. Was there anything inherently wrong with this variant of the 707? I don't believe any of the type even survives today. I just read about this one, delivered to BOAC in 1960 and broken up in 1977.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Vandervord



Yet Saha Air and various other air forces continue to fly the -300 variants?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAleksandar From Serbia, joined Jul 2000, 3236 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 days ago) and read 3637 times:

It is just that -320 was more economical and not many of 420s were actually made. Only 37 were made and the last was a plane delivered to El Al in February 1962. The initial advantage of -420 was that it was available two years before JT3 powered 707s


R-E-S-P-E-C-T
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7616 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 days ago) and read 3627 times:

Was availibility of Conway spares also a factor.

User currently offlineCV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 days ago) and read 3608 times:

Quoting Irobertson (Thread starter):
I don't believe any of the type even survives today

I think the 707 at the Hamburg Airport is an ex-Lufthansa 707-430, so at least one still survives. Also, wasn't it intended as a special variant for BOAC, to encourage them to buy the type?



Kittens Give Morbo Gas
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2609 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aleksandar (Reply 1):
It is just that -320 was more economical

Well, now there are more than a few gray-beards from BA who would dispute that. And BA used quite a few versions of the Conway as well as the JT-3D. I think the better "economics" of the Pratt powered 7-ohs had a lot more to do with politics than numbers.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting Aleksandar (Reply 1):
The initial advantage of -420 was that it was available two years before JT3 powered 707s

I presume you mean the JT3D (or TF33). The JT3 was already available on the 707, although the JT3 initially offered as the JT3C turbojet (or J57).


User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3413 times:

Quoting Aleksandar (Reply 1):
It is just that -320 was more economical and not many of 420s were actually made.

BOAC went for the -420 because it had more powerful Conways (17,500lb) than the Intercontinental -320 and its JT4A turbojets (15,800lb). Only 69 -320 were built. I don't think the -320 was that much more economical than the -420. But then came the -320B and -320C both powered by turbofans engines. As a side note, the DC-8-40s weren't sold in great numbers too, just 33 aircraft.

Quoting Aleksandar (Reply 1):
The initial advantage of -420 was that it was available two years before JT3 powered 707s

Two other factors played in favour of the RR: less smoky and quieter engines. And they were British-built of course. BOAC got 19 of the production.

Quoting CV990A (Reply 3):
I think the 707 at the Hamburg Airport is an ex-Lufthansa 707-430, so at least one still survives.

You are right.


User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4328 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3399 times:

The RR Conways were older and noisier turbojets. The later JT-3Ds were turbofans and, although you can't believe that now, considerably quieter and fuel efficient. The pure jet 707-300s (NOT -300B and 300C ) and DC-8-30s were retired in the 1970s too and compared to that the Conway engined 707-400s survived comparably long.


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

A.net B707-400 pictures

Quoting Irobertson (Thread starter):
Seems that this variant lasted a fairly short life.

This was in service for at least 21 years.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Kipping



Quoting Irobertson (Thread starter):
I don't believe any of the type even survives today.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Thomas
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Fabry



User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3369 times:

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 8):

I do believe that the one at Cosford was scrapped.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineAleksandar From Serbia, joined Jul 2000, 3236 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 5):
I presume you mean the JT3D (or TF33)

 yes 

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
I don't think the -320 was that much more economical than the -420.

Well, I tried to type fast and made few mistakes, so when I mentioned engines I had JT3D in mind and when I mentioned -320 version, I definitely had 320B in mind.



R-E-S-P-E-C-T
User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting Da man (Reply 9):
I do believe that the one at Cosford was scrapped.

You right. Too bad.

http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.php?t=1233


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7410 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
BOAC went for the -420 because it had more powerful Conways (17,500lb) than the Intercontinental -320 and its JT4A turbojets (15,800lb). Only 69 -320 were built. I don't think the -320 was that much more economical than the -420. But then came the -320B and -320C both powered by turbofans engines. As a side note, the DC-8-40s weren't sold in great numbers too, just 33 aircraft.

Actually, BA was forced to take the -420 instead of waiting it out for the 336B/C by the British gov't. The British gov"t wanted a 707 with British powerplants so it could be called a British 707. BA was initially unhappy about the -436 because of the handling problems at cruise altitude, due to the short empanage. It was grossly underpowered and less efficient than the VC10. When the -300's began arriving, the -420's were relgated to less lucretive routes in Europe, North Africa and the eastern US until they were transferred over to Airtours in 72-75 timeframe. Most were sold off by 1976.

Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
Two other factors played in favour of the RR: less smoky and quieter engines. And they were British-built of course. BOAC got 19 of the production.

Correction, they had 20 -420's for BA and 2 -465's were operated by British/Cunard Eagle which eventually migrated to BEA/British Airtours. I believe 2 were lost, G-AWRE in a ground fire at LHR and G-APFE which broke up in flight after take-off from HND in 1966.



Made from jets!
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2612 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Were the Conways used on -400s the same as on the VC-10? Did they sound the same? They look different physically to me...there are those "hush pipes" at the end of the Conways on the 707. If they are the same then seeing a VC-10 today is like seeing a Conway powered 707...more or less  Smile

User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25377 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 7):
The RR Conways were older and noisier turbojets. The later JT-3Ds were turbofans

Sorry that's not correct. The RR Conway was the world's first turbofan, although it had a very low bypass ratio.

Quoting CV990A (Reply 3):
Quoting Irobertson (Thread starter):
I don't believe any of the type even survives today

I think the 707 at the Hamburg Airport is an ex-Lufthansa 707-430, so at least one still survives.

In addition to the ex-LH -430 at HAM there is also an ex-LY -458 at TXL. It's been there about 20 years. Although painted in LH livery it's an ex-LY aircraft and was never operated by LH. The photo of it below is fairly old but I saw it there about a year ago in rather poor condition. The ex-LH one at HAM is very well-kept.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © André Oferta
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Axel J.



Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 6):
As a side note, the DC-8-40s weren't sold in great numbers too, just 33 aircraft.

I think it was 32 -- 15 for AZ, 11 for AC, 6 for CP.


User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12):
Correction, they had 20 -420's for BA and 2 -465's were operated by British/Cunard Eagle

I meant new from the manufacturer. BOAC has ordered and received 18 B707-436s, while Cunard's order was for two B707-465s. The later only received one under the Cunard Eagle brand, while the second was delivered under the BOAC/Cunard name, which is the 19th. But in all BOAC's B707-400s grew to twenty indeed.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
I think it was 32

Yes, that's it. I made a typo.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2612 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
Sorry that's not correct. The RR Conway was the world's first turbofan, although it had a very low bypass ratio.

Are you sure? The Tu-124 first flew in 1960 and had turbofan D-20s. I can't find exact dates but I know that Conway 707s and Tu-124 both first flew in 1960.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14027 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting CV990A (Reply 3):
Quoting Irobertson (Thread starter):
I don't believe any of the type even survives today

I think the 707 at the Hamburg Airport is an ex-Lufthansa 707-430, so at least one still survives. Also, wasn't it intended as a special variant for BOAC, to encourage them to buy the type?

The 707 parked beside the runway in TXL is also a 420 (originally built for El Al, it is actually the only plane, which survived the Fatah hijeckings in 1970, where several planes got blown up).

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 7):
The RR Conways were older and noisier turbojets.

The Conway was a turbofan engine, albeit with a lower bypass rate than the JT3D.

Jan


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

Hi!

I think that the 707-400 had an interesting lifespan. I was looking at the flying hours of the operators that used the 400 model and most had between 50.000 and 60.000 hours, so quite the average of other 707 models and also they lasted between 15 to 20 years except those that crashed. Here is the list of those 707-400 that were w/o:

G-APFE - 1966/03/05 - Mount Fiji
G-APFK - 1977/03/17 - Prestwick
G-ARWE - 1968/04/08 - Heathrow
VT-DJI - 1971/01/23 - Bombay
VT-DJJ - 1982/06/22 - Bombay
VT-DMN - 1966/01/24 - Mt. Blanc
PP-VJB - 1962/11/27 - Lima


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Kelley




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © F. de Ruiter




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence



Only VT-DMN is not here!
Regards


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25377 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 16):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
Sorry that's not correct. The RR Conway was the world's first turbofan, although it had a very low bypass ratio.

Are you sure? The Tu-124 first flew in 1960 and had turbofan D-20s. I can't find exact dates but I know that Conway 707s and Tu-124 both first flew in 1960.

The distinction may be that the Conway was the first turbofan "to enter airline service". Rolls-Royce includes that wording for the Conway in their history timeline.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/timeline/1940-1959.jsp


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2612 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 19):
The distinction may be that the Conway was the first turbofan "to enter airline service". Rolls-Royce includes that wording for the Conway in their history timeline.

Ahhh I see, in that case yes, the Tu-124 entered service in 1962.


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...
Airbus A330-200 With RR Trent Engines. posted Wed Mar 2 2005 21:15:43 by Bennett123
Why LH A332 With PW Engines And A333 With RR? posted Thu Nov 18 2004 12:04:06 by GoMEA
Boeing 767-What Airlines Operate With RR Engines? posted Tue May 25 2004 20:38:02 by Btblue
727 With RR Engines? posted Wed Jan 24 2001 23:39:05 by Gearup
Qantas 767 With RR,PW,GE posted Fri Sep 1 2000 14:09:11 by Oxygen
SQ's Newest 773/ER With GE Engines Not RR Why? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:12 by DeltaJet757
B707 With Two Engines Missing..5N-MAS posted Wed Apr 19 2006 07:08:59 by Babaero
BA 747 With Double RR Markings On Engine posted Thu Feb 23 2006 04:19:12 by TheBigOne
RR Having Massiv Problems With Their 747 RB-211? posted Thu Aug 18 2005 14:22:00 by CV747
What Is NW Doing With Their New 747-400s? posted Tue Apr 9 2002 01:30:04 by Travelin man