Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
707-777 Comparasion  
User currently offlineF.pier From Italy, joined Aug 2000, 1525 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

The 707 was the plane which introduced long lange flights. It made the transoceanic flights possible. Now there is the 777, its nephew.

What about a comparasion? The lenght, the wings, the weight, the number of seats, the engines, the costs.

I think it would be quite interesting.

Was it possible to fly non stop routes from Europe to Los Angeles with 707?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

Here are some interesting comparisons.....

Boeing 707-320B versus 777-300ER (from the Boeing web site):

Length...........153 ft..........242 ft
Wingspan.......146 ft..........213 ft
Cruise spd......607 mph......555 mph
MTOW...........336,000 lb....750,000 lb
Range...........6160 miles....8300 miles
Pax .............141 (2 cl.......365 (3 cl)
Thrust...........72,000 lb......230,000 lb
Ceiling...........36,000 ft......35,000 ft

Note the new plane flies 35% farther, but weighs 14% less per passenger at take-off.

I seem to recall that there were polar flights to Europe from the west coast, but sometimes they would make a fuel stop in Canada on the westbound leg.

Pete



User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1342 times:

Actually, the B707 was the first jet aeroplane that could carry more fuel (weight) than the airframe empty weight (-300 series).
In addition, as I have personally operated the 707 to FL410...it goes just slightly higher than 36,000ft.
BOAC (now BA) operated the first LAX-LHR flights with the 707 'round about 1962. Also AirFrance operated LAX-ORY at about the same time.


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1308 times:


Hi!

It's too difficult to compare the 707 with the 777! But I would like to see the 777 beeing compared with the DC-8-62 or the 747SP, those where great ultra-range airliners, the 707 was not a long-ranger, the 720B was better than the 707.
I think air transportation evoluted a lot in these past few years, what I like in the 777 is that we can handle passengers like the old Classic 747's with only 2 engines, that a great achievement.
regards


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

Hi there CV990.

FYI, the 720B carried no center tank fuel, 'twas a medium rande airliner, and designed thus.

Have personally flown the 707 for 12:25 (ATH-HOU) non-stop. Long enough for you?


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1229 times:


Hi!

411A

According to my figures the 707-320C had a range with max payload of 4.300 mls ( 6.920 Kms ) and the 720B had a range with max payload of 4.110mls ( 6.450 kms ). So it's not just a big diference betwen both. About flying ATH-HOU in 707 non stop, that doesn't mean you have a bigger range, that means that the pilot really saved a lot of fuel flying in a great flight level and flying a very economical speed!!! You know, you could actually fly a CV990 from USA to Austria without making a tech-stop? Yes!!!! And the CV990 had a range of just 3.800 mls ( 6.115 kms )! The 720B had the same wing of a 707 with less payload, so that why it was used in special long routes where less passengers and less payload was needed. Boeing was very wise because they used the 720 to catch clients and letter offer them the longer 707, look at airlines like Ethiopian, AA, Saudia, El Al, Avianca, Aer Lingus, Northwest..... they started with the 720 and latter evoluted to the 707, brains, brains in Boeing!
regards


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

CV990

Having flown both the 707 and 720B, I can assure you that your figures are quite wrong.

The 720B had no (as in none) center tank fuel, so could not fly as far as the 707, with the same payload.
The 720B wing is NOT the same as the 707 (no fillet flaps on the 720).

If the 720B was flown on the route I mentioned before, with the same payload, it would be "dry tanks" approaching Bermuda.

In case you don't know, this ain't good.


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1111 times:


Dear 411A

I took this information from an old book written by William Green & Gordon Swanborough, so I'm not just throwing numbers up in the sky. Now can you please give me the numbers you have so we can compare? Also please explain me what's "no fillet flaps", because I don't understand that!


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1032 times:

CV990

Do a search about fillet flaps for the 707, you may even be able to see them on a photo on this web site.

A little project for you. Have a look at the fuel capacity of the 707-320B and compare this to the fuel capacity of the 720B. Figure 12,000 pounds/hr for the 707 and 10,000 pounds/hr fuel burn for the 720B, do the math and see what you come up with.

Its OK to ask questions, but you have to do a little work as well, if you want the answers. Nobody ever said that aviation was easy.


User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

Cruise spd......607 mph......555 mph

It looks like Boeing already has their SC - the B707!  Smile It flies almost 10% faster then the 777...


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1373 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 981 times:

The 720B wing is NOT the same as the 707 (no fillet flaps on the 720).


My understanding was that the KC-135, 707-120, and 720 used the same wing, which had a straight trailing edge, whereas the intercontinental 707-320 had a new (or heavily revised) wing with a bend in the trailing edge which added area inboard.


User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 978 times:


Hi 411A.

Please explain me what you mean by "Nobody ever said that aviation was easy", because for for me aviation is an hobby, I like to receive more and more information from people that is willing to give it. If you really are what you are you should at least try to help those that know less than you. I've really good friends that have the same job that you here in Portugal, true gentlemans people that started flying with TAP/Air Portugal since 1945 and everytime I wanted to know a little bit more about aviation they where really happy to give all the details and clear all the doubts I had. I think you came from a different school!!!
thanks and I will not bother you again, I'll get the information from people that think " Aviation is easy"!
regards


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 921 times:

Areopagus

Your information is quite correct, clearly you have done your homework...top of the class to you Sir! In addition, leading edge devices were different, some full span, some not. In addition, one particular 707 model was shorter than even a 720, do you know which one? Hint, Qantas operated same.

Those that do not want to invest just a little effort (CV990?) will find aviation a tad harder than they expected. That's life, some realise, some don't.


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...
777 Vrs 747 When Is The 777 Just Not Enough? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:55:54 by JAM747
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777
Lufthansa And The 777 posted Sat Nov 18 2006 15:16:06 by LHStarAlliance
B. 777 Vs. A. 340, May I? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 10:49:53 by Knightsofmalta
What Are These 2 777'S Doing Here In FRA? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 22:19:44 by BHXDTW
Seating Chart For PIA 777 posted Thu Nov 16 2006 01:40:32 by PIA777
Alitalia 777-200 - PTV's In Economy Class? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 18:06:13 by Ansett767
Early 777-200 To Be Broken-Up For The First Time posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:35:03 by Leelaw
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin