Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did Turbo Jet Powered 707 Have Trust Reverser?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3602 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9347 times:

When I found out that the KC-135A did not have trust reverser, I was shock. I did not thick a jet of that size would be safe to land with out trust reverser. Now when I see a picture of a 707 powered by JT3-c or JT4-a. To me they look like they did not have trust reverser. So do turbo jet powered Boeing 707 have trust reverser?


PS: I already been told that KC-135A/R, do not land on small runways. I just saying this in case somebody wants to tell me how safe a landing in KC135A/R is.

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 875 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

The 707 did have thrust reversers.
The early generation did reverse both the cold and the hot section, this was discovered to be a problem later on from the hot section.

I think later designs were changed to only have the cold section reverse and the hot section disabled or locked out.


User currently offlineLiedetectors From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9343 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I did not thick a jet of that size would be safe to land with out trust reverser.

When the KC135 was designed, they had to figure a stoping distance for the airplane. When you compute landing distance you cannot assume the use of TRs as means of stopping the airplane. So whether the plane has then or not, the landing distance had to be computed without them. So course its safe to land it with out TRs.



If it was said by us, then it must be true.
User currently offlineN8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9337 times:

Quoting 777WT (Reply 1):
I think later designs were changed to only have the cold section reverse and the hot section disabled or locked out.

Yes, the 707 had reverse thrust. I also agree that the turbofan versions had both hot (core exhaust) and cold (bypassed air) reverser mechanisms.

The "classic" 747 with JT9Ds was originally designed with both hot and cold section reversers, but the turbine reversers were eventually disabled and locked out as they were quite troublesome and the cables that moved the turbine blocker doors needed frequent lubrication due to all the heat. Therefore, even though the mechanisms were different on the 707s, I could see that disabling the hot section reverser could have benefits.

Quoting Liedetectors (Reply 2):
So course its safe to land it with out TRs.

If I am not mistaken, the A380 only has reverse thrust capability on the two inboard engines, so they can't be that important.  Wink

Chris



Don't blame me, I don't work here...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9326 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
When I found out that the KC-135A did not have trust reverser, I was shock. I did not thick a jet of that size would be safe to land with out trust reverser.

As Liedetectors says, landing distances are computer without factoring in thrust reversers. Brakes are quite enough to stop a jet. Landing distance calculations have a 50% pad factor built in anyway. Most pax would probably puke up their lunches (ok, First Class which actually gets food) if the pilots really stomped on the brakes with their size 12s. Brakes are that good.

I would add that the 380 only has 2 thrust reversers for various reasons, demonstrating the point.

In the day the KC-135 (AKA Boeing model 717) was designed, they were not as good as today, but still made up the lion's share of an aircraft's stopping capability.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9320 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
As Liedetectors says, landing distances are computer without factoring in thrust reversers.

That's not the case with all aircraft, though. The 737-700 landing distance calculations take use of the reversers into account. This policy, however, is under review after the MDW overrun.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1608 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think you can see the thrust reverser outlets in these two pictures - they are the screen ahead of the daisy lobe mixer:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George W. Hamlin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard



They might be active in this picture (I think I can see the blocker door):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Schulman



User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9234 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Marlene Leutgeb


regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineN8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9220 times:

That's a cool pic. No oil puddle under the engine?  Wink

Chris



Don't blame me, I don't work here...
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5692 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777WT (Reply 1):
The early generation did reverse both the cold and the hot section, this was discovered to be a problem later on from the hot section

Is it just me, my understanding is that the TurboJet 707 would not have a cold section?

Mel, that is a cool pic but is NOT a turbojet 707, that is a fan engine

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9190 times:

KC-135s dont have thrust reverse because the Air Force specifically didnt want them - less weight, less maintenance and less cost.

The KC-135s were always supposed to land near empty, so they wouldnt require thrust reversers.


User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1408 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9179 times:

The Boeing 707 -436 with RR Conway engines definitely only had hot exhaust reversers

littlevc10


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9172 times:

Quoting Vc10 (Reply 11):
The Boeing 707 -436 with RR Conway engines definitely only had hot exhaust reversers

Maybe that's because the cold airflow is very small on this early turbofan.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1408 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9161 times:

The RR Conway [just to be picky] was a by-pass engine where some of the air missed the combustion chamber but stayed within the body of the engine unlike a by-pass where the fan air is normally external to the engine.

The by-pass air was however quite small I would agree

littlevc10  Wink


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3602 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9127 times:

Oh I know the B-707 with turbo fans has trust reverser I just talking about the turbo jet version.

PS: The USAF wanted there KC-135 crew to work there buts off. I see there no going back early on a 135.


User currently offlineDAirbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9117 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know this is off topic, but did anyone notice the AKH type containers and what appears to be a small K-loader being used in the picture of the TWA 707? I had no idea that they used narrowbody containers that long ago. I have only seen them on A320's and A321's.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George W. Hamlin




"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." - Charles Shultz
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9115 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
trust reverser



Quoting 747400sp (Reply 14):
trust reverser

...Just a friendly reminder....it's thrust reverser....not "trust" reverser.

Although aging systems in 707s and KC-135s surely erode the flight crew's trust in the machine, there is no one system dedicated solely to that task.

 Wink



2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9090 times:

Quoting DAirbus (Reply 15):
I had no idea that they used narrowbody containers that long ago

Could be just transporting Cargo in it,Using them as a Trolley.My Guess.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17030 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 9076 times:

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16):
...Just a friendly reminder....it's thrust reverser....not "trust" reverser.

Hehe. It's certainly not the oft used in gen_av variant "reverse thruster". Such can be found on the Starship Enterprise, however.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineN8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9063 times:

Quoting DAirbus (Reply 15):
did anyone notice the AKH type containers and what appears to be a small K-loader being used in the picture of the TWA 707? I had no idea that they used narrowbody containers that long ago. I have only seen them on A320's and A321's.

I never saw a 707 use containers, so I learned something new today.  Wink It does look similar to the narrowbody Airbus containers...

Some DC-8's, at least some UA ones, had a containerized lower lobe cargo system. But the containers were round-bottomed, and not anything standard to any other aircraft. They had special dollies the containers fit into. They called them "gondolas" due to the shape.  Wink They loaded into the aircraft from the bottom, rather than the side, and the aircraft had a hoist system to lift them up into the belly.

Chris



Don't blame me, I don't work here...
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9018 times:

Quoting DAirbus (Reply 15):
I know this is off topic, but did anyone notice the AKH type containers and what appears to be a small K-loader being used in the picture of the TWA 707? I had no idea that they used narrowbody containers that long ago. I have only seen them on A320's and A321's.

Western Airlines used containers in their 707's, 720's and 727's. The containers were known as LD-W.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9006 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 9):
Is it just me, my understanding is that the TurboJet 707 would not have a cold section?

On a 'straight-pipe' turbojet engine all the air that gets scooped in the intake of the nacelle goes through the core of the engine, gets fuel sprayed into it, gets ignited and spins the turbines on its way out. (Except the relatively small amount extracted as 'bleed' air.) So, as there is no fan and bypass ducting, yep, it is pretty much all hot.

Not real familiar with the earliest 707s, aside from going down to SFO just too see one, and later taking a couple of rides on them. I do believe, however, that they were a straight turbojet and not a fanjet until some later version.

And I never knew until reading this thread that they did have reverse thrust on the model with the multi-pipe diffuser.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineN8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8950 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 21):
Not real familiar with the earliest 707s, aside from going down to SFO just too see one, and later taking a couple of rides on them. I do believe, however, that they were a straight turbojet and not a fanjet until some later version.

You believe right, the earlier ones were turbojet powered, just like the DC-8's. And if I am not mistaken, some of the turbojet 707s also had water injection.

Chris



Don't blame me, I don't work here...
User currently offlineDl_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1937 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8927 times:

Quoting N8076U (Reply 19):
I never saw a 707 use containers, so I learned something new today.

TW used them as well on 727's. They were removed later on, like the IFE TW had on 727-100's/-200's.

[Edited 2006-06-29 07:37:14]


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2604 posts, RR: 17
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N8076U (Reply 22):
And if I am not mistaken, some of the turbojet 707s also had water injection.

You are not...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charlie Atterbury



25 Post contains images N8076U : Just can't help getting goosebumps seeing a photo like that. Chris
26 Post contains images HAWK21M : Show that pic to a PUC officer & he'd be shocked regds MEL
27 Post contains images RC135U : Noise abatement? What noise abatement?
28 MarkC : The C-17 engines have an extra thrust reverser for the core as compared to a regular 2040. Its all in the exhaust nozzle. Its a blocker door arrangeme
29 N8076U : I mentioned something regarding this in one of my posts. Some of the JT9Ds had them as well, on the "classic" 747s. But whether there are any that st
30 411A : Yes, water injection. 300 gallons or so (IIRC) of de-mineralized water, carried in saddle tanks near the wing root trailing edge, with two pumps, one
31 N8076U : Some of the JT9D powered ex-Qantas 747-238's that UA had also originally used water injection. Even though UA never used it, some of the vestiges of
32 747400sp : N8076U To bad UA did not use those water injection. I seen some of there ex-Qantas 747-238's take off for flight from LAX-HNL, I would have love to he
33 Post contains images N8076U : I would have liked to see that myself, but I suspect the plumes of black smoke may have been somewhat objectionable. Far too many "environmentally fr
34 Sovietjet : Why does the water make so much black smoke?
35 Starlionblue : My guess is that combustion was less complete, so you got a lots of soot suspended in water droplets. But that's just a guess.
36 73G : That's not entirely true. For purposes of preflight planning, the 73G factored landing distance calculation is the same as with all other airplanes.
37 Post contains images AmericanAirFan : Yes some did even Air Memphis's Current day versions which use the bucket type like you would see on the JT8D engines on the DC-9 and 737-200 series.
38 Okelleynyc : I'm curious about this; could you elaborate? Is it because the outboard engines may bleed over the runway and suck up debris? Is it to minimize an as
39 Starlionblue : Lol. I don't think asymmetric thrust is a problem in this regard.
40 Jetlagged : On a four engined aircraft reversers are usually operated in symmetric pairs. If you only have two reversers and one of these is failed you will of c
41 Starlionblue : I was unclear. Of course you would probably not operate the reversers asymetrically. However this consideration probably didn't affect the design of
42 2H4 : I've observed 737 pilots use a single reverser when landing with an engine out during training sessions. 2H4
43 Post contains images Americanairfan : Probably same principles as a single engine taxi you would just use nose wheel steering to force against any engine yawing. And just being firmly pla
44 411A : >>And just being firmly planted on the ground I'm sure asymmetric thrust like that isn't as big of a problem.
45 Vc10 : On every aircraft I have been on you cannot use nosewheel steering until quite low speeds so I do not think it would be used to counter any assymetric
46 B52murph : The USAF also saw little need for reverse thrust on the KC-135s because most SAC base runways where the tankers would be flying from were over 11,000
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Did Turbo Jet Powered 707 Have Trust Reverser?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The LM 2500 A Turbo Jet Version Of The CF-6? posted Wed May 31 2006 23:17:30 by 747400sp
100000 Lb After Bunering Turbo Jet? posted Sun Mar 12 2006 00:01:22 by 747400sp
When Did The MD-80 Ever Have JT8D-209 Engines? posted Thu May 29 2003 00:19:07 by BR715-A1-30
Did A Boeing 747 -100 Have Any New Tech? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:09:08 by 747400sp
Did JAL Have Any PW JT9D-7R4G2 Passenger 747 200? posted Mon Jul 3 2006 00:14:50 by 747400sp
Why Did Soviet Airliners Have Glass Nose? posted Sun Sep 11 2005 15:13:26 by TaromA380
Did The Concorde Have Any Speed Brakes? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 23:00:02 by Aak777
Did Boeing Hide 707 Wing Design From Russia? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 20:46:51 by KAUST
707 Flight Control: Powered? posted Sat Sep 4 2004 04:12:19 by Mhsieh
Did All DC-9s Have Rear Airstairs As Std Equip? posted Thu Jul 29 2004 08:35:20 by MD-90

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format