747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5265 times:
I know that in the 70's and 80's, 747 100 was flying on long flights like LAX-LHR or SFO-NRT. My quesion is, how was the take off roll for these 741 flight? LAX-LHR and SFO-NRT are pushing it to the max for a 747-100 range, so I wonder if the pilots would push the engines to the max, and would the 747s take up almost all the runway.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
Hell, 747-400's take up most of the runway at most airports, given flex takeoffs.
I do seem to recall that -100's with JT9D-3A's would often use max thrust on long-haul flight takeoffs. And their initial climb performance was not great. I used to live at the top of a ridge about 1-2 miles from the end of the 28's at SFO, and 747-100's would pass about 500 feet over my house with their engines screaming. Today I live about the same distance from the 4's at JFK and while 747-400's are still impressively low over my house sometimes, they no longer look or sound like they're straining to stay in the air.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5183 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 747-100 wasn't doing most of these flights nonstop. Most of the transpacific routes were going through Anchorage whilst LHR-LAX wasn't non stop for BA until the 1980s and the arrival of their -200s.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11997 posts, RR: 36 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5162 times:
I don't think that the 747-100s did nonstop transpacific flights; the -200s certainly could. PA used to stop at HNL en route to Tokyo and I recall that they had one very serious incident at SFO, early in the 1970s, when they used a shorter runway than required and ended up taking out the landing light beams at the far end of the runway (and part of their own u/c).
I recall talking to a CX person about the nonstop flights from LGW to HKG (when CX only served LGW, rather than LHR); they started flying via BAH and then went nonstop, but this nonstop was not the nonstop we know today (which goes over China); in 1990, CX had to fly a much longer route, avoiding Chinese airspace, which took about 13-14h. This caused problems using a 10,000' runway, so CX had to use full takeoff power; they were also the only airline to operate nonstop flights to Europe, when winds at Kai Tak required a 31 departure.
Blackprojects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
The old 747-100s made really long take offs at LHR so long they Climbed up the approach lights on some ocasions I have witnessed TWA and Panam machines lifting off in the last thousand feet of then then 10 Right now 09 Right at LHR.
Which at the time was an eye watering site Especialy if I was at the end of the runway Spotting, On hot summer days the -100 Climbed a bit like the A340-300 does on a Long-haul Flight at max gross weight "like a breeze block" real slow.
The 747-200 was not much better in hot weather some even got to Vent fuel on take off some will say I am wrong but I have seen it happen in the 1970s and 80s.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22253 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5070 times:
No the -100s did some fairly long'ish sectors.
Pan Am did do LAX/SFO-LHR/FRA, LAX/SFO-NRT, JFK-EZE on the -100, while had TWA LAX-LHR/CDG and JFK-TLV for example.
Even Tower did JFK-TLV with its clunker -100s with near 500 passengers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Were they able to do those without any penalties? From this side of the pond, most carriers only seemed to regularly use their 742s on Europe-West Coast routes
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4974 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 3): in 1990, CX had to fly a much longer route, avoiding Chinese airspace, which took about 13-14h. This caused problems using a 10,000' runway, so CX had to use full takeoff power; they were also the only airline to operate nonstop flights to Europe, when winds at Kai Tak required a 31 departure.
I distinctly remember flying over China on the first few nonstop flights... we flew the Kunming corridor... we didn't use the "Silk route" (which goes further north and less headwinds westbound). I only experienced Kai Tak 31 departure twice... one was UA's DC10 HKG-SEA, the other was CX HKG-LGW... it was only a slight north westerly, but it was wet...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
BA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 718 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4951 times:
I was under the impression that the 741s had the equivalent range of a 772A in modern times. Someone at BA told me that when they had them they mostly worked on stopper services to Australia and Africa and some directs to the middle east. Of topic a bit aren't some BAs old 741s still flying somewere ? I was told some went to Africa.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22253 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4902 times:
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 6): Were they able to do those without any penalties? From this side of the pond, most carriers only seemed to regularly use their 742s on Europe-West Coast routes
Well going way back, I used to do weight and balance once upon a time, and yes they tended to make it across with pretty full passengers loads (remember these carriers were 3-class, so its was not that high density) just fine. Cargo was pretty rare, but they did carry mail.
On the rare occasions when winds were bad sometimes the Westbound legs would drop into YWG or SLC for fuel, and this tended to be a couple times per month especially during winter periods.
I even remember Corsair had a 741 for a while that did ORY-LAX-PPT with its sardine configuration while Tower also had Europe-California summer charters with its 747 relics.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4292 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4861 times:
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 6): Were they able to do those without any penalties? From this side of the pond, most carriers only seemed to regularly use their 742s on Europe-West Coast routes
As a kid, I flew 2x roundtrips/year from SEA to GVA. I flew BA and PA 741s on SEA-LHR v.v. on many, many occasions.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6478 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4668 times:
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 2): Correct me if I'm wrong but the 747-100 wasn't doing most of these flights nonstop.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 3): I don't think that the 747-100s did nonstop transpacific flights; the -200s certainly could.
For most? all? of the 1970s, I think PA had no -200s. Their timetables claimed to do California-Europe and SF-Tokyo nonstop; maybe LA-Tokyo too.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4575 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11): Question: Did the 747-100s eventually get re-engined with JT9D-7s, at least those which were initially delivered with JT9D-3s?
Yes. I believe all the US carriers re-engined their 741 with JT9D-7. I wish I got a chance to hear a 741 powered with JT9D-3s.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22253 posts, RR: 51 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4558 times:
Quoting timz (Reply 13): For most? all? of the 1970s, I think PA had no -200s
Correct -- PA picked up 5 or so ex SQ 747-200 birds in the mids 80s. The rest 40 odd frames were all -100s.
Anything that was truly performance challenged those days was on the 747SP. Some of those routes were LAX-SYD, SFO-HKG, JFK-NRT.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
B747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4541 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): My quesion is, how was the take off roll for these 741 flight?
Same as in the 742, especially since many of them have exactly the same engines.
Quoting Blackprojects (Reply 4): The 747-200 was not much better in hot weather some even got to Vent fuel on take off some will say I am wrong but I have seen it happen in the 1970s and 80s.
If by vent you meant jettison, and I'm not saying you didn't see it but, what would be the point?
A couple of thousand pounds makes no difference to a ship weighing 750,000
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11): Question: Did the 747-100s eventually get re-engined with JT9D-7s, at least those which were initially delivered with JT9D-3s?
They did, initially to -7/-7A's
It didn't exactly mean a huge leap in performance, but they were (are) more reliable than the -3's
Regards,
B747FE.
"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime"
MarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11): Question: Did the 747-100s eventually get re-engined with JT9D-7s, at least those which were initially delivered with JT9D-3s?
They actually mostly did not get re-engined. The existing engines were converted to the -7's.
Bellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 574 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4427 times:
Looking back through my logbook for the mid 1980s, I operated quite a few LHR-SEA and LHR-ANC flights on a B747-100, although it is true that the -200 did become the preferred aircraft on our longer sectors.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
Quoting 1stfl94 (Reply 2): Correct me if I'm wrong but the 747-100 wasn't doing most of these flights nonstop. Most of the transpacific routes were going through Anchorage whilst LHR-LAX wasn't non stop for BA until the 1980s and the arrival of their -200s.
I flew on quite a few 747-100s (mostly Pan Am) on nonstops between SEA and LHR, also a few to/from SFO/LAX.
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
Quoting kaitak (Reply 3): I don't think that the 747-100s did nonstop transpacific flights; the -200s certainly could. PA used to stop at HNL en route to Tokyo and I recall that they had one very serious incident at SFO, early in the 1970s, when they used a shorter runway than required and ended up taking out the landing light beams at the far end of the runway (and part of their own u/c).
I believe UA used 747-100 on the SFO-NRT routes in the 80's.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3762 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15): Quoting timz (Reply 13):
For most? all? of the 1970s, I think PA had no -200s
Correct -- PA picked up 5 or so ex SQ 747-200 birds in the mids 80s.
PA acquired 7 -200s from SQ between 1983 and 1985.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15): The rest 40 odd frames were all -100s.
Not quite all. PA also operated 3 -200F freighters. The first was leased from World Airways 1974-79. It was replaced by 2 factory-delivered -200Fs in 1979. They were both sold to JL in 1982-83.
In total, I believe PA operated 65 747s:
40 -100
4 -100F
7 -200
3 -200F
11 SP
dc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3276 times:
The Pan Am 747 "Clipper Young America" that had the takeoff mishap on July 30 1971 did so only because the flap setting was not readjusted for the runway length. The crew thought they could use 01R's overrun space but upon asking PA ops were told they could not because of the blast hazard to the highway behind 01R. So they took off without lowering any additional flap which they should've causing the 747 to strike the approach lights upon rotation.
They were not allowed to use runway 28 because it was closed for maintenance.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11997 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
