Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747 100 On Long Haul Flight?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9451 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.

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3673 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9387 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!
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9375 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.

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12597 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9354 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.


User currently offlineBlackprojects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9308 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.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26168 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9263 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
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9253 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

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


User currently offlineLHR380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Come to LHR and you can see how a 741 takes off, Iran Air send it here now and then. Amazing plane.



EP-IAM


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9165 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 !
User currently offlineBA174 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 768 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9142 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.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26168 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9093 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
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9073 times:

Question: Did the 747-100s eventually get re-engined with JT9D-7s, at least those which were initially delivered with JT9D-3s?

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5854 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9052 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.


User currently offlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 23 hours ago) and read 8859 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.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 8766 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.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26168 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 8749 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
User currently offlineB747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 8732 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"
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 8640 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.

Mark


User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 585 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 8618 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.

Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 8371 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.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7990 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.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7953 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


User currently offlinedc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7467 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.


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4782 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting dc863 (Reply 22):


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.

Not quite true. The crew selected a higher flap setting of twenty degrees for the runway change versus the preplanned setting of ten degrees for the longer runway that was no longer available to them.



This setting should have allowed them to take off safely on 1R, however they never adjusted their V speeds to reflect the higher flap setting consequently they rotated far too late and this resulted in them impacting the approach lights and causing the incredible damage to the airframe. Once again it was a testament to the superb design and redundancy of the B747 that they were able to survive at all.



Just like the B17's over Germany this Boeing brought every one home despite incredible damage to the airframe..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 872 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Quoting B747FE (Reply 16):
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

Fuel leaves the surge tank without crew input in some circumstances, for example fully fuelled, temperature goes up, fuel expands into the surge tank, pitch angle increase (I think). It happened at Gatwick a few years ago on a Bangkok-bound 747-200, apparently causing some consternation in the aft cabin, as it started venting at the beginning of the take-off run!

Regards - musang


25 747classic : The early 747-200 aircraft were actually more underpowered than the 747-100 aircraft due the increased MTOW of the -200 series. Both were initially po
26 musang : 747classic, thats a fascinating account! Regards - musang
27 trex8 : Took SFO-TYO and back on PA several times on -100s when my parents were stationed in Far East. Once we had to divert to HNL due to engine trouble. Got
28 Post contains links LH707330 : Wow, great story! Did the 747 water burners smoke as well? I recall a great thread here about the 707 and KC-135 system, did the 747 engines only inj
29 747classic : No no extra smoke during a wet Take off. On the JT9D the water is injected via the twenty (20) fuelnozzles into the combustion chamber. From the long
30 armitageshanks : That's pretty cool. How much water was used on a typical takeoff?
31 Roseflyer : No I don't think any of those are still flying. There are some 200s still flying as freighters, but I don't think there are any of the former BA 747-
32 747classic : The water tanks were always filled up to max level = 2300kgs. The wet T/O endurance was always limited to 2.30 minutes, or water run-out approaching.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?
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...
Step Climb Procedures On Long Haul Sectors posted Wed Oct 1 2008 03:43:40 by Zappbrannigan
A Pilots Preference, Day Or Night On Long Haul. posted Sun May 25 2008 08:08:01 by Readytotaxi
Long Haul Flight Deck Comfort posted Sat May 19 2007 01:51:17 by Trent1000
Number Of Cans On A Long Haul Flt posted Tue Aug 15 2006 00:58:48 by XXXX10
Relief Crews On Long Haul Flights posted Mon Mar 18 2002 17:30:33 by Macmac76
Change In Altitude During Long Haul Flights posted Sun Jan 31 2010 16:55:41 by AT
Crew Rotation On Long Flights And Layovers posted Mon Dec 28 2009 17:21:25 by Evan767
How Are 1x Or 2x Weekly Long-haul Crews Utilized? posted Sun Dec 6 2009 10:57:23 by Jmc1975
Long Haul Widebody Casm posted Tue Oct 20 2009 07:39:27 by JRadier
Long Haul Non-Stop Flights posted Sun Sep 6 2009 00:06:57 by Propilot83

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format