ewrlovr
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:40 am

Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:25 am

hey guys,

I was just wondering if 707s and dc-8s were considered heavies back when they first came out, especially since they were the biggest planes compared to dc-7's and connies. thaks for your answers!!!  Smile
 
MFEFlyer
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:28 am

I think they were heavies, because like you said they were the larger planes from the late 50's and 60's and so on.
Valley Approach.....
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:29 am

I'm guessing that the issues the 'heavy' designation was meant to help prevent were not as well known back then and thus no such designation was used. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:38 am

Hi!

SATX is correct if you're talking about turbulence issues that only came after the accident of the DL DC-9 with the AA DC-10. I don't even think that when they started to be in the comercial circuit if they even had that designation. I do think that because they were jets the ATC would make special mention to that due to traffic regulation ( jet's /props knowing that props were quite slow and jets quite fast..... keep the distances! ).
Regards
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:50 am

These are actually some pretty big airplanes even for today, some people don't really realize how massive these things are.

The heaviest of DC-8s, the -73, has an MTOW of 355,000lbs. Not sure on the heaviest 707, but it looks to be the E-6 Mercury variant, which weighs in at 342,000lbs. These weights are in the same category as the A300 and 767-300 (and in many cases, the DC-8 and 707 are the heavier airplanes).

They definately get the "heavy" tagged onto their callsign on the radio.
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:54 am

CV990..I don't remember that one. Do you have any details?
The only thing I remember was the North Central Convair that was flipped into a hanger at O hare landing on 13L. The wake was believed caused by a Continental 707 or 720B which landed or took off ahead of it. There was a high school band practicing in the hanger for a Christmas parade and a few of those people were killed along with some pax on the convair. That was Dec of 68.
After the O'hare incident, I remember hearing the work HEAVY on the radios.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
redngold
Posts: 6673
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:57 am

DC-8 is definitely considered "heavy" now... Especially the UPS DC-8 departing CLE at 11:30 PM every night...  Wink


redngold
Up, up and away!
 
skidmarks
Posts: 6614
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:59 am

Of course they were heavies of their day. They were miles bigger and heavier than most of the piston-props and any turbo-props around. Indeed they were bigger than the Comet.

I'll never forget the sound of a 707 taking off. It always reminded me of someone dropping a big load of iron girders. Big grin

Andy  old 
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:16 am

Hi Isitasafenow!

Yes a have details on that accident. This happened in May 30, 1972 at Greater Southwest International Airport in TX, and both DL and AA were that day doing a trainning day, DL with DC-9-14 N3305L and AA with a DC-10-10. The DC-10 was already there when DL DC-9 arrived, after some t/offs and landings with some space between airplanes DL airplane asked for a runway change, and that put him close to the DC-10, about 2,25 nm, that's when the crashed happened, the DC-10 was just lifting off again when the DC-9 was landing and the wake-turbulence from the DC-10 got the DC-9 to crash! If you have Air Disaster Volume 1 there's is a complete report on that!
Regards


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard

CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:26 am

In terms of ATC and certification, the term "heavy" really only came in during the early 1970s.

It started when airlines that had been using 707s and DC8s started using widebodies on flight numbers that were usually, or had been, narrow body operated.

In some jurisdictions it was not mandatory to give the aircraft type on first contact and crews would offer this as an additional help to the controller, even though the controllers' strips detailed the aircraft type.

Controllers found this helpful in terms of separation and climb/descent performance and it became a convention to use the term for 747s, DC10s and L1011s well before the real issues of wake turbulence were brought to the forefront.

By the mid 1970s heavily laden narrow bodies would use the term (I even heard a Belfast use it once!) to denote more sluggish than usual performance instead of the more usual "we are rather heavy today" but this was dicouraged.
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:11 am

CV990...Thanks Jose. I do remember a DL short nine incident at Fort Worth but did not know the details and the apparent involvement of an AA DC 10.
Thank you again. I shall get some info and read up.
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 9:18 am

Also, after a string of accidents involving general aviation planes, it was decided that the 757 should also be considered a "heavy".

The designation "heavy" now refers to jet airplanes that are large enough to cause wake vortex problems. Lighter airplanes, following behind, know that they must maintain a certain height above the path of the heavy jet.

To my knowledge, the 757 is the only narrow body classified as a heavy. Are there any others?
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:41 pm

The DC-8-60/70's were and are referred to as "heavies." The 707's in passenger service were not.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:02 pm

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 4):
The heaviest of DC-8s, the -73, has an MTOW of 355,000lbs.

That makes it a heavy then. Makes sense as the Super DC-8s were the largest narrowbodies until the 753 came into being

707s were about the size of a 738, even with greater fuel capacity, definately not a heavy
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
soyuzavia
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:20 pm

Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 7):
They were miles bigger and heavier than most of the piston-props and any turbo-props around.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 13):
Makes sense as the Super DC-8s were the largest narrowbodies until the 753 came into being

You are both almost correct.

The narrowbody Tu-114, with a MTOW of over 170,000kg (375,000lb), was heavier than all 707 and DC-8 variants, and it was longer/wider than some of the variants, and although it was a turboprop, it was indeed faster than some of the 707/DC-8 variants.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:22 pm

Quoting Soyuzavia (Reply 14):
You are both almost correct.

The narrowbody Tu-114, with a MTOW of over 170,000kg (375,000lb), was heavier than all 707 and DC-8 variants, and it was longer/wider than some of the variants, and although it was a turboprop, it was indeed faster than some of the 707/DC-8 variants.

If the max number of passengers certificated to FAA/JAA standards was more than 259, I stand corrected
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CV990
Posts: 4224
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:22 pm

Hi!

Yes, most of us tend to forget the TU114 but that "thing" was really a beast compared with the DC-8 or the 707, and like Soyuzavia said the plane although was a prop it would fly faster than a good part of jets at that time!!! I remember one day reading in a magazine that the military version of the TU114, the TU95, when it was controlled by RAF over the North Sea the pilots could actually EAR the rumbling of those huge counter-prop engines, can you imagine? Flying a fighter that already is quite noisy and then still ear those engines???? Must have been a awesome experience!!!
Regards
CV990, the Maserati of the skies!
 
soyuzavia
Posts: 589
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:21 am

RE: Were Dc-8s And 707s Considered Heavies?

Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:13 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
If the max number of passengers certificated to FAA/JAA standards was more than 259, I stand corrected

The maximum capacity of the Tu-114 was 220. In terms of passenger capacity, sure some the others are/were 'bigger', but in terms of overall size, weight, and also speed, the Tu-114 dwarfs even the 757-300 -- it is the heaviest narrowbody passenger aircraft ever built and put into service, with the Il-62, which replaced the Tu-114, coming in a very close second (a couple of thousand kgs under the 114).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: azstar, Baidu [Spider], coolian2, HALtheAI, IPFreely, jbs2886, lightsaber, mdavies06, Prost, Rdeggendorfer, tcaeyx, thekorean and 271 guests