Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:01 am

Okay, I've been getting so much conflicting data regarding the Convair 880.

I checked the FAA, it says it's VMO is 373 kts and 393 above 21,500 feet about, MMO is .884.

However a website which is owned by a bunch of guys who actually want to keep a CV-880 from getting scrapped, and may be some of the most knowledgeable people on the aircraft alive (other than some pilots who are still alive), and my friend asked their historian and they said they often shot approaches at 400 kts before slowing down, additionally stating the gears (main-gear speedbrake) could be extended at such a high-speed. The Jon Proctor book about the CV-880 also said something similar about flying the downwind approach on the barber pole, and passing the outer marker (the start of Final Approach) at 250 kts and being able to make a normal landing. The Historian of the CV-880 site confirmed the same thing according to my friend who e-mailed him.

Some have said it's MMO was 0.91, and could sustain normal cruise speeds up to 0.87, which makes sense since it was said to be faster than other jet of the era. The Mach 0.884 figure however does not seem to make much sense, because the 707-120 had the same exact mmo, contrary to 411A (who claims to have been a pilot of a 707-320) statements, I checked the FAA website which confirmed the early figures I had for the 707, a MMO of .884 for the -120/-220, 0.887 for the -320, and 0.90 for the -120B/-320B/720B.

I am getting all sorts of conflicting data and all I'm looking for is precisely accurate information.

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:29 am

The Type Certificate Data Sheet tells all, I'm afraid, inspite of what others might think...spotters books or otherwise.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:04 pm

BTW, what is the .Mmo of the L-1011?
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
BTW, what is the .Mmo of the L-1011?

According to the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS), the Mmo for all L-1011 models is M=0.90.

Cheers,

John
Cheers, John YYC
 
G4LASRamper
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:35 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:03 pm

A friend of mine who flew as an F/O on the 880 for TWA said figuring the bug speed for the aircraft was easy. Whether by design or coincidence, all one had to do was take the landing weight and divide it by 1000, i.e. 150,000 lb landing weight meant a bug speed of 150 knots. Probably didn't get down to that speed until somewhere inside the outer though...  Smile
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:06 pm

Even though the MMO for the CV-880 and the 707 might be very similar doesn't mean the max cruise speed are also the same. The advertised 600 mph (TAS) cruise speed (880 ft/sec) refers to altitudes around the 21-23,000 ft mark (M=0.86). At 35,000 ft the TAS would be lower for the same Mach No.

The FAA numbers look to be genuine enough. Memory plays tricks and on rare occasions pilots have been known to exaggerate.  Smile

High speed descents weren't unique to the CV-880, but led to accidents, hence the 250 below 10,000 ft limit.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am

.Mmo appears to be around Mach 0.884, just like the 707-120, but I'm wondering, did the CV-880 have a bad mach tuck problem like the 707 if it went past that point? Because the DC-8's .Mmo was 0.88, although I've been told it can physically fly at 0.95 (whether with or without the 4%-chord increase) even though it's fuel-burn rate would be absolutely obscene.

Regarding the plane's cruise mach number-- so Mach 0.86 is the likely capability: with a 393 IAS (the old speed gauge had a problem due to some kind of compression effect). The CV-880 was capable at flying up to 41,000 feet though. While I know some pilots exaggerate about some things, It just seems as if 400 kts seems to pop up a lot-- and that brings on another quesiton: Even though it is stated to be able to max out at 373 kias at sea-level, if it can do 393 kias at altitude (even if due to a compression effect), could it do 393 kias at lower altitude as well (after all wouldn't the 393 kt ram air at low altitude be the same as the 373 kt ram air at altitude with the compression effect making the speed gauge read 393 kts?)?

Was the plane able to exceed the listed performance specs? Or something like that?

Just curious,
Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:24 pm

It isn't unusual for VMO at sea level to be a little less than VMO at altitude. The dynamic pressure will be much the same for the same CAS, so at sea level at 373 knots it is somewhat less than at altitude at 393 knots.

I don't know what other criteria are used in determining VMO and MMO, or why VMO typically decreases with altitude.

MMO and VMO are operational limits, not to be confused with VMD/MMD and VNE/MNE, which may well be higher.

According to the FAA type certificate, the CV-880 Model 22 had a VNE of 398 knots. For the CV-880 Model 22M it is 399 knots. VNE appears to be unaffected by altitude. MNE = 0.884 (same as MMO) for both versions.

So an 880 could descend at 398 or 399 knots depending on version, without exceeding VNE, though it would be in excess of VMO.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:05 pm

Modern aircraft seem to take this compression effect into account more so than the older designs. Man, it's weird... it just seems as if the IAS readings seem to go up... do they ever go down at higher altitudes at all on these older speed-gauge?

You know, I was always under the impression that the CV-880M was drastically more underpowered than the CV-880. Actually their thrust to weight ratios are almost the same.

With that said, why didn't Delta and TWA convert their CV-880's? It would have given a lower takeoff and landing speed, more versatility in the seating layout.

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:59 pm

What many younger folks are unaware of is the fact that these rather old jet airliner designs did not have especially accurate (by todays standards) air data computers.
Nearly all had the KIFIS system, Kollsman Intergrated Flight Instrument System, which provided, among other things, altitude, indicated airspeed, indicated mach number, vertical speed and indicated ram air temperature.
As such, and due mainly to compressability effects at higher IAS/mach numbers, the indications provided to the pilots was, to say the least, certainly not up to todays standards.
Therefore, it is not unusual to see rather wide variations with regard to indicated airspeeds/mach numbers versus aircraft altitude.
Even the faster piston engined airliners (DC-7, 1649 Constellations) had decreasing limiting operating airspeeds as altitudes increased for much the same reasons as stated above.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:20 am

From what I've been reading, the Kollman-Drum showed a rise in speed up to the twenty thousand range, then began falling off at higher altitudes. The new air-speed indicators really do seem far more accurate when you compare the old and the new.

While not entirely related to the Convair 880, or 707-320... does anybody here know the 727's VNE (I know it's vmo is 390/350 depending on mode and depending on mode M = 0.88/0.90 .Mmo) is? Because I just read something really interesting on an old page at PPRUNE: ((in addition to being an excellent source of fiber...) A forum which stands for Professional Pilot's RUmor NEtwork -- The topic was in regards 727-100's .Vmo

LINK: http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-99506.html

Despite the fact that the listed .Vmo for the 727-100 is 390 kts, and even stated by forum members, a member named "Turbine Blade" wrote something which appears to suggest the 727-100 is capable of performing beyond 390 kts:

Quote:
Hello...i have seen the 727 (aaaa what a wonderful machine !!) doing 420kts Indicated at 2000ft !! At the time aloud banging noise started at the nose area.I was new at the 27 so i was told that this sound comes from the nose gear doors banging at high speeds due to aerodynamic loads created by the fuselage !
:cool:

Is it's .Vne that high? Is the plane capable of performing beyond it's listed specs?

And did I read that statement about the landing gears right? - Did he have the gears out at 420 kts?  Wow! Or were the doors (while flush with the fuselage) just banging around even with the gears retracted up?


Andrea Kent
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 5):
Memory plays tricks and on rare occasions pilots have been known to exaggerate.

Say it isn't so!  Wink
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:09 am

LoL @ PGNCS,

Andrea Kent
Pi is approximately equal to 3.1415926535897932384626...
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 12):
LoL @ PGNCS,

Andrea Kent
Pi is approximately equal to 3.1415926535897932384626...

Come on, now...can't you get a little more precise than that? Big grin
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:08 am

PGNCS,

I just put that in to get around the minimum text requirement -- if you don't post enough (like one line of text), it won't let you post...

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:08 am

I'm suspect, Blackbird, that you have your V speed nomenclature just slightly mixed up.

Turbojet/turbofan powered swept wing airliners, with a few exceptions, don't have a Vne.

They have a Vmo and Mmo.

B727, for example has the following listed speeds....

Vmo 390 Mmo .90

---or---

Vmo 350 Mmo .88

Depending on the specific model.

IF some looney pilot (other than test pilots) was flying the airplane at 420 KIAS, and the FAA found out, his/her license would likely be suspended/revoked.

To fly the airplane beyond the stated limiting airspeeds (in the AFM) invalidates the certification requirements/standards of the particular model, and in addition, is very foolish.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:47 am

411A,

I'm just trying to duplicate accurate flight sim conditions and perform the flight profiles done before the 250 kt speed restriction.

Back to the gear door thing... was the gear extended at 420? Or was the wind just making the doors (flush and covering the gear well) bang around. The wording was kind of confusing to me.

Andrea Kent

[Edited 2007-04-28 03:50:21]
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:39 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 15):
I'm suspect, Blackbird, that you have your V speed nomenclature just slightly mixed up.

Turbojet/turbofan powered swept wing airliners, with a few exceptions, don't have a Vne.

They have a Vmo and Mmo.

Why wouldn't turbojet/turbofan powered swept wing airliners, as a class of aircraft, have a Vne specified? Vmo/Mmo may well be the operating limit but that doesn't mean to say that other limits don't apply in certain circumstances.

According to the FAA type certificate of the CV-880, it has Vne defined as well as Vmo. IIRC the CV-880 had swept wings and was an airliner with turbine engines.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:58 am

There is no Vne with newer designs, Jetlagged, because the certification standards were changed later on...so no Vne.
Only Vmo, which by definition, is the maximum operating airspeed limit, just as Mmo is the maximum allowed mach number.
Go faster, get the overspeed warning.
Simple as that.

It goes further.
Lets say you convert a multi-piston engined airplane to turbopropeller power.
Vne goes away.
It is replaced by Vmo, which by the way, is lower than the former Vne.

Not legal to fly faster than Vmo/Mmo, unless the filght is for test purposes, flown in accordance with the manufacturers test procedures, or for STC development.

Just the way it is...
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:18 am




Quoting 411A (Reply 18):
Lets say you convert a multi-piston engined airplane to turbopropeller power.
Vne goes away.
It is replaced by Vmo, which by the way, is lower than the former Vne.

If you converted a turboprop to piston, would the reverse be true?

Also,

What was your most memorable moment flying the 707?


2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:15 pm

Vne and Vno are two terms that are not used under current parts 121 and 135 of the FAR's. Vne is the airspeed limit in still air and does not provide any gust protection limits. Vno is the airspeed limit at which a 30 ft/sec vertical gust should not damage the aircraft. Vno was set at 90% of Vd for flutter protection. Vne, Vmo and Mmo can be seen together on some older TCDS's. You will find that the Vne is higher than the Vmo on those older TCDS's but all modern aircraft certified under part 121/135 will only have Vmo/Mmo.

Cheers,

John
Cheers, John YYC
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:55 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 19):
If you converted a turboprop to piston, would the reverse be true?

Also,

What was your most memorable moment flying the 707?

Turbine to piston?
More than likely not, the Vmo would stay the same.
We may find out now that the Orinda engine has come back from the dead, under new owners.

707 memorable moments.
1. Dense FD smoke over DaNang VietNam enroute HKG-BKK
Not nice.
2. Clear air turbulence departing Madras one early evening.
Being tossed around like a cork in the ocean, and looking out the LH side window at the left wing...and hoping the Boeing folks bolted it on, really tight...and wondering how the engines stayed attached.
3. Instructing brand new First Officers (with 270 total hours) how to be proficient.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:58 pm




Quoting 411A (Reply 21):
We may find out now that the Orinda engine has come back from the dead, under new owners.

You read my mind.  Smile

Quoting 411A (Reply 21):
707 memorable moments.

Good ones.


2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:00 pm

Seen no mention here of the Convair 990 which had an even higher Vmo/Mmo than the 880.
It had a much thinner wing section and those distinctive 'canoe flairings' to try minimise the transonic shock waves over the wing. Nowadays, modern supercritical sections achieve the same goal.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Starglider
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:31 pm

Quoting DH106 (Reply 23):
Seen no mention here of the Convair 990 which had an even higher Vmo/Mmo than the 880.



The 990 had several Vmo/Mmo limitations depending on certain conditions.

(CV-990) Model 30, 30A: -5, -6 and -8 with empty Outboard Anti-Shock Bodies:
Vmo : 377 kt at sea level to 417 kt at 21,500 ft.
Mmo : 0.912 M above 21,500 ft.

(CV-990) Model 30, 30A: -5 with fuel in Outboard Anti-Shock bodies:
Vmo : 357 kt at sea level up to 21,400 ft.
Mmo : 0.784 M above 21,400 ft.

(CV-990) Model 30, 30A: -6 and -8 with fuel in Outboard Anti-Shock bodies (-5 post S.B. 990-28-12):
Vmo : 321 kt at sea level up to 21,600 ft.
Mmo : 0.718 M above 21,600 ft.

But slower speed had its advantages as well, Modern Air flew the 990 trans-Atlantic, from Philadelphia to Vienna non-stop at M. 0.78, at that speed it had more than 20 percent range increase.


Starglider

[Edited 2007-04-29 16:33:56]
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:44 am

DH-106,

I always thought the thickness (not thickness/chord ratio... just the thickness) was the same as the CV880.


Andrea Kent
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 25):
I always thought the thickness (not thickness/chord ratio... just the thickness) was the same as the CV880.

The 880 and 990 both had the same 120' 0" span, and to my eye seem to have the same wing planform shape (obviously minus the shock bodies on the 990) meaning that at any wing station out from the center line the chord measurement was presumably the same. Thus for a thiner thickness/chord ratio, the 990 HAD to have a thinner section.

Here's a photo I took in the mid 90's of one of the last ex. Spantax Cv990's being broken up at Palma - you can see the thin section where the wing's been removed:-


Big version: Width: 1136 Height: 650 File size: 126kb
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:22 am

DH-106,

The CV-880 had a 35-degree sweepback angle. The CV-990 had a 39-degree sweepback... thus same thickness, longer section, lower thickness to chord ratio. Maybe it was made thinner as well... but it was longer just by having a higher-wingsweep, and additional area due to having the same span with a higher sweep-back

Andrea Kent
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:56 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 27):
The CV-880 had a 35-degree sweepback angle. The CV-990 had a 39-degree sweepback

Hmmmm - interesting, are you sure?
Checkout the silhouettes inside the front (880) and rear (990) covers of Jon Proctor's excellent book.
I make them both to be about 39deg. Assuming they're depicted correctly of course.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Wed May 02, 2007 2:09 am

To the best of my knowldge, the CV-880 had a 35-degree wingsweep.

Andrea Kent
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Wed May 02, 2007 4:16 am

Yes, it's interesting Andrea. 35 or 39.
Proctor's book certainly quotes 35deg for the 880 (page 10), but no figure for the 990.
All schematic drawings I can find and measure (in this book and elsewhere) definitely look to be 39deg.

One reviewer of Proctor's book says:

Quote:

I consider this the best 880/990 book written in the past two decades. It is inclusive with the good, bad and the ugly. The author probably overemphasizes the corporate mistakes. The aircraft is also criticised more than a thoroughbred should be. However, the contributions in photography and interesting stories add up to a very positive account of an incredible jet. Some of the technicals are slightly in error. The wing sweep was almost 40 degrees, not thirtyfive. Also the color photo of an 880 flight deck is reversed. I bought two copies for myself.

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Convair-880-Great-Airliners-Vol/dp/0962673048

His comment about the reversed 880 cockpit photo is correct - the color photo at the bottom of page 17 is reversed as can be seen by the mirrored writing "Rudder Trim" in the forefround on the center console. Not proof about the sweep comment I know - but indicative.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Wed May 02, 2007 5:12 am

I think the FAA site (there's a bunch of PDF documents you can find with make and model) which discussed the performance and capabilities of the CV-880 mentioned a 35-degree wingsweep.

The CV-990's IS 39 however.

Andrea Kent
 
Starglider
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Wed May 02, 2007 8:05 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 31):
The CV-990's IS 39 however.

Andrea,
It is 39 deg for the CV-990. See link below and scroll down to page 28: Table 1. - Physical Characteristics of the CV-990 Airplane.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...asa.gov/19720014376_1972014376.pdf



Starglider
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu May 03, 2007 10:04 am

The CV-880 is 35 right?

Andrea Kent
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu May 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 33):
The CV-880 is 35 right?

Well, tricky one.
Either:
all the schematic drawings I can find are wrong (about half a dozen at last count).
They all measure at 39deg - same as 990
or
the figure of 35deg has been disseminated in error for the 880.

I'm on the fence at the moment until I can find out more - but I was always under the impression the 880 & 990 had the same wing planform, but different sections.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Thu May 03, 2007 4:21 pm

Here's an image of the Lisbon 880 - N8806E (ship #21) from Google Earth, oriented as close to 'north' as I can make it.
It's a bit fuzzy and not quite aligned vertically, but a difference of 4 deg. should readily be measurable within the limits of resolution.
I make it pretty much 39deg.
What do others think?

Big version: Width: 698 Height: 663 File size: 35kb
Cv880 N8806E, just outside Lisbon Airport. From Google Earth
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Fri May 04, 2007 1:53 am

I remember the FAA document saying it was 35-degrees, although I could be wrong and it may as well be 39-degrees.

One thing I remember though was the CV-990 had an extra 250 square feet of wing-area and the same span, suggesting a higher sweep, and more area was added to keep the same span

Andrea Kent
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Tue May 15, 2007 9:46 am

What speed does the overspeed warning typically sound at on say the 707, 727, CV-880/CV-880M, L-1011, and CV-990?

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Tue May 15, 2007 9:59 am

L-1011....M.90

Unless, the aeroplane was on the British or Omani civil registers, then M.88
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Tue May 15, 2007 11:36 am

What indicated airspeed if, applicable at low altitiudes, did the L-1011's overspeed sound at?

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Tue May 15, 2007 12:21 pm

L1011.....375 KIAS................
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun May 20, 2007 3:12 am

What was the 707-420's story?

They to my knowledge had a lower VMO/MMO and stuff, and if I recall they took off with a 30-degree flap detent. Why the speed differences and flap-setting difference? Did the plane have a different wing cross-section or something?

For a long time I thought a -420 was just a -320 with Conways and an antenna off the starboard wing.

Andrea Kent
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun May 20, 2007 4:02 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 41):
What was the 707-420's story?

It was officially known as the 707-400 series. The customer #'s were 430(Lufthansa), 436(BOAC), 437(Air India), 441(Varig), 458(El Al), 465(BE).

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 41):
They to my knowledge had a lower VMO/MMO and stuff, and if I recall they took off with a 30-degree flap detent. Why the speed differences and flap-setting difference? Did the plane have a different wing cross-section or something?

Directly from the TCDS:

Quote:
707-400 series aircraft Vmo Airspeed Limits are identical to those listed in the
applicable section Part I of this Data Sheet except the 707-436 and 707-465 Vmo limit
at 23,300 feet is 430 mph (375 kts) and the Mmo limit is .852 at 23,300 feet and above.

The -436 and 465 were limited further by the UK ARB due to dutch roll concerns. All other -400 operators had a Vmo of 378 kts @ 24,900' and a Mmo of M0.887. Both the -300 and -400 series had the same wing. As for the 30 degree flap settings I think that's not correct. I believe it's the same as a -300 at flaps 14 for takeoff. Flaps 30 would be a lot of drag to overcome during takeoff and would totally ruin second segment performance.

The extended V-Stab and small ventral fin were added to the -400 as part of the certification program to meet the UK ARB concerns.

Cheers,

John

[Edited 2007-05-19 21:04:02]
Cheers, John YYC
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun May 20, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 42):
The extended V-Stab and small ventral fin were added to the -400 as part of the certification program to meet the UK ARB concerns.

The -400's carried the larger of the two ventral fin sizes didn't they?
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Sun May 20, 2007 9:54 am

Was there any -420B's or -420C designs with the 320B/C wing?

Andrea Kent
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon May 21, 2007 7:54 am

Regarding the differences between the wing (IE; NACA number) of the 707-400 and 707-320 straight pipe (non-fan) series aircraft....there ain't any.
However, for South African Airways only, full span leading edge devices were fitted, to allow for departures from JNB without exceeding tire speeds.

And, in addition, these aircraft had the following flap positions (detents)...10, 20, 30, 40, 50.

The 20 and 30 degree positions were authorized for takeoff, except SAA, which was authorized to use flap 10 for takeoff.
50 degree position for landing.

Later varients of the B707, the -320B/C (advanced cowl) models had the following flap positions...
14, 25, 40, 50.
14 degrees was the only flap position authorized for takeoff.
50 degrees for landing...except PanAmerican, which had an FAA authorization for flap 40 landings, SCD.
These aircraft also had fillet flaps fitted, at the extreme inboard trailing edge position.

However, there were intermediate models of the B707-320B/C that were fitted with the old cowl....small inlet doors.
These had a slightly lower MTOW, and instead of a 14 degree flap poisition for takeoff, 17 degrees was used.
IE: detents were, 17, 25, 40, 50.

And yes, I've flown 'em all.

Any more questions?
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon May 21, 2007 2:56 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 45):
However, for South African Airways only, full span leading edge devices were fitted, to allow for departures from JNB without exceeding tire speeds.

Don't all later model 707's have full span LE devices?
I remember a thread some time back about whether they should be called slats, Kreugers or just leading edge flaps.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon May 21, 2007 7:47 pm

If you refer to my previous post on the subject, DH106, you will note that my reference was to older -320 and 400 series straight-pipe (non-fan) aircraft, and of these, only the models produced specifically for SAA had full span leading edge devices.

Later 320 series fan powered aircraft all had full span LED's.
 
DH106
Posts: 595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon May 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Quoting 411A (Reply 47):
If you refer to my previous post on the subject, DH106, you will note that my reference was to older -320 and 400 series straight-pipe (non-fan) aircraft, and of these, only the models produced specifically for SAA had full span leading edge devices.

Later 320 series fan powered aircraft all had full span LED's.

Okay, so only SAA aircraft of early -300 series (non-fan) had full span LE device.
Later (fan) -300's all had them.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser Gate....
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: Convair 880 Cruise Mach, VMO/MMO Question

Mon May 21, 2007 11:47 pm

Yes, DH106, that is correct.
You should understand that many 707's, after they left the factory, were modified by their original or succeeding operators to, in most cases, enhance performance.
Some straight-pipe airplanes were converted to turbofan power, for example.
What was generally not done, however, was to modify the leading edge of the wing, as the LED's required major structural changes.
These leading edge devices were pneumatically actuated by engine bleed air (not by air from turbocompressors), but 9th stage bleed air, and after touchdown and reverse was selected, they would momentarily fully retract, then extend once again, when reverse thrust was canceled.
This was to help keep slush from being thrown up by the effects of reverse, and freezing in the wing area, directly behind the LED's.
Being pneumatically actuated, these LED's, once the engines were shut down, would slowly extend, as the pneumatic actuators bleed down....they were held in the retracted position by the same engine bleed air, during cruise.

These pneumatic LED's, as well as the lost motion device in the aileron circuit, and the control surface balance panels, were of a very clever design, and were patented by Boeing, as were several aspects of the airplane.

B707...it made money by the bucketfull for their operators, but early models were sometimes a challange to fly by their pilots.
The -320B/C (advanced cowl) models however were a delight to fly, once new pilots got used to the rather heavy control feel.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akiss20, Google Adsense [Bot], WYLTK and 10 guests