747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:49 pm

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
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:59 pm

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
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:01 pm

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
Posts: 8944
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:03 pm

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
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:08 pm

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
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:11 pm

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
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:14 pm

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
 
lhr380
Posts: 2453
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:39 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:17 pm

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



EP-IAM
(The views on this site are my own and no one elses)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:21 pm

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
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:55 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:22 pm

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
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:28 pm

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 avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13072
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:33 pm

Question: Did the 747-100s eventually get re-engined with JT9D-7s, at least those which were initially delivered with JT9D-3s?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:36 pm

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.
 
timz
Posts: 6100
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:47 am

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
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:04 am

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
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:19 am

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
Posts: 217
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:09 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:49 am

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
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 8:10 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:13 am

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
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:08 am

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
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:40 am

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
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:56 pm

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
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:14 am

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
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:34 am

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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5634
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:24 am

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.
 
musang
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:02 pm

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
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:21 pm

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 powered by the same JT9D-3A(W) engines.
Later most (all in my company) were modified to the JT9D-7W standard.

I made a lot of max performance limited Take Off's between 1978 and 1990 on the PW powered KL 747-206B aircraft, almost always we used the wet T/O procedure to increase the allowable payload.
Most of them on the AMS-LAX and AMS-IAH stretches, nearly always with also the airconditioning were switched off to obtain the last drop of thrust from these engines. Max T/O thrust was only 47.000 lbs with water injection and 45.500 lbs at the dry setting.
All three in the cockpit were always fully aware that in fact this aircraft was underpowered and the engines required a lot of extra attention during these kind of Take Off's.
We always said : "Luckely that the earth is curved so at the end we will always become airborne".
The engine sound of the 4 P&W JT9D-7W changed to a very low growling sound when the waterinjection came in at approx. 1.25 EPR powersetting. Most of the time we let the brakes a little longer applied to gain some runway length and checked that all four green waterflow lights were illuminated.
After the"Water on" call the brakes were released.
With four growling engines it took a very long time before Vr was reached. It always looked very close to the end of the runway. Slowly climbing with mostly MTOW (351.500 lbs) we climbed away until the water was almost running out or 2.30 minutes was reached.
Now "water off" was called by the F/E to warn the pilots for the impending thrust decrease. P/L's were retarded a little bit, before actual stopping of the waterinjection system on the F/E Panel. This was done to prevent an overboost during transition to the dry setting. Now GA or CLB was selected at the engine mode selectpanel and, depending climb out procedures, GA or CLB thrust was set.

Especially after selecting the waterinjection off and setting CLB thust it became very quite in the aircraft, so sometimes the captain warned the passengers before take off, that after take off the engines were only retarded and not shut off !!!!.

[Edited 2014-04-21 07:25:20]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
musang
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 4:11 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:30 am

747classic, thats a fascinating account!

Regards - musang
 
trex8
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Tue Apr 22, 2014 1:07 am

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 upgraded to F. Pretty cool for a kid travelling with older teen brother!
 
LH707330
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:59 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 25):

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 inject into the compressor?

Water Injection Question (by SXDFC Jan 19 2009 in Tech Ops)
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:10 pm

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 28):
Wow, great story! Did the 747 water burners smoke as well?
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 28):
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 inject into the compressor?

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 longitudial section drawing of the JT9D-7(W) engine the following is stated :
"Each nozzle is connected to primary and secondary fuel manifolds and to the watermanifold".

[Edited 2014-04-22 12:10:54]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3754
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:06 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 29):
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 longitudial section drawing of the JT9D-7(W) engine the following is stated :
"Each nozzle is connected to primary and secondary fuel manifolds and to the watermanifold".

That's pretty cool. How much water was used on a typical takeoff?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:29 am

Quoting BA174 (Reply 9):
Of topic a bit aren't some BAs old 741s still flying somewere ? I was told some went to Africa.

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 747-100s still flying.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: 747 100 On Long Haul Flight?

Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:20 am

Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 30):
How much water was used on a typical takeoff?

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. (what ever came first).
When 2.30 minute was reached or water quantity level (indicator at Flight Engineer panel) almost zero, the F/E called "water off " to warn the pilots fot the imminent power decrease and stopped the water injection with a switch on the F/E panel.
At that moment the (Hamilton Standard ) engine fuel controls of all 4 engines switched to the dry setting (less fuel) and the water shut-off vlv's closed.(water pumps off).
To avoid an engine overheat (one engine fuel control stayed at the wet setting with water shut off), the F/E normally retarded the P/L first a little bit before actually switching off the water injection system.
Depending the further climb out or accelaration scheme ( discussed in the Pre Flight briefing), the Pilot Flying asked then for GA (max 2.30 minutes) or CLB thrust.

The remaining water was dumped via een dump valve (after T/O checklist).
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: scbriml, speedbored and 11 guests