Exactly 60 years ago, August 15, 1958, Pan Am took the first delivery of the first US commercial jet, N709PA, Clipper Tradewind (aka America), and the world of aviation was never the same again!

Wow...
I recommend the book Skygods. It goes into the negotiations to create a different 707 than the one Boeing originally marketed due to Juan Trippe.

lightsaber wrote:

Wow...
I recommend the book Skygods. It goes into the negotiations to create a different 707 than the one Boeing originally marketed due to Juan Trippe.

Thanks. Turns out you can get it on Kindle for $4 so it's in my queue now.

Thank you for posting this historic event!

Were Pan Am’s 707’s delivered with a 2x3 or 3x3 cabin configuration?

What was the seat pitch?

N709PA must be the crashed aircraft in 1963?

No doubt PA's 707s were always four-across in First and six-across in Tourist or Economy or whatever it was. IATA might have set the minimum seat pitch? Maybe 34 inches?

cougar15 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Wow...
I recommend the book Skygods. It goes into the negotiations to create a different 707 than the one Boeing originally marketed due to Juan Trippe.

I second that one, it is a great read!

Thank you! 4 bucks for my kindle, just bought and am going to read on my next flights.

That reminds me, I have been looking for an original seat map of the first Pan Am 707s. Before they went 6 abreast. In old promo videos, It looked like the lavatories were placed differently than they are today along the fuselage (including windows even?) with normal seats or a lounge opposite. I wasn't able to find anything.

While the Comet proceeded the 707, the 707 was the first commercially successful long range jet aircraft. It was the game changer, in terms of much shorter travel times, reliability, safety and comfort in the context of their time. I did fly on a couple of 707's back in the 1980's from JFK to LGW and to the Bahamas (and it's top competitor, DC-8 -JFK-SNN-JFK) although by then they were functionally obsolete for pax use due to the later wide-bodies (747, DC-10, L-1011).

Ah yes, transatlantic flights on a narrowbody jet. And people get all worked up on the 757s flying across the pond now

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors. Therefore, we must give recognition where it is due. I just marvel at how jets have literally brought the world together. I remember flying a Pan Am 707 to Hawaii when I was young and it was exciting for a 5 year old in the late 60's! And I worked for AA when they retired their final 707.

evank516 wrote:

Ah yes, transatlantic flights on a narrowbody jet. And people get all worked up on the 757s flying across the pond now

Different beasts despite the cabin diameter, different use of internal space, number of lavatories and galleys. I was FA on the 707's and I can guarantee you that the level of comfort was far superior, both for passengers and crews. Not all narrowbodies are the same.

"Different beasts despite the cabin diameter, different use of internal space, number of lavatories and galleys. I was FA on the 707's and I can guarantee you that the level of comfort was far superior, both for passengers and crews. Not all narrowbodies are the same."

Would love to hear more about the different use of internal space... according to Wiki, the 707, 757 and 737 all have 148 in / 3.76 m cabin widths. Obviously pitch has become more torturous, what else is different?

"Different beasts despite the cabin diameter, different use of internal space, number of lavatories and galleys. I was FA on the 707's and I can guarantee you that the level of comfort was far superior, both for passengers and crews. Not all narrowbodies are the same."

Would love to hear more about the different use of internal space... according to Wiki, the 707, 757 and 737 all have 148 in / 3.76 m cabin widths. Obviously pitch has become more torturous, what else is different?

formeraa wrote:

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors. Therefore, we must give recognition where it is due.

Why, are you perceiving some lack of granting due recognition?

What are Comet's contributions to Boeing's learning?

Did Boeing have a similar lack of understanding of cabin pressurization, metal fatigue and metallurgy issues before the Comet demonstrated DHC's lack of such understanding?

Just wondering what the context is.

formeraa wrote:

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors. Therefore, we must give recognition where it is due.

There's an infinite number of ways to do things wrong. The Comet showed one or two catastrophically.

PPVLC wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Ah yes, transatlantic flights on a narrowbody jet. And people get all worked up on the 757s flying across the pond now

Different beasts despite the cabin diameter, different use of internal space, number of lavatories and galleys. I was FA on the 707's and I can guarantee you that the level of comfort was far superior, both for passengers and crews. Not all narrowbodies are the same.

They aren't, but let's face it, narrowbodies on transatlantic flights are nothing new.

Revelation wrote:

formeraa wrote:

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors. Therefore, we must give recognition where it is due.

Why, are you perceiving some lack of granting due recognition?

What are Comet's contributions to Boeing's learning?

Did Boeing have a similar lack of understanding of cabin pressurization, metal fatigue and metallurgy issues before the Comet demonstrated DHC's lack of such understanding?

Just wondering what the context is.

The Comet would have had problems after the introduction of the 707 even if there had been no history of metal fatigue caused crashes. It had far fewer seats over which to share costs. It had seating capacity similar to some of today's regional jets. The 707 could about over 150 passengers. The 707 had podded engines like the B-47 and B-52 before it. This came in quite handy when later 707 versions had bypass and later high bypass engines installed. Its pretty difficult to modify the whole wing structure to update a Comet with embedded engines to use high bypass engines. Pretty much all the civilian subsonic jets with wing mounted engines designed after the 707 have podded engines hung from pylons.

Revelation wrote:

Did Boeing have a similar lack of understanding of cabin pressurization, metal fatigue and metallurgy issues before the Comet demonstrated DHC's lack of such understanding?

Understanding of metal fatigue was poor all around back then, so Boeing certainly benefitted from the Comet's pioneering work in that respect.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The Comet would have had problems after the introduction of the 707 even if there had been no history of metal fatigue caused crashes. It had far fewer seats over which to share costs. It had seating capacity similar to some of today's regional jets. The 707 could about over 150 passengers. The 707 had podded engines like the B-47 and B-52 before it. This came in quite handy when later 707 versions had bypass and later high bypass engines installed. Its pretty difficult to modify the whole wing structure to update a Comet with embedded engines to use high bypass engines. Pretty much all the civilian subsonic jets with wing mounted engines designed after the 707 have podded engines hung from pylons.

All valid points.

I also think Comet and 707 had some common hurdles. The one that comes to mind is that pilots used to piston planes were having a hard time "staying ahead" of the large jet transports, and had a hard time dealing with the relative lack of responsiveness of jet turbines vs piston engines. This caused a lot of early training accidents and even hull losses.

aviationaware wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Did Boeing have a similar lack of understanding of cabin pressurization, metal fatigue and metallurgy issues before the Comet demonstrated DHC's lack of such understanding?

Understanding of metal fatigue was poor all around back then, so Boeing certainly benefitted from the Comet's pioneering work in that respect.

Yet there were lots of other pressurized cabins that worked out OK before Comet, no? B-29 and onward, Douglas and Boeing commercial transports, etc?

Revelation your point about piston to jet was particularly valid when the 727 was introduced, with a number of early landing accidents that had, as a common factor, the new jet handling skills required....Robert J Serlings book Loud and Clear being the quintessential read on the subject. Indeed the early 727 acquired a reputation not dissimilar to that previously held by the Electra....funny how history sometimes buries these matters

The 707 of course came into service with severe directional stability issues, particularly in engine out situations. It was not until the late, great D.P Davies (author of Handling the Big Jets) and then Head of the UK ARB at the time BOAC were wanting to buy the 707, that Boeing finally conceded to the problem that resulted in the ventral fins and a more powerful rudder arrangement.

For the record, De Havilland openly shared its painful fatigue lessons with the global aviation industry, so pretty much every commercial aircraft that came after benefitted from the Comet failure and not just Boeing at its 707

No doubt however that it is the 707 that claimed its rightful place in civil aviation history as the first commercially succesful jet transport.

Basically, do not have square windows

And sadly she only lived for a little over five years. Crashed in December, 1963 due to a lightening strike, between Baltimore and Philadelphia. Flight 214 had originated in San Juan.

formeraa wrote:

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors

This is a common misconception.

By the time the true cause of the initial Comet metal fatigue accidents became public knowledge, the design and construction of the Dash-80/707 were already cast in stone. Boeing, having built many pressurized aircraft designs before the 707 was already ahead of the issue.

One of the things Boeing did however "learn" from the Comet 1 though, is that there really isn't a place for a 40 seat long range aircraft.

longhauler wrote:

formeraa wrote:

And, of course, Boeing learned from the Comet errors

This is a common misconception.

By the time the true cause of the initial Comet metal fatigue accidents became public knowledge, the design and construction of the Dash-80/707 were already cast in stone. Boeing, having built many pressurized aircraft designs before the 707 was already ahead of the issue.

One of the things Boeing did however "learn" from the Comet 1 though, is that there really isn't a place for a 40 seat long range aircraft.

I had also understood that Boeing developed rip-stop fuselage construction on the 707 based on experience gained from the Comet fatigue issues. Or perhaps as you allude to, Boeing already knew to do this and avoided the problem in the first place.

Tex Johnston stated that was one of the main reasons he rolled the Dash-80 over Seafair. He wanted to show that Boeing wasn't building another Comet. This plane was tough.

shankly wrote:

Revelation your point about piston to jet was particularly valid when the 727 was introduced, with a number of early landing accidents that had, as a common factor, the new jet handling skills required....Robert J Serlings book Loud and Clear being the quintessential read on the subject. Indeed the early 727 acquired a reputation not dissimilar to that previously held by the Electra....funny how history sometimes buries these matters

Interesting. Seems like Robert J. Serling's "Loud and Clear" is only available in paper form, but his books on Electra, AS and TW are all on Kindle for $4 each:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07 ... tkin_p1_i0
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07 ... tkin_p1_i3
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01 ... tkin_p1_i1

And D.P Davies's "Handling the Big Jets" is also only around in paper form.

PS: I bought "Legend and Legacy: The Story of Boeing and Its People" by Robert J. Serling when it first came out in the 90s and enjoyed it a lot. It's also only available in paper format.

I actually flew on a Pan Am 707 from JFK to FCO in 1980. A great plane.

thats interesting

wiggy wrote:

thats interesting

-:) -:)

JustPassingThru wrote:

Would love to hear more about the different use of internal space... according to Wiki, the 707, 757 and 737 all have 148 in / 3.76 m cabin widths. Obviously pitch has become more torturous, what else is different?

The 727 has the same fuselage width as the 707, 737, and 757. There are museums where you can board and walk through 707's and 727's. I doubt you'd be allowed to sit in the seats but I think standing there you'll quickly realize that other than pitch and maybe thicker padding on the seat, they're all the same 3+3 across seating in the same space.

I’ve always wondered if riding the 707 domestically in the US in the late 70’s and very early 80’s felt all that different from riding second generation jets like the 727 or 737-200.

I’ve seen many photos of interior of the early 707s, which had a more modern cabin than the DC-8s of similar vintage. However, they still had the open overhead racks instead of the enclosed bins of later designs.

Does anyone know if American and TWA (and Pan Am for that matter) upgraded the cabins late in the 707’s career similar to the “widebody” cabins Boeing offered on the 727 in the 70’s that took styling cues from the 747?

Always wished I had gotten on the 707, but wasn’t born until 5-6 years after the last of them were retired by the US majors.

NOLAWildcat wrote:

Does anyone know if American and TWA (and Pan Am for that matter) upgraded the cabins late in the 707’s career similar to the “widebody” cabins Boeing offered on the 727 in the 70’s that took styling cues from the 747?
.

Pan Am did not update their 707s with the wide body look cabins. American did. Not sure about TWA.

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Wow...
I recommend the book Skygods. It goes into the negotiations to create a different 707 than the one Boeing originally marketed due to Juan Trippe.

Thanks. Turns out you can get it on Kindle for $4 so it's in my queue now.

Just downloaded the book with an Audible credit, thanks for the heads up.

That was delivery.
Entry into service of classical jets was:
Comet - 2nd of May, 1952, BOAC, London-Johannesburg, said to be five-stop
Tu-104 - 15th of September, 1956, Aeroflot, Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk
Comet return after grounding - 4th of October, 1958, BOAC, London-Gander-Idlewild
707 - 26th of October, 1958, Pan Am, Idlewild-Gander-Le Bourget
Caravelle - 26th of April, 1959, SAS
DC-9 - 18th of September, 1959, Delta and United on the same day, Delta claims first.

While the square windows were the weakEST point, the whole structure was too weak, and that was the real problem.
The metal was too thin, and the combination of bonding and riveting was wrong.
The square windows would have worked fine if the rest of the structure had been up to scratch.

rlwynn wrote:

Basically, do not have square windows

Had my one and only flight on the venerable Lady by Egyptair from Heathrow to Cairo in September 1982. Great plane, great flight,even though she seemed to take an age to get airborne..can't remember what series, perhaps 300? Returned by Airbus A300 which was equally exciting as that was my first wide-body flight. On a side note I found out the Egyptian for Egypt is Misr after I asked somebody why the flight number was MSxxx. Mine of useless information I am according to my French teacher at school...

what year did pan am stop anyway

wiggy wrote:

what year did pan am stop anyway

The last scheduled 707 flight on Pan Am was 1981, but not sure what date exactly.

dcajet wrote:

Pan Am did not update their 707s with the wide body look cabins. American did. Not sure about TWA.

TWA did not. When the F/C lounges were replaced, they installed a "carry on luggage rack" and a galley work table just aft of the L-1 door. Below, the top seat map was the -331 Turbojet, the bottom was the -331B Turbofan.

Revelation, you like your audio stuff! You will love these, with Mr DP Davies talking about his certification/test flying experiences on various types, but topically here, the 707.

His praise for the 747 is unequivocal

Brabazon to 707
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...nnia-brabazon/

T-Tails and 747 (which he loved)
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...he-boeing-727/

V-Bombers and Concorde
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...the-v-bombers/

Enjoy

evank516 wrote:

PPVLC wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Ah yes, transatlantic flights on a narrowbody jet. And people get all worked up on the 757s flying across the pond now

Different beasts despite the cabin diameter, different use of internal space, number of lavatories and galleys. I was FA on the 707's and I can guarantee you that the level of comfort was far superior, both for passengers and crews. Not all narrowbodies are the same.

They aren't, but let's face it, narrowbodies on transatlantic flights are nothing new.

Nothing new indeed; yes they were different, I worked on them I can tell you based on experience, not on opinion.

NOLAWildcat wrote:

I’ve always wondered if riding the 707 domestically in the US in the late 70’s and very early 80’s felt all that different from riding second generation jets like the 727 or 737-200.

I’ve seen many photos of interior of the early 707s, which had a more modern cabin than the DC-8s of similar vintage. However, they still had the open overhead racks instead of the enclosed bins of later designs.

Does anyone know if American and TWA (and Pan Am for that matter) upgraded the cabins late in the 707’s career similar to the “widebody” cabins Boeing offered on the 727 in the 70’s that took styling cues from the 747?

Always wished I had gotten on the 707, but wasn’t born until 5-6 years after the last of them were retired by the US majors.

NOLA...I'll take a stab at your first question..as far as "feeling" it would have depended on the airline if you are talking about seat pitch, etc..If you were on a 707 for at least a 4-6 hour flight, you knew it was different from the take-off roll..longer, rate of climb, etc due to fuel load, etc. If it was a short sector, then the 707 could launch with a nice feel in the seat of your pants. Not quite like the first 727 or DC-9, which were designed for powerful take-offs shorter runways (smaller airports or LGA/DCA). When fuel was 12-15 cents a gallon, 707s were scheduled for long trans cons as well as flights like STL-IND or CMH-ORD and such. Also the CAB had routs authorized/ designated such as ROC-CLE-LAX on AA or DAY-IND-LAX on TW...just 2 examples. Both of those carries utilized the 707 in various ways.

I always enjoyed the distinct humm sound of the JT3's hung from the wing once you reached cruise. They were louder than anything today, and that is why, amoung many reasons, the 727 and DC-9 series had rear mounted engines..far fewer pax exposed to the noise and up front, little noise for first class pax.

The one other item, in those days the 727/737 did not have transcon capability. ORD- the west coast was it for the 727 and less for the 737-200.

by 1967 improvemets started coming with the 727-220 (original "lead sleds" and then the 727-200A Advanced..and the DC9-30/40 series.

Hope this helps.

chornedsnorkack wrote:

That was delivery.
Entry into service of classical jets was:
Comet - 2nd of May, 1952, BOAC, London-Johannesburg, said to be five-stop
Tu-104 - 15th of September, 1956, Aeroflot, Moscow-Omsk-Irkutsk
Comet return after grounding - 4th of October, 1958, BOAC, London-Gander-Idlewild
707 - 26th of October, 1958, Pan Am, Idlewild-Gander-Le Bourget
Caravelle - 26th of April, 1959, SAS
DC-9 - 18th of September, 1959, Delta and United on the same day, Delta claims first.

Thank you for the informative post!

One small issue: I think you meant to type DC-8 not DC-9 on the last line.

From what I understand the Boeing 707 was the original manual reversion aircraft. Unlike the Boeing 727 which had a 3,000 psi split A and B hydraulic system, the 707 relied on servo tabs, counter weights, bell cranks, pullies and pilot muscle power for two of the three axis. The rudder, which Boeing later enlarged and added a ventral fin below the fuselage, did have a hydraulic-assisted boost.

From an aesthetic standpoint the Boeing 707, particularly the -320B and C, were among the most beautiful airliners ever produced. Anyone who has ever ridden aboard them as a passenger can remember gazing out a window at that beautiful wing, swept back at 35% and flexing in turbulence along with the engine pods. Perhaps it was the era, maybe it was the better seat pitch and impeccable in-flight service Pan Am and TWA gave the international passenger, but an overseas trip aboard the Boeing 707 did not seem like an arduous journey on a narrow-body aircraft.

Just to add to chornedsnorkack's post, the first 707 service from Idlewild to Le Bourget was flown by N711PA. If you Google that registration you'll find a great black and white photo taken on the tarmac prior to the flight departing with a marching bad - great stuff!
26 October 1958 also happens to be the day I was born - imagine my excitement the first time I read that as a teenager!

Revelation wrote:

One small issue: I think you meant to type DC-8 not DC-9 on the last line.

Oops! Yes, I did.
Of the classics, Convair 880 started service in May 1960, with Delta. B727, VC10 and Trident in 1964. BAC 1-11 and DC-9 both in 1965.

shankly wrote:

Revelation, you like your audio stuff! You will love these, with Mr DP Davies talking about his certification/test flying experiences on various types, but topically here, the 707.

His praise for the 747 is unequivocal

Brabazon to 707
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...nnia-brabazon/

T-Tails and 747 (which he loved)
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...he-boeing-727/

V-Bombers and Concorde
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/aud...the-v-bombers/

Enjoy

I love this exact kind of content! Thank you so much!

I found the above links weren't working but I found the content via a google search that led me to the SoundCloud site:

https://soundcloud.com/search?q=the%20d ... 0interview

And the page for all the Royal Aero Society content: https://soundcloud.com/aerosociety-podcast

Thank you for the link to all the amazing content, all there free for the taking!

In return I'll point our readers to a perhaps less illustrious but still fascinating set of content, at https://www.youtube.com/user/PeninsulaSrsVideos/videos which is very informative. It is a bunch of video recordings of lectures and interviews mostly occurring at the Western Museum of Flight ( http://www.wmof.com/ ) near Los Angeles. I've been listening to a fascinating series of lectures about things such as a lecture on the Rutan around the world flight given by Rutan's daughter, the evolution of the F-14 design given by one of its lead engineers, the history of the Robinson helicopter company given by the son of the founder and its current CEO, lectures about all kinds of cool aircraft such as SR-71, XB-70 Valkyrie, B1, F15, Fiesler Stork, He162, Mustang, etc given by engineers and test and military line pilots, even the history and operation of the Goodyear blimps!

Hope others out there find and enjoys all this content too!

ss278 wrote:

And sadly she only lived for a little over five years. Crashed in December, 1963 due to a lightening strike, between Baltimore and Philadelphia. Flight 214 had originated in San Juan.

Very sobering.

highflier92660 wrote:

From what I understand the Boeing 707 was the original manual reversion aircraft. Unlike the Boeing 727 which had a 3,000 psi split A and B hydraulic system, the 707 relied on servo tabs, counter weights, bell cranks, pullies and pilot muscle power for two of the three axis. The rudder, which Boeing later enlarged and added a ventral fin below the fuselage, did have a hydraulic-assisted boost.

From an aesthetic standpoint the Boeing 707, particularly the -320B and C, were among the most beautiful airliners ever produced. Anyone who has ever ridden aboard them as a passenger can remember gazing out a window at that beautiful wing, swept back at 35% and flexing in turbulence along with the engine pods. Perhaps it was the era, maybe it was the better seat pitch and impeccable in-flight service Pan Am and TWA gave the international passenger, but an overseas trip aboard the Boeing 707 did not seem like an arduous journey on a narrow-body aircraft.

Hear hear, and my only trip on the 707 from London to Cairo bears that out beautifully. Just over 5 hours (more or less unbeaten today) and from my window seat I could see that flex beautifully lit over the Mediterranean at sunset. The seats were 3-3 (don't remember the pitch) but comfy and although slightly worn seemed like armchairs to me at the time.
And your'e right about the aesthetics. I was spotting at LHR since I was little (since LAP days!) and always loved seeing the 320Bs and Cs of flip knows how many airlines. Except the BOAC, Air India & QF 400 series which you could always hear coming before they got to the Queens Building by the sound of the Conways,