Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

747??????

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrewDawg
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 13

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I think what GCD may have been referring to is the buffet boundry. Optimum altitude was the one that gave you a 1.3G buffet boundry for moderate turbulence or, I think, a sustained 30 deg. bank turn. 2.0g was needed for severe turbulence. The special engines, -7R and -7Q, could get you to an altitude where the wing had little margin above stall in a turn or for turbulence. I know our 747-200 freighter, with -7Q's on a ferry or very light load leg, would get you too high for your own good as we discovered one night when we lost both yaw dampers.
Interesting fact: In the early years Pan Am made crews fly the whole leg with one pilot having his hands on the throttles at all times. The early JT-9D's were so were so critical that a bleed could stick or airflow disrupted and suddenly the EGT would go to a 1000 degs or more and cook the turbines. This went on for a year or more until they improved it with the -3 and -3A mods. On the ground turning 90 degs. while taxiing in a strong wind would do the same and for years the FEO had to keep his hands near or on on the cut-off levers while taxiing. Someone said it was the first large engine that did not have key engine sections proven by military flying as was the B-707 and others. Engine maint. was so expensive it probably contributed something to Pan Ams later demise.
 
Tell me where your living room is and have the beer ready.

The airframe limitation is mostly for the wing to be able to have a 1.3g maneuvering and gust capability at a specific altitude. The engines may be able to do FL450, but the airframe may be too heavy for the wing to provide a 1.3g manuevering and gust load at that altitude. The cruise charts need to be looked at to see what the 1.3g cruise limit is for a specific weight for swept wing airplanes.

I have an accronym for remembering how to select a cruise altitude.

ABCC1.3

A = ATC requirements for direction of flight
B = Best specific range
C = Cruise speed maintained with max continuous cruise thrust
C = Climb capability of at least 300fpm
1.3 = 1.3g manuevering capability
 
Snakum said:
I'm sitting here imagining what it'd be like to buy GCD, F9, Typhoon, and a couple other of you guys a case of beer and sit around my living room till the wee hours.
Can I be the designated driver? (I hate the taste of beer...)
 
Actually, I should have differentiated between Typhoon the Younger - who is a sharp young Regional Captain and is my hero, and Typhoon the Elder - who flew the big stuff back in the good old days.

Your still my hero, though, and I live my life vicariously through you. Well, except for that part about being the proud parent of a bouncing baby boy. It was a lot of fun but I'm too old to do that again. :D

Cute little feller though. ;)

Minh Thong
 

Latest resources

Back
Top