Jump to content
Maglev

Advice for First-Time Flyers

Recommended Posts

Heh! If you have not experienced a 707 with afterburners on, you ain't experienced nuthin' :D

Afterburners? 707 didn't have afterburners...

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the reason for it, but it is a little disconcerting when you feel the illusion of 'dropping' momentarily while in a steep climb-out, even though you are actually still climbing.

 

Noise was really a problem back in the turbo-jet era, before the high bypass fanjets. Early 707's, 727's, etc., used to rattle my windows, and set off car alarms. I am only about 4 miles from the end of LGA runway 13. And back then, we didn't have A/C, so summertime we had our windows open...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heh! If you have not experienced a 707 with afterburners on, you ain't experienced nuthin' :D

Afterburners? 707 didn't have afterburners...

 

Early turbojet ones did.The so called high bypass Turbofans came a bit later. I have seen, heard and do remember them. People have very little idea today about how precarious the early 707s were. They could barely make it across the pond, and often required diversions to Gander or Shannon and such places, if they were not already a scheduled service stop.

 

The trail of dark black smoke during the takeoff run and climb out used to be quite impressive.

Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Heh! If you have not experienced a 707 with afterburners on, you ain't experienced nuthin' :D

Afterburners? 707 didn't have afterburners...

 

Early turbojet ones did.The so called high bypass Turbofans came a bit later. I have seen, heard and do remember them. People have very little idea today about how precarious the early 707s were. They could barely make it across the pond, and often required diversions to Gander or Shannon and such places, if they were not already a scheduled service stop.

 

The trail of dark black smoke during the takeoff run and climb out used to be quite impressive.

 

I know there was a military version of the JT8D that did have afterburners, however that was never fitted to the 707s. I don't mean to challenge you on this, but I'm pretty sure the 707s never had afterburners...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Heh! If you have not experienced a 707 with afterburners on, you ain't experienced nuthin' :D

Afterburners? 707 didn't have afterburners...

 

Early turbojet ones did.The so called high bypass Turbofans came a bit later. I have seen, heard and do remember them. People have very little idea today about how precarious the early 707s were. They could barely make it across the pond, and often required diversions to Gander or Shannon and such places, if they were not already a scheduled service stop.

 

The trail of dark black smoke during the takeoff run and climb out used to be quite impressive.

 

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast.

What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Heh! If you have not experienced a 707 with afterburners on, you ain't experienced nuthin' :D

Afterburners? 707 didn't have afterburners...

 

Early turbojet ones did.The so called high bypass Turbofans came a bit later. I have seen, heard and do remember them. People have very little idea today about how precarious the early 707s were. They could barely make it across the pond, and often required diversions to Gander or Shannon and such places, if they were not already a scheduled service stop.

 

The trail of dark black smoke during the takeoff run and climb out used to be quite impressive.

 

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast.

What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

 

I'm looking it up now, and everything says that the Concorde and TU-144 (the Russian equivalent) were the only civilian aircraft ever to have afterburners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, maybe I am remembering wrong. But the early ones had these trail of smoke spewing out the back of the engine. maybe it was something else.

 

Right the P&W J75s on 707s did not have afterburners. Nor did the GE J79 on the Convair 880 and 990. As I recall, the Convairs were even more smoky than the 707s. So it was just that they were Turbojets with cooler cores and with water injection that produce the smoky exhaust.

 

These were followed by the JT3D. The low bypass JT8D and the Rolls Royce Conway came a few years later.

 

I never had a chance to fly in a J75 or JT3D powered 707. But I did fly in 707s powered by both JT8D and RR Conway (the 420 version of 707 flown by both BOAC and Air india), though my first flight was on a JT8D powered 707 of Air India.

Edited by jis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast. What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

Your 707 explanation is correct, at least so far as I am aware, but the Concorde afterburners were actually engaged during takeoff, then disengaged shortly afterward while flying over land and then reengaged over the ocean again until nominal cruising speed was attained.

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast. What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

Your 707 explanation is correct, at least so far as I am aware, but the Concorde afterburners were actually engaged during takeoff, then disengaged shortly afterward while flying over land and then reengaged over the ocean again until nominal cruising speed was attained.

 

That sounds logical...one thing for sure...they didn't go supersonic until well off the coast.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast. What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

Your 707 explanation is correct, at least so far as I am aware, but the Concorde afterburners were actually engaged during takeoff, then disengaged shortly afterward while flying over land and then reengaged over the ocean again until nominal cruising speed was attained.

 

That sounds logical...one thing for sure...they didn't go supersonic until well off the coast.... ;)

 

I recall when they had an interchange flight with Braniff...LHR-IAD-DFW....

They remained subsonic, although faster than anything else, while operated by Braniff... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall when they had an interchange flight with Braniff...LHR-IAD-DFW....

They remained subsonic, although faster than anything else, while operated by Braniff... :)

Yes, they did. LHR - IAD - DFW was BA/Braniff and CDG - JFK - DFW was AF/Braniff (or maybe it was the other way round - don;t quite recall, but both LHR and CDG were involved with BA and AF respectively). To avoid cabotage issues, the aircraft changed registration and lease ownership for the US leg to Braniff.This included putting a US registration number sticker covering the British/French registration on the plane for the duration of its flight within the US. It was really quite curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about after-burner's in a civilian aircraft, other than the Concorde, which did not engage them until well off the coast. What really gave those early 707's smoke, was water-injection, used for extra takeoff thrust, IIRC

Your 707 explanation is correct, at least so far as I am aware, but the Concorde afterburners were actually engaged during takeoff, then disengaged shortly afterward while flying over land and then reengaged over the ocean again until nominal cruising speed was attained.

 

Yeah, the Concorde engaged afterburners on takeoff, disengaged them while flying over land, and then had to engage them again to punch through the sound barrier. Once it was at cruising speed, they disengaged the burners and supercruised from there on out.

Edited by cpotisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid cabotage issues, the aircraft changed registration and lease ownership for the US leg to Braniff.This included putting a US registration number sticker covering the British/French registration on the plane for the duration of its flight within the US. It was really quite curious.

Too bad this never actually existed:

 

sSQlOmm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back around 1962 or thereabouts, my first flight was BAL (that was the code back then, BWI was the code for sime airport in Papua New Guinea) to MIA on a DC7. Talk about noisy in the cabin with 4 piston engines making quite the racket. We also flew at relatively low altitude, in and out of the cloulds and a rode like a roller coaster. When I was 15, I had an adventure of a charter flight with the Scouts in a DC4, 13 hours from Spokane to Philly, including a fueling stop in Rockford, IL. That was also pretty noisy. In fact, the turboprop commuter flights I've been on have also been more noisy than a jet, even the older jets. Is the main noise factor the enginr type (piston vs turbo) or the presence or absence of propellors as thrust generator?

Edited by MARC Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the turboprop commuter flights I've been on have also been more noisy than a jet, even the older jets. Is the main noise factor the enginr type (piston vs turbo) or the presence or absence of propellors as thrust generator?

Because the propellers are whipping through the air without anything enclosing it (which you would have in a jet), there isn’t much sheltering you from the sound of large metal blades whipping through the air. Also bear in mind that many turboprop aircraft in commercial service tend to be on the older side, and since they’re often pretty small, you might not be far from the engines. I would also note that the props are usually directly in front of the wings, whereas jet engines are forward and beneath he wings. Most of the noise you hear realize from a jet engine is the exhaust; which would be sheltered from passengers by the wing. Meanwhile the props are high up and right next to where the passengers are, which makes them that much noisier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To avoid cabotage issues, the aircraft changed registration and lease ownership for the US leg to Braniff.This included putting a US registration number sticker covering the British/French registration on the plane for the duration of its flight within the US. It was really quite curious.

Too bad this never actually existed:

 

sSQlOmm.jpg

 

Besides interchanging with Braniff...both BA to London, and AF to Paris, as jis has mentioned, BA also interchanged with Singapore Airlines on a London-Bahrain-Singapore flight.

One BA Concorde was painted with Singapore livery on one side, and BA on the other.

 

The big difference between the operations, was only the flight attendants from Singapore worked their portion, the BA pilots went all the way.

With Braniff, the entire crew were Braniff. The Braniff pilots were trained and qualified on the Concorde--even supersonic, although they never flew their portion supersonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you so much for posting this. I like that I feel like I'm traveling. What a cool effect. I keep expecting to feel some gentle turbulence. It's helping with my travel withdrawal. :)

 

Like you, the HVAC sound on trains helps me relax and sleep. I barely notice it until it's gone. Then I can hear EVERYTHING. It drives me bonkers. The white noise covers up so many random sounds. That's one reason I always sleep with a box fan. Without my fan, it's so quiet I can't sleep. Every little noise wakes me up.

 

I use a little fan at work for the same reason. I like the white noise, and I like that it keeps the air moving. I can't stand stale, stuffy air. When I'm on a plane, I point the air nozzle right at my face. :D

Edited by SarahZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you so much for posting this. I like that I feel like I'm traveling. What a cool effect. I keep expecting to feel some gentle turbulence. It's helping with my travel withdrawal. :)

 

Like you, the HVAC sound on trains helps me relax and sleep. I barely notice it until it's gone. Then I can hear EVERYTHING. It drives me bonkers. The white noise covers up so many random sounds. That's one reason I always sleep with a box fan. Without my fan, it's so quiet I can't sleep. Every little noise wakes me up.

 

I use a little fan at work for the same reason. I like the white noise, and I like that it keeps the air moving. I can't stand stale, stuffy air. When I'm on a plane, I point the air nozzle right at my face. :D

 

 

 

One of the many things I like about Alexa (I have a couple of Dots) are the sleep sounds skills (apps). There are several plane and train ones, along with about anything else you could imagine from guitars to washing machines. The distant trains are probably my favorite. Lots of box fans, too, for you. Of course, they don't blow air in your face, but you can't have everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old-fashioned, pre-electronic, mechanical white noise generator buried away somewhere...you can 'tune' it to sound almost exactly like the the air whooshing out of the Amfleet ceiling slots....

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Marpac-Dohm-Classic-Original-White-Noise-Machine/9893172?wmlspartner=wlpa&adid=22222222227001207145&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=40843788392&wl4=pla-59798934471&wl5=9004392&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=online&wl12=9893172&wl13=&veh=sem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Thank you so much for posting this. I like that I feel like I'm traveling. What a cool effect. I keep expecting to feel some gentle turbulence. It's helping with my travel withdrawal. :)

 

Like you, the HVAC sound on trains helps me relax and sleep. I barely notice it until it's gone. Then I can hear EVERYTHING. It drives me bonkers. The white noise covers up so many random sounds. That's one reason I always sleep with a box fan. Without my fan, it's so quiet I can't sleep. Every little noise wakes me up.

 

I use a little fan at work for the same reason. I like the white noise, and I like that it keeps the air moving. I can't stand stale, stuffy air. When I'm on a plane, I point the air nozzle right at my face. :D

 

 

 

One of the many things I like about Alexa (I have a couple of Dots) are the sleep sounds skills (apps). There are several plane and train ones, along with about anything else you could imagine from guitars to washing machines. The distant trains are probably my favorite. Lots of box fans, too, for you. Of course, they don't blow air in your face, but you can't have everything.

 

We had never wanted an Echo, but last year my dad won a Dot accidentally at a tech conference, so he brought it home and have kept it set up in our kitchen ever since. We use it mainly for radio, music, and the shopping list, but occasionally for its sleep skills. We probably would never have bought one for the $49 list price, but it's a great deal if you snag one for free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dislike, is when while climbing, they sometimes reduce throttle for a period, for noise abatement procedures....

No we don't do that, that's not how noise abatement works. If there is a large noticable thrust reduction, followed by a spool up back to climb power, it's due to a momentary level off. That could be for airspace considerations, crossing traffic, or other reasons, but not noise abatement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I dislike, is when while climbing, they sometimes reduce throttle for a period, for noise abatement procedures....

No we don't do that, that's not how noise abatement works. If there is a large noticable thrust reduction, followed by a spool up back to climb power, it's due to a momentary level off. That could be for airspace considerations, crossing traffic, or other reasons, but not noise abatement.

 

Thanks for clearing that up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×