FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1956
1956 - 0765.PDF
The Boeing 707 prototype, generally referred to at the works as the Dash Eighty. Here I think it worth explaining the similarity and differencesbetween the two aircraft. In basic appearance, both the KC-135 and the 707 are remarkably similar and both stem from theprototype 707 which first flew 21 months ago. Certain vital sections are common to all three aircraft. These are the wing,the gear, the control surfaces, and sweepback. Generally it is true to say that the underside of the fuselage is basically thesame. Initially, both aircraft will use the same type of engines, mounted on identical pod beams. However, the similarity isonly basic. Customer requirement and conflicting standards for military and civil usage have, in effect, made the 707 and theKC-135 only about 25 per cent exact in detail. For example, the upper fuselage shape of the 707 is both taller and wider thanthat of the KC-135, since this latter is an upright oval and the 707 has a double bubble joined at a crease cord. Also, the cus-tomer and civil requirements have resulted in the 707 design of emergency flap and gear being considerably altered so as to haveno controls other than in the cockpit. It should be emphasized that both the KC-135 and the 707are considerably larger aircraft than the prototype now flying. It was quite obvious from all I saw that Boeing means tomake a serious challenge in the civil aircraft field. They certainly cannot be accused of running off a few civil aircraft on a militaryproduction line. Possibly this change in their thinking stems from a practical realization that it is economically unsound toput all one's eggs into one basket. Possibly, too, they have (by using hindsight) been kicking themselves for failing twice in thepast to cash in upon innovations in the civil market which they pioneered only for others to profit by. I am thinking of theirmodel 247, which preceded the universally used DC-2 and -3 and yet was at that time the only all-metal, monocoque, mono-plane transport. I also have in mind the Stratoliner, which pre- ceded other four-engined pressurized aircraft by several years. This time they seem quite determined to profit by the lead inexperience in this size of jet aircraft, a lead which they now un- questionably hold. At the same time, they stand to profit inexperience by having a military type of certain similarity in full production and service prior to the first civil deliveries. Theimportance of this fact is immense, since it means that before even the first civil production model gets itself into the air a vast flyingprogramme will have been carried out by die military cousin. How many of these KC-135s will have been airborne prior to the firstcivil deliveries is anyone's guess, but it will be many more than 150. The plant extension and colossal jigging programmeindicates some such figure. The point should also be borne in "Nearly all controls on the flight engineer's panel can be reached by one or other of the pilots making a 'long-arm'." (Test Chief Tex Johnston demonstrating to Juan T. Trippe, P.A.W.A. president.) mind that already the prototype 707 has logged over 400 hourson over 320 individual flights. Before leaving this subject, it should be remembered that thisprototype is neither a 707 production model nor a KC-135. Its relationship to the production 707s is comparable with that of theVickers-Armstrongs 630 to the subsequent Viscount 700 series. An interesting period was spent with Jack Steiner and the ever-present Ray Chamberlain examining one of the mock-ups of the 707. Several mock-ups are being produced, according to varyingcustomer requirements. Generally, the mock-up I saw (and I think it was the Pan American one) revealed few surprises, since most ofthe details have been published some time ago. The view from the pilot's seat is excellent, comparable indeed with that of theStratocruiser except for the absence of the lower windows. On the other hand, the pilot has been placed much closer to the largeforward-facing windows, which must be about 36in across. He is also placed closer to the side windows. I understand that thefields of vision are now capable of exceeding the existing American S.A.E. requirements. The pilot's instruments (standard size) will obviously vary some-what from customer to customer. The engine instruments are of the 2in size and seem to be too small. However, later in theday when actually aloft, it did seem possible to read them without much difficulty. In spite of this, I consider that a better-balancedsituation would result if most of the existing five rows of small engine instruments on the pilot's central panel were shifted to the flightengineer's panel; the central instruments could then be of normal size. I was informed that some such arrangement was withinthe bounds of customer requirement but, doubtless, at some additional cost. It would not, I think, clutter up the flightengineer's panel unduly and would have as an additional advantage the merit of leaving some space in the central panel for the intro-duction at a later date of additional instruments. Experience has shown that the state of the art is always progressive and that everyyear or so a vital additional instrument is developed as a positive requirement. For instance, engine-mounting-vibration instrumentsmight well become a desirable addition to jet aircraft, as they have to conventional aircraft. Another point is that at present theflight engineer's panel does not contain all engine instruments. It principally concentrates upon electrics (D.C. and A.C.), fuelsystem and gauges, cabin pressure control and an impressive over- head circuit-breaker panel; the hydraulic gauges are up front by theco-pilot with the emergency change-over controls situated between engineer and co-pilot. The earlier proposal to hinge the flight-engineer panel so thatit could be swivelled towards the pilot has been abandoned. The panel is reasonably close to the pilots and I would judge thatnearly all his controls can be reached by one or the other of the pilots making a "long arm." In contrast to the mock-up, the prototype 707 (which is generallyknown as the Dash Eighty) has only three rows of 2in engine instruments up front; it also has the radio panel mounted in theoverhead position. Such pictures as have been released did not, therefore, give a true representation of the production aircraft.It has been considerably redesigned so as to allow for several types of radar. In the production machine, since part of the radaris in the overhead panel, the radio panel has been re-located to lie at elbow level on either side of the throttle quadrant. The proposed method of applying reverse thrust was foreign tome and, consequently, seemed awkward. It is, however, basically similar to that now in use by Constellation pilots and I wasinformed that it carried their blessing. The rear of the throttle quadrant is given over to the fuel and engine cut-off controls,thus precluding the utilization of this section for reverse thrust. It also means that engine starting is a pilot-control operation.Because I have been nursed for so long by efficient flight engineers in a Stratocruiser, I am opposed to this philosophy and I wouldhave preferred starting to be taken over by the flight engineer. The afternoon was given over to a flying programme. Theflight test division of Boeing is in the charge of "Tex" Johnston, chief of flight test, and after only a brief chat with Tex and hischief henchman, "Dix" Loesch, I was installed in the left-hand scat of the 707-80 with Tex alongside. Dix acted as flight engineer. (To be continued)
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
