> 1 <
| Author | Message |
Jennings Contributors   
 Add As Buddy Posts: 1935
Location: Southun' Vuhginya USA
Occupation: Hospice Nurse
Age: 111
|
#38980 09-26-2011 GMT-5 hours |
|
Okay, it's not "Mad Men", but it's pretty darn good. Lots of eye candy for everybody. The CGI, while not perfect, was clearly done with help from someone who knows about Pan Am 707s. They actually got the waterburner 707-320 Intercontinental basically correct (we'll give them the 200 square foot galleys and 5' wide aisles). And it actually has something of a story.... |
| Author | Message |
Sparky Members
 Add As Buddy Posts: 493
Location:
Occupation:
Age: 62
|
#38984 09-26-2011 GMT-5 hours |
|
It was better than I thought it would be. Sparky |
| Author | Message |
N310EAMembers
Add As Buddy Posts: 65
Location: Virginia Beach
Occupation:
Age: 59
|
#38989 09-27-2011 GMT-5 hours |
|
I thought it was pretty good also. Not as good as Mad Men, but still entertaining. Looking forward to the next episode. Hhmmm... wonder what happened to the OP I started in the modelling forums on Pan Am? Oh well.... Ken In progress: |
| Author | Message |
Jeff JarvisMembers
Add As Buddy Posts: 100
Location: Louisville, KY
Occupation: Pilot
Age: 60
|
#40780 01-08-2012 GMT-5 hours |
Quote Greetings! What's a CGI? Cream, grey interior? And, what's a waterburner 707-320? Inquiring minds want to know! Unfortunately, my schedule generally has me turned around so if a show is on during prime time, I wind up never being able to follow it if there's a continuing plot/story line. This sounds like one of those. Regards, Jeff |
| Author | Message |
skwcl65Members
 Add As Buddy Posts: 126
Location: Utah
Occupation: Aircraft Dispatcher
Age: 45
|
#40787 01-08-2012 GMT-5 hours |
|
They have the airplane depicted mostly correctly, except for the episode where an IDL-CCS flight diverted to PAP with a medical emergency. At one point, the engines had morphed into turbine engined JT3-D's Jeff Waterburners were the original turbojet engines with water injection to increase power on take off |
| Author | Message |
sky303Members
 Add As Buddy Posts: 64
Location: Georgia
Occupation: Airline Staff
Age: 47
|
#40788 01-08-2012 GMT-5 hours |
Quote CGI stands for "Computer-Generated Imagery", the items, scenes, animations created using computer graphics. Captain, you'll be in charge of this flight |
| Author | Message |
Jeff JarvisMembers
Add As Buddy Posts: 100
Location: Louisville, KY
Occupation: Pilot
Age: 60
|
#40791 01-08-2012 GMT-5 hours |
|
Greetings! Okay, now I'm clear on the CGI. The 707-320 (as well as the 707-220, DC-8-21, -31, -32 and -33) was powered by the JT4A series engines which did not EVER use water injection. Their thrust output was generated dry. Ditto the CJ805 engines on the Convair 880 and 990 and the JT3C-7 and -12 of the 720. Among the early jets, only the JT3C-6 of the 707-120 and DC-8-11 and -12 used water injection. Perhaps I can see it this week if it's still on..... Regards, Jeff Jarvis |
| Author | Message |
Clint69Contributors
 Add As Buddy Posts: 9
Location: Weldon CA
Occupation: Evangelist, retired airline mechanic & hobby shop owner
Age: 70
|
#40812 01-09-2012 GMT-5 hours |
|
By the time I hired on at TWA in 1966 the 707-131s powered with JT3C engines still used water injection but the JT4A powered 707-331s were not equipped as such. In cool conditions I could not tell the difference between a takeoff with water and a takeoff without, the tank was a rectangular box on the keel beam in the main gear wheel well, there were three injection pulps just ahead of the tank. The tank had no top and was not heated so if a flight was cancelled in cold weather it should have been drained to prevent freezing. I recall servicing the water on N732T, ex N732TW, with Aeroclub International at SFO. They were operating a 707-131 with 178 seats non-stop to HNL. Unlike piston engines which used alcohol injection this system used distilled water.
|
| Author | Message |
skwcl65Members
Add As Buddy Posts: 126
Location: Utah
Occupation: Aircraft Dispatcher
Age: 45
|
#40817 01-09-2012 GMT-5 hours |
|
Clint That's pretty cool info. I'm curious what caused the engines to smoke so much when a wet take off was done. Devan |
| Author | Message |
Jeff JarvisMembers
Add As Buddy Posts: 100
Location: Louisville, KY
Occupation: Pilot
Age: 60
|
#40818 01-09-2012 GMT-5 hours |
Quote Greetings! Burner can design. Fuel was not being completely burned. All early jet engines produced a lot of smoke, whether water injected or dry, but as experience progressed in engine design, ways were found to mostly eliminate it. The JT8D engines on the 727, 737 and DC-9 produced huge amounts of smoke, but after about 1972-73, new burner cans eliminated almost all of the smoke from the JT8D, and the GE CJ805-23B engines on the Convair 990 were also fitted with new burner cans to make them more acceptable to the public. Ironically, it was eyewash because the toxic oxide levels then went up, but recent engine designs of the last 40 years or so are much better in their pollution levels of both toxic oxides and smoke. Regards, Jeff Jarvis |
> 1 <
