•

•
 .. .. ...
,.~.~,.
~..,-~I,.
,. ,.
. . . . .""'0"

SEPTEMBER,
A/A'L/NEA'
1960
Rivet Packages For Kits

~LL FUTURE modification kits

IN THIS ISSUE
Rive' Pockages lor Kits ••..•• 2
Using A C/eorwoy for Tolceoff •. 3
Floor Panels . • . • . • . . . . • • 8
Operating With A
Crocked Windshield . . . • . JO
Nine - Tube S5 Warpage . . . . 12
ON THE COVER
Fi,st of lhe 707-1206 series, American
Ai,lines' newest St"ltoliner is already
busy with fljgM tests of the turbofan
engines. AA will convert their 107·123
fleet to "Bs" during tile coming year.
[iJloffered by Boeing will include
all rivets required to make the kit
installation. Standard aluminum
rivet requirements will be provided
for by means of rivet assortments
which have been designed to cover a
wide range of lengths and dLameters.
Blind rivets, hi-shears, and other
special rivets will continue to be
controlled by exact quantity and
length.
At Boeing only the type, material,
and diameter of standard rivets are
specified. on drawings. Rivet lengths
are not calculated and are not speci-
fied. Instead, rivet installations are
controlled by specification to ensure
proper driven head size and shape
among other requirements. Each of
the production shops selects the
proper rivet length from open bins
to develop a uniform rivet instal-
nomical means of providing the
necessary rivets for making a kit
•
installation. Although the rivet as-
sortments packed in kits will contain
more rivets than are actually neces-
sary to effect the change, the cast of
the extra rivets is IWch less than the
cast of calculating rivet lengths and
packing them separately for each kit.
This system will, in effect, provide
the range of types and lengths of
rivets necessary to accomplish the
kit installation. The riveters on the
job can then select the right rivet to
do the job--just as is the practice
at Boeing.
Basic packages of rivets will
include one style of rivet in one
diameter with assorted. lengths. The
Btyles of rivets to be packaged are
MS20470D universal head rivets in
diameters rangl.ng from 5/32 to 1/4
inch. Assortments of M)20426D and

TRAN.~O"T DIV'.'ON
lation as determined by inspection.
Throughout the years Boeing has
found this system works best, but it
dOES require the ready avaJlabllity of
a large variety of rivets in a wide
range of lengths. Since this variety
of rivet types, materials, and lengths
J. O. Yeasting_ is not always readily at hand in the
Vic.Pr~idl!lnt, Genefol Monoger field, there has been considerable
interest by operators in packing the
Moynord L. Pennell- rivets necessary to cOIq)lete a modi-
Director of Engineering fication on in-service airplanes
Richard M. Morgon - Service Manager along with the kit of parts.
For Boeing to package rivets in
Merle E. Dowd- Editor a modI1ication kit, it has been neces-
sary to make detailed calculations
Fred H. Deon- Art Director for kit purposes only. Procedurally
these rivets must be called out in the
kit drawing parts list in order to be
included. in the kit package. The time
Th~ BOEING AIRLlNEJl iJ publiohed "'undo·
Iy by .be Tnl1.lPGn Diwi.s;on of Boei"f. Aitplat". and effort involved in these calcu-
Company, Rrn,O<1, Wuhinr'O<L Cab" .ddresl.
BOEINGAIR. Addras 01 m",,,, ..nin';o.,. '0
lations and parts listings has pre-
Eosinu.in, ~ .....ice Senion. 80einS Airplan.. cluded.lnclusion of standard rivets in
Company, Bo~ 707. Re".o.., W ... hi.. "o...
• Inform~cion P."-blitb<'d i" ch.. BOEING AlR· any kits except those recommended
UNER il conl,d........ UCW10le and I .. cho",,,,i~t, for incorporation by Boeing. Those
How......., "0 ml,,,,W ...... ll.Id b<' c..... i<kted II
FAA IPProv<'d ..nICSIIlpecifoa./ly ll.weI. Airline kits vm.tch have been offered. to oper-
p .... o.. ".. 1 IOU .d.. il.. d mi' mei. C.....p&IIy'1
polky y N'lmci ch.. ditff1 "" of p.. bluh"d ators as an q:ltionalinstallation have
,..fo cio . not included standard rivets up to
eu mli........IY t<'puhlilh uricl... foolD m..
BAC R15CE ioo-degree countersunk
head rivets will be supplied in the
same diameters. The MS20470 de-
sign replaces the old AN470 rivets,
and the W20426 design replaces the
AN426 rivets. The last three digl.ts
of the part nwnbers of similar rivets
•
are the same in both specifications.
The BAC R15CE loo-degree counter-
sunk head rivets are used in the ex-
terior skin. Oversize rivets 1/32
inch larger of a single long length
are also included. in each assortment
in case holes are enlarged during the
modification. Another package will
contain an assortment of countersunk
and universal head 3/32-1nch diam-
eter rivets for attaching nutplates.
Only rivets in the "IJ' (2017-T4 or
2017-T3) aluminum alloy material
will be found in the kit assortments.
Rivet siZes, styles, and/or materials
other than those common rivets will
be packed separately in the exact
length and number required. Intro-
duction of rivet assortments into kit
packages v.111 occur v.1th increasing
frequency during a transition period.

BOEING AIRUNER fot diluil...llion oaly with·
in Ih..,. oarn orl... iuOo" witho"l ..rill"" pe••
minion by .1$..... ,"1: .eopon,ibiJi", for me a....
~nl accuuC'Y of Ibe ~publi,h...t ml' al. All
omen mull obui" writttn ""noulion fro ~
in,!l bcfo~ tcprinl;nl .ny .,rid... from .he AIR·
UNER 10 ..... u~ .hl' all material conform. 10
1111011 i.. formal;OIl .Dd Chlnl'" ..heo ""bli,beel.
now.
All kits, whether "recommended"
or "optional," will include one or
more rivet assortments. This pro-
cedure has been devised as an eco-
•
Kits v.bich already have been defined.
by drawing or service bulietin will
not include rivet assortments. All
new releases will call for the neces-
sary staOOard rivet assortments.
 Using
• Clearway
A
For
Takeoff
rAlREATER PAYLOAD and/or
~longer range Is available at
certain airports where ctearways
and stopways are available. FAA
Special Regulation 422B authorizes
the use of these addlt100s to the nor-
mal runway with certain limitations.
A full understanding of these pro-
visions and limitations can change
takeoff plans signlUcanUy at the
airports aHected.
In addition to the terms, clearway
and slopway, another term I takeoff
run. is lnt.rodoced. These terms are
• all defined in the special box labeled
"De:flnitiCOi." VJl.tb clea.rway and/or
stopway it is di.ffl.cult to j~ v.bether
the 3-e~ or 4-engine requirement
will determine the maxlmum takeoff
weight under certain airport condi-
tions and with varying 707 and 720
models. so both cases must be cal-
culated to determine which condition
Is limiting. To make the explanation
or these limitations easier to follow.
consider the lakeo£( prof1les as
BRAKE RELEASE
POINT 1
-I • DISTANCE A
":
-j. DISTANCE B-I-DISTAHCE C
FIG. 1 -Takecoff profile for 3-engine Ii_italian (engine failure at VI) with no c1ealWay
or stopway available.
~:I"lfASE
• IIISTAICU'
•
I· · - - - - - - - - 1 . 1 5 ' W«')---------.l
fiG. 2-Distances relaled 10 4-ene:ine limitation during takeoff with no c1earway or
avail I.
September 1960
plotted in Figs. 1,2,3 and 4.
From brake release or start of
acceleration at Pdnt 1 without clear-
way or Slopway, the airplane in the
3-engine failure case accelerates
with foor engines through Ilstance A
until it reaches VI speed (Fig. 1).
From VI the airplane continues to
accelerate with three engines through
Distance B to VLO or the li1toU
pci.nt.. Takedf then cOltinues through
Ilstance C unt:U the airplane reaches
a height d. 35 feet above the runway.
The runway must be long enoogh to
permit the airplane to clear the 35-
foot height with only three engines
operating through IXstances B and
C. By nmway is meazt full-strength
paved surface capable of carryIng
the aitplane under all normal operat-
ing conditions. Alternatively, the
airplane must be able to stop at the
end of the runway U an engine fails
at VI. This is the balanced field
concept.
The 4-engtne limitation is sim-
,~
~Jrm
'LIO
t-
END DF RtnAY
' .. 0'--.,..,/
I ~~"
~ ~
15'
A'+C'
.. Ot$TAIICE CO
pIer with no clearway or stopway.
With all four engines C{leratlng, the
airplane must accelerate to VLO
(as diagramed in Fig. 2). After
liftoff, the airplane must clear a 35-
foot height with 15 per cent of the
distance from brakes-off to attain-
ment of 35-foot height remaining.
(Under ARB rules, 18 per cent of
the distance to 35 feet must remain.)
For a specUic runway, two gross
weights will result. one for the 3-
engine case and one for the 4-engtne
case. The lower weIght of the two
Is the maximum takeoff weight al-
lowable, U notl1mlted by 2nd seg-
ment climb gradient requirement
or tire speed placard.
Where an airport runway has a
clearway (see Definitions). more d.
the full-strength runway can be used
for the ground run portion of the
takeoff distance. In the 3-engine
limited case. Fig. 3 details the dis-
tance relationships. Two Important
differences between thIs case and
the normal 3-engine limited takeoff
(Flg. 1) should be noted. Up to one-
hall of the horizontal distance from
Vl.O to clEar a 35-foot height can be
over the clearway. (Under ARB
rules, up to two-thIrds of the hori-
zontal distance from VLO to clear
a 35-foot height can be over clear-
way.) ThIs allowance lengthens the
! takeoff distance available for plan-
;m ning, but the liftoff point is going to
be closer to the end of the actual
runway. The term "takeoff ron" is
now used to express the distance
from start of acceleration at Point I
(brake release) to the mid-point of
I:Istance C. Or. expressed In terms
of the distances shown In Fig. 3,
takeoff run equals A + B + C/2.
Regardless of how much clearway
18 actually available. the takeoff rWl
3

BRAKE RELEASE
t'OIMT I
\: - - - - - -
I
DISTANCE A
TAkEOFF RlII (A+6tt12)
AUO lEJIGTH OF FULL $TREIlGrH RtIf'AY
FIG. 3- Takeoff Pfofile for 3-eniine Ii.itatian (engine faiJlI'e at VI) usina deaooy
lxIl no stopway. 11th lIa,lli• • usable clearway available, takeoff
strength runway.
BRAKE RELEASE
....,1
DlTAllCEA'
FIe.
TAlEUFF ... (A'ltC1tJ
4-DistlnCeS rellted 10 ....1. h.itatiaa
and no stapway.
lEVEL
FIG. 5-Effect of I1ll1way slope on usable clearway. See text for an explanation of why
more ele,l/way call be used with an upward sloping runway than a level or downward sloping
fll1way.
cannot exceed the runway length;
therefore, the distance C/2 repre-
sents the maximum usable c1earway
length (or a particular airplane
model on a particular runway.
The second dlUerence readily
noticed when using clearway is that
the takeoff field length becomes un-
bala.rced. When using only the avail-
able runway for calculating takeoff
field length required. the takeoff
distance equals the accelerate-stop
dista.rl:e. I:bwever, when using clear-
way, the accelerate-go takeoff dis-
tance exceeds the accelerate-stop
distance. Thus, clearway is not the
full equivalent of additional runway
length, s1r£e the engine failure speed,
VI, ID.1St be reduced so that the air-
plane can stop v.ithin the full-strength
runway length. If a portion of the
clearway also meets the definItion
of a stopway, the distances may be
part1ally rebalarr.ed with small gains
in takeoff weight. In some cases
stopwayalone may permit a weight
increase by unbalancing the field in
the other direction and raising the
VI speed.. '!be use of a weaker pave·
• Boeing Airliner
;1
I_
[HOOFRUfl1AY~"
y~o
DISTANCE B ---t--Cfl-r- ell
~'DISlA!fCE C
-I-
~ FrET
T
I
, CLEARIAY r
rtJl ~Is length of full·
... ~~ .A
lUnA' " 35 nET
I::.n . ~~ .. 1-'
• DlSfAICE
y
·1
-inc tIIrIaff Wlttl clearway Milalll.
POINT 2
CLIMB PATH fOR--.......>r~,--,---'
LEVEL RUNWAY
I I I .LF~ET
VLO I X I
y I
I~DISTAHCEc-----;t,'
ment in the stopway is logical since
it is not subjected to landing loads,
and aborted takeoffs are relatively
rare with turbojet transports.
Fwr-englne li.m1t:ations must also
be considered when using clearway.
Fig. 4 shows this requirement. The
available runway must be at least
115 per cent of the takeoff run with
all engines operating. The takeoff
run for four engines equals the sum
of the distances represented by A' +
C' /2 in Fig. 4. Since there is no
need to brake to a st~ in a 4-engtne
case, stopway is not a factor and the
iteld length can rematn unbalanced.
The maximum usable clearway for
the 4-engine case is usually less
than that for the 3-engtne case.
An adjustment is made for run·
way slope when determining how
much clearway can be used at a
particular airport. This runway
slope correction is separate from
the runway sl~e that affects accel-
eration rate and results from the
variation of usable clearway length
with the variation in distance from
Vw to clear 35 feet. If the runway
slopes uphlll (s.. Fig. 5). the hori-
zontal distance from VLO to clear
35 feet (Distance C in Figs. I and
3) is greater than if the runway is
level because the airplane must
climb through a vertical distance
equal to 35 feet. plus X (run the run-
way elevation at VLQ. For a down-
•
ward sloping runway, the vertical
dlstance equals 35 feet minus Y
from the runway elevation at VLO'
This means that for an upward slop-
ing runway, the air distance be-
tween VLQ and Point 2 is greater
and consequently Distance C is
greater than for a level or down-
ward sloping runway. Since the
amount d. clean.ay that can be used
depends on lXslance C, the slope of
the runwayafiects how much elear-
way can be used tn co~ut1ng takeoff
distance for both 3-engtne and 4-
engine cas es.
By defln1tion, a clearway may not
exceed an upward slope of 1.25 per
cent.. H the nm\\'3.y slq>e is less than
the c1earway slope, the whole com-
bination of runway plus clearway
must be treated in the same manner
as a "ldnked" runway in accordance
with CAM 40.72.
Elgs. 6 through 10 show the type of
charts that will be added to the 720
Flight Manual to determine airport
limited takeoff weight, including
clearway and stopway if available.
•
Otarts similar to these will be added
to the Operations Manuals for other
models as quickly as data become
available.
As an example of how the availa-
bility d. a clear'Nay can increase the
gross weight allowable, consider an
airport with an SOOO-foot runway, a
clearway d. 1500 feet, and no stop-
way beyond the end of the runway
itseli. Fig. 7 solves the 3-engine
limitation by yielding an effective
takeoff distance with which to enter
the maximum takeoff weight chart,
and a speed ratio for determining
the VI speed. It is based on the
principle that for any unbalanced
field length there is an equivalent
balanced field length tlslance which
will gt ve the same weight. For this
example, corrections for runway
slope and wind are ignored as the
application of these corrections is
already well known.
Enter the chart in Fig. 7 at the
8000-foot mark (Point A) and slide
 up the 45 0 guide line toward the This correction simpWies the cha.rta

•
tude d a particular field.
clea.rway distance. 'This will Inter- and. is combined wtth the correction To Roo the maximwn gra3s weight
sect the zero-slq>e maximum usable for anti-icing if needed. Enter the for takeoff at, for example, 80°F
lakeo!! distance line at 8850 feet. chart at the bottom and read the and sea level, enter the chart in
1ndI.cating that only 850 feet ci clear- effective takeoff dist.aD::e at the left. Fig. 9 along the bottom at 8620 feet
way can be used in the takeoff dis- The effective takeoff distance for (Point A) and follow the line around
tance. The takeoff run is then equal this example is 8720 feet for the 3- to Points B and C and then down to
to the runway length of 8000 feet; engine llm1tlng case. Point D to read 211,700 pounds--
also the UftoU point v.ill be only Fig. 8 charts the method for cal- the maximum gross weight figure
850 feet (C/2) (rom the end of the culating the 4-engine limited case. for the example conditions.
rwt\\-ay in case c1 a continued takeoff Enter the lower left chart at 8000 How the avallabJllty of a clearway
with engLne failure at VI speed. By feet and slide up the guide line to aHects takeoff performance can be
entering the web chart in the upper the zero runway slope line, which seen from a comparison with the
right-hand corner of F1g. 7 at 8850 indtote; that IIWdmun U5able clear- dotted black lines in Fig. 9. U only
feet. vertically and along the bottom way for this case is 620 feeL Con- the 8OOO-foot runway was available,
at 8000 feet (the maximum accel- tinue past anti-icing oU and up to gross weight would be limited to
erate-stop distance available), and the zero wtnd line. Continuing the 205,700 pounds. Therefore, having
ignoring vdlld and runway slqJe cor- line horizontally to the zero runway the maxlmum usable clea.rway avail-
rectims, the lines intersect at Palnt slope and then down, read 8620 feet. able permits an increase of 6000
C--for a balanced field length of Since this 8620 eUective takeoff dis- poon:B umer the similar terq)erature
8620 and an engine failure speed tance is less than the previously and altitude calditioos d. the ecllq)le.
ratio of .967. The balanced field determined 8720 for the 3-engine Improvement in gross weight
length mlLSt be further corrected in case, the 4-engine condition is lim- occurs at all conditions v.tlen clear-
order to use the Maximum Takeoff iting (less gross weight). Up to this way is available. In Fig. 9 the dlf-
Welght charlln Flg. 9 which is based point, calculations have been lnde· fereree in grass weight for the same
on the 4·engine takeoff distance. pendent d the temperature and alti- ecllq)le rtmway and clearway condl.·

1tlAX1W:UM ALLOWABLE REPORTED 'H~D CtilPONENT

RUNlAYSlOf'E

•
10

, ,-:-+-""-",-;...-,-"--;!;t-,"""",,,",,,Wr.-
,--- z: ~
ii ~
c
~ iia
~ ~
~ t: 1
~
~
a"
~
t3 c " v'>(2;1:>- ;I~~~~
....
~ ~
·'~O""''"7.:.1lKK1'IG G IG 20 3lJ 4ll 5
-2-101215 . 5 6 7 &,1011 12
ClEARWAY PER CENT SLOPE EfFECTlV( DISTANCE 11TH lIND AND SLOPE·I000 FEET
lENGTH-fEET WIND VElOCITY·KNOTS

~ ,
:;; ~~.:lJ:~\\4561'91011 12

1,1-------::,(· EffECTIVE DISTANCE IITMI1N[).UlIO FEET

~:
~lll
~
.. 7 § 10
~

~ ,
~ 'lQ~.~~.~::::~::::.qi:::::~:§~

• ~ 61191011 17
ACC£LERATE-STOP DlSTAIlCE·llKKI FEET

CHART BALMCED fiELD L.EIIG1lI-lGIII FEET

FIG. 6-Cooecti(ll dwt converts kline FIG. 7 -Typical chart lor finding effective takeoff distance With one engine
effective field I..Jth data 10 equivalenl 4-enCine iMPerative Iia. Vi using 3D GegJees of flaps for no airplanes equipped with
data to sUlplify finding lUXi• • takeoff weieJrt. JT3C·7 engines.
 11

REPORTED liND AT 5G-FOOT HEIGHT

11
~

•
~
RUNWAY SLOPE
~ 10

~
c
z ,
•
z
1=
• •
~
0
~
~
~
c
~
>
t;
~
~
~
,
,
~

EFFECTIVE TAKEOFF OISTANCE·IIXll FEET

.,,456789 ID 11 11 •• 561891011

~ON
EFFECTIVE DISTAItCE 11TH WIND AND SLOPE·lllOO FEET

0« OFF FF..o'm-A~''-·''-·->
"""
FIG. a-Typical chart for finding effective
>- t;:i§ IrtlAXi1iUM ALLOWABLE RUIffAY SLOPE takeoff distance with all engines operative using

i~_~~TA~K~EO~F;F~D;'ST~A~"~E2~~~~~~~~~~Z:
::;i=
~f;1
o~_
30 degrees 01 flaps fOI 120 airplanes equipped
with JT3C·7 engines.
....I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Rl,lIflAY LENGTH (TAKEOFF RUN) AVAlLABLE·lIm FEET

tiens are cootrasted under conditions

DEFINITIONS of 0 OF and a field altitude of 5000
Clenly • AllIIN beyond the ",,"',. lOt leSs II\aII SIlO leet .,~ eentrlUy lotIled aboul the tdended teAlllli", feet. Since the calculation for effec-
Ilf II. 11IIWIy11llll1lllder ca.lJol (111M Ilrparl ,,,UlOlItttS. 111I elllmy IS UlRssed In Ietas Ilf. clellWay
pl_, ul8lllh. trOll!Ile'" 011. ,_., WIlli an ...-rc\ slope Id ,llCHlIIIIII.2S per ctDt.lbcMlwtndl tive field length does not consider
no aIljtct IIGI lIlY partlDll 01 the 1erl'11R prolr_. ueepl tile lInsIlold h . _y prolflllle aIIowe tht plane If temperature and pressure altitude
Itleil htqhl 1_ the Illd d IIIe r..,y il nDllftller lhtn 26 IllCbes ,lid illhey are kaled to Nth side
d !he t\IlWIy. before entering Fig. 9, the same
Skl,Jray • "" 'III bll!yond thI rlllWlY. not less II "iIIIIIllIalI the wldlll 01 the ftll"'Y, c~IllIy located ,!loU: IIle lines can be extended as shown in
,atelIled ctlll.ltflll 01 the fllllfly, aad cllsilfllled b, the upart alll/lofltleS for use in deceltrahlll the ,if. color. The difference in gross
pllll' dLlI" III abartellllleofl. To be cnide'ed as luch l ' Ilopwar."ust tit capable 01 SUpportillllht weight using clearway is 215,800
'irplant '.IIlI_ atIorIed I_oil w.ltlovt tnducIIll slrutlLl.1 GlNae to t 'Irpllne.
Accelerale-Stop Olltlllce· The horizOIli1 dfSlaRCe 10 acceltl'll' hOll' llIJIdllll start 10 the Vl speed and lhere,n",
pounds compared to 209,600 using
1SSIl1ll1ll1II etlIllle 1,llln ,Ithll speed. bUll the Ilrplane 10 a lutl stop. The .ccelel.le-slop dlSllnce lUSt the runway only, for an increase of
.,1
ac:eed 1."'111 fIIlhe rllfW&J pillS tile Iqlh ollhe slopway. 6,200 pounds .
TIkeofI OJstanca· Tie IIU11r fII: The other information found from
I. TIllIllorizonbl dlslaJJCt trOlllhe poId of brake release 10 the poinl wlIenI tile ,isplane .tlllllS a lleil,h1 01 the web chart of Fig. 7 is the englne
351eet ebo¥e tile takeoff lIIlac" ,SS_llllln ltllline l'lhn.t llle VI S9M1S, OI-
l. U5 tl.S till horilCllltaI distance fr. till poid 01 brake release to IIle POIn! w!Iere lhe Ilrplant '1Ia1/lS' failure speed ratio. This ratio can
heilfllof 351eet abo'IIlhellkloll sllface "11Il 'II ell&lfIIS oper.liII.. be calverted into an actual VI speed
TaIleclll Rill' The lfellef d: by the use of the charts in Fig.lO.
I. The horilll\tll disllnce frO'lIbe poirrI 01 brae release to. pollII equldi1bdl between till lifloll poilfllfld Using the same example, enter the
tt. po",1 w!IeJlI tile lilplaflll 8III1RS • t.!lhI 01 J5 1.1 ..... tile IaIleolf swfau, assUl'inl an '''lin,
111111" It !tie VI speed, 0/- upper chart at 80 OF (Point A) and
l. 1.15 li.u !hi hor,ZOlJllI diStMCe trOll tIIIl POIIJl of brae release to I po,. tQIIldiQrll:lltwUl1IIe intersect the sea. level altitude line.
point 01 hfloll ,N! Ille point .... tilt IIIplant atIIllIS , heilM d 35 feet above the llleoll SlIlace. Then turn down to the gross weight
With ,It qUIIS . .IIi...
line (211,700 pounds) and over again
VI Speed. fllf balanced h.1d IetlIIb (VI B)' Tile speed " wtuch, il .. etlIlf1l1l1itlft 0CCln, tile dlS1lAte to can-
I"... ttl! taktdllo I heitllfd]Sleet il .110 lila distlnce 10 slop. to the Vl/VIB (engine failure speed
VI Speed. For IllblIalIced held 1eIIcltl· TIre speed II wtIlClJ, il .. till,.
III lIA octlfS, tilt distance III cOlli.
tilt tall80lf 10 , Ilei&hl d J5 lIel will JIClInCllll !til IlSIbIe Iakeolf distance; or, the dIStance to bfiq IIle
ratio) found previously from the web
chart of Fig. 7 (.967). From Point
.irplant lei' futl stop .. nflllIllceed 1"- ace:tlerllHlop dislllnCe IVlillble. D read down to determine the VI
iN F,ih.e Speed !blio (YINIB)' The '1110 of "'I,ne taihre Ipeed, VI. to the VI loJ balallced held Ie"lth. speed of 128 knots (Point E). By
All Rea:ISIJIItCll'l _d 01 e.,-, IIIIi'-ly defl,," the Ibowe 1-. WJth lilt followl. UcapllOlJS: way of comparison, the bala~ed
I. kI lhe definiliOll of T,lladf OistllCe Illf the .... 11lI CISI, the peI*!IIe 0I1lIe llafizant,l dilllnce field length VI for 211,700 pounds

•
Ir. brill. 1l1e_ 10' poinl"'l!Ie Illpla. 'tllillS • "-llfll oI35leet abo¥8l1le IJkeoIf SIIlace_ is 133 knots. H clearway were not
be 118 pel C8lIIIll'* tban 115 per CIllt. a vallable with the example 8000-
l. T,keoIl rill IS deliHd bJ ARB IS tilt IlJIIteI 01: TIle baJiZonIIt distInCt II. the pollli 01 bfau .. 1ease foot runway, however, the maximum
10 , paid one-Ihircl d lilt distance fra. the liflofl poinllllll ett. or 1.15 h_ltIIIllDIizClllllI d!Stante weight is 205,700 pounds and the
.lC.-
fra. tile poln! of brlke fllust 10 I point one-tlllfd 011111 dislallee fra.lIIe hftolt palft,
corresponding VI speed is 129 knots

6 Boeing Airliner
 from Flg.lO. Since stq>plng distance ...
• •
is nearly independent of weight, the
actual VI speed for a gLven runway Tal'ERATURE
length will not vary more than a
knot or two for any amount ci clea.r-
way available. Although the limita-
tion does not apply to this example
case, the climb gradient capability
should be checked to make sure the
gross weight is net limited by this
condLtion.
Although there are probably few I
cases where a stopway is available I
I
without a clea.rway, second and final

segment climb requirements for
obstacle clearance could limit the
usable takeoff distance to a value
less than the avaUable run\W.y. \\'hen
such conditions occur, the excess
runway can be considered as a stop-
way; thus raising the VI speed and
increasing the allowable grcss weight
for takeoff. The web chart of Fig.
7 can be used directly to find the
I!
A
4 5 6 1 8 9 1 0 1 : 1 140 150 160 110 110 190 200 210 220 1IJ
EFFECTIVE TAKEOFF DISTAJlCE·llIII FEET GROSS WEIGIfT AT BRAKE RELEASE·llIII POUNDS
FIG. 9 -Typical chart lot finding lIlaXillllllll takeoff weight when effective takeoff dis-
tenet is known (3D-degree flaps, Model 720. JT3C-1 engines). _~ ..
higher VI/V1B ratio that will permit development for an immediate boost
incrEaSing gross weight. By enter- in takeoff performance. Where a
ing the left side of the chart with runway approach exten:ls over water,
the 3-e~e limited runway distance of course, only the ilqlrovement from
and the lower side with. the total clearway can be used. Even where
available runway, the intersection land is available, however, clearv.oay

•
~
will indlcate an engine failure speed can be developed at much less cost
:1
~ ratio greater than one. From Fig. than a full-strength runway or even
~
~
< 10 the actual VI for the conditions a stqlway. The ratio of improvement
~
~ prevailing at the airport can be in available gross weight for clear-
!i
~
determined. way versus stopway is roughly 3:1-
~
~
• The two examples detailed in Fig•
9 show the weight advantage of using
The crounple used above was limited
by the 4-engine cODiltion, but suppose
" -~ clearway as a first step in airport only 500 feet of clea.rway was avail-
-, FIG. 10- Typical c~art for finding the
able. Then, from Figs. 7 and 9,
there would be a 3700-pound gain
~ critical ensine-lailure speed (VI) w~en the from clearway alone, and an addi-
~ engine-failure speed lalio (VIIV IB) is known. tional 1200-pound gain if the clear-
~
0

~
///QF' way was full-strength runway or
' // ANTI·ICING
~
ON surfaced to meet stopway require-
;- ments. Actually, the 4-engl.ne condi-
z
~
~
\4. tion vrould limit the gain for stopway
z
~
~
to about 200 pounds on the 720 air-
0
~
plane, but other models could advan-
~
13. tageously use up to 500 feet of stop-
"
u
z
0
~
way before the 4-englne condition
becomes limiting. This ratio of 3700
<~

;lj 11 to 1200 means that merely Clearing

~
and grading the c1earway nets about
0
~
I 75 per cent as much increased gross
0
weight as lengthening the runway or
~
~
~
~
II' I surfacing a part of the clea.rway to be
~
~
I used as a stq)way. From the stand-
~ I
=
<
~
100 I I
point of economics, the development
and us e of clearways under the au-
~
z I I thorization of sa 422B can yield al-
"
z
~
OJ
100 110 120
IE I
130 14!l
most immediate increased perfor-
mance benefits at less cost than the
ENGINE FAILURE SPEEDV\oKNOTS lengthening of runways.

September 1960 7
 FLOOR
PANELS

FIG. 1 - Floor panel testing

machine resembles highway·type
sheepsfool ,oller, Test ~els
include carpet and pad sections
on top to sillulate actual airpl8l1e
installation.

(j' AME FASmON has been re-

~sponstble for a continuing
Ole to the lead times in develop-
ing the major structure o( the 707.
(oot roller was developed (Fig. 1).
Spikes around the roller have 1/4
problem aboard 7078. Women's floor panels were designed several inch diameter contact surfaces and
spike heels, those tiny spires fash- years ago. Be(ore that, sample are located to make a random con-
ionable members aC the Cair sex use panels were subjected to actual traf- tact with a series 0( test panels laid
to elevate themselves. have been ficLnb~y~. oruyaft~str~ out across the test bed (Fig. 3).
proved to cause the deterioration of 0( traffic had passed over the panels Each of the spikes strikes the floor
the honeycomb floor panels In the successfully were the honeycomb panelindiv1dually to simulate the
aisles and between the seats where panels selected. 1b1s testing, how- weight of a 1l0-pound woman on one
•
traffic is high. F1.g.2 shows a typi~ ever, took place before the slender- heel. Examples o( old and new test
cal separation of the honeycomb core izing trend afiected women's shoes. panels following exposure to the
Just un:I.er the top surface sheet. Not When heels were reduced to little sheeps(oot roller are shown in Fig.
visible Is the pebbled appearance more than points. each step could 5. Some 0( the panels were damaged
that results from the spike beel and did dimple the upper floor panel after only a (ew cycles in the test
bombardment. sheet. Continued exposure to this machine.
Ounage to the Door panels (rom punishment even with a carpet and Early Ln Ute floor panel test pro-
women's heels results trom the con- sponge pad on top eventually breaks gram it became evident that a light-
cert.rated load on an extremely small down the edges o( the honeycomb weight floor pad over the noor in
area. For example, a woman's heel cells just below the cemented con- addition to the sponge pad (Curon)
will have a contact area of about 1/4 tact surface. under the carpet would prolong the
inch diameter. Even though a ~man ~elqmert d floor panels ts loog life 0( the presently installed honey-
mlgbt. weigh 0011 110 poonc&, the heel and costly to meet a number o( re- comb panels. As a temporary fix
contact area would develop a pres· quirements--llgbt weight, acoustic pads o( polyvinyl chloride sponge
sure of 2200 pst under steady load. and thermal insulating. low cost, (Ensollte) 3/16-inch thick were in-
Depending on a number o( factors long life, and simple construction. stalled between the underside of the
the impact load would be consider- To aid Ln this develq>menl, a testl.ng carpei padding and the floor panels.
ably more. macbine sin:i.lar to a highway sheeps- While the added pad extended the
potettlalllfe apectancy of the floors,
FIG. 2 - Sectiooedhoneyeootb panel fellOVe<! hOll an airplane shows result 01 progressive 11 sometimes interfered with door
lallure at interface between honeycomb and lIlderside of upper skin.
operation. The floor test program
was, therefore continued to find a
satisfactory panel that would stand
up in service without a pad. Alto-
e.
gether, more than 50 combinations
of flooring, carpeting, and insulation

Boeing Airliner
 indefinitely by such simple repairs

• as stop drilling cracks, hammering

out dents, and riveting or bonding on
patchEll and reinforcing when needed.
4. Insulation--Heat transmission
of the corrugated floor panels is
about equal to the honeycomb panel
it replaces. Sound transmission, on
the other hand, is less through tbe
corrugated panel than through the
honeycomb panel.
New corrugated floor panels are to
be installed on production airplanes
as soon as they are available. The
corrupted panels are also to be fur-
nished as preferable spares for re-
placement of the honeycomb panels
on an attrition basis. Use of the new
corrugated panels will permit re-

were tested. Several of the floors FIG.4-Cross·

devel~ could take the punishment, section of new cor- ~UPPER IEB SHEET
but were undesirable for other rea- rugated floor panel.
sons. such as added weight or in- Spacers for mounting J ~
creased cost.
The floor panel selected is a sim-
SCiewS arld rigid foam
enclose ends of cor· .40 l....._---Af 111.. 1
IUgation at mounting
ple assembly of a corrugated sheet edges to prevent , " -CORRUGAnONS
spotwelded to a surface skin (Flg. 4). crushing.

• Tests indl.cated the new floor panels

should last about eight times as long
as the present honeycomb panels. design of sheet materials makes the moval of the "Ensolite" pads. The
Other features of the new panels are: panels repairable with materials and Curon sponge padding bonded to the
1. Light weight--The corrugated methods available to any airline. Al- underside of the carpet throughout
assenbly weight is about the same as though the tests established that a the cabin is for sound control. Al-
the original honeycomb floor panel, long, trouble-free life from spike- though the Curon pad may help to
about 0.81 pounds/square foot. heel damage can be expected, the cushion the impact of sharp heels,
2. Simpllcity--The two-part con- panels can still be damaged (rom its main purp<l3e is to maintain quiet
struction is easy to make and allmvs drqlped tool boxes or other heavy, In the cabin and should not be re-
all parts to be examined easily. sharp cornered objects. The floor m oved either with or without the
3. Repairabillty--The corrugated panel life can be extended almost Ensollte pad.
FIG. S-Samples of floor panels tested with tf1e "sheepsfoot lest, both panels were load tested. Both panels withstood design loads
roller." (A) Present tIoneycomb panel after 206 cycles. (B) New cor· satisfactorily. In fact, after tests, the corrugated panels were strong·
rugated panel after exposure to 1600 cycles. Following the /Oller er, due to cold working of the surface sheet.

•
September 1960 9
 pressure), or a combination of re-
=

Operating With A
duced airplane altitude and increased
cabin altitude to reduce the differ-
ential pressure to not more than 5
psi should be attained within 30
minutes at a rate that will lUi: subject
passengers to discomfort. By ob-
taining clearance to continue the
•
flight at the new altitude, a rught
Cracked Windshield interruption can be avoided in most
cases. Cracking of the inner pane
has occurred in only 6 per cent of
the cases reported. One airline, for
F.iiLI RACKING or breaking of a should be cracked, immediate de- example, reported only one failure
.:!J cockpit window tn flight can scent and/or establishing an emer· of an iImer pane in over 64,000 flight
be unnerving, particularly if accom- gency is not required. Present reg- hours. Here again the most recent
panied by a loud, sharp noise. De- ulatiol'E call for reducing differential issue of the Flight Manual will pro-
spite the ominous sound effects and pressure to zero at a rate consistent vide the approved operating proce-
the sudden appearance of a large with passenger safety and comfort dure in case of a cracked inner pane.
crack or shattering of a window within half an hour. Consult the Procedures for q>erating the 707s
pane, there is seldom the need to Flight Manual for each airplane for and 720s with either or both panes
declare an emergency. A thorough the latest prescribed procedures. of a window broken have been de-
understanding of the window struc- Should an outer pane craCk, no veloped fran a series of tests during
ture could have prevented most or change of airplane speed or altitude which the cockpit windows were sub-
all of the unscheduled landings that is necessary, as the inner pane is jected to forces far beyond the nor-
have followed a broken cockpit win- structurally capable of carrying the mal loads expected. Flg. 2 shO'NS the
dow pane to date. Procedures are full load from dLfferential pressure. results of one windshield test. In
now set up for handling the various A review of window failures to date this test b<th panes (inner and outer)
possibUiUes of broken panes and indicates that in 94 per cent of the were broken during pressure appli-
are included in each airplane's Flight cases,the outer pane ooly was brli!:en cation. The test was performed to
Manual.
Cockpit windows have the double
or cracked. demonstrate the ability of the vinyl
Should the inner pane crack, a re- interlayer to withstand dilferential
task of providing a high degree of duction in airplane altitude, an in- pressure loads whUe heated and in
visibility and withstanding the high crease in cabin altitude (reduced pressurized operation at the maxl-
differential pressures common dur-
ing high altitude llights. Windows FIG. 1 -Boeing Jetliners' windows are numbered ooe Ihroogh five on both left and fight
•
one through five, Fig. I, are lamin- sides. The cross·sections show differences between windows. Cooductive coaling between
ated with a vinyl layer sandwiched outer pane and vinyl provides anti-icing. Conductive layer between inner Ilane and vinylplo-
vides anti·fogging, and the extra layer of vinyl and acrylic inside window No.4 provide exira
between two layers of glass. In protection in case of a bird strike.
addition, window No.4 has a second
layer of vinyl and a layer of acrylic
plastic for extra protection in case 6..No. 5 (EYEBROW WINDOW)
of a bird strike.
Only when both panes of a window h,-..,._~-.../~~~'~~~Z~P~IL~DT SLIDING WINDOW
are cracked or broken is a maJ or I W1NI)Jf HEAT
change in a flight plan necessary. BU5 BAR
Breakage of both panes might call
for an WlScheduled landing or con-
tinuation of the flight at a reduced NO.JWINDOW
altitude. However, since 707s and WINDOW CROSS-SECTIONS
720s began sche<hled service, cover·

[I[lI~
ing about 300,000 flight hours, there
has been no recorded case where
both panes were broken or cracked
in flight. The only known instance
where both panes were cracked NO.1 AND NO.2 NO.] "NO NO.5 NO.4
occurred deliberately in a test (Fig.

•
CJ OUTER PA.NE
2). Although cracking of both panes ~ litHER PANE
is always possible, the service his- = VINYL
tory to date indicates that fallure of - CONDUCTIVE COATING
both panes on one window is ex- <=> A.CRYLIC LAYER
tremely unlikely. Even if both panes --~
10 Boeing Airliner
 FIG. 2-No 1 windshield being tested
at Boeing. Outer pane was deliberately
bloken. Illen 10.8 PSI pressure and heal

•
were applied to window. Tile inner pane was
thef1 broken, heal was lumed off, and pres-
sure was maintained an additiooal thirty
minutes The bulge appeared while Ihe
window was healed. After heal was turned
off, there was 00 loss of pressure Or change
in the window bulge during the final 30
minutes of the test.

mum ambient temperature antici-
pated during a long range cruise.
The pressure bulge occurred while
the vinyl was heated and a differ-
ential pressure of 10.8 psi was
applied from inside the test set-up.
Following the heated test, the 'Nin-
dow heat was turned off and pres-
sure was maintained (or an addi-
tional 30 minutes without leakage or
further bulging of the vinyl.
Following an analysis of test re-
sults, Boeing. with the approval of
the FAA, established a step-by-step
in-fllght procedure to be used should
cockpit windows crack or shatter.
This procedure Is being added to the
Flight and Operations Manuals and
is briefly as follows: First, pull
the circuit breaker controlling heat
to the affected window and then ex-
amine the wirdow to see which pane Is
damaged. Three possibilities exist:
1. The outer pane could fail:
Proceed to destination.
2. The irmer pane could fail:
Reduce diHerentlal cabin pres-
sure to 5 psi and obtain clearance
for flight continuation.
3. Both panes could be broken:
Reduce differential pressure
to zero within th.1rty minutes.
A tn an inner pane at a different angle
As noted earlier, service exper-
ience indicates that, when a cockpit
window cracks, the damage usually
occurs in the outer pane only. The
first problem is to determine which
pane is broken. Although this may
appear difficult at first glance, either
the parallax principle or the appear-
ance cI. the crack relative to the heat
bus bar will disclose which pane is
cracked. Fig. 3 illustrates two ap-
plications of the parallax principle.
In Fig. 3 A, the window is smudged
over a crack. By moving the head to
look at the crack from a different
angle, a crack in the outer pane
will appear to move relative to the
smudge (Fig. 3B). Looking at a crack
will not affect its appearance rela-

• tive to Ute smudge. One's finger on

a crack produces the same effect.
The heat bus bar can be used as
a reference where the bar is visible.
Since the bus bar runs between the
glass panes, a crack in the outer
pane will appear to stop at the bus
bar. A crack in an inner pane will
continue over the tar. Also, scraping
one's fingernail over the window will
usually locate a crack if it is In an
inner pane.
Failure of both panes is easily
recognized although dual failure has
occurred only in tests. The inner
RG. 3-Parallax is used fOI locating damaged pane In (A) one crack
was smudged over and another crack was covered by a finger. In (8) when
pane will be completely shattered
viewed from a new angle the cfacks appear to /lave moved relative to the and there will be a definite outward
smudge and finge, indicating an outer pane fracture. Cracks stopping allhe bulge in the window. The depth of
lIeat bus bar also indicate an outer pane failure. If failure occurs at nigtlt a the bulge depends on the size of the
flashlight may be used for illumination. B window, the vinyl temperature, and
the di!!erential pressure between
the cabin and ambient.
A number of improvements in
window design, imtallatioo, and power
application are now being tested. It
is expected that the changes result-
ing from these tests will greatly im-
prove windshield reliability. Until

• these changes are in effect, analysis

of any cracking or breakage of win-
dows followed by the appropriate
action will minimize the corrective
action that must be taken in !light.

11
 Tube
"VV"arpage
NINE- TUBE SUPPRESSOR

FIG. I-Real view of Hube

sollld sUPlllessor installed on
later 707s and nos. Although
suppressor lor JT4A engine is
lalger, tile same basic design is
used fa/ ooth JT3C and JT4A
engines.
Iii] UBE-END WARPAGE of the below the allowable mln1mwn. As at 6.05 inches. The allowable area
U 9-tube sound suppressor has explained in the previous article reduction for the JT4A sound sup-
I

raised questions as to the eilett of the "best exit area" is divided among pressor is 5.28 square inches.
out-of-round tubes on engine perfor- the various tubes. Changes in the Olanges in area of the outer tubes
mance. The 9-tube soWld suppressor area of each individual tube end must with increasing out-of-roundness
(Fig. 1) is installed at delivery on be added together to reach a total are shown in Fig. 2 for both sup-
720. certain models of 707-120. 70'1- area reduction for all tubes. The pressors. These curves show the
220. and 707-320 airplanes. Similar c dUcal area is figured from the change in throat area of one outer
concern was expressed when tube- diameter of the tube end throat or ring nozzle tWe for a ~e of meas-
end warpage occurred on the 21-tube necked-down section near the aft ured minor diameters assuming a
suppressor. The article "Sound Sup- end of each tube (Fig. 2). A one constant perimeter. Actually al-
pressor Tube Warpage" (AIRLINER per cent change in exhaust area is though there is no way to predict it,
for IEeniler, 1959, page 12) charted allowable.
the change in area with increasing
measurement of a number of tube
Although similar in design two ends indicate that as the tube goes
ellipticity and indicated the allowable different 9-tube sound suppressors out of round its perimeter increases
maximum for over-all area reduction. are presently in service. One sup- leaving the throat area almost un-
I

•
Due to the design and construc- pressor is sized for JT3C engines. changed.
tion of the sound suppressor, the The nominal throat diameter of each There is no simple measurement
expansion of the pressure vessel of the 8 tubes around the outer ring to determine the area change of the
stretches the tubes in one direction is 5.12 inches. The allowable area "da.isy petal" center tube of either the
only during operation. After a vari- reduction for the JT3C sound sup- small or large 9-tube suppressors.
able service life, the aft ends of the pressor is 3.73 square inches. However, during the development and
tubes may remain out-of-round. The 9-tube suppressor for JT4A endurance testing of the 9-tube sup-
This out-of-round condition is not engines is larger all over with the pressors, numerous measurements
a problem unless the elliptical shape nominal throat diameter of each of failed to show any awreciable change
reduces the over-all exhaust area the 8 tubes around the outer ring set in the shape of the center tube.
2.'
~.
A B
-'" 1.,
x
u
z
~o FIG. 2-chartsfor linding the
area reduction in outer rinf of
of tubes as cilcle becomes e lip.
tical, assuming constant peri·
•<w meier, (A)C~art for JT3C engines;
z 1.2 nominal diameter at thlOat, 5.12.
<
(B)Chartlor JT4A engines; nomi-
••
•
nal diameter at throat 6.05.

••
0.0
16 '.0 ••• ••• 50 OS t, '.3 5.1 <I
MINOR AXIS-lNCIlES MINOR AXIS-INCHES