QANTAS VJet
Steven Robertson
Steve R
Peter Creswick
>
> Re QANTAS B707- does anyone know what the "V" in Vjet stands for?
>
> Steve R
According to http://airlines.afriqonline.com/airlines/112.htm
The V-Jet referred to the new turbofan engines of the 707-338C series.
Trevor Fenn
@ihug.SOMEBODY.com.au>:
I believe the V stands for Vannus, latin for winnowing fan.
A reference to the FanJet engines.
--
Trevor Fenn
There are too many zz's in my email address above.
Take two zz's and email me in the morning.
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key
Peter Creswick
Aubrey Adams
"Steven Robertson" <sjrobe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40a1fc02$0$23831$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Re QANTAS B707- does anyone know what the "V" in Vjet stands for?
>
> Steve R
>
>
I have always been curious why "V" jet? I mean even "Q" jet would seem a
more likely choice.
It's not as if your average pax would have known that Latin for Fan was
Vannus (it's the origin of English the word "vane" ) - they always have to
explain it which doesn't seem to fit the quick and easily understood
principles of branding usually considered successful, and in reality how
many people would fly Qantas because, wow, they have V jets. Although I
suppose "F" jet could have been open to all sorts of , ahem, colloquial
derivations.
I suspect that it was thought that "Vee-jet" had a sexy marketing sound and
the marketeers then cast around for a half appropriate word that started
with V. Sort of like with the BASIC programming language.
At least TAA's T-jet had a less obscure rationale - the tee tail of the B727
and of course TAA started with T.
But in the wider context do such brand names for aircraft really mean much?
Singapore still use it with their Megatops and Celestars or whatever but it
seems cheesey to me and irrelevant in an age where price is probably the
sole determining issue for the majority of pax.
Aubrey
a little less SPAM-@ozemail.com.au Dave Kearton
"Aubrey Adams" <eaad...@MOVEiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:40a22345$0$16592$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
|
| "Steven Robertson" <sjrobe...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| news:40a1fc02$0$23831$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
| > Re QANTAS B707- does anyone know what the "V" in Vjet stands for?
| >
| > Steve R
| >
| >
|
| I have always been curious why "V" jet? I mean even "Q" jet would seem a
| more likely choice.
|
| It's not as if your average pax would have known that Latin for Fan was
| Vannus (it's the origin of English the word "vane" ) - they always have to
| explain it which doesn't seem to fit the quick and easily understood
| principles of branding usually considered successful, and in reality how
| many people would fly Qantas because, wow, they have V jets. Although I
| suppose "F" jet could have been open to all sorts of , ahem, colloquial
| derivations.
|
| I suspect that it was thought that "Vee-jet" had a sexy marketing sound
and
| the marketeers then cast around for a half appropriate word that started
| with V. Sort of like with the BASIC programming language.
|
| At least TAA's T-jet had a less obscure rationale - the tee tail of the
B727
| and of course TAA started with T.
|
This is always as I understood it, this 'Vannus' business is new to me,
doesn't mean it's not right - just that I've never heard of it before.
I used to watch the 707s as they worked out of RAAF Edinburgh in 1971 while
Richmond was temporarily closed and always assumed that the V Jet referred
to the swept wings.
As always, your mileage may vary.
| But in the wider context do such brand names for aircraft really mean
much?
| Singapore still use it with their Megatops and Celestars or whatever but
it
| seems cheesey to me and irrelevant in an age where price is probably the
| sole determining issue for the majority of pax.
|
| Aubrey
|
|
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
me
JT jet is a 138B was this painted the same? or just his as in now.
rm
Aubrey Adams
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton-with a little less SP...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
message news:SIpoc.155$sY1....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> This is always as I understood it, this 'Vannus' business is new to me,
> doesn't mean it's not right - just that I've never heard of it before.
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
I first read about the V = vannus thing in the mid-1960s in a Qantas
publication I received with their timetable that I wrote away for at the
time (well when you're around 12 years old living on an airport in
Australia's northwest life can be somewhat sad at times).
And even at that young age and in those less cynical times I recall my
reaction being along the lines of "Uh, yeah right!".
Aubrey
Trevor Fenn
>Steven Robertson wrote:
The JT3D Fan engines were actually retrofitted to the -138 series
airframes. This combined with the shorter/lighter fuselage is what gave the
QF 707-138B's a reputation of being a real hotrod of the skies.
matt weber
Vanous, which I believe is Latin for Fan.
QF was the first airline to have the PW engines modified to convert
them from Turbojets to Turbofan. The Aircraft had to come back to the
USA to get the work done.
Now here is an interesting question. What airliner was the first to
have turbofan engines, and who made the engines? Most people are very
surprised at the answer....
Bypass ratio wasn't much, but QF was in a bind, and needed all the
performance they could get, and the conversion was good for both fuel
economy and thrust. The other very early adopter was American
Airlines, they called the aircraft Fan jets... That predates AstroJet,
LuxuryLiner etc...
In fact the -138 is a slightly shrunker version of the 707 to bring
the weight down so that with the engines available at time time of
delivery, it could actually fly the mission using the available
'stepping stones'...
matt weber
by the time the -300 series entered production, the standard engine
was a turbofan. On QF's early 138's, the aircraft actually went back
to the USA to have the engines modified. It was mostly a matter of
some duct work, and a bigger diameter first stage.
Carl U Back
Hi Dave,
I agree with you.
I do not challenge the veracity of the V = Vannus = Fan statement.
However I too seem to recall the V being associated with the wing
sweep. This "V" made by the wings was much more pronounced than had
been seen in previous passenger aircraft.
The "V" symbol has been associated by the public with aerodynamic
efficiency (speed) since the invention of the arrow head.
Maybe the PR department pushed this association of V = Velocity =
speed, rather than the more esoteric Vannus.
I seem to recall the V-Jet logo superimposed over the picture of an
overflying B707 in a Qantas advert of many years ago. The orientation
of the "V" and the aircraft's wings being similar.
Anyway, just a recollection from an old, and not so bold, pilot.
Regards
Stephen
Paul Repacholi
> I seem to recall the V-Jet logo superimposed over the picture of an
> overflying B707 in a Qantas advert of many years ago. The
> orientation of the "V" and the aircraft's wings being similar.
In the last few weeks, I saw a photo of Qantas's first 707, with the
red rat at the top of the tail. I can't remember it having the V-jet
logo of later ones.
Did the TF engines come with the multi lobed silencers? Because the
one without them certainly did not sound like fans!!
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
matt weber
<pr...@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>Carl U Back <Steph...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I seem to recall the V-Jet logo superimposed over the picture of an
>> overflying B707 in a Qantas advert of many years ago. The
>> orientation of the "V" and the aircraft's wings being similar.
>
>In the last few weeks, I saw a photo of Qantas's first 707, with the
>red rat at the top of the tail. I can't remember it having the V-jet
>logo of later ones.
>
>Did the TF engines come with the multi lobed silencers? Because the
>one without them certainly did not sound like fans!!
Not initially at least. I think the lobe mixers are much later. Noise
was something to be lived with, because most noise suppression
impacted engine performance, and engine performance was a very serious
problem in that era.
The upgrade initially wasn't much more than changing the compressor
case and a larger first stage compressor fan... In terms of sound, the
early TF's would have been indistinguishable for the non-TF versions.
It isn't until the bypass ratio's get much much higher JT8's other
than the 200 series and JT4 which are the TF version of the JT3 sound
pretty much like Turbojets. The Bypass ratio is very low, so
relatively little thurst is coming from the ducted fan.
Pits
Trevor Fenn
<87hduku...@prep.synonet.com>:
>Carl U Back <Steph...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I seem to recall the V-Jet logo superimposed over the picture of an
>> overflying B707 in a Qantas advert of many years ago. The
>> orientation of the "V" and the aircraft's wings being similar.
>
>In the last few weeks, I saw a photo of Qantas's first 707, with the
>red rat at the top of the tail. I can't remember it having the V-jet
>logo of later ones.
>
>Did the TF engines come with the multi lobed silencers? Because the
>one without them certainly did not sound like fans!!
>
Remember when jet engines produced noise and smoke?
Those were the days :)
Love this pic,
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/
BB
"Trevor Fenn" <ozzz...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:94E780...@216.168.3.44...
> vent...@ihug.SOMEBODY.com.au (Peter Creswick) wrote in <40A1FEAC.34861D15
> @ihug.SOMEBODY.com.au>:
>
>
> airframes. This combined with the shorter/lighter fuselage is what gave
the
> QF 707-138B's a reputation of being a real hotrod of the skies.
>
> --
Other changes from 138 to 138B included a revised wing leading edge with
additional Kreuger flaps, increased vertical stab height (by 40") with full,
rather than partial rudder boost increased horizontal stabiliser length (by
20" per side)....I think also that the a/c got their ventral fins at this
time as well...
A bit of trivia - they're actually the fastest of all 707s with an Mmo
of 0.91
Regards,
BB.
Pits
> Remember when jet engines produced noise and smoke?
> Those were the days :)
> Love this pic,
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/
Great pic ( dons tin foil hat and awaits the arrival of pretzel)
BB
"Paul Repacholi" <pr...@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
news:87hduku...@prep.synonet.com...
> Carl U Back <Steph...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> In the last few weeks, I saw a photo of Qantas's first 707, with the
> red rat at the top of the tail. I can't remember it having the V-jet
> logo of later ones.
>
> Did the TF engines come with the multi lobed silencers? Because the
> one without them certainly did not sound like fans!!
>
> --
The V-Jet livery was not applied until after Qantas got their
first -138B... That is there is a (short) period that some -138Bs were
flying with pre V-Jet livery.... The turbofan engines that Qantas received
outwardly look pretty much the same as other JT3Ds (ie. no fluted mixer
exhaust nozzle) - Pretty sure no JT3D ever had them... Some other engines
fitted to the 707 certainly did... The JT3C-6, Conway 505 & 508 and JT4A
(fitted to the -220) for example.... They actually reduce noise by
increasing the area that the hot exhaust stream and the airflow around the
engine have to interact.... As for the JT3D the lower speed bypass air
actually muffles the sound of the hot stream exhaust and as such (difficult
as it may seem) they're a lot quieter than JT3Cs even without the mixing
nozzles...
Regards,
BB.
Aubrey Adams
> Those were the days :)
> Love this pic,
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/
>
> --
> Trevor Fenn
>
Love the photographers remark too -
"An old waterburner uses more than 7000 feet of Runway 25L as it struggles
to get airborne on a warm late morning departure to Idlewild"
Aah - noise and water-meth induced smoke, them were the days.
And the gear's half retracted already!! Sure makes you appreciate the
development of today's engines that we take for granted .
Aubrey
matt weber
Actually until about 10 years ago, it was common sight with KC135's
that had not been re-eingined with CFM56's. Lots of KC135's still
around that don't have CFM56's, but just about all of them were
re-engined.
The USAF started buying up used 707's in the 1980's as they came out
of service for the engines, and began putting the later civilian JT4's
on the KC135's, the JT4's had burner cans as well as moe thrust and
better fuel economy, so the smoke trails disappeared....
Steven Robertson
"matt weber" <matth...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lnd5a0ln8pei0dhkh...@4ax.com...
Thanks all for your input.
Steve R
Ron Cuskelly
publication "From Waggon Wheels to Wings" (August 66):
"On August 6th 1961, phase two of the jet era began with the arrival of the
first turbo-fan powered 707-138B. Qantas announced that these new Boeings
would be know as 'V-Jets' from the Latin 'vannus' meaning fan."
I seem to recall that the literal translation of vannus is "a device for
blowing against the grain".
Regards
Ron
Martin Taylor
> Readers might be interested in the following quote from the Qantas
> publication "From Waggon Wheels to Wings" (August 66):
> "On August 6th 1961, phase two of the jet era began with the arrival of
> the first turbo-fan powered 707-138B. Qantas announced that these new
> Boeings would be know as 'V-Jets' from the Latin 'vannus' meaning fan."
Are there any pictures of these jets? From what I saw on a History
Channel doco on the turbo-fan, it didn't appear til the late 60s and
when retro-fitted to a 707, it made significant inroads into greater
power availability and much cheaper running costs.
Ron Cuskelly
The second issue of "AERO Australia" (Apr-Jun) has an excellent article on
the 707-138B with many photos.
Cheers
Ron
"Martin Taylor" <mjp...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:40a858fe.14...@yahoo.com.au...
matt weber
Doesn't appear in large numbers until the mid 1960's. That's because
with Jet A very cheap, and most of the missions were domestic in the
USA, the need for the extra range/payload was limited. Very bluntly,
the cost of the upgrade didn't justify the fuel savings for most
carriers. However the turbo fan engine was standard on the 727 from
the first delivery. All JT8's are turbo fans.
Paul Repacholi
I seem to remember from way back, words like `whisper jet',
and Q-jet.
Ring a bell for anyone?
Harold
> This may be on topic...
>
> I seem to remember from way back, words like `whisper jet',
> and Q-jet.
>
> Ring a bell for anyone?
I thought 'whisper jet' was used by TAA in their "whispering T-Jet"
campaigns - don't remember whether it was for the DC9 or 727.
Trevor Fenn
@news.optusnet.com.au>:
WhisperJet was used by Eastern Airlines on their 727's
matt weber
<pr...@prep.synonet.com> wrote:
>This may be on topic...
>
>I seem to remember from way back, words like `whisper jet',
Whisper Jet was a trademark for Eastern Airlines in the USA, as was
AstroJet for American Airlines, Northliner for North Central........
Actually the Trademark Seach in the USA turns up about a dozen Whisper
Jet marks ranging from hair dryers to leaf blowers and just about
everything in between.
There are about a half dozen Q-Jet, the only ones even vaguely related
to aviation belong to Westinghouse Electric, but have been dropped, in
fact none are active.
me
Trevor Fenn wrote:
> harold [at] clotmail.com (Harold) wrote in <40a9faaf$0$31676$afc38c87
> @news.optusnet.com.au>:
>
>
>>"Paul Repacholi" <pr...@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
>>news:87fz9y5...@prep.synonet.com...
>>
>>>This may be on topic...
>>>
>>>I seem to remember from way back, words like `whisper jet',
>>>and Q-jet.
>>>
>>>Ring a bell for anyone?
>>
>>I thought 'whisper jet' was used by TAA in their "whispering T-Jet"
>>campaigns - don't remember whether it was for the DC9 or 727.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> WhisperJet was used by Eastern Airlines on their 727's
>
I wouldn't call a 727 a "whisper jet" by any means compmpared to what we
have now. :)
Ted Harrison
"me" <m...@me.me> wrote in message news:40aab3fa$0$2301$61ce...@news.syd.swiftdsl.com.au...
> I wouldn't call a 727 a "whisper jet" by any means compmpared to what we
> have now. :)
Don't forget the most cynical slogan of all ... BA's VC-10 "HushPower" ...
... with the equivalent of four Mach2 fighters
strapped on the back in close formation!!!
Trevor Fenn
The planes we have now are for wimps.