727 magic?

[737forever]

When asking an old pilot or engineer about their favourite plane,the answer is often Boeing 727.What is realy so special about these bird,except the beautie of it.Everybody say,s it is built like a tank.One old United pilot called it the most rock solid thing he have ever flown.A safe landing was just hitting the runway one way or another.But doesn,t the 727 bacicly have the same airframe as the 737 and 757.I do understand that the wings are a little more heavyer since they don,t have engines under them.But what about the body?.Is the skin thikness greater,or what about distance between stringers?Someone with knowledge please comment.

[con-pilot]

Well with me it was all of the the things you mentioned. However, I believe the number one reason I liked the 727 so much as a pilot was its versatility or ability for using short runways. It really was fun to fly, but I've flown many other aircraft that I enjoyed flying more.

That being said the 100 series with the -9 engine was much more enjoyable than a 200 series with about any engine, with the possible exception of a full Valsan conversion 200 with the 219 engines in the number one and three positions.

Now don't get me wrong, on a hot day in Denver on takeoff you never seemed to have enough runway. On the other hand I always enjoyed landing and turning off the runway in less than 3,000 feet. Also for a week I flew a 200 with -7 engines, if that had been the only 727 I had ever flown I would have hated them.

I never had the chance to fly any series of 737s, but speaking from the point of view as a passenger and from watching them land and takeoff I really don't see that the 737 has better runway performance than the 727.

Another reason I liked the 727 was its speed. Not as fast as say a Convair 990, but except for the Concorde there were not too many airliners the 727 could not pass. The slowest I ever cruised the 72 was .80 Mach, unless ATC slowed me down for a 737. When in a hurry, like getting home for the weekend, all of us cruised around .84 or higher and always rode the barber poll on descents. (And yes you could not hear yourself think in the cockpit at high IAS.)

Anyway, I have a little over 7,000 hours in the 727 and truly do miss flying it.

(But the big boys tell me that if I liked the 72 so much, I would have loved the L-1011 even more. Probably true, as all of my most enjoyable flying was in three engined aircraft.)

[Flight Detent]

Hi con-pilot...

I only flew the 727-276 with -15 engines and the 727-269 with -17R engines, and both of these were really great airplanes.

Those 3 x 727-269-17R we flew are now (since '94) being operated by SyrianAir.

I was then with Kuwait Air and delivered 'em to Damascus, then stayed for a few weeks to train the local 727 crews on the very latest model (built in '84) of the venerable 727.

A really great airplane.

Cheers...FD...:)

[ClimbSequence]

Never flew them, but I heard the same as what Con-pilot wrote.
Once a guy told me that flying a 727 was just like flying a C-172 with three JT8D installed. One very remarkable design feature of the airplane is that it posses a wing's neutral dihedral angle

[bflyer]

Hi Flight Detent

Then i am one of those local 727 crews that you have trained in Damascus.

A truly remarkable aircraft, a i was privileged and lucky to have flown it.

One of my most enjoyable moments on it was when ATC asks about how fast we could go, and if weight and altitude conditions were right, we used to say....between M 0.69 and M 0.85, just name your number :ok:

regards
bf

[727gm]

The 727 was made to fly FAST, made to fly SLOW on approach, made to stop SHORT, with brakes and a heavy footprint....and to turn around and blast off again in short order. Had its own airstairs. And the flight controls made it fly like a dream (Over 5000 hrs on it, would gladly have stayed on it to retirement). And it could go down AND slow down! Big roomy cockpit, and not enough gas to go anywhere serious, usually, so you weren't sitting there for hours on end. The pilots didn't have to hold or read checklists in any situation, set T/O & climb thrust, fiddle with pressurization, aircond. & heating, fuel systems, or do a walkaround, the engineer handled it. Boeing should have automated the engineer, (a la the 744), made it a two-engine airplane, with winglets, an in-flight APU, and shut down the 737 production line instead.

[Colocolo]

:E .....and as an FO lets not forget:

1-Window Heat/ 2- Pitot Heat/ Whats to eat?....:ok:

[Espada III]

Forgive me for butting in on this, but I remember a holiday in the USA in about 1980 when we were in St Louis airport at 18:00 waiting for our flight. At 18:00 exactly, I saw several 727 planes reversing themselves away from the terminal, just like a bus station. The most incredible thing I saw at an airport. Presumably they were under some form of ground control but no need for a tug to push.

[kenparry]

But doesn,t the 727 bacicly have the same airframe as the 737 and 757.I do understand that the wings are a little more heavyer since they don,t have engines under them.

To answer that part of the original question: no, it's not basically the same airframe. The 707/727/737/757 have the same basic fuselage cross-section, but everything else is specific to type. (There was a joke that Boeing made fuselages by the mile and sawed it off by the yard for the different types..........................) The wings of all those are wholly different, and the 757 has a different nose shape. The 727-100 was designed for a specific task out of LGA, I believe, so had triple-slotted flaps to make the takeoff performance needed. But, with weight increases on later models, the field performance was not so good. No, I did not operate it, just read about it, watched a few, and flew in the back.

Try Boeing 727 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B727) for more info.

[hetfield]

Yeah, great plane. Have flown it as a FE and F/O for about eight years. Easy to handle, simple systems, low workload 'cause of FE, fast in the air slow on the runway, drops like a stone and not to forget the aft airstair:) to get your after work beer a little sooner.

[Max Angle]

The 707/727/737/757 have the same basic fuselage cross-section

Anorak on:

Actually not quite correct, 707 and 737 are the same as are 727 and 757 All have elliptical cross sections (actually a "double bubble" or parts of two different cross sections) but the 727 and 757 have a deeper lower section to increase cargo hold space.

Anorak off!

[kijangnim]

Greetings
Indeed the Best Ever, Second to Non, and I miss it :{
The one and the only enabling you to be at 10000ft 250Kts Idle and on the Glide,
and when speed reaches the corresponding Flaps, just call for it, at OM, call for gear, Landing flaps, Landing Check-list, then you hear the engines spooling up, Threshold, retard push the yoke a little ........I miss it :{

[MarkerInbound]

"Boeing should have automated the engineer, (a la the 744), made it a two-engine airplane, with winglets, an in-flight APU, and shut down the 737 production line instead."


Greg, you know the 757 evolved out of Boeing's studies for the 727-300?

And some of the aux tank systems get you over 80,000 pounds of fuel.

[beachbumflyer]

727gm,

I was thinking something like that. Why not replace the 737 and 757 with
a new two-engine composite-built 727 with high speed cruise, short runway capabilities and a lot less fuel burn?

[stilton]

Flew the 727 for seven years and it's still the best handling Aircraft I've operated.


The 767 comes close, maybe even as good but the 757 does not.



The 75 has lot's of performance but is quite unresponsive compared to the 72 with it's four Ailerons, massive vertical fin and oversized stabiliser.


It brought new meaning to control authority.

[captjns]

Boeing quit building airplanes when the 727 production line was shut down. I was on the jet for 8 years... every day at the controls was joy. Outside the US in the Caribbean, we would be 320 knots in the climb to about .82. Level off and accelerate to about .875:):ok:. Descend at that speed until transition to the barber pole all the way to about 1500 feet. Reduce power at about 20 miles out and would not have to touch the power until the landing flaps were set at about 500 feet. Landing distance??? 10 times the ground speed at touchdown always worked. Getting out of the shorter strips could be a bit of a challenge even for the lead sleds.


It was a sad day when I had to return to the 737 aka the SLUG:(.


The old 72 is an honest machine and will never let you down:ok:.

[737forever]

But what realy is different structurally from her sister,s?I have heard stories of surviving incredible high sink rate landings.I also heard that a TWA ship survived a 6G escape manouver.Any old 727 mech,s out there?

[con-pilot]

But what realy is different structurally from her sister,s?I have heard stories of surviving incredible high sink rate landings

Back when Flaps 40 was used to landing, one could very easily get into a very high sink rate with little effort if you were not paying attention. With Flaps 30 you still could get into a pretty good sink rate, but you really had to work at it by not paying any attention to what you and the aircraft were doing.

As far as I know all 727s have the Flaps 40 position blocked now, you can only have a maximum of 30 degrees of flaps. There were three primary reasons for the maximum of 30 degrees of flaps;

1. Fuel burn on landing with flaps 40. It takes a lot of power to keep a 727 on the glide slope at Flaps 40.

2. The very high sink rate that could happen with 40 degrees of flaps.

3. Noise abatement on approach and landing. See number 1, more power, more noise.

Because of our unique operational requirements, we were allowed to remove the block and use Flaps 40 when it was required.

Oh, when you do land with Flaps 40, when you pull the power off you drop straight down, so you want to be real close over the runway when you do, like less than a foot or two. Trust me on this. :\

[Storminnorm]

Last 727 I worked on I had to go to TFS to fix a hydraulic leak.
Peach Air(?). Peach stood for Pax Expect A Crappy Holiday.
Never got round to comparing fuselage skin gauges or any
other structural design features.
Good old tough aircraft. A flying Tank!
But also loved the 767. A little more delicate, but Great to
fly in and work on.
757? No! Didn't like them.

All time favourite was the DC 10-30. (Freighter.)

[Tree]

Nothing comes close to a 727-100 today. Ferocious stopping power with nosewheel brakes (better lock your shoulder harness partner or you will do a faceplant into the glareshield). Great takeoff performance except when at max weight. Cruise at .90 without any rolloff. Descended like a set of car keys scaring ATC. Minimal mods required for gravel ops and high engines did not ingest gravel & snow. Packed enough fuel to give you a decent (not paper) alternate in the High Arctic. Operated trouble free at surface temps of -50C. Well done Boeing!

[Captain Sherm]

On one of my first B727-100 flights as an F/O my training captain showed me how to enter a circuit at high speed (this was of course before there was speed control, 250 below 10,000 and FOQA). Request a high speed approach at Darwin and entered a long downwind at 390 indicated. All worked well. I do recall tho that my brain and heart landed long after the aeroplane!

Years on the wonderful 777 aside, getting a command on the 727 was simply the best thing ever. Yes....thanks Boeing!

[misd-agin]

737forever -

I'm not a fan of saying the 727 is the best ever. At it's time it was a great airplane.

757 IMO outperforms it in reliability, climb performance, short field performance, high altitude capability, hot and high performance, is much quieter, better thrust to weight, and more efficient. Every thing related to safety, except a third, older engine, is better on the 757.

The 727 is faster(.885/411 KIAS:ok:). The 727 can be a handful in the pattern and is unforgiving of poor landing technique.

I enjoyed the 727 but don't miss it. To me it's like people talking about the 1964 Opel they owned, "best car ever", when today's technology is clearly superior.

Best handling airliner? Eight different ones so far and for me the A300 had the best combination of light, and balanced, controls. That said, I'd take a 767 over the A300.

[hetfield]

The 727 can be a handful in the pattern Oh common, it's like a 172, beside trimm changes during flap extension.:)

[NOVMO]

This machine used to be really versatile
you could arrive "FAST AND LOW" OR
"HIGH AND SLOW"

By fast and low I mean at VMO 12 miles 2000 feet.
by high and slow I mean at Vref Flaps 40 10 miles 10,000 feet and
you could do a straight in approach.

Obviously this was before all the limitations of today . . .
like 250 KTS below 10,000 feet, ALAR, CRM, Safe Sex, etc.

[Mr. Lowkey]

727 handled beautifully as anyone knows who was lucky enough to fly it. Tough as nails and versatile enough for just about anything. Entered the hold over Luanda one night at 20,000', cleared for the NDB 24 and were able to lose 16,000' once around the hold, yes 1 min legs, and land from 4000' FAF. Boeing really did a good job with it.

[john_tullamarine]

Oh common, it's like a 172,

Until I realised that was the case I had a pretty chequered career trying to land the -200. The -100 is a real pussycat and, once the above was incorporated into my belief set, so was the -200.

One needed to keep one's wits about oneself but it certainly was a fun machine to operate .... check essential.

[dazdaz]

Just a thought, why did not Boeing continue with the 727 design, implementing more modern engine technology/hardware/software and incorporating two pilot operations on the f/d?

Daz

[fantom]

Oh... lots of people out there still living or dreaming in the land of the dinosaurs. 75/76/77? hellooo! Any of you flown the 320 or, better yet, the 330?

Back to the Q. My favourite moments in the magnificent 727 (200 - sorry JT) was a heavy take off using the slow trim, manually flown. Excellent.

By the way, hello (marhaba) Flt D.

fantom

[con-pilot]

Just a thought, why did not Boeing continue with the 727 design, implementing more modern engine technology/hardware/software and incorporating two pilot operations on the f/d?


I really don't know the answer to that. I do know that there was a company that was going to fully modify the 72 with the -219 engines in the number one and three positions, remove the FE station and completely redesign the cockpit to allow a two pilot operation with a modernized automated electrical system. However, they never were able to get enough finical support to finish even just one aircraft.

[stilton]

Magnificent Aircraft.


It flew nothing like a 172.

[MarkerInbound]

Con-Pilot,

It was Dee Howard in San Antonio. My understanding is when they talked to FAA about their "mod" the Feds said you can do what you want but a 727 has 3 flight crewmembers and 3 engines per the Type Certificate Data Sheet. Their new airplane (Howard 1000 would be a good name) would be a totally new aircraft and require new certification from square one.

[PaulBnv]

Donald Trump's 727 is for sale, for those interested!

Donald Trump 727 For Sale - Is Donald Trump Broke? | NYCAviation.com | Planespotting and Aviation Photography, Breaking Airline News, Aviation Discussion (http://nycaviation.com/2009/11/12/is-donald-broke-trump-selling-his-pimped-out-727/)

[sacul12]

Around 8000 hrs in comand on that fantastic A/C, operating from high altitudes airports like La Paz (13400' ), CBB (8360'), TJA (6300'), SRE (9100') and many crazy placed airports in mountainous Bolivia and South America, with NDB, VOR approaches, and I couldn have asked for a more reliable aircraft than the 727-200 with 17R engines, just the best!!!

[con-pilot]

Marker,

It was Dee Howard in San Antonio.

Thank you, I had forgotten who was going to do the Mod.

[misd-agin]

I've flown the 757 to La Paz. I also flew as a passenger on a 727 out of La Paz. The 727 takeoff roll took 33% more time than the 757's.

A 727 has a thrust to weight ratio of approx. ..24-25:1. The 757 has a thrust to weight ratio of approx. .34:1. That's an increase of 36-41% in the thrust to weight ratio.

Have you actually commanded a 757? At high altitude airports? 36-41% more thrust to weight is significant and a huge improvement in performance, especially at high altitudes.

[con-pilot]

Have you actually commanded a 757?

No, I have not, but I did fly a 727-200 with the -219 engine mod, and that had extremely impressive performance. I would liked to have flown a 757, but as now that I am retired I can't see that happening.

[AIRSEABISCUIT]

I would have wanted so much to fly one of those beautiful noisy birds.
Unfortunately I arrived much too late for them.
Anyway it was with these aircrafts in mind and not Airbuses that I decided to pursue a career in aviation.
I like flying and not pressing buttons on FMS CDUs, therefore I will always regard them as my dream-planes forever.
They did a magnificient job for decades and still now, even if in very limited numbers.
For this and many other reasons they deserve the whole respect, even from today "computer" pilots.

[yokebearer]

Close the thrust at TOD and plan to be overhead the field at 250 kts/1500ft for a visual. Start a turn with about 2.5 mile radius that will take you all the way through downwind base and final rolling wings level at 250ft and spooling up.

Through base it looks like there is no way you can make it in. All the time you drop flap all the way to flap40 as she decelerates ( This is the key ) and she just sinks!! Then stop shorter than a Baron. And reverse into your bay.

Not many jets can do that. Loved it.
In Africa it was way more reliable than 737 's

[Flight Detent]

re: By the way, hello (marhaba) Flt D.

fantom

I sorta new I'd see you looking in, with the "727" title.

cheers...FD...:E