TAA and the 727 200
Thread Starter
TAA and the 727 200
My wife and I were chatting and she can't remember the config on the 727 200, on the PER flights it was 28 F/C and who can remember the Y/C seat numbers.
Hard for an old girl to remember.
Thanks
Hard for an old girl to remember.
Thanks
short flights long nights
now THIS is going to be a cool thread!!!!
Moderator
A beautiful machine to land
You refer to the -100, I presume ?
I can't recall a dreadful landing on the -100 .. but can only recall one really good one on the -200 ..
What I could never work out was how Stan B (AN), with whom I flew my consolidation block, managed to land the -200 .. each, and every, approach was drilled down to the aiming point and then, just as my eyeballs were popping out of their sockets .. he would do something (?) and the aircraft just ran along the runway.
.. if only I could have worked out what it was that he did .. but it eluded me totally.
You refer to the -100, I presume ?
I can't recall a dreadful landing on the -100 .. but can only recall one really good one on the -200 ..
What I could never work out was how Stan B (AN), with whom I flew my consolidation block, managed to land the -200 .. each, and every, approach was drilled down to the aiming point and then, just as my eyeballs were popping out of their sockets .. he would do something (?) and the aircraft just ran along the runway.
.. if only I could have worked out what it was that he did .. but it eluded me totally.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john tullamarine,
I'm with you. During my five years on the 72, I met many guys who stated over a beer that they did greasers every landing, but failed miserably to demonstrate that in practice. I saw very few actual greasers during that 5 years. But what a lovely, lovely aeroplane!
And they had 5 hostesses!! (yes, hostesses in those days before PC)
zube,
I don't understand the crack about the F/E's. Generally speaking they were a great bunch of blokes, and many a good time was had in their company. Okay, they had a habit of blocking any good looking female visitor to the cockpit from getting past their desk. And they also had a habit of leading innocent young f/o's into too many watering holes, but generally they were a great asset to the operation.
I'm with you. During my five years on the 72, I met many guys who stated over a beer that they did greasers every landing, but failed miserably to demonstrate that in practice. I saw very few actual greasers during that 5 years. But what a lovely, lovely aeroplane!
And they had 5 hostesses!! (yes, hostesses in those days before PC)
zube,
I don't understand the crack about the F/E's. Generally speaking they were a great bunch of blokes, and many a good time was had in their company. Okay, they had a habit of blocking any good looking female visitor to the cockpit from getting past their desk. And they also had a habit of leading innocent young f/o's into too many watering holes, but generally they were a great asset to the operation.
Whispering "T" Jet
And they also had a habit of leading innocent young f/o's into too many watering holes.......
As for the Flight Engineers you wouldn't leave home without them. Great blokes all of them and a very valuable asset on the Flight Deck.
Thread Starter
The wife was a girl in those days she graduated as a air hostess in the mid 70's....................still flying for a few more years, need to keep her working to maintain our Staff Travel seniority, last trip we were 1st on the J upgrade out of 12 staff.
to maintain our Staff Travel seniority, last trip we were 1st on the J upgrade out of 12 staff.
Moderator
JT - The 'Boeing push' perhaps?
No, that technique on the 722 is very obvious .. AN pushed the Boeing push line fairly strongly for new chums. After a period characterised by a singular lack of success with that technique, I tried landing the thing like a C172 and that worked far better ...
The one landing which did work well was a greaser's greaser (ie a fluke) .. but very disconcerting .. no sound or vibration of touchdown and we ALL knew that if it wasn't on the ground then we were all about to find out in a very definite manner. As it turned out the ASI just slowed down and eventually I was game enough to pull the PECL.
Mind you, when the head hostie stuck her head in to enquire as to the author of the landing, I had no trouble accepting credit .. albeit that it had naught to do with my then beginner's skill level on the beast ..
Stan's technique was tied up with the aircraft's being a simple extension of his thought processes .. or so it seemed to me. He was the only chap I can recall flying with who was so reliably consistent with his landings. When I discussed it with him, he dismissed his skill as being largely good luck (which I am sure is the same way that Goren used to characterise his luck at the table ...). I don't think that he ever had worked out just how he landed the aircraft .. he just did it.
Yet the -100 was one of nature's pussycats to land ...
No, that technique on the 722 is very obvious .. AN pushed the Boeing push line fairly strongly for new chums. After a period characterised by a singular lack of success with that technique, I tried landing the thing like a C172 and that worked far better ...
The one landing which did work well was a greaser's greaser (ie a fluke) .. but very disconcerting .. no sound or vibration of touchdown and we ALL knew that if it wasn't on the ground then we were all about to find out in a very definite manner. As it turned out the ASI just slowed down and eventually I was game enough to pull the PECL.
Mind you, when the head hostie stuck her head in to enquire as to the author of the landing, I had no trouble accepting credit .. albeit that it had naught to do with my then beginner's skill level on the beast ..
Stan's technique was tied up with the aircraft's being a simple extension of his thought processes .. or so it seemed to me. He was the only chap I can recall flying with who was so reliably consistent with his landings. When I discussed it with him, he dismissed his skill as being largely good luck (which I am sure is the same way that Goren used to characterise his luck at the table ...). I don't think that he ever had worked out just how he landed the aircraft .. he just did it.
Yet the -100 was one of nature's pussycats to land ...
JT
The so called "Boeing Push" led more than a few to horrendous results, because they did it too early. A few feet above the deck and with a body angle of zero, and no where to go. Pull back and drive the whees down, or hold your attitude and eventually drop out of the sky.
The more successful, used a mere relaxation of backpressure. Approaching with about 3 degrees ANU, ON SPEED, continue down until you feel the ground effect. (It is quite noticeable). The ground effect tends to roll the aircraft nose down. Just check the nose down tendency then relax the backpressure. DO NOT PUSH. Generally touchdown is smooth with about 2-3 degrees ANU. The beauty and consistency of this method is that it requires little judgement as the ground effect will tell you when to do it.
Worked well on DC9 and MD 80 also.
Maui
The so called "Boeing Push" led more than a few to horrendous results, because they did it too early. A few feet above the deck and with a body angle of zero, and no where to go. Pull back and drive the whees down, or hold your attitude and eventually drop out of the sky.
The more successful, used a mere relaxation of backpressure. Approaching with about 3 degrees ANU, ON SPEED, continue down until you feel the ground effect. (It is quite noticeable). The ground effect tends to roll the aircraft nose down. Just check the nose down tendency then relax the backpressure. DO NOT PUSH. Generally touchdown is smooth with about 2-3 degrees ANU. The beauty and consistency of this method is that it requires little judgement as the ground effect will tell you when to do it.
Worked well on DC9 and MD 80 also.
Maui
Mind you, when the head hostie stuck her head in to enquire as to the author of the landing, I had no trouble accepting credit .. albeit that it had naught to do with my then beginner's skill level on the beast ..
(Great story in Harry Purvis's 'Outback Airman' 'bout the time his hopeless co-pilot was sent back to apologise to the army brass on board for his horrific landing. Some time later one of those men down the back bumped into Harry and asked him were his landings any better? What? says Harry. Well that time at Mascot when you sent your offsider back to tell us the wingco says sorry about the landing. He's been flying a desk lately and hasn't got his eye back in.)
Mr Maui, you have it in a nutshell. The only thing I would add, the 200 never seemed to like Vre+5, worked best Vref+10 as a basic minimum. Also flap 30 was always easier than flap 40, not smart enough to know why. I must admit every now and then you would get a 'back breaker', more often than not in calm winds. She was all female, beautiful, but a little difficult to work out at times. Oddly enough very easy in crosswinds.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Waiting for the fire
Age: 65
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B727
Cant remember flying in a nicer aeroplane as SLF. With over 11000 hrs. ginning around in mostly Ag gear, I had the pleasure years ago as a freight dude with AN to fly cheap, and loved every minute of the time in a 72. Bring back the good old days, I say! Keep the thread going, this is good ****!
My first flight in a jet was in 1975 on the B727 Redeye out of Perth for Melbourne when I joined the RAAF. I'll never forget the smooth, powerful acceleration.
As it happens my next flight in a jet was with me driving it.
Regards,
BH.
As it happens my next flight in a jet was with me driving it.
Regards,
BH.
Moderator
more than a few to horrendous results, because they did it too early.
Being a bear of very little brain, it took me a while to figure out that it all came down to making sure that, at the end of the flare, the mains were only an inch or so off the seal .. then it didn't matter too much what you did. If, however, the mains were 6 inches off the seal ... it was a very different story .. the stuff of prayer meetings .. the closest I guess that we ever came to understanding the feelings of the Martyrs at the time of death ...
it requires little judgement as the ground effect will tell you when to do it.
Concur .. I called my version of that technique the closing-eyes-and-hoping-for-the-best approach and landing technique. All jokes aside, once folk got their eye in with the old lady, it was a delightful aeroplane. However, anytime one got a bit uppity and considered that one was now on top of things .. she would deliver a small (or large) slap just to remind one that she was OIC.
the 200 never seemed to like Vre+5, worked best Vref+10
The -100 was a conventional 1g stall certification, the -200 min speed. The notional difference was around 5-10 knots .. if you carried the extra speed on the -200, it behaved a lot more like the -100.
Being a bear of very little brain, it took me a while to figure out that it all came down to making sure that, at the end of the flare, the mains were only an inch or so off the seal .. then it didn't matter too much what you did. If, however, the mains were 6 inches off the seal ... it was a very different story .. the stuff of prayer meetings .. the closest I guess that we ever came to understanding the feelings of the Martyrs at the time of death ...
it requires little judgement as the ground effect will tell you when to do it.
Concur .. I called my version of that technique the closing-eyes-and-hoping-for-the-best approach and landing technique. All jokes aside, once folk got their eye in with the old lady, it was a delightful aeroplane. However, anytime one got a bit uppity and considered that one was now on top of things .. she would deliver a small (or large) slap just to remind one that she was OIC.
the 200 never seemed to like Vre+5, worked best Vref+10
The -100 was a conventional 1g stall certification, the -200 min speed. The notional difference was around 5-10 knots .. if you carried the extra speed on the -200, it behaved a lot more like the -100.
When did the -100's arrive for both TN and AN?
Same for the -200's
Did TN have LR's or just AN? What made it an LR?
Is it true that AN had some of the last 727's off the production line?
b.
Same for the -200's
Did TN have LR's or just AN? What made it an LR?
Is it true that AN had some of the last 727's off the production line?
b.
Moderator
Did TN have LR's or just AN? What made it an LR?
AN had LRs (ANA, etc., as I recall). The specific numbers are lost in the memory defects but the LR had an extra 45 minutes or so fuel and a few systems differences.
AN had LRs (ANA, etc., as I recall). The specific numbers are lost in the memory defects but the LR had an extra 45 minutes or so fuel and a few systems differences.