777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2403 posts, RR: 3 Posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
This is sure to trigger some lively debate, particularly since I didn't include any Airbii (feel free to add one if you feel it's necessary) but, in terms of versatility, safety, longevity, performance, efficiency, and overall customer (and pax) satisfaction, which airframe would do you believe is the most "successful" in modern, commercial jet aviation, the 727, 737 or 757?
Sure, the 727 was revolutionary and versatile (to an extent) and the 737 has served a variety of roles for a long time but...I'm inclined to give the nod to the 757 due in part to its combination of range/efficiency, short field ability, range/ETOPS capabilities (yeah, I'm aware of the 739ER), and overall kick-assedness associated with its thrust/weight ratio.
Let the debate commence. I'm particularly interested to hear from crews that operated on one or all of these airframes.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
I've operated them all, but before I can post a thoughtful comment I need you to define what you mean by "successful". Certainly the 737 is the most commercially viable of the three, and the 757 is my favorite to fly of the three, but clarification is needed on what you are wishing us to compare.
MogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
B737 and A320, since those enabled the proliferation of LCCs that increased competition while lowering prices for consumers.
The 757, while awesome, is overpowered for any mission within 3 hrs that's not out of some hot-n-high airport. The advantage of a few long-thin routes is far being outweighed by its disadvantage in the bulk of its assignments. Also, don't get me started about trying to board/getoff a 753 !!
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2403 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2649 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 1): I've operated them all, but before I can post a thoughtful comment I need you to define what you mean by "successful".
Obviously, it'd be impossible to compare them from a technological and efficiency standpoint since improvements in technology and materials render a 727 to 739ER comparison "apples to oranges."
Say what you will about all of them in all facets...
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2585 times:
727: Brought the jet age to domestic operations. In that sense it revolutionized air travel; amazing but complicated wing. Lots of guys loved it and retired off of it rather than transition to another aircraft. I have flown it from every seat and never liked it. It's noisy, has unintuitive systems architecture, is difficult to land consistently, and has absolutely ghastly cockpit ergonomics, some of which, unfortunately, it passed down to the 737. Many wept (at least figuratively), but I was glad to see it leave the fleet.
737: Reliable workhorse, cheap and simple (relatively speaking) to acquire and operate. Hugely successful for Boeing, obviously. Easy to fly and land, simple systems. Also noisy, has next to zero cockpit storage space, poor cockpit ergonomics, and some systems architecture that is best relegated to the dustbin of history. Enabled LCC success for whatever that's worth. Easy to train pilots in especially if it's their first transport category jet. Touchy in yaw, especially in engine failure at low speed after-liftoff scenarios. Many people like it, but I find roll/yaw axes to be too light although pitch rates are very nice. My personal opinion: my least favorite airplane I have ever flown: hate it.
757: My favorite Boeing aircraft to fly (I have flown all but 707 and 777). Very nice control harmony, unlike the 767; roll is nicely harmonized and not excessively light. Very stable, nice cockpit ergonomics, good performance, good brakes, easy to fly. Level of automation is very nice, though I prefer PFD/ND format and more advanced systems in later aircraft. Very efficient when fully loaded on a long leg. The best systems architecture of any Boeing I have flown. A good seller, but genuinely a niche aircraft. It is out of production because it's high capabilities aren't worth the price compared to cheaper alternatives; it's transatlantic forays have breathed new life into it. Miserable for coach passengers, but that doesn't distinguish it from the 737 or 727 with the same available cabin width, it just keeps people locked in the sardine can longer. If I had to fly a Boeing this would be my pick, but I would never willingly pick a Boeing.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63 Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2546 times:
Personally I'd vote for something like the Tu-154. Russian aircraft in general are far sturdier, tougher and can take more 'punishment' than any Boeing or Airbus. Some of the conditions they operate in, from runways which haven't seen attention for decades are quite amazing. On the downside though they burn a lot more fuel, are noisier and people associate them with being unsafe - which is sad as you're probably safer on them than anything else.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2540 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 5): which is sad as you're probably safer on them than anything else.
I appreciate your focus on robust design and durability, but please cite some source or statistics demonstrating that Russian aircraft are safer than Boeing or Airbus designs.
I am personally a fan of Douglas products for robust design with excellent safety records, although I still prefer the L-1011 over anything else I have experience in.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63 Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2531 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6): I appreciate your focus on robust design and durability, but please cite some source or statistics demonstrating that Russian aircraft are safer than Boeing or Airbus designs.
Quite frankly you can make statistics say anything and I don't have the time to waste searching and fishing out what data is relevant - i.e. looking at the cause of crashes for comparable Western and soviet aircraft. In essence though, if your aircraft is over-designed then it will take, for instance, a heavy landing much better. The multi-bogied gear provides for a much smoother arrival and departure too; on aircraft with smaller wheels the ride is not good - so yes, on many of the routes which Russian types they ply these days, I would venture to say they may well be a safer bet.
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1010 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Of those particular airframes, I'd vote for the trusty old 3-holer. Built like the proveribial brick shytehouse, it's as solid an aircraft as Boeing ever made them. Not quite as solid as the Diesel-Eight though, now that thing was built to last forever.
But for something extravangantly solid, well-designed, well-flying, ahead of its time and comfortable as a comfortable thing you'd be hard pressed to beat the Elle Tenelven, or Tristar to the common man. Over-engineered doesn't begin to cover it, which was sadly a major contributing factor to it's lack of success against the (techonogically and engineering wise) vastly inferior DC-10.
This is, of course, discounting business jet. Were they to be included there can be only one, and that's the Dassault Falcon - in all its variations. Nothing comes even close to flying so well and being build with such utter disdain for sub-perfect solutions. I've flown the Falcon 20, 50, 900 and very recently a 2000LX. That machine is simply unbeatable, and I don't care how many Hawkers, G's or GLX's you throw at it (yes, I've flown them too). I suppose the 7X might be even better - at least that's what those how own and drive it say - but I've yet to sample it.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2469 times:
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 7):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
I appreciate your focus on robust design and durability, but please cite some source or statistics demonstrating that Russian aircraft are safer than Boeing or Airbus designs.
Quite frankly you can make statistics say anything and I don't have the time to waste searching and fishing out what data is relevant - i.e. looking at the cause of crashes for comparable Western and soviet aircraft. In essence though, if your aircraft is over-designed then it will take, for instance, a heavy landing much better. The multi-bogied gear provides for a much smoother arrival and departure too; on aircraft with smaller wheels the ride is not good - so yes, on many of the routes which Russian types they ply these days, I would venture to say they may well be a safer bet.
Well you can try, anyway. You asserted that "you're probably safer on them than anything else" in reference to the TU-154. There's a reason why you can't find any evidence that these aircraft are safer than western transports in any historical period; it's because there is none.
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63 Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2461 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): Well you can try, anyway. You asserted that "you're probably safer on them than anything else" in reference to the TU-154.
Indeed, I also mentioned in my opening post that it was in reference to runways where the infrastructure is, for want of a better word, dire.
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 9): There's a reason why you can't find any evidence that these aircraft are safer than western transports in any historical period; it's because there is none.
I can think of incidents to the contrary, but I really can't be bothered to argue about the semantics of it. It's my opinion, influenced from flying all types concerned.
La Carlota From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
727 all the way!!! Still today looks superb and has a very stylish design not yet beaten!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2403 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1010 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jun 2003, 3027 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
