Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6291 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1151 times:
I don't have the details, but the main reason for re-engining them was not just fuel saving and/or payload gain, if any.
I was the way to allow these otherwise extremely noisy planes to continue to fly. To save these otherwise good planes from being converted to beer cans because almost no airports would allow them to land.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Turbolet From Cape Verde, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
The 727 looks like a nice plane to me, I was never lucky enough to fly on one though. We get our share of 727-200s of Libyan Arab here in Malta, but I don't think there's a single -100 operating anywhere in Europe!
DE727UPS From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 814 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
There is no gain in payload with the RR engines. The primary benefit is noise reduction with some fuel savings. Performance wise....the RR engine may produce a bit more thrust at low altitudes but it's a real dog above the mid-20's. I was seeing a 500 ft per minute climb between FL300 and 350 last night with about 20,000 lbs of fuel and 13,000 lbs of boxes....the old Pratts did much better up high than the RR engines. The plane that flys into IND is a pax charter to Cancun on the weekends. You could probably fly on it if you booked a cruise or vacation package but UPS has nothing to do with that part of it. Feel free to e-mail me if you have other questions. If anyone wants to track the flight at thetrip.com, it's UPS 985 leaving GEG at 8pm local and landing ONT at 1030pm local.