Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Boeing Build The 727?  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6414 posts, RR: 17
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 23844 times:

Don't get me wrong, as my username says, I LOOOOOOOOVE the 727. But looking at the 737 fro the rest of our lived thread, and all the gushing over that plane, why didn't Boeing just make a small/mid size two engine, two pilot aircraft for shorter runways in the first place.The 737 has all this longevity because in later years, it filled the 727's role.

Thoughts?






View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Timo Breidenstein
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trevor Warne


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tobbe Ljung
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © RAScholefield Collection


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ellis M. Chernoff
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michel Gilliand
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wolfgang Mendorf
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © A J Best


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wolfgang Mendorf
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © N94504




Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
100 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetymnbalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 946 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 23733 times:

The very short, very inadequate answer is that UA, AA and EA all wanted an airliner to serve smaller cities. UA wanted 4 engines for high altitude airports, AA wanted two engines, and EA wanted three for their overwater flights to the Caribbean, (this was well before ETOPS!).
So, the best compromise was, in fact 3 engines, hence the 727.



Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 23568 times:

At the time the 727 was conceived, late 1950s, crew of 3 was normal, 3 engines were deemed necessary, and the size of the plane was a step lower than the 707, yet bigger than the DC-9 which was also developing. Only later did Boeing think they needed a smaller jet, which became the 737. They had no intention of growing the 737 to what it is now. Remember, up through the early 1990s, the 727 was the world's best selling airliner, over 1800 built. By that time, the 737 was refreshed and extended, and it took over that role, more than 25 years after it was conceived. The 727 had also planned to refresh and expand, but that became the 757 on the high end, and the 737-300 on the lower end.

-Rampart


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 23364 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 2):
The 727 had also planned to refresh and expand, but that became the 757 on the high end, and the 737-300 on the lower end.

Yes - And the 727 was not able to evolve the way the 737 could, as in high-bypass turbofan engines, because of the nature of the engine configuration (Fuselage-mounted engines; middle engine intake through the fuselage, etc.)

Incidentally, the 727 was initially designed to replace a number of 4-prop airliners at the time, such as the DC-6/7 I think, and in Canada the Vickers Viscount and Vanguard, etc. 2 Engine technology for airliners was evolving at that time and not common. Engines were not nearly so reliable and therefore safety was more directly dependant on redundancy.



I come in peace
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 23279 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 3):
Yes - And the 727 was not able to evolve the way the 737 could, as in high-bypass turbofan engines, because of the nature of the engine configuration (Fuselage-mounted engines; middle engine intake through the fuselage, etc.)

There were proposals for a twin 727, minus the middle engine. While I can't recall if these were supposed to be the upcoming higher-bypass CFM engines -- they might have been -- it would have been possible to do that, theoretically. (BAe were planning the same for an extended One-Eleven.) Of course, Lockheed managed a high bypass engine with an S-duct in the tail, but that would have entailed more significant re-engineering on a 727. At any rate, as you say, Boeing realized that it was easier to extend and re-engine the 737 than it was to develop a 727 twin.

-Rampart


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30618 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 23128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rampart (Reply 2):
At the time the 727 was conceived, late 1950s, crew of 3 was normal, 3 engines were deemed necessary, and the size of the plane was a step lower than the 707, yet bigger than the DC-9 which was also developing.
Quoting rampart (Reply 4):
There were proposals for a twin 727, minus the middle engine.

The concept I have seen had the engines below the wing (they look like P&W JT3C turbojets).


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 22956 times:

The 727-200 is quite a bit bigger than the 737-200.

So either someone had to create a more powerful engine or you had to go with 3 engines.

No one did the first, so Boeing had to go with the second.

Douglas didn't get a twin engine (DC-9 Super 80) in the same class until 1979.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 22952 times:

At the time the 727 was a far more capable plane - range and capacity. The 737 just kept increasing in capability.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For over a decade the 727 was the most produced airliner. I think Boeing made the right market call.   It wasn't until 30 years into 737 production that more of them were produced than the 727! That took a re-engine too! Per Wikipedia's article on the 727, there were 250 of them flying in August 2011. Not bad for a plane with EIS in 1964. Consider that the last 727 was delivered in 1984. The youngest model is 28 years old and yet they're still flying!

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
why didn't Boeing just make a small/mid size two engine, two pilot aircraft for shorter runways in the first place.

The initial expected market for the 737/DC-9 was pretty small. Not to mention the range expectations. It is ironic that the 727 developed the market to make the 737-200 a success. But even then, the 727-200 out-delivered the 737 in 1978-1980. Much of what we consider the 737 success happened with the 733/734/735 and the engines 25% drop in fuel burn.   

Now some was teething issues. The original 731s had thrust reverser issues. There was also extensive rework done on the flaps. And recall (from Wikipedia):
"In 1970, Boeing received only 37 orders. Facing financial difficulties, Boeing considered closing the 737 production-line and selling the design to Japanese aviation companies."   

The early business case on the 737 wasn't strong. Recall no US airline was a launch customer (a first for Boeing) while Eastern (and others) were strong proponents for the 727. This is a case where the market matured to make the type a success.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5408 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22758 times:

They were made because they deserved to be made.

I'll get a fight from the Concorde folk but the 727 is the best looking airliner of all time. I remember flying those into YEV on a regular basis...and how damned loud the things were from the ground. We could hear them clearly from town, a full 8 miles away...and at -40ish, they sounded more like 8 blocks away.



What the...?
User currently offlinelasairlinerenth From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22541 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
the 727 is the best looking airliner of all time

I will wholeheartedly second this sentiment. Some forty-odd years ago, I fell in love with the 727 the first time I saw one; since I was only five or six years old at the time, my best guess is it would have been an Eastern Airlines 727 that one of my uncles and his family took from Syracuse, New York to San Antonio, Texas.

I would not get to ride on my first 727 until July 1979, when I flew American Airlines from Ontario, CA to Syracuse, NY and back, with a change of plane in ORD in both directions, of course. I must have been twelve or thirteen at the time and traveling as an unaccompanied minor. LOVED IT!

My last ride on a 727 was a comparatively short United Airlines flight from Denver (DIA) to Ontario in September 1996.

Ah, memories. While I love the 737, the 727 will always have a special place in my heart.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22372 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The concept I have seen had the engines below the wing (they look like P&W JT3C turbojets).

Yes. If you are thinking of the post-727 redevelopment, with the high bypass engines became the 7N7. I also recall a model (I believe it was in AW&ST) that had the 2 rear-mounted engines, this was mid-70s. Maybe they were low bypass, but I don't think they were late generation (1960s?) turbojets. You might also be thinking of some early models proposed for the first 727, some of which look more like a DC-9, and some which had the T-tail and engines on the wing. There are also early 737 concepts that looked very much like the DC-9. There was a thread on A.net a few months back on the Boeing archive displaying these models, but some of the models are visible here: http://airchive.com/html/museums/boe...g-archives-bellevue-washington-usa

Actually, on that same website I just found a picture of the "727-300" concept with the engines I recall seeing in AW&ST. Rear-mounted, twin, high bypass:
http://airchive.com/html/museums/boe...-300-model-circa-early-1970s/19069
The FLighGlobal archives say that various versions of the 727-300 were offered to UA and BN, who were interested, but then began to favor an all-new airplane, which became the 7N7 (then the 757).

Earlier someone had commented on the difficulty of using high bypass engines in the center-mounted tail. I forgot that the 7X7 had this configuration (as well as the Tristar), a trijet widebody first with a T-tail, then a conventional tail, then late in the design process dropped the 3rd engine to become 767.

-Rampart


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3109 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 22295 times:

Sorry to add on here, but everyone should find this 1960 article from Flight very interesting! "Boeing's Trimotor: Background to the development of the 727." There are 3-view sillhouetes of various twin-, tri-, and quad-jet concepts of the 727, some with conventional tails, some with t-tails, some with cruciform tails. Also gives the history of the market analysis, and comparisons to the Trident. Within all this concept was also the idea of a smallish jet that was revived to become the 737. But 1960 technology, as we've said, required the 727 first, and it dominated for more than 2 decades.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1960/1960%20-%203094.html

-Rampart


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7058 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21756 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 2):
Only later did Boeing think they needed a smaller jet, which became the 737.

Only later Boeing was pushed by LH into developing the 737.


The 727 was the right aircraft back then and a true success, the first jet airliner that had reached the magic number of 1000 aircraft being produced. Not to mention that it is indeed is the most beautiful jetliner ever build.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineAirbusA370 From Germany, joined Dec 2008, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21716 times:

And, why didn't the name it this way:

727 -> Two Engines (instead 737)
737 -> Three Engines (instead 727)
747 -> Four Engines (well, correct)


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21645 times:

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 14):
And, why didn't the name it this way:

727 -> Two Engines (instead 737)
737 -> Three Engines (instead 727)
747 -> Four Engines (well, correct)

And the 707 was a glider, right?  

Jan


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21181 times:

How much commonality is there between the 727 and 737? It's just the same fuselage cross-section and nose, right?

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 14):
And, why didn't the name it this way:

727 -> Two Engines (instead 737)
737 -> Three Engines (instead 727)
747 -> Four Engines (well, correct)

Haha, good laugh.

A340 -> 4 engines
A320 -> 2 engines
A330 -> Trijet!
A380 -> 8 engines!
...
A310 -> 1 engine
A300 -> 0?

L-1011..

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 8):
"In 1970, Boeing received only 37 orders. Facing financial difficulties, Boeing considered closing the 737 production-line and selling the design to Japanese aviation companies."

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of that quote, but what's the actual source?.. might lead to more aviation trivia!



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20890 times:

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 1):
The very short, very inadequate answer is that UA, AA and EA all wanted an airliner to serve smaller cities. UA wanted 4 engines for high altitude airports, AA wanted two engines, and EA wanted three for their overwater flights to the Caribbean, (this was well before ETOPS!).
So, the best compromise was, in fact 3 engines, hence the 727.

Airframe development is often directly tributary of engine development.

A complement to your short answer is that there wasn't at the time an engine capable of powering a 727-like aircraft as a twin, or in any case an engine with low enough fuel burn.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineBritishB747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20857 times:

Was the Boeing B727-100 not very similar to the original proposal for the Hawker Siddeley Trident? Hawker Siddeley even invited Boeing designers over to look at the plans for this amazing new aircraft that they had designed. Then BEA decided to change their requirements and the Trident became another disaster for the British aircraft industry and Boeing unveiled an aircraft more or less identical to the original specification Trident. Amazing the stupidity of HS inviting a rival to look at the plans for their aircraft.


AB6 319 320 321 733 734 735 73G 738 744 752 763 77W 788 D10 D38 DH4 E75 M83
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20854 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 15):

 

Nice one.....

aircraft type naming is not so simple & straight  

Although I still wonder why the B717 model name was NOT utilised commercially until much later.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20749 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 4):
There were proposals for a twin 727, minus the middle engine.

As I recall, American Airlines was a potential customer for this. The middle engine would have been removed and the middle air intake duct would have been faired over. I don't recall what engines were planned for the fuselage stations.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7058 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20704 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):
Although I still wonder why the B717 model name was NOT utilised commercially until much later.

The real 717 is the KC-135, I wonder more about the 720  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 20497 times:

As others have pointed out, technology was not available when the 727 was conceived, to make an aircraft of that size and performance with only 2 engines and a 2 man cockpit. And regulations also prohibited it, as engines and systems were much less reliable, and new technologies and automation had to be proven.The success of the 727 paved the way for the 737 to happen.

The 737 came many years later during a time in the late 60's, a time when technology was developing at a rapid rate.
And It was only in the Mid/late '80's thet the later evolutions of the 737 were able to replace the earlier 727's.
The larger 727 models were replaced initially by the 757 and it was not until the 737-800 was developed, that a true 727-200 replacement was built by Boeing.

Also the 727 name could have lived on had the 757 been called the 727-300. Sure the 737 Max will have very little in common with the original 737, so what's in a name really.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 19858 times:

Quoting AirbusA370 (Reply 14):

And, why didn't the name it this way:

727 -> Two Engines (instead 737)
737 -> Three Engines (instead 727)
747 -> Four Engines (well, correct)

Hahaha good one, but like Airbus, Boeing gives the next designation in line. Since the 727 was the second jet developed (after skipping the 717 reserved for the KC-135), it was given it. Subsequent jets also follow the same pattern.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 19527 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 21):
I wonder more about the 720

Someone who knows for sure will certainly correct me   but IIRC the premise behind that was UA wanting to order a smaller variant of the 707 but not wanting to be seen as ordering 707's (can't remember if that was because they didn't want to get Douglas riled up or if it had something to do with saving face at the BoD meeting), so Boeing changed the model number to secure the order...or something like that   



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
25 Post contains links crash65 : I have found the wikipedias of the respective aircraft to be very informative. Give them a try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727
26 mbj2000 : I was asking myself the same question. The Trident was in fact the "original" design... Maybe the british engineers at that time still believed in fa
27 clydenairways : Well you have to look at this with the perspectine of Post WW2 era and the relationship between the two countries, and there are plenty of other exam
28 tockeyhockey : what was the relationship, if any, between the 727 and the caravelle?
29 clydenairways : Douglas considered teaming up with SUD Aviation to build the caravelle with GE angines but they went with the DC9 in the end.
30 railker : Indeed, otherwise the B-52 would've had the Boeing 787 title a long time ago, assuming the military planes are allowed in the sandbox.
31 SP90 : Why was the KC-135 given the 717 designation? Everything I could find on the 717 points to the re-badged MD-95. Was it Boeing policy at the time to ju
32 JAAlbert : Remember when Eastern Airlines referred to its 727s as "Whisper Jets"? That always cracked me up. I agree the 727's shape is iconic. It screams 60's
33 PHLBOS : True, but one thing to keep in mind is that the entire 727 family included the original and shorter 727-100 series as well, which rolled out about 3
34 Post contains links lightsaber : Pulled from the wikipedia Boeing 737 page, but this was the ultimate source: http://www.seattlepi.com/default/art...livers-its-5-000th-737-1195654.ph
35 YULWinterSkies : As others have said, technology was not yet available. Airbus faced that exact same problem in the late 80's while developing the A330 and A340. Now,
36 Post contains images CALTECH : Always liked this version,.....
37 Tan Flyr : Well compared to the B720's or the early DC-8's, they were slightly more quiet. Unless I have missed it..no one mentioned the other reason for the 72
38 BoeingGuy : As other posters have indicated, Boeing went in order of development. The 707 came first. The 787 is the most recent. It remains to be seen what the
39 135mech : I have books about the 707's and the KC-135's, when the numbering of the 720 was taking place... there was actually a "paranoia" or "superstition" ab
40 BoeingGuy : Not correct. The 720 was named due to a political issue with UA. UA choose the DC-8 over the 707 originally for its longer haul routes. Then Boeing i
41 RKSofACinUSA : Though I understand and respect the place that the 727 held in aviation history, I don't have too many fond memories of it. The memories that sticks w
42 135mech : Cool for the update, however there WAS a superstition of a "teen" number written in the books you can buy on the 707's.
43 connies4ever : The Viscount replacement (for AC anyway) was the outcome of an evaluation of the DC-9-10 (initially), the BAC 1-11, and (briefly) the Sud Caravelle (
44 BoeingGuy : Not that I'm aware of, but I'll look into it. I thought 717 just never caught on as an inform KC-135 designation. Interesting question. What books ha
45 FX1816 : Actually I believe it was 1997. I also believe that the MD-95 was not actually a DC-9-95. That ended with the MD-87 or MD-88. FX1816
46 BoeingGuy : Yeah, someone posted that recently in a different thread. I think they were type certified as DC-9-82 and DC-9-83, but the MD-87 and MD-88 were type
47 Post contains links Stitch : Boeing Historian Mike Lombardi confirmed in an interview with James Wallace in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer that 717-100 was Boeing's internal desi
48 FlyPIJets : Wasn't the proposal for the 727 two pilot at first. Then it was made into a three manned flight deck at the request of UA to avoid a perceived labor
49 daviation : This is a really interesting discussion. Learn something new every day. I flew on many 727s - American, Eastern, National. If I can add anything to th
50 ckfred : When the 727 came out, it was designed for several roles. 1. Fly at times when a 707 or DC-8 was too large. 2. Fly into airports that couldn't handle
51 N1120A : Different technology and requirements of the day. The 727 was, in large part, designed for United's Denver hub and Eastern's over-water requirements.
52 Post contains links and images 135mech : @ BoeingGuy, Here's one of the books that mentions it...and thanks for your additional information! Here's from Boeing's website about the 720: http:
53 connies4ever : Per my Reply 43, a significant cross-wind and the middle engine S-duct would result in a very large loss of mass flow through the compressor, so, yes
54 BoeingGuy : I think this is an exaggeration. The 720 was slightly smaller; had thinner structure in some places for weight reduction; but was a 707 inside and ou
55 vc10 : I think you will find that in the USA at the time of initial design/ construction of the B727 a federal requirement was that any multi engine aircraf
56 Post contains images 135mech : It was a quote right off of the Boeing website, so their words directly. Also, if you look at the nose gear doors, the configuration of the 720 nose
57 asteriskceo : I have a question about the middle engine, and I suppose that this also applies to the L-1011. As the aircraft ages, does the nature of the intake's
58 Post contains images crash65 : Not true at all. Having flown "the panel" in the 727-200 I can assure you, the technology wasn't mature enough to automate the systems. As a 727 flig
59 Post contains links and images 135mech : I saw this beauty last week in San Antonio at Kelly. She is a beauty! View Large View MediumPhoto © Dennis Muller - Aerospray Mod edit: Please use th
60 bohica : BEA was unhappy with their Tridents and actually wanted to buy the 727-200. The British government, who owned BEA at the time told BEA they had to "B
61 Post contains links and images crash65 : There it is in all her glory!!! View Large View MediumPhoto © Haydn Pound
62 FlyMKG : Some early 727s had folding stairs under the L1 door as well. My company used to have a former Eastern 722 that had a panel under the L1 door where t
63 Max Q : You have a good point. I spent four years as a B727FE as well and, as you say it was as far from automated as you could get, with perhaps the excepti
64 Post contains links Dreadnought : According to this Boeing article, 717 was the original designation of the KC135. http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2006/july/i_history.pdf
65 Post contains links and images 135mech : Copy, as I later stated/confirmed. Worked them for 21 wonderful years. This sums it up well and gives way to the 727: http://www.boeing.com/commercia
66 connies4ever : As 135mech says, a very different airplane meant for a different mission. The increased sweep section on the inboard section of the wing IIRC was usu
67 Post contains links BoeingGuy : They ended up making a modification to UA's original 720s to increase tail height. Not sure of all the history of that. I had read once that the 707-
68 boeingmd82 : The 727 was also the first jetliner to feature a gas turbine auxiliary power unit. If I remember correctly it was installed in the center of the fusel
69 CargoIT : 1011 is a binary number. 11 binary is 3 decimal!
70 connies4ever : Probably related to a shorter moment arm and reduced rudder effectiveness. Qantas model -138s and the 720 would have the same issue.
71 timz : The exhaust was on top of the wing near the root.
72 Post contains links s4popo : I saw this on eBay today, and I immediately thought of this topic. http://www.ebay.com/itm/190670536512...MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 It de
73 SEPilot : It is not so much that the engines were less reliable as the fact that nobody realized or trusted just how reliable they were. From the first, commer
74 Post contains links and images bohica : I wasn't aware of the taller tail, but the 720 also had a dorsal fin on the bottom of the tail. View Large View MediumPhoto © George Gayuski
75 rampart : Apart from the F28, F100, ERJ, CRJ. And maybe the Yak 42. And the continuation of the DC-9 frame into the MD80 and MD90 series (and technically the C
76 zippyjet : Several years ago I saw different sketches of prototypes that were to become the 727. There was even a crude looking version where there two mounted w
77 Post contains images CALTECH : It was a afterthought. It was mounted on the keel beam in the main wheel well. It exhausted out through the top of the wing just forward and inboard
78 rwessel : At least with the military airlifters, the need for a ramp in the back makes a conventional tail problematic.
79 CALTECH : Explain the Lockheed C-130 then ? Douglas C-133 Globemaster ? Fairchild C-123 Provider ? C-119 Boxcar (okay, not conventional, but not a T-tail) ? Th
80 PITingres : Hmm, I'm not so sure it is that cut and dried. Even if the technology existed, it may have been too expensive for a mass production airliner like the
81 Post contains images rampart : Me too. Quite the model improv, and beautiful retro paint job. I was trying to do the same on Consetellation model I have. I have that very magazine
82 Post contains links and images rampart : And in the line of tri-engine aircraft that post-dated the 727 (I think there were all of 3, including the Yaks, and not including a tri-engine DC-3 m
83 maxpower1954 : The 727 had a flight engineer because then current regs required an F/E on any airliner with over 80,000 pounds MTOW. Nothing to do with union issues
84 BritishB747 : It seems they must have unfortunately. As soon as BEA changed the design for the Trident the potential customers were gone and Boeing cashed in on th
85 tb727 : Haha, I just got out of the sim yesterday and had a newbie on the panel doing the single engine approach, had him start cranking the gear down at abo
86 AeroWesty : I flew in First on a UA 732 in the early 70s. UA ripped out F in the early 80s for a while on the ones dedicated to the short-lived 'Friendship Expre
87 connies4ever : As I recall, the original VC10, model 1101 I think was the prototype, was designed for excellent t/o performance from 'colonial' airfields principall
88 lightsaber : 100% agree. It was also the airframe that the JT8D matured upon so that it was reliable enough for twin service. Recall that why the A-6 engine share
89 Post contains images FlyMKG : I found these pictures of NW birds that appear to have the APU exhaust in the same spot as all of the other 727s I've seen. Am I missing something? (
90 Max Q : No. the regulations could have been changed, technology would have allowed a two Pilot Aircraft, it had everything to do with unions.
91 Post contains links and images CALTECH : I might have been mistaken, it might have been a flap over the Apu Exhaust, not in the Wing-To-Body Fairing. It was to keep snow and debris out of th
92 tb727 : Cincy, your POI was in there last week with ours doing some bounces. Where do you guys go? The CVG one flies great but if the wind blows or a bird la
93 SEPilot : You are correct about the smaller jets; I was speaking of full-size airliners and should have so stated. The MD-80's were not new designs, just warme
94 Viscount724 : The "WhisperJet" term (which Eastern also used for the DC-9) was related to the noise level inside the cabin, not outside, and with the rear engines
95 brons2 : The initial JT9Ds on the 747-100 had about the same reliability as radials...of course Pratt eventually ironed it out.
96 vc10 : You have forgotten how quiet the cabin was on a certain 4 engine aircraft of the day . Yes it was the VC-10 which was advertised long before Eastern
97 tymnbalewne : The motto was "Triumphantly Swift, Silent, Serene", not "supreme."[Edited 2012-04-27 02:51:32]
98 Post contains images vc10 : Thanks for correcting me , but they would have added supreme if they had thought about it I am sure.
99 CALTECH : Don't buy it. The C-130 spends a lot of time on unimproved strips. It was made with a so called conventional tail. Efficiency not a factor in militar
100 BritishB747 : Yes I remember reading about the take of performance being the VC-10s trump card but by the time it entered service many of the airfields in the colo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did Boeing Kill The MD90? posted Thu Apr 24 2008 12:48:15 by B767
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717? posted Mon May 1 2006 23:45:05 by RootsAir
Why Did Boeing Stop The MD's After Merge? posted Wed Sep 1 2004 15:39:17 by BoeingPride800
Why Did Boeing Overpower The 757 To Such A Degree? posted Wed Nov 29 2000 10:29:17 by Skystar
Why Did Boeing Choose The Number "7" posted Mon Aug 21 2000 17:37:46 by Euroflyer
Why Did Boeing Decide To Build The 757? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 22:06:20 by BeltwayBandit
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Why Did Delta Paint The New New On A 727 posted Sat Oct 28 2000 17:34:06 by Flying_727
Why Did Boeing Shut Down The MD-lines? posted Tue Nov 2 1999 15:36:57 by MD 11
Why Did Bombardier Drop The Q300? posted Thu May 6 2010 16:36:12 by 8b775zq