Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
727 Design Flaws?  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3193 posts, RR: 13
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5824 times:

Hey all,

Fairly self-explanatory title. Does anyone know of any significant / major design flaws of the 727?? I don't mean more minor teething issues, but more things along the lines of issues experienced by the DC10.

Thanks in advance for all responses!!


A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6388 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Aeh, not really. Well, maybe one design flaw:

The fuselage width is based on the 707 barrel. Originally Boeing proposed it (the 707) for a perfect 5 abreast seating. But some customers wanted a perfect five-and-a-half seating. And Boeing obeyed and widened it a few inches. How stupid!

Even more stupid, those same companies plus many more cramped in 6 abreast seating in the space available.

Apart from that, great plane. Except for the today totally outdated, fuel guzzling and noisy engines.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 1):
The fuselage width is based on the 707 barrel. Originally Boeing proposed it (the 707) for a perfect 5 abreast seating. But some customers wanted a perfect five-and-a-half seating. And Boeing obeyed and widened it a few inches. How stupid

I would hardly call giving the customer what they want stupid.

I think there where some spray issues off the nosewheel that was solved with the use of chined tires.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5747 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 1):

Why is it stupid? Because two pax in each row get the middle? At the end of the day its more important to the airlines to make money than whether someone gets the middle. Do people mind the middle? Sure. Do they complain? No. Its not a big deal. Its proven to pay off for Boeing. The same barrel became the 737, the best selling airliner in history. Not to mention 5 abreast aircraft make for undesirable freighters.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 3):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 1):

Why is it stupid? Because two pax in each row get the middle? At the end of the day its more important to the airlines to make money than whether someone gets the middle. Do people mind the middle? Sure. Do they complain? No. Its not a big deal. Its proven to pay off for Boeing. The same barrel became the 737, the best selling airliner in history. Not to mention 5 abreast aircraft make for undesirable freighters.

Totally agree. Had the 707 (and DC-8 which is one inch narrower than the 707) only been able to accomodate 5-abreast economy class seating, passenger fares would have had to be significantly higher to generate the same revenue to cover operating costs but from 17% fewer passengers. That would have meant that fewer people would have been able to afford to fly and the airline and travel industries would have grown at a much slower pace.

Don't forget that the Convair 880/990 were commercial failures in large part because they were designed to accommodate only 5-abreast Y-class seating, and thus were uneconomic since carriers operating them had to charge the same fares as their far more numerous competitors flying 707s and DC-8s.


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

The design change was the best thing that Boeing could do for sales of the early 700 series jets. The reason that they made the change was that Douglas waited until Boeing had manufactured their tooling and then widened the DC-8 in an attempt to steal potential customers from Boeing. Boeing realized that while calling Douglas's bluff would be financially expensive, it would allow them to retain their advantage over Douglas and pay for itself in the end. While this prevented the production of both civil and military aircraft on the same production line, it paid off. Boeing had some guts to basically stop the 707 program and redesign the fuselage right as it was about to go into production, but it paid off handsomely.

The water spray was indeed an issue which was addressed with the chined tires. As for significant design flaws, the only major aerodynamic flaw it had was the possibility of entering a deep stall. That is a standard issue with the T tailed, swept wing aircraft but I do not believe that any 727 was lost to a deep stall.



"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

One design flaw of the 3-holer was it's propensity for the #3 engine to injest blue ice:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Harrison



Fortunately, no aircraft were ever lost over this, only a few #3 engines...  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Thread starter):
I don't mean more minor teething issues, but more things along the lines of issues experienced by the DC10.

What design flaws for the DC10?

There were cargo door latching mechanism issues after an incident with a American Airlines aircraft in 1972, AA flight 96 near Detroit, which sadly was not resolved in the case of Turkish Airlines' Ermenonville aricraft. But that was a regulatory/communications failing, not an aircraft design issue. The American Airlines flight out of ORD which lost an engine in 1979 was due to an AA engine change procedure which was not approved by the manufacturer. The DC10 was lynched by the press at the time, but it was not strictu senso a design flaw which caused the accident.



The chalice not my son
User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5626 times:

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 5):
but I do not believe that any 727 was lost to a deep stall.

Not quite correct.
Search the NTSB database for a B727 (NW, as I recall) ferry flight, where the pitot heat was not switched on prior to departure.
The accident was near White Plains, NY.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

I have worked on 727s and generally liked them. The worst design flaw IMO were the brakes:
Heavy, big and a pain in the arse to change with the ten mount bolts, which had to be lined up and torqued seperately to get them attached. Also, for #1 and #4 main wheel, there is very little space under the strut door (even if unlocked and folded up) for a brake dolley, so we had to lift the brakes by hand. Since there is only space for two people, it was a truly backbreaking job.

Jan


User currently offlineDl_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1926 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

I can't think of any major flaws, just minor ones......

E&E door always falls off of its tracks, wheel well/wing wiring frequently damaged by skydrol, autopilot "porpoising" problems (usually elevator position sensors or worn stab bushings), the aforementioned brakes were a b!tch to change and the constant drip of engine oil on the heads of people using the airstair. All in all, it was a pretty good airplane.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17000 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Turbulence in the S-duct led to center engine surges at rotation every so often.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5358 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

You could not open the forward lav door with the cockpit door fully open.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

Quoting Faro (Reply 7):
What design flaws for the DC10?

How about routing all the hydraulic lines in close proximity to each other in the tail near the engine. One uncontained engine failure took out all the hydraulics in the Sioux City accident. Hydraulic fuses might have prevented total loss of fluid. Not venting the cabin floor adequately. The THY DC-10 might have survived had the floor not collapsed causing a failure of the flight control cables.

Obviously the DC-10 is not alone in such defects, especially close proximity of hydraulic lines, but it has probably had them highlighted more than most. All hydraulic lines have to be in close proximity at the tail, but having an engine in the tail as well makes this a major weakness.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineNKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5496 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
I have worked on 727s and generally liked them. The worst design flaw IMO were the brakes:
Heavy, big and a pain in the arse to change with the ten mount bolts, which had to be lined up and torqued seperately to get them attached. Also, for #1 and #4 main wheel, there is very little space under the strut door (even if unlocked and folded up) for a brake dolley, so we had to lift the brakes by hand. Since there is only space for two people, it was a truly backbreaking job.

They sure were as heavy as hell, and I've bashed my head on the "flying" gear door scores of times while changing #'s 1 & 4 brakes/tires. One thing though: I worked on some ex-Alitalia 727-200's and their brakes only required 3 bolts, the other 8 ( 11 total IIRC ) were converted to anti-rotation dowels/studs.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 13):
Quoting Faro (Reply 7):
What design flaws for the DC10?



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 13):
How about routing all the hydraulic lines in close proximity to each other in the tail near the engine. One uncontained engine failure took out all the hydraulics in the Sioux City accident. Hydraulic fuses might have prevented total loss of fluid. Not venting the cabin floor adequately. The THY DC-10 might have survived had the floor not collapsed causing a failure of the flight control cables.

For the Sioux City accident you are reversing the events of failure. The root cause of the accident was a metallurgical flaw in the #2 engine fan disk. This metallurgical flaw led to a failure of the disk which took out the #1 and #3 hydraulic systems with fan debris and damaged the #2 hydraulic system from the physical shock of the disk failure. The damaged lines were located in the R/H horizontal stab. and were not located in the tail near the engine. BTW, the DC-10 has had changes made to the hydraulics to minimize the effect of such a rare failure of the #2 engine fan disk.

United Airlines Flight 232 Accident report: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR90-06.pdf

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
For the Sioux City accident you are reversing the events of failure.

How have I reversed the sequence of events? My comment is more condensed, but the sequence is the same.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 13):
One uncontained engine failure took out all the hydraulics in the Sioux City accident.



Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
The root cause of the accident was a metallurgical flaw in the #2 engine fan disk. This metallurgical flaw led to a failure of the disk which took out the #1 and #3 hydraulic systems with fan debris and damaged the #2 hydraulic system from the physical shock of the disk failure. The damaged lines were located in the R/H horizontal stab. and were not located in the tail near the engine.

OK, you took my reference to tail to mean the fin. The horizontal stabiliser is still in the tail section of the aircraft, and clearly close enough to the engine to be affected by an uncontained failure. Semantics of the word "tail" aside, the proximity of all three hydraulic lines to an engine in the tail section is a design flaw.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5427 times:

Surprisingly, no-one mentioned the fact that the ventral airstair could be opened in flight.  wink 

Though not a design flaw, we all know of the infamous case of the aircraft hijacking that prompted Boeing to design a special vane for its namesake to prevent the stair from being opened in flight.


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5408 times:

I think a major design flaw was putting 3 engines that made more noise than thrust.  Wink

User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5396 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 17):
Surprisingly, no-one mentioned the fact that the ventral airstair could be opened in flight.

They eventually fixed that.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30584 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Faro (Reply 7):
There were cargo door latching mechanism issues after an incident with a American Airlines aircraft in 1972, AA flight 96 near Detroit, which sadly was not resolved in the case of Turkish Airlines' Ermenonville aricraft. But that was a regulatory/communications failing, not an aircraft design issue.

With respect, I view the cargo door latching issue as an aircraft design issue, along with the fact that explosive decompression of the cargo bay could result in the partial collapse of the passenger deck which severed all the hydraulic control lines that ran through that deck, as happened with the Turkish Airline's plane.

Mind you, I never feared for my life when aboard a DC-10, just as I didn't fear for my life aboard a 737 Classic after the UA, US, and Panama incidents, nor do I fear for it when on MD-8x planes after the loss of AS261.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5383 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Quoting Faro (Reply 7):
There were cargo door latching mechanism issues after an incident with a American Airlines aircraft in 1972, AA flight 96 near Detroit, which sadly was not resolved in the case of Turkish Airlines' Ermenonville aricraft. But that was a regulatory/communications failing, not an aircraft design issue.

With respect, I view the cargo door latching issue as an aircraft design issue, along with the fact that explosive decompression of the cargo bay could result in the partial collapse of the passenger deck which severed all the hydraulic control lines that ran through that deck, as happened with the Turkish Airline's plane.

I fully agree, I expressed myself wrongly: the regulatory/communications failing referred to the fact that the Ermenonville aircraft was sadly not suitably modified to correct the cargo door latching problem in time. The problem with the latching mechanism itself was clearly a design flaw.



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 19):
They eventually fixed that.

I know...I said it in my original post:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 17):
Though not a design flaw, we all know of the infamous case of the aircraft hijacking that prompted Boeing to design a special vane for its namesake to prevent the stair from being opened in flight.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6388 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 1):
The fuselage width is based on the 707 barrel. Originally Boeing proposed it (the 707) for a perfect 5 abreast seating. But some customers wanted a perfect five-and-a-half seating. And Boeing obeyed and widened it a few inches. How stupid



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 3):
Why is it stupid? Because two pax in each row get the middle?

What I wanted to tell was that Boeing proposed a perfect 5 abreast plane, the 707. The airlines wanted 6 abreast. Boeing should have added 20 inches instead to make it a full grown 6 abreast plane. That way modern time 737s wouldn't have been the most cramped 6 abreast plane in the world today. (It wouldn't be what I called "a perfect five-and-a-half abreast plane"

Ever flown on a Tu-154 or IL-62?

First thing to discover when entering the cabin: Have I entered a time machine and gone a hundred years back in time?

Second thing: Hey, something is different, no need to rub elbows with fellow passengers.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Don't get me wrong cuz I loved flying the 727 but it is the only jet I've flown that practicing "dutch roll" recovery in the sim was an annual event.

25 Prebennorholm : It is probably also the only tri-jet you have flown with all three engines in the back. That means a lot of mass long distance fore and aft of the CG
26 PGNCS : It made pilots go deaf.
27 Post contains images KELPkid : What, the jet that Eastern Airlines dubbed the "Whisper Jet" because it was so much quieter inside than previous planes* (* provided you weren't in t
28 CosmicCruiser : No not at all, I thought the 727 was the most "fun" jet I've flown. It could be man handled, and wrestled around and never give you a moments worry,
29 CosmicCruiser : No not at all, I thought the 727 was the most "fun" jet I've flown. It could be man handled, and wrestled around and never give you a moments worry,
30 Post contains links Viscount724 : Yes, this one: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19741201-1
31 OldAeroGuy : What about not fitting mechanical slat locks to prevent slat retraction when hydraulic fluid is lost? This was a major factor in the AA DC-10 acciden
32 TrijetsRMissed : I don't know of any design flaws regarding the 727. It's always been known as a dependable plane, aside from some nuisances mentioned by pilots and me
33 OldAeroGuy : There have been two 757 crashes due to unreliable airspeed. One involved plugged pitots (the one I was describing) and one where the statics were tap
34 SEPilot : The DC-10 design was completed after the M-D merger, and McDonnell personnel were calling the shots. They had only designed military planes before, w
35 CanadianNorth : Our 737s are the same way - theres a door to the fwd lav and a door to the flight deck, but only one at a time can be opened. CanadianNorth
36 Ex52tech : I was thinking about the brakes also, and the 25/32 12 point socket that you needed to torque the nuts on the brake.......those are hard to find. I d
37 MD11Engineer : The same door design has been used from the 707 onwards up to the 737NG. Once you have figured out how the mechanism works, T/S and rigging are fairl
38 Post contains images RedFlyer : Which means if they were ever flown by an airline in the West, they'd have 7-abreast seating.
39 AeroWeanie : This was not a deep stall. This was a more conventional stall, followed by a "graveyard spiral". Here is the NTSB accident summary: There are several
40 TrijetsRMissed : Can anyone confirm or deny that the DC-10 was only aircraft to have the hydraulic system routed through the leading edge of the wing near the slats? I
41 Ex52tech : Right after the ORD crash the DC-10's slats had lockouts installed so that the air loads would not cause them to retract in the event of a loss of hy
42 Jetlagged : This is what is known as Sod's Law. If a thing goes wrong it will go wrong in the worst possible way. Often confused with Murphy's Law (including on
43 SEPilot : One other factor on the AA DC-10 was that the asymmetric slat warning was powered by the generator on the departed engine, so the pilots had NO indic
44 Blackbird : SEPilot, I thought the merger was an even merger... I didn't know McDonnell Douglas was in a position of control over the DC-10 program. Either way, I
45 TrijetsRMissed : At the time of the accident, the normal engine out procedure on take-off climb was to reduce speed to V2. Of course we know now this is the worst thi
46 Post contains links 777236ER : From this http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=394 book, Boeing seemed absolutely convinced that the 727 couldn't get into a deep stall, wit
47 SEPilot : It was touted as such, just as the Daimler-Chrysler merger was touted as "a marriage of equals." But in fact it was McDonnell taking over Douglas, ju
48 N231YE : To add to the discussion, I read that the DC-9 program was at fault for the Douglas "merger" (takeover). Back in the early-mid 60's, Douglas designed
49 SEPilot : This is my recollection as well. I also remember that Donald Douglas was paying more attention to his secretary (I believe it was) with whom he was f
50 Post contains images N231YE : Interesting...didn't know that. Sounds like Mr. Douglas was like Howard Hughes, in his taste for women and airplanes
51 Blackbird : Why was McDonnell so arrogant in regards to Douglas's ability to design commercial aircraft? Was McD's attitude like "We build supersonic fighters, so
52 TrijetsRMissed : McDonnell took for the passenger airliner business for granted. McDonnell was used to winning military contracts rather easily. The company was very
53 SEPilot : Except that I believe that Howard Hughes was a much better businessman. That is probably the case; I would suspect that the "we had to rescue you, so
54 OldAeroGuy : Yes for the F-4, but McDonnell-Douglas was not selected as the F-15 prime contractor until Dec. 1969. The McD-DAC merger took place in April 1967. No
55 Blackbird : So Donald Douglas still could have exercized control over the MacDac company, but simply lost the interest to keep doing so? Why? He made that company
56 MD11Engineer : By this time (early 1970s) I think he was already around retirement age (after all he has been around designing aircraft since the 1920s). But a fact
57 SEPilot : No, McDonnell was firmly in control and the Douglas people, including Donald and his son (forgot what his name was) were pretty much sidelined. McDon
58 OldAeroGuy : I believe he was a Jr.
59 Blackbird : Why did McDonnell get so much control? I mean couldn't they have structured the merger in such a way so that Douglas would end up with at least even c
60 Ex52tech : What I have read about the merger and what has been talked about here is true. Douglas was in trouble, and Donald Douglas was not a real good manager
61 TrijetsRMissed : The DC-8 twin, DC-10 twin, and MD-12 are all design ideas that would eventually be accomplished by someone else. It's a shame McDonnell was so complac
62 NKP S2 : Man that's good. Quotable is an understatement. It's actually enjoyable to watch the numbers/political types, figuratively speaking, land hard on the
63 Post contains links and images Viscount724 : As I recall, those 5 DC-10-10s were ordered by UA but leased to DL right from the factory in 1972/73. They were returned to UA in 1975. Coincidentall
64 Post contains links TrijetsRMissed : Actually, the order for the five DC-10's was placed by DL. There was some skepticism with the L-1011's Rolls Royce issues. If problems continued, a l
65 CALTECH : TU-154 had longer and heavier gear to be able to land on grassy fields in Russia, not for sideslip landings. Russia has many unimproved landing strip
66 Viscount724 : Thanks for that history. I note Boeing's orders/deliveries section of their website which also covers Douglas/McDonnell-Douglas types beginning with
67 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Depends on which Donald we're talking about. Donald Sr was the Douglas CEO was the time of the merger while Donald Jr was the Douglas President http:
68 Blackbird : Couldn't Douglas have been able to better negotiate the merger in order to retain a certain degree of power? Or was this an example of Douglas not und
69 57AZ : They were lucky to get what they got. Douglas was in BIG financial trouble and had been only marginally profitable after the Jet Age took off. Boeing
70 SEPilot : It was much more than that; the 707 did beat the DC-8, but the DC-9 was earlier than the 737 and handily beating it in sales. It was Douglas's lack o
71 TrijetsRMissed : To an extent. Yes Boeing beat Douglas to it with both of these airplanes, but in the end the DC-8 was a better aircraft and flew longer. Douglas made
72 Blackbird : So if Douglas had better factored in the DC-9's profitability and built a larger construction area for it to build more faster, they wouldn't have com
73 SEPilot : In a word, yes. But it is not that simple; Douglas had spent a large amount of money developing the DC-7, which became obsolete almost before it ente
74 SEPilot : The DC-8 outlived the 707 because it was stretched and re-engined; aerodynamically I believe the 707 was better, had better high-altitude and high-sp
75 AeroWeanie : TQMS stood for "Total Quality Management System". This was implemented in the 1989, the idea being to cut costs and improve productivity. Under this
76 Blackbird : SEPilot, So, Douglas could have built better facilities and built more DC-9's had they factored the success of the plane in if they had better applied
77 SEPilot : I believe that if they had had the confidence in it that Boeing had in the 707 they could have found a way to finance the necessary facilities and to
78 TrijetsRMissed : The early 707's may have outperformed the DC-8 but the strected models were clearly better aircraft. More payload, higher MTOW, longer range all outw
79 SEPilot : I certainly don't question that; but I do believe that if Boeing had updated the 707 instead of abandoning it (after all, they'd rather sell 757's) i
80 MD11Engineer : Sounds like some scheme thought out by theoreticians who never worked on the shop floor at the writing desk. They try to do it here, I'll be gone. Ja
81 Blackbird : Thanks for your response, MD11Engineer... Andrea Kent
82 AeroWeanie : They claimed benefits. I tend to believe #2.
83 Viscount724 : The DC-8's design that permitted them to be stretched, which wasn't possible with the 707 without major changes, was probably the most important fact
84 Post contains images TrijetsRMissed : No, it was a misguided attempt by McDonnell to increase the efficiency on the production line. But it just led to layoffs and decreased morale. At th
85 Jetlagged : I think I should point out that TQM is not a McDonnell Dougles phenomenon. It was fashionable in the late 80s, early 90s. It's still around under the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 727 Design Flaws?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
DC-8 And DC-10 Aileron Design posted Sat Sep 1 2007 03:19:18 by Blackbird
DC-10 / L-1011 Slat-Configuration And Design posted Wed Aug 29 2007 18:58:50 by Blackbird
A400 Prop Design posted Tue Aug 7 2007 21:55:09 by Cancidas
737-200 Vs 737-200Adv,727 Vs 727Adv posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:10:15 by TheSonntag
FedEx 727 Gear Change posted Sat Jul 14 2007 20:36:13 by Dispatcher
VC-10 Fuselage Design Techniques posted Sun Jul 8 2007 22:01:17 by Blackbird
DL 727 Boom! Boom! Boom! What Happened? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 00:35:09 by UAL747
Did All 727-100's Have A Nosegear Brake? posted Wed Jun 13 2007 00:23:22 by Blackbird
How Fast Can A 727-100 Be Slowed Down? posted Tue May 1 2007 22:17:23 by Blackbird
747 Dreamlifter Tail...747SP Design Specs? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 23:27:06 by DIA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format