Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Year We Will See The End Of Tri Holers?  
User currently offlinec5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 917 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

This may be a Polls and Prefs forum question but I will leave that to the mods. I saw about a month ago at DAY the daily FX 727 which I thought had ceased. That led me to wonder, when do you think we will see the end of three holers? 727s i imagine within the next ~3-5 yrs? DC-10s and MD-11s, maybe ~8-15 yrs? What do you all think?


"But this airplane has 4 engines, it's an entirely different kind of flying! Altogether"
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3937 times:

I think 15 years for the last cargo MD11's. There will no doubt always be a few around but not in regular service

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
That led me to wonder, when do you think we will see the end of three holers?

There are many 727 freighters running around in the more distant corners of the world that are ideally suited for what they do...without a viable replacement, they'll be around for at least another decade I suspect.

The real holdout will be the KC-10's...based on the KC-X competition (what begat the KC-46), it will take another 30 years to bid out the KC-Y (the replacement for the KC-10).

Tom.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6370 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Better tell Dassault to quit building the three engined Falcon variants   


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
There are many 727 freighters running around in the more distant corners of the world that are ideally suited for what they do...without a viable replacement, they'll be around for at least another decade I suspect.

Viable how? I mean, does the 727 have certain features that could not be matched by, for instance; a younger 757, 737 or an A320 family? I normally think when I see those cargo 727´s (and every airport in Latin America seems to have one at least) that they are there still ´cause there´s simply no money to replace them.

When you say "viable", you mean "best option for cash-stricken companies", or does the 727 really bring something special to the table for cargo operators? I mean, aren´t they gas-guzzlers?? Do they have exceptional performance on smaller airstraips for instance?

The 727 fascinates me, due to the sheer amount of them hanging around still.
A lot of them are just organ donors, no doubt........but some appear to be "airworthy" and are just never used, it seems.

MD-11 is a beauty in my opinion and luckily my local airport sees a fair share of them, still.

No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
Viable how? I mean, does the 727 have certain features that could not be matched by, for instance; a younger 757, 737 or an A320 family?

Newer 737/A320's don't have the field performance. A younger 757 may but is a big step change in operating complexity. For small, austere airfields in the more remote corners of the world without great maintenance support it's hard to beat a 727.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
When you say "viable", you mean "best option for cash-stricken companies", or does the 727 really bring something special to the table for cargo operators?

Some of both...it's very cheap from an acquisition and parts point of view, engines are cheap and plentiful, it's got fantastic short-field performance, and you can get it with a gravel kit.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
I mean, aren´t they gas-guzzlers?

Yes. But if you bump up to the next bigger sized aircraft it may be more efficient but have similar (or even higher) trip costs due to the larger aircraft.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
Do they have exceptional performance on smaller airstraips for instance?

Yes, very much so.

Tom.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2881 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Well, the answer is pretty obvious:



  

But to be serious, I think we will see them for quite some time to come, especially in the cargo operations. I love seeing the FX MD-10's here at JFK!

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3409 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 6):
I think we will see them for quite some time to come, especially in the cargo operations. I love seeing the FX MD-10's here at JFK!

I love seeing them anywhere...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):

Newer 737/A320's don't have the field performance. A younger 757 may but is a big step change in operating complexity. For small, austere airfields in the more remote corners of the world without great maintenance support it's hard to beat a 727.

I'll certainly agree with regards to complexity issues. But the 727s really have that much better short field performance? For some reason (probably some deep seated sweepback prejudice of mine, lol) I always thought that something like a 737 or a 757 would actually use less runway at Max TOW than a 727.

Is it the prevalence of the 72's high lift devices that tips the scales there, or just the fact of having three engines back there doing the pushing. Both perhaps?

Anyway, I never thought of the 72 as being that much lighter than a 75, so that certainly is interesting...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Newer 737/A320's don't have the field performance.

A 737-700 has the field performance, but maybe not the capacity, and it's still damned expensive for that type of operator.

Quoting c5load (Thread starter):
when do you think we will see the end of three holers? 727s i imagine within the next ~3-5 yrs? DC-10s and MD-11s, maybe ~8-15 yrs?

Here in the US, the 727s will be done as soon as FedEx pulls them, so within the next few years. Cargo DC-10s are on their way out in the next 5-8 years. Cargo MD-11s will be flying for at least another two decades, maybe more.


User currently offlineDC8FriendShip From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 242 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
Do they have exceptional performance on smaller airstraips for instance?
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
For small, austere airfields in the more remote corners of the world without great maintenance support it's hard to beat a 727.

They can also serve areas with no ground support due to their built in airstairs. Try that with a 757!



Come fly the Friendly Skies of United
User currently offlineFlyMKG From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
Viable how? I mean, does the 727 have certain features that could not be matched by, for instance; a younger 757, 737 or an A320 family?

A 757 for the smaller carriers that use the 727 is just too much airplane. Too many positions and too large to operate into many of the airports that current smaller 72 operators fly into. Purchasing a 737 classic, giving it a C check, and cutting a door in it will run you many millions more than operating a 727 for many years or purchasing a 727 with a door and C checking it. With regards to the A320 family, I have heard there are many complications with trying to put a door in due to the position of systems and the structural integrity with a huge hole in the side of the fuselage.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
Here in the US, the 727s will be done as soon as FedEx pulls them, so within the next few years.

False. There are quite a few companies with 727s that will be operating them for the foreseeable future. Capital, Amerijet, IFL Group, and Kalitta Charters II all still operate a large number of 727s.

FlyMKG



Essential Power, Operating Generator.
User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
Do they have exceptional performance on smaller airstraips for instance?

Yes, very much so.

Interesting.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 7):
I'll certainly agree with regards to complexity issues. But the 727s really have that much better short field performance? For some reason (probably some deep seated sweepback prejudice of mine, lol) I always thought that something like a 737 or a 757 would actually use less runway at Max TOW than a 727.

Is it the prevalence of the 72's high lift devices that tips the scales there, or just the fact of having three engines back there doing the pushing. Both perhaps?

Anyway, I never thought of the 72 as being that much lighter than a 75, so that certainly is interesting...

Yeah, I´m with you! I made the same assumptions for some reason……...

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):

A 737-700 has the field performance, but maybe not the capacity, and it's still damned expensive for that type of operator.

I´m curious now, some say B737NG have the performance, others don´t!?
Would it be that the 737-700 beats the 727; but the 737-800 doesn´t?? 737-900, no way!!

Either way, they are much more expensive to buy and probably more complicated to maintain for the small Latin American companies I had in mind.

Quoting DC8FriendShip (Reply 9):
They can also serve areas with no ground support due to their built in airstairs. Try that with a 757!

Fair point……

Quoting FlyMKG (Reply 10):
With regards to the A320 family, I have heard there are many complications with trying to put a door in due to the position of systems and the structural integrity with a huge hole in the side of the fuselage.

Interesting! Is an A320-family member unsuitable for conversion!?
That might hurt the 2nd hand value!!

No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Quoting FlyMKG (Reply 10):
False. There are quite a few companies with 727s that will be operating them for the foreseeable future. Capital, Amerijet, IFL Group, and Kalitta Charters II all still operate a large number of 727s.

FedEx is the gorilla. Once they phase out the 727, the remaining small fleet of 727s will become very, very expensive to maintain. I don't think the small operators will find it in their favor to continue operating the type once FedEx doesn't.

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 11):
Would it be that the 737-700 beats the 727; but the 737-800 doesn´t?? 737-900, no way!!

Exactly. The 737-700 is an excellent field performer. The 737-800 is decent, but not great. The 737-900 (whether ER or not) is terrible. The catch is that a 737-700 won't have the capacity of a 727-200.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):

Viable how? I mean, does the 727 have certain features that could not be matched by, for instance; a younger 757, 737 or an A320 family? I normally think when I see those cargo 727´s (and every airport in Latin America seems to have one at least) that they are there still ´cause there´s simply no money to replace them.

The aircraft is very rugged and easily maintained, the engines, while fuel consuming, are virtually unbreakable, and due to their location not likely to pick up FOD from bad runways and airfields, and it is quite good for hot and high.

Jan


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21554 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3079 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 7):
But the 727s really have that much better short field performance? For some reason (probably some deep seated sweepback prejudice of mine, lol) I always thought that something like a 737 or a 757 would actually use less runway at Max TOW than a 727.

It's not about runway performance, it's about engine-out climb performance (which can be a very limiting factor at hot-and-high airports or airports with terrain around them, or hot-and-high airports with terrain around them). A three-engine airplane will beat a comparable two-engine airplane in that area every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

It's a common a.net misconception that twins have better climb performance - they do, but only when everything is working right. And that's not the scenario that the performance requirements are based on.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4437 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 7):

I'll certainly agree with regards to complexity issues. But the 727s really have that much better short field performance? For some reason (probably some deep seated sweepback prejudice of mine, lol) I always thought that something like a 737 or a 757 would actually use less runway at Max TOW than a 727.

Yes, it's all about the wing, one of the main design criteria with the B727 was that it be able to carry a full load out of LGA's short runways non stop to MIA for Eastern Airlines.


With a Flaps 25 take off (retracting to F15 at 400ft) and the very efficient high lift design of the wing this was possible.
It's still a useful feature today for the remaining operators.

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

It's not about runway performance, it's about engine-out climb performance (which can be a very limiting factor at hot-and-high airports or airports with terrain around them, or hot-and-high airports with terrain around them). A three-engine airplane will beat a comparable two-engine airplane in that area every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

It's a common a.net misconception that twins have better climb performance - they do, but only when everything is working right. And that's not the scenario that the performance requirements are based on.

And thats the other part of the equation.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineacedriver From China, joined Nov 2011, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

I'm pretty sure the beautiful DC-10s and MD-11s will be still around for quite some time..
They will eventually be fully replaced by big twins like the 77F, but in my opinion, it's not happening in the 2010s

[Edited 2012-01-24 13:51:09]

User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3924 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

With the KC-135 still going strong, the KC-10 will easily make it into the second half of the century.


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

It's a common a.net misconception that twins have better climb performance - they do, but only when everything is working right.

That makes enough sense. How well supported do the JT8Ds remain? I would imagine that with FX's 50 odd fleet as well as the others in service make that fairly practical.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):


With a Flaps 25 take off (retracting to F15 at 400ft) and the very efficient high lift design of the wing this was possible.
It's still a useful feature today for the remaining operators.

Interesting seems like a pretty quick retraction. I will say that the 727 seems to have a lot of laundry hanging off the back once the flap setting gets past about 20 or so.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The Year We Will See The End Of Tri Holers?
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...
Engine In The Tail End Of A 747? posted Mon May 5 2008 00:37:58 by 1821
Will We Ever See Winglets On The Stabiliser posted Sun Feb 10 2008 12:56:18 by NEMA
The End Of Tube-And-Wing Aerodynamics? posted Sun Dec 30 2007 02:10:24 by Faro
The End Of The Lame? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:40:07 by MD11Engineer
Wicks At The End Of Airbus Wings posted Thu Sep 25 2003 16:40:42 by Bruce
What Is The Cabin Width Of An ERJ? posted Tue Jan 10 2012 17:39:04 by 747400sp
Will The Panasonic Eco 9i Ever Get FAA Approval? posted Wed Nov 16 2011 14:49:16 by 1337Delta764
Will The A350XWB Main Gear Bogies Tilt Forward? posted Thu Sep 15 2011 18:03:18 by 747400sp
The Operational Difference Of Low-budget Airlines? posted Mon Feb 21 2011 15:11:08 by TrogerWilliams
Changes We Will Ever See A 747-8F/I(ER)? posted Mon Jan 3 2011 14:46:08 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format