c5load From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 900 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2930 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"
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11033 posts, RR: 72 Reply 2, posted (4 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2726 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).
notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2622 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11033 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2514 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.
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?
darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2275 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...
Enmity is equal to Wrath x The Speed of Fright Squared
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3754 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (4 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2267 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.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
DC8FriendShip From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 237 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2253 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!
FlyMKG From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 156 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (4 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2236 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
Don't tear up an engine. Don't run out of fuel. Protect essential.
notaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2121 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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3754 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2102 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.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 68 Reply 13, posted (4 months 6 days ago) and read 2075 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.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17877 posts, RR: 59 Reply 14, posted (4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1945 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
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 15, posted (4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1437 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.
acedriver From China, joined Nov 2011, 12 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1408 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
darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 189 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 months 15 hours ago) and read 1199 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.
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.
Enmity is equal to Wrath x The Speed of Fright Squared
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 900 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 1888 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11033 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 359 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 12568 posts, 
From China, joined Nov 2011, 12 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
