Sorry if this has been up here before.
The aircraft is slow to lift off,okay, then after rotation the pilot flying appears to do a "wing wave".
Would this be weather related?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Type-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3665 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6598 times:
In the 727 tribute thread currently running in the video that is linked to that thread there is an AA 727 doing pretty much the same thing on take off, but to a lesser degree. Could be just high density altitude.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 699 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6375 times:
I thought 727 had more than enough power to do whatever she wanted. I think the wave confirms they took off like this on purpose. Show off or whatever the reason was.
BEG2IAH
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
Pohakuloa From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5593 times:
Im no pilot or 727 expert, but reading through threads for the past decade or so now I have come across interesting tid bits of information on certain aircraft.
From long time 3-holer pilots comments (current & retired) they have said that often on take off they would power up engines 1 & 3 before getting to a certain ground speed before powering up engine 2. These remarks were commonplace especially on the L1011 and 727 as noted that there was often not enough airflow to the number 2 engine at initial power up so they would do this to avoid compressor stalls on takeoff for number 2.
Regarding the video in question and the remarks made by the poster below the video remarking that he knew the back story and that the pilots were idiots, is it possible that the pilots powered up 1 & 3, started their takeoff roll and "forgot" to power up 3 until just after wheels up? this could explain the very long roll (even for PHX) and the apparent almost aerodynamic stall (also mentioned on comment under the video) then suddenly having seemingly enough power to rocket away shortly there after the wiggle.
As I have stated, I am no pilot at all, but just from observations from a long time enthusiasts and student of aviation's vantage point....
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 3954 posts, RR: 29 Reply 6, posted (4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3897 times:
It appears to me the pilots were simulating a contaminated / rugged field take off. Maybe the conditions or the deadline for one of the crew members to perform such a drill was coming up.
The waving I cannot explain. It does not seem uncontrolled. However, it would be explainable if you argue that they were overloaded, did not know it and their reference speeds were out of wack.
In any case, the comments people post on youtube, especially regarding aviation issues, I tend simply to ignore.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
I've always been under the impression that the 727 takes forever to rotate. Not that the takeoff roll is necessarily that long (even though it seems the case here), but once they get the nosegear off of the ground, it seems as though it takes forever for the mains to get airborne. The plane has always seemed to linger in a rotated position with the mains on the runway for a very long time on all the 727 flights I've been on.
gegtim From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3216 times:
When we had UAL 727 from GEG - ORD they always took a lot of runway to rotate, especially in summertime. I'm not sure if I have the terminology correct, but I was told that many times during summer the fule load was a "short release" and they would have to stop in Des Moine, Iowa for fuel. I could be wrong on this. But I do know for a fact that the 727 would be so heavy ground crews would have to take mail bags off. Tim
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3039 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 9):
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5):
727 didn't have much power at all... just a lot of lift from those spectacular high-lift devices.
... which says nothing about this shallow take off. If they used all the power the take off wouldn't've looked like that.
I can't quite tell, but it looks like it's a Flaps 5 takeoff which is even shallower than normal. I'd say of my takeoffs 95% are Flaps 15 and the rest 25, I may have done one or two at Flaps 5.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
I've always been under the impression that the 727 takes forever to rotate.
It does. Just a gentle rotation to not whack the tail, the whole runway is yours, might as well use it I guess.
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
At Continental, Flaps 5 was our standard take off setting for many years on the B727.
Did you guys do that to save a little bit of fuel? I've noticed jumpseating on SWA lately they use minimum flap settings for takeoff on the 737, I'm guessing that may be why? We are generally heavy and need the 15 numbers but I've been wanting to try more 5 takeoffs but I'm in the wrong seat to make that decision at the moment
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2334 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (4 months 4 days ago) and read 2737 times:
There was a near disaster at MSY in 1989 when a TWA 722 used flap 15 on runway 19 when they should have used flap 25. Plane rolled the entire 7,000 feet, took out some lights and a box, blew a couple guys down in parking lot, broke a branch on a 35 foot tree almost a 1/4 mi past the threshold and then flew all the way to JFK, yeah the 722 was a tank!
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2610 times:
Quoting tb727 (Reply 12):
Did you guys do that to save a little bit of fuel? I've noticed jumpseating on SWA lately they use minimum flap settings for takeoff on the 737, I'm guessing that may be why? We are generally heavy and need the 15 numbers but I've been wanting to try more 5 takeoffs but I'm in the wrong seat to make that decision at the moment
You know, I'm not sure, on long runways it usually provided the best 2nd segment performance and I suppose it did save fuel but, a few years after I had been on the B727 we switched to F15 as standard unless performance demanded a different setting.
I have vivid memories of long, long take off rolls using every last inch of runway on that Aircraft.
Contrast that with F25 take offs out of LGA which felt like we were levitating vertically to get off the ground, we then selected F15 at 400 feet with a big pitch change !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18467 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (4 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2566 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5): Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 3):
I thought 727 had more than enough power to do whatever she wanted.
727 didn't have much power at all... just a lot of lift from those spectacular high-lift devices.
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 13): There was a near disaster at MSY in 1989 when a TWA 722 used flap 15 on runway 19 when they should have used flap 25. Plane rolled the entire 7,000 feet, took out some lights and a box, blew a couple guys down in parking lot, broke a branch on a 35 foot tree almost a 1/4 mi past the threshold and then flew all the way to JFK
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 14): Contrast that with F25 take offs out of LGA which felt like we were levitating vertically to get off the ground, we then selected F15 at 400 feet with a big pitch change !
Haha, oh yeah, it sure is! It's kinda fun because it's different, you really do get off those short runways. We do it regularly to get out of LEX(7000') and go 1800 miles all the way to the west coast non-stop a lot of times! I've been hearing the last couple years that we are supposed to change procedures to get rid of the 400' retraction, I'm pretty sure it will never change.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2334 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
Good thread guys, didn't the difference between 15 and 25 was that great. If you lose an engine with flap 25, still climbs ok? What flap setting for engine out landing?
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2490 times:
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 17):
Good thread guys, didn't the difference between 15 and 25 was that great. If you lose an engine with flap 25, still climbs ok? What flap setting for engine out landing?
That's why the flaps have to go to 15 at 400', for engine out performance. As far as Engine out landings, normal flaps(25,28,30, whatever the airplane is set up for) with a 2 engine landing. If you are down to 1 engine you land with Flaps 5. With engine #1 or #2(both have engine driven hydraulic pumps) running your commit to landing happens when you put the gear down. With engine #3 only running you are committed to landing when you put the flaps down. You put the flaps down alternately which means the leading edges are coming down but there is no way of putting them back up.
With each flap setting you gain something and lose something, I'll punch up some numbers here on the runway analysis program to maybe help understand with numbers. We have to do this at every stop we make and decide....
GJT at 34 degrees Celsius, a hot and high situation with a decent sized runway. The lowest number between climb and runway limit is your limiting factor.
Flaps 5
174.8 Climb limit
155.7 Field length limit
Flaps 15
168.2 Climb limit
165.7 Field limit
Flaps 25
148.3 Climb limit
168.5 Field limit
The climb limit is so high on Flaps 5 because you will have a ton of energy to make the 2nd segment climb, we can't go at 174.8 though because the runway length limits us to only 155.7 so Flaps 5 is out. On the other side of the spectrum, with Flaps 25 the performance is killed by the flaps and slower V speeds on takeoff(a lot less energy) and you can see it on the climb limit of only 148.3 even though theoretically with the runway length we can go at 168.5 so Flaps 25 is out unless we are pretty light. In this example we would go at Flaps 15 with a max takeoff weight of 165,700 pounds if we were trying to get out as heavy as we could.
We also have to take a look at our fuel burn for the leg and max landing weight at the next station so we don't takeoff so heavy that when we get to our destination, we are too heavy to land!
Schweigend From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2464 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11): At Continental, Flaps 5 was our standard take off setting for many years on the B727.
Thats a pretty normal take off.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 14): I have vivid memories of long, long take off rolls using every last inch of runway on that Aircraft.
Quoting tb727 (Reply 19): The climb limit is so high on Flaps 5 because you will have a ton of energy to make the 2nd segment climb, we can't go at 174.8 though because the runway length limits us to only 155.7 so Flaps 5 is out.
I can remember 727 takeoffs where we would sit on the runway with our brakes set until the engines spooled up to near TO thrust -- and then bam, brakes released. and we were quickly on our way.
Does anyone know whether that had to do with MTOW, runway length, pilot preference, or something else?
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2443 times:
Quoting Schweigend (Reply 20): Does anyone know whether that had to do with MTOW, runway length, pilot preference, or something else?
Well I can't find it right now in my books but I know I have heard on here as well as out there on the line that there is only like a 50' difference between a rolling and static takeoff. I had a discussion here a few years ago about it, I think Max Q may even have been involved with it. But on my last 2 airplanes here which were both small biz jets, it was standard for us to do static standing takeoffs for every TO and we had to do it because that is what we were trained and told to do. Now that I look back at it, it was pretty obnoxious pulling 100+ decibels while trimming the throttles .05EPR and all we were really doing was wasting fuel. It's also much more comfortable to do a rolling takeoff in my current operation on the 72, especially when we have horses standing up in the back.
Anyways, I'm sure it came down to pilot preference, they may have just felt they needed to do it in that situation. There may have been a condition that warranted the feeling that they needed to do it. Whether it was a shorter runway than they were used to, waiting on takeoff clearance(poor airmanship in my opinion), heavy weight, or maybe an abnormal condition. An example would be when we takeoff with the engine anti-ice on just to hold the brakes for a few seconds to allow the inlets to warm up just a little more, probably not entirely necessary but a feel good moment anyways.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 23, posted (4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2403 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 18):
Does anyone know if B727s ever used derated takeoff engine settings? I thought no aircraft can beat A3
Absolutely, we used reduced power take offs whenever possible, but, compared to modern twins (especially the 757) the %
reduction was not that great because there just wasn't much of a performance margin.
At the heavier weights and / or in high / hot conditions it was full power, if I remember correctly we would also do packs off / bleeds off take offs as well to gain a little more performance.
Well I can't find it right now in my books but I know I have heard on here as well as out there on the line that there is only like a 50' difference between a rolling and static takeoff. I had a discussion here a few years ago about it, I think Max Q may even have been involved with it. But on my last 2 airplanes here which were both small biz jets, it was standard for us to do static standing takeoffs for every TO and we had to do it because that is what we were trained and told to do. Now that I look back at it, it was pretty obnoxious pulling 100+ decibels while trimming the throttles .05EPR and all we were really doing was wasting fuel. It's also much more comfortable to do a rolling takeoff in my current operation on the 72, especially when we have horses standing up in the back.
Anyways, I'm sure it came down to pilot preference, they may have just felt they needed to do it in that situation. There may have been a condition that warranted the feeling that they needed to do it. Whether it was a shorter runway than they were used to, waiting on takeoff clearance(poor airmanship in my opinion), heavy weight, or maybe an abnormal condition. An example would be when we takeoff with the engine anti-ice on just to hold the brakes for a few seconds to allow the inlets to warm up just a little more, probably not entirely necessary but a feel good moment anyways.
Great posts TB727, as far as static vs rolling take off I always keep it rolling. If you turn on to the runway as close as possible to the end, keeping the speed around 10 knots while lining up, at the same time having the engines spooled up
and once aligned set take off thrust.
This technique allows you to keep the benefit of not losing your momentum while having your power set as close to the beginning of the runway as possible, avoiding having to accelerate all that momentum from a dead stop .
Best of both worlds..
Auto Pack Trip Armed !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
FlyMKG From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 156 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2394 times:
tb727, Is that data from Jeppesen, APG, or somebody else? Is that data for one of your -9 or -15 powered aircraft? Looks pretty similar to what we have.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 23): At the heavier weights and / or in high / hot conditions it was full power, if I remember correctly we would also do packs off / bleeds off take offs as well to gain a little more performance.
Packs of does give you a few hundred to a few thousand pounds of additional weight. Frequently used by us freight dogs in LRD in the summer.
With regards to the Flaps 5 question, it only makes sense to use it if the runway is very long. Flaps 15 is the usual setting since the runway limit and climb limit are usually close together. Flaps 20 or 25 or even 28 is usually only used on short runways.
FlyMKG
Don't tear up an engine. Don't run out of fuel. Protect essential.
jetpilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 37 Reply 27, posted (4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
Some 727's had flaps settings of 0,2,5,15,20,25,30,40. I flew 727's in many different airline configurations but never flew one with flaps 20. Does anyone know who ordered the 727 with a flap 20 detent?
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2443 posts, RR: 47 Reply 31, posted (4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 3): I thought 727 had more than enough power to do whatever she wanted.
Absolutely not. Woefully underpowered, especially in hot/high/heavy conditions.
Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 4): is it possible that the pilots powered up 1 & 3, started their takeoff roll and "forgot" to power up 3 until just after wheels up?
Not really plausible in my opinion.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 5): Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 3):
I thought 727 had more than enough power to do whatever she wanted.
727 didn't have much power at all... just a lot of lift from those spectacular high-lift devices.
Great wing, puny engines. Not a machine I want to take to PHX in the summer, especially if you have to go all the way to EWR.
Quoting AR385 (Reply 6): It appears to me the pilots were simulating a contaminated / rugged field take off. Maybe the conditions or the deadline for one of the crew members to perform such a drill was coming up.
Please explain this theory.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 14): You know, I'm not sure, on long runways it usually provided the best 2nd segment performance and I suppose it did save fuel but, a few years after I had been on the B727 we switched to F15 as standard unless performance demanded a different setting
We did 5, 15, and 25, with 15 as the norm, though like you say, 5 was better for second-segment climb, so that's what we normally used when it was hot/high.
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 18): Does anyone know if B727s ever used derated takeoff engine settings?
Yes.
Quoting tb727 (Reply 22): Quoting Schweigend (Reply 20):
Does anyone know whether that had to do with MTOW, runway length, pilot preference, or something else?
Well I can't find it right now in my books but I know I have heard on here as well as out there on the line that there is only like a 50' difference between a rolling and static takeoff.
I threw my 727 books out long ago, but I seem to recall that 50' number for difference between rolling and static too.
Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 26): Looks very much like a wake encounter after lift off. Other than that, a very standard 727 take off from PHX.
You know, I watched it a couple of times, and though most people seem to disagree with you, I am not at all sure this isn't a wake turbumence/gusty winds phenomena myself. I certainly was not impressed with any deliberate maneuvering I saw, though the aircraft was certainly under positive control at all times. Looks like a typical 727 struggling into the sky to me.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 30): Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 26):
Looks very much like a wake encounter after lift off.
I don't think so, a wake turbulence encounter would have a much higher roll response. That looks like a very deliberate
'wing wave'
I really don't know about this. I watched it a couple of times and wasn't at all sure it wasn't due to gusty winds or wake turbulence. Truthfully if the video hadn't been posted here, I would have not noticed anything out of the ordinary for a 727 departure from PHX.
FlyMKG From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 156 posts, RR: 1 Reply 32, posted (4 months 3 days ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 25): The MD80 had a F28 detent, were you thinking of that ?
Some airplanes with the Dugan Quietwing system have flaps star 30 (*30) instead of regular flaps 30. The only puts the flaps to roughly 28 degrees when flaps 30 is selected. It eliminates the standard Boeing 30 position.
Quoting jetpilot (Reply 27): Does anyone know who ordered the 727 with a flap 20 detent?
Ansett and FedEx also ordered their 722s with flaps 20. Ansett did not have flaps 25 while FedEx still kept it.
FlyMKG
Don't tear up an engine. Don't run out of fuel. Protect essential.
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 699 posts, RR: 11 Reply 33, posted (4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 31): Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 3):I thought 727 had more than enough power to do whatever she wanted.
Absolutely not. Woefully underpowered, especially in hot/high/heavy conditions.
Maybe I was fooled by some nice winter-time take-off videos on FL350. I calculated power to weight ratio for B727 and compared it to B733. There is quite a difference. Thanks to seabosdca and you I learned something new.
BEG2IAH
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
Barney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 630 posts, RR: 16 Reply 34, posted (4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 30): I don't think so, a wake turbulence encounter would have a much higher roll response. That looks like a very deliberate
'wing wave'
Not at all. I've encountered countless wake events that produced roll just like on the video.
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 31): I really don't know about this. I watched it a couple of times and wasn't at all sure it wasn't due to gusty winds or wake turbulence. Truthfully if the video hadn't been posted here, I would have not noticed anything out of the ordinary for a 727 departure from PHX.
Quoting FlyMKG (Reply 24):
tb727, Is that data from Jeppesen, APG, or somebody else? Is that data for one of your -9 or -15 powered aircraft? Looks pretty similar to what we have.
Those are -15 numbers in that example. I can't remember who makes it. It's a pretty simple program that spits all the numbers out to us, I thought it was Jeppesen but it doesn't say so it probably isn't because I thought they plastered their name all over everything they put out there. It has a pulldown menu and has numbers for all kinds of different configurations from normal -15 or -9 performance all the way down to strange ones like 2 engine ferry with -7/-9 intermix(yikes) and gear down ferry numbers for all the airports in the world.
We have only 1 727 with Flaps 28, it's a Raisbeck -15 powered with those goofy looking cookie cutter exhausts. I don't have a pic handy of that one because I hardly ever fly it, thankfully, I hate that one. It's a former Royal Air Maroc aircraft. We don't have any 20's(yet?) but I have seen them.
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
Quoting Schweigend (Reply 20): I can remember 727 takeoffs where we would sit on the runway with our brakes set until the engines spooled up to near TO thrust -- and then bam, brakes released. and we were quickly on our way.
Does anyone know whether that had to do with MTOW, runway length, pilot preference, or something else?
Quoting tb727 (Reply 22): rolling and static takeoff.
That is more or less standard procedure for soviet-era jets, from what I gathered it had to do with rather long spoolup times on those Soloviev/Kuznecov engines. I heard it took some time for local pilots around here to get rid of the idea of standing the brakes on shorter runways when they mass-transitioned into (mainly) 737 classics.
Quoting tb727 (Reply 35): It has a pulldown menu and has numbers for all kinds of different configurations from normal -15 or -9 performance all the way down to strange ones like 2 engine ferry with -7/-9 intermix(yikes) and gear down ferry numbers for all the airports in the world.
Man, would I have had a field day with that
France 1789, Eastern Europe 1989, Northern Africa 2011
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 37, posted (4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 14): I have vivid memories of long, long take off rolls using every last inch of runway on that Aircraft.
Funny you mention that, I have just as vivid memories watching them takeoff our 6,500 foot runway kicking up dust at the end. But, as others have said, it could have taken off a much shorter runway. If you have it, use it.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1906 times:
Quoting Schweigend (Reply 20): I can remember 727 takeoffs where we would sit on the runway with our brakes set until the engines spooled up to near TO thrust -- and then bam, brakes released. and we were quickly on our way.
Does anyone know whether that had to do with MTOW, runway length, pilot preference, or something else?
The only time I remember doing that was for noise abatement at Long Beach. Come to think of it I don't remember if we did it at Toluca or not. The apt is 8200' msl. I never did it as a preference.
tb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 4 Reply 39, posted (4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 38): The only time I remember doing that was for noise abatement at Long Beach. Come to think of it I don't remember if we did it at Toluca or not. The apt is 8200' msl. I never did it as a preference.
Yeah, I never worry in Toluca, they get whatever we are gonna give them unfortunately in a -9 powered 727. It's just too high. Used to have to do "0" Flap takeoffs in the Falcon there, I don't think I've ever seen such long ground rolls before or after those days. That airport has really changed the last 10 years.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2303 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 3665 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 3954 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18467 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 225 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
