|Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 3):|
Incidentally, the 727 was initially designed to replace a number of 4-prop airliners at the time, such as the DC-6/7 I think, and in Canada the Vickers Viscount and Vanguard, etc. 2 Engine technology for airliners was evolving at that time and not common. Engines were not nearly so reliable and therefore safety was more directly dependant on redundancy.
The Viscount replacement (for AC
anyway) was the outcome of an evaluation of the DC-9-10 (initially), the BAC 1-11, and (briefly) the Sud Caravelle (probably the Srs 10). Sud tried to sweeten the deal by offering license production at Canadair in Montreal, but really, by late 1960s it was a comparative dog. The 1-11, while a nice niche a/c was a) too small, and b) too short-legged for AC
's liking. Woefully underpowered as well.
|Quoting rampart (Reply 4):|
Of course, Lockheed managed a high bypass engine with an S-duct in the tail, but that would have entailed more significant re-engineering on a 727. A
An interesting thing to keep in mind with centre-line engined a/c is the middle engine performance penalty where the engine is buried in the fuse (unlike the DC-10/MD-11). Going through an S-duct like on the 727 & L-1011 results in a flow velocity reduction that amounts to, depending on the design, an 18-20% mass flow reduction and consequent loss of thrust. One of the reasons you don't see this sort of design anymore -- also the fact the high BP
engines have just gotten so much bigger and more reliable.
|Quoting BritishB747 (Reply 18):|
Was the Boeing B727-100 not very similar to the original proposal for the Hawker Siddeley Trident? Hawker Siddeley even invited Boeing designers over to look at the plans for this amazing new aircraft that they had designed. Then BEA decided to change their requirements and the Trident became another disaster for the British aircraft industry and Boeing unveiled an aircraft more or less identical to the original specification Trident. Amazing the stupidity of HS inviting a rival to look at the plans for their aircraft.
BEA I believe wanted something 727-sized initially, but as you indicated revised the requirements to make the a/c "tuned" for European routes. Which resulted in HS
producing a niche a/c that very few other airlines actually wanted. Actually, if BEA had had their way I think they would simply have purchased the 727-100.
|Quoting columba (Reply 21):|
The real 717 is the KC-135, I wonder more about the 720
I can't remember the name, but the chairman of UA
at the time was bound and determined that UA
would not be seen to be ordering 707s of any series after purchasing 40 DC-8s. So, the 707-020 (as it was then known) became the 720. Possibly justified since the wing is different and the fuse is I think about 13 ft shorter.
|Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 38):|
The KC-135 was intended to be designated the 717, but that never officially caught on.
|Quoting 135mech (Reply 39):|
I have books about the 707's and the KC-135's, when the numbering of the 720 was taking place... there was actually a "paranoia" or "superstition" about the number 717 and the number being a "teen", so that is why the airlines went with the 720.
Actually it is a 717. IIRC in the entrance area it states Boeing Model 717 on every C-135, whatever variant. This is likely a reference to the design study.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.