B727LVR
Topic Author
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 am

Super 727

Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:19 pm

I aplogize in advance if this topis has already been discussed, but I did a search for it and didn't really find anything pertaining to what I had in mind.


My questions is: Are there anymore plans to convert and 727's with the baby 8's into "Super 27's" with the -217's? Or is this modification just too exspensive to exspensive to justify at this point? The Super 27 is a nice bird with plenty of power to spare. With all these cargo operators in South America and else where I think it would help give them more lifting capacity. Your thoughts...
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22927
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Super 727

Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:04 pm

I suppose it depends on how much usable life is still in the airframe to determine whether purchasing and installing JT8D-217s is worth the expense.
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Super 727

Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:23 pm

I think the days of using the 727 as a freighter are over. Even bottom tier cargo carriers are going to the 757. Even the -217's which do offer better fuel burn are still old tech. The engine still has can-annular combustors. It doesn't pay to convert the 727.
 
lotsamiles
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:22 am

RE: Super 727

Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:17 am



Quoting JETPILOT (Reply 2):
Even bottom tier cargo carriers are going to the 757

Most of the 757F's and SF's are with FedEx, UPS, TNT, DHL and it's contracted carriers such as Blue Dart and Captial Cargo. Not exactly bottom tier. Variglog tried the 757F but went bust (although let's not blame all of that on the aircraft). It will be interesting to see how Arrow Air holds up with them. I know Amerijet has been looking at the 757F for years but just can't make it work so they keep flying the 727's.

The Super27F is still a great cargo airplane. It can meet stage III noise, parts are cheap, and they carry a lot of payload for the space available, about 30T of freight over 12 pallets. Compare that to less than 35T over 15 positions on the 757 conversions and the Super27 had more lifting ability per position.

Granted, the prospects new conversions of a standard 727 to the Super27 are slim in today's world. However, if you can find a pax version Super27 for under $2M, throw in a D check for under $1M and a cargo mod for about $1M and you are ready to roll for under $4M. Compare that to about $8M to buy a low spec 757, add $1.5M for the S4C and another $4.5M for the cargo conversion and you are up to $14M, big bucks for the small guys.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Super 727

Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:56 am

No question it's a great Aircraft. Doesn't the engine modification require ballast up front to balance out their greater weight on the pax Aircraft ?


I believe on the freighters they were able to move #1 and 3 engines forward to compensate as they had no concerns over blocking the rear exits.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: Super 727

Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:42 pm



Quoting Max Q (Reply 4):
No question it's a great Aircraft. Doesn't the engine modification require ballast up front to balance out their greater weight on the pax Aircraft ?


I believe on the freighters they were able to move #1 and 3 engines forward to compensate as they had no concerns over blocking the rear exits.

I worked for a repair station that did Super 27 mods. We have to bolt 10K of ballast to the forward bulkhead for a Passenger aircraft. As for moving the engines, they are still in the same location, The pylon and engine mounts are changed due to the fact the -200 series engine is bigger around then the older JT8's.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:15 am



Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 5):

I worked for a repair station that did Super 27 mods. We have to bolt 10K of ballast to the forward bulkhead for a Passenger aircraft. As for moving the engines, they are still in the same location, The pylon and engine mounts are changed due to the fact the -200 series engine is bigger around then the older JT8's.

Ten thousand pounds of Ballast ! thats amazing but I can see they had no choice on the pax Aircraft. I had understood that on the freighter conversions they were able to avoid doing this by actually moving the #1 and 3 Engines forward thus blocking both rear exits.


Of course this was not a problem for the freighters. Have you heard of this mod ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
wrenchon727
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:20 pm

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:44 am

The FedEx Valsan Mod aircraft had ballast in the nose and the 1&3 engines were not moved forward.
I don't think their is much demand for a re-engine 72 these days. FedEx operates 4 Valsan/Super 27 now, and returned 7 to the lease company in late 08 and some ended up being leased by Services air cargo in the Dominican Republic.

[Edited 2009-09-22 20:01:29]
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:28 am



Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 3):
Most of the 757F's and SF's are with FedEx, UPS, TNT, DHL and it's contracted carriers such as Blue Dart and Captial Cargo. Not exactly bottom tier. Variglog tried the 757F but went bust (although let's not blame all of that on the aircraft). It will be interesting to see how Arrow Air holds up with them. I know Amerijet has been looking at the 757F for years but just can't make it work so they keep flying the 727's.

The Super27F is still a great cargo airplane. It can meet stage III noise, parts are cheap, and they carry a lot of payload for the space available, about 30T of freight over 12 pallets. Compare that to less than 35T over 15 positions on the 757 conversions and the Super27 had more lifting ability per position.

I don't know if your agreeing with me or agreeing with me. The first sentence says "most". I won't argue with that. Your last sentence mentions Arrow Air which is certainly botom of the barrel.

Any plane which burns 10000 lbs or more per hour in cruise when gas is $4 per gallon is not going to be good at anything, Flying overnight packages volume is more important than weight capacity.
 
lotsamiles
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:22 am

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:27 pm



Quoting JETPILOT (Reply 8):
I don't know if your agreeing with me or agreeing with me.

I don't think the bottom tier cargo carriers can afford the 757F. They can't handle the lease rate or the maintenance costs, especially putting the engines through the shop. Arrow Air will be a test.

The integrators can and will use the 757F. They have better revenue generating ability and overall stronger economics which can bankroll the more expensive aircraft (as compared to the Super27 in this case).

I agree that the fuel burn savings sounds compelling. However, it is only one piece of the equation and it cannot overcome the capital requirements for the "bottom tier" carrier.
 
boeing767mech
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 5:03 pm

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:18 pm



Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
I had understood that on the freighter conversions they were able to avoid doing this by actually moving the #1 and 3 Engines forward thus blocking both rear exits.


Of course this was not a problem for the freighters. Have you heard of this mod ?

The engines are in the same place on a freighter as a passenger airplane, If you moved the engines you would be moving the bulkhead that the pylon is mounted to, and since the aft mount is part of the aft pressure bulkhead I don't see anyone redesigning the aft end of the airplane to move the engines forward a couple of inches when they can add more ballast to the front of the aircraft to offset the weight of the 200 series engines.

David
Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Super 727

Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:58 pm

Don't forget about Challenge Air Cargo They were operating the 757F back in 1996 and did well with it.

I don't forsee any obstacles with the 757 replacing the 727 in service. Just the same way the A300 replaced the DC8.

Getting rid of the 3rd crew member, much lower fuel burns, and less down time for maintenance all help the bottom line.

Don't forget the 757 has LNAV/VNAV even further decreasing fuel burn.
 
ElpinDAB
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:00 am

RE: Super 727

Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:11 am

Fuel burn issues aside, how much of a hot-rod is the 727-100 (or even -200) with JT-8D's and winglets? Get technical here....what kind of field performance and climb performance does it have compared to a 757 at a similar % loading? (Not total weight, but MTOW for the given aircraft, or max load range...etc)
 
B727LVR
Topic Author
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 am

RE: Super 727

Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
Of course this was not a problem for the freighters. Have you heard of this mod ?

The 2 pax supers I worked on did not have the aft doors blocked. In fact it was rather nice just open the aft doors and look in the inlets. Of course the cargo bird had the aft doors blocked off.

It has been about 2 years but I know/knew of 3 supers sitting in storage. 2 pax and 1 cargo. Talking to the pilots that flew tha cargo super 27, they called it a rocket. Loaded with cargo, just throw the throttles forward and point the nose to the sky.

One of pax the birds just came out of a C check and has been sitting since. Kind of a waste if you ask me.

I just spent 2 hours looking for some performance info on the Super 27. The only thing I found was this forum topic:
Why On 727 Re Engine With JT8 219 (by 747400sp Dec 12 2006 in Tech Ops)

Maybe someone has access to view the Type Certificate for the MOD. Or maybe a pilot who has flown some can shed some light for us.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Super 727

Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:24 pm

Through the magic of google, here is an old presentation on the Gooodrich Super 27:

http://www.airspeedtrusts.com/library/Super27/Super27Presentation.pdf

Here is the STC info:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...DB?OpenDocument&Highlight=sa4363nm

A little history: This mod was originally designed by Valsan/Rohr in the late 80's. Goodrich acquired Rohr in the mid 90's and relaunched the mod as the Goodrich Super 27.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
113312
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: Super 727

Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:24 pm

At the time the comparisons were made, they were only considering the modified 727 with a baseline model. Since twin engine aircraft are now mainstream for transoceanic flights, much of the advantage of an updated three engine airliner is lost. In addition, at the time of the original STC, the cost of acquiring B757 was much higher than that of 727s. For operators with 727 models already in service, the additional advantage lay in crew training. Only minor differences training was necessary to convert to Super 727.

Today, there is a clear advantage using advanced 737 models or 757. High efficiency high bypass engines, state of art navigation and instrumentation, two pilot cockpits etc. Used twins are on the market while 727 fleets are being retired. Even with Stage III mods, they are noisy, have limited range compared with other available aircraft, require large crew and out of production spares.
 
B727LVR
Topic Author
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 am

RE: Super 727

Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:16 am



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 14):

Thanks for the info!

There are some pretty interesting number given on the Goodrich presentation. You are more than doubling your payload by upgrading to the -217 engines for a given range. Some of the cost savings can add up pretty quickly.... $100/hr in fuel savings, 20-25k extra in payload. To me it seems that the extra money would add up, the mod would pay for itself in no time.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 12):

MTOW:
757- 255,000 (unsure about the changes due to altitude)
Super 27- 188,000-197,000 (depending on altitude)

Max Load Range:
757- 3150nm
Super 27- Approx 3000nm

Total Volume:
757- 8430 cu ft
727- 6850 cu ft

Back to the issue at hand... If I am soley a 727 freight operator, I believe the benifits of the mod are worth looking into. Heck I would even lease a super 27 for a year to be able to compare numbers side to side the good and the bad. In the end it's all a number game. If i can haul more with what I already own, that automatically translates into more profit.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Super 727

Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:34 am

If I'm Amerijet and I have the option of converting my old, ratty, maintenance intensive 727's into Super 27's or get 757's, get rid of flight engineers and get 10 year usefull life, and approx 1/2 the fuel burn with larger capacity which one seesm like the intelligent choice. At Opa Loka Airport in Miami they can't cut up 727's fast enough.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Super 727

Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:58 pm

After Lockheed announced they were shutting down production of the L-1011, they teamed with Pratt and Whitney to re-engine 727's with two (2) PW 2037's. Lockheed even acquired the aft fuselage from an Eastern 727 and set it up in the parking lot of Building 85 in Burbank. While some engineering work was accomplished, Lockheed could not find an airline partner to share the cost and the program (along with the aft fuselage) was scraped.
 
B727LVR
Topic Author
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 am

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:02 am



Quoting JETPILOT (Reply 17):
If I'm Amerijet and I have the option of converting my old, ratty, maintenance intensive 727's into Super 27's or get 757's, get rid of flight engineers and get 10 year usefull life, and approx 1/2 the fuel burn with larger capacity which one seesm like the intelligent choice. At Opa Loka Airport in Miami they can't cut up 727's fast enough

That is true, I agree with you. However there are still some questions about how many 757's are actually out there available for purchase or lease. Also if I am a compay the size of Amerijet or smaller, and I am competeing against Fed-Ex or UPS, for this aircraft, the chances of me getting it are slim. I'm not trying to dog the smaller companies, but if you are a company looking to lease or sell this 757, and UPS or FED-Ex is willing, and more importantly, can pay more, who are you going to sell it to? Simple supply in demand. So if I am this smaller company and can wait a few more years when there are more 757's to buy, why not upgrade your current aircraft to help keep your company competitive, and heck even make a few extra dollars to be able to start buying the replacement aircraft.
I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
 
ElpinDAB
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:00 am

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:01 am



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 14):
Through the magic of google, here is an old presentation on the Gooodrich Super 27:

http://www.airspeedtrusts.com/librar...n.pdf

Google is magic indeed. Thanks for the valuable info.


With acquisition costs considered as a primary factor, how long would it take before a Super 727-100 would become more expensive than a BBJ (737-700 base)?
 
lotsamiles
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:22 am

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:30 pm



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 19):
That is true, I agree with you. However there are still some questions about how many 757's are actually out there available for purchase or lease. Also if I am a compay the size of Amerijet or smaller, and I am competeing against Fed-Ex or UPS, for this aircraft, the chances of me getting it are slim. I'm not trying to dog the smaller companies, but if you are a company looking to lease or sell this 757, and UPS or FED-Ex is willing, and more importantly, can pay more, who are you going to sell it to? Simple supply in demand. So if I am this smaller company and can wait a few more years when there are more 757's to buy, why not upgrade your current aircraft to help keep your company competitive, and heck even make a few extra dollars to be able to start buying the replacement aircraft.

More to that point, what bank or leasing company is going to take the risk of lending/leasing to a small shoe-string budget cargo carrier when the asset has gone from a $2M 727F up to a $12-15M 757F? Amerijet can't afford to install or maintain toilets, how are they going to handle the increase in lease rate from $50k/mo for a 727F up to $200k/mo for a 757F? If they could, they would have them by now.
 
tb727
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:47 pm



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 16):

Back to the issue at hand... If I am soley a 727 freight operator, I believe the benifits of the mod are worth looking into. Heck I would even lease a super 27 for a year to be able to compare numbers side to side the good and the bad. In the end it's all a number game. If i can haul more with what I already own, that automatically translates into more profit.

As far as a hauling freight on the super-27, it's not a big advantage. Realistically you aren't going to be hauling more freight because in most cases we are dealing with short runways(advantage to the 757). After looking at the numbers as a small freight operator would, all that would probably end up happening is some fuel savings of maybe a couple thousand pounds per leg. That may sound all good, but now you have to get all the support to have -217 motors in your fleet so now you have an oddball engine.

Being new to a 3 man cockpit, I am loving having the FE back there. It is going to be a really sad day for me as well as many others when that is a thing of the past. I'm glad I am at least getting in on the tail end of the good old days!
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:53 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 18):
727's with two (2) PW 2037's.

Here are some models:



...and a digitally-modified image:


Aviation-Design.Net:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © EDINEY
Template © SNORRE



Quoting Tb727 (Reply 22):
I'm glad I am at least getting in on the tail end of the good old days!

I'm happy for you. It's great to see that someone values the experience of learning and flying something for reasons beyond a paycheck.  Smile

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
tb727
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: Super 727

Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:18 pm

A 2 engine 727 just doesn't look right.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 23):

I'm happy for you. It's great to see that someone values the experience of learning and flying something for reasons beyond a paycheck.

Yes, truly a once in a lifetime chance and I had to take it. As long as I can cover my house payment I'll give it a try lol! Checkride in the sim should be by the end of the week and I will be in the real thing in about 2-3 weeks.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests