I could be wrong, but I think Iran Aseman Airlines is probably the last operator of regular B727 passenger service. Their aircraft fly from Tehran Mehrabad and other Iranian cities domestic and international services. There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service, while the Southern California Desert is full of able frames that can still fly for a number of years if re-engine.

Pretty sure any program development costs would not be offset by potential (if any) customer interest. Most - if not all - airlines who currently operate 727 aircraft do it because the frames are cheap to buy, not because they need any specific performance only the 727 offers. Any further re-engining costs would probably make the 727 unattractive.

I'm sure some of the more seasoned members here can give more detailed information.

No, and there are 2 reasons why not.

1. Being a rear engine aircraft, you cannot just bolt on much heavier engines onto an existing frame. Especially the middle engine, which would be impossible to retrofit to a high bypass fan. When the MD-80 series was developed into the MD-90 with heavier high bypass engines, MD had to stretch the aircraft in order to keep the center of gravity in check. The engineering work required to do this work would make it completely uneconomical, especially considering:

2. The 737ng, A320ceo, and 757 are plentiful, with thousands of frames in aggregate going to be retired over the next decade.

Also, the desert is quite tough on frames. More than a few years in the desert, and the frames are going to be completely shot. These planes you mentioned were not parked with the intention of returning to service, so they are going to be in awful shape. This is different than the CRJ-200s that were parked for a short time and are now being dragged out of the desert.

reffado wrote:

Pretty sure any program development costs would not be offset by potential (if any) customer interest. Most - if not all - airlines who currently operate 727 aircraft do it because the frames are cheap to buy, not because they need any specific performance only the 727 offers. Any further re-engining costs would probably make the 727 unattractive.

I'm sure some of the more seasoned members here can give more detailed information.

Please correct me if I am wrong, it’s not like CFM would have to design and build a new engine from scratch, there should be a cost effective way to modify existing engines to accommodate and give the old lady a new airborne life.

There is also the issue of the third crewmember; you could redesign the cockpit systems so that they could be flown by two crew, but that would be really expensive. The costs of the entire package would far exceed the cost of a used 737/A320 (even with fresh cargo conversion).

In the '80s, a twin-engine conversion was being considered for the 727. The engineering folks were at odds as to what to do with the #2 air inlet. The airline brass (I won't name names) said to just "plug it".

Aviano789 wrote:

reffado wrote:

Pretty sure any program development costs would not be offset by potential (if any) customer interest. Most - if not all - airlines who currently operate 727 aircraft do it because the frames are cheap to buy, not because they need any specific performance only the 727 offers. Any further re-engining costs would probably make the 727 unattractive.

I'm sure some of the more seasoned members here can give more detailed information.

Please correct me if I am wrong, it’s not like CFM would have to design and build a new engine from scratch, there should be a cost effective way to modify existing engines to accommodate and give the old lady a new airborne life.

The engine isn't the issue. As mentioned, it's what has to be done to the airplane to accommodate the engine that is the issue. Unless, of course, you make some really significant modifications to existing engines, in which case it would no longer be cost-effective.

You haven't really established why anyone would want to do something like this. As VetteDude pointed out, there are plenty of newer planes available, which still have supply chains producing spare parts, which can be converted to freighters if needed. The small handful of 727 operators left would be better off switching to those when their 727s run out of life rather than trying to re-engine something that has been sitting in the desert for 20 years.

Let it go, let it go...

There was already a TAY solution, which UPS used. It's over already. Give it a rest.

An interesting question and topic. It's fun to think about the possibility, even though it will never happen. Thank you OP for posting this.

No frame less than 24 years old and only 57 or so remaining in service, not a hope of anyone being interested in a re engine programme. The only really successful re engine programme I can recall was the DC8 where they converted 110 airframes, the resulting plane filled a niche in the market that had no competition. A re engined 727 would be competing with thousands of A320 and B737 series aircraft.

I heard that Delta has re-activated 10 727-222's and -251's for the summer flying season. The first class of Flight Engineers just went through initial training.

The DC9's come back in September.

The L1011's and DC10's are being retrofitted right now for the winter flying to the South and Islands.

Sure, right after the Fokker F-100NEO coming out.

Wow. Time flies and it's April first all over again.

It's April First and Groundhog day EVERY day on a.nut

RetiredNWA wrote:

I heard that Delta has re-activated 10 727-222's and -251's for the summer flying season. The first class of Flight Engineers just went through initial training.

The DC9's come back in September.

The L1011's and DC10's are being retrofitted right now for the winter flying to the South and Islands.

And didn't you hear about the refurbished ex-NWA Electra's returning to operate the Delta Shuttle routes?

Bongodog1964 wrote:

No frame less than 24 years old

Minor correction (or typo?), but the youngest 727 would be 34 years old, not 24.

VetteDude wrote:

No, and there are 2 reasons why not.

1. Being a rear engine aircraft, you cannot just bolt on much heavier engines onto an existing frame. Especially the middle engine, which would be impossible to retrofit to a high bypass fan. When the MD-80 series was developed into the MD-90 with heavier high bypass engines, MD had to stretch the aircraft in order to keep the center of gravity in check. The engineering work required to do this work would make it completely uneconomical, especially considering:

2. The 737ng, A320ceo, and 757 are plentiful, with thousands of frames in aggregate going to be retired over the next decade.

Also, the desert is quite tough on frames. More than a few years in the desert, and the frames are going to be completely shot. These planes you mentioned were not parked with the intention of returning to service, so they are going to be in awful shape. This is different than the CRJ-200s that were parked for a short time and are now being dragged out of the desert.

Even 737-300's are more modern than a 727. I recall reading years ago that a company wanted to convert 727's from 3 JT-8D's to 2 CFM-56's, but Boeing wasn't interested in giving them any technical support. There's no way Boeing will support any aircraft in Iran regardless of model much less support a hack of a model that has been out of production for 34 years.

What you are talking about is basically what Boeing proposed as one of the 727-300 idea... 3 "small fan" CFM56s, 2 man flight deck, fuselage stretch for 4 more rows of economy passengers. It would of had an improved wing and obviously a new tail section to fit the bigger engines. The 757 killed the project for obvious reasons.

Another 727-300 was an straight 2 engined 727-200 with 2 "GE CF7" turbofans which never entered service though also originally offered on the 757-100 and -200 though never built obviously.

In any case, while the 727 was a great plane in it's day, it wasn't as efficient as the 757 or later 737 no matter what engines you put on it.

northstardc4m wrote:

What you are talking about is basically what Boeing proposed as one of the 727-300 idea... 3 "small fan" CFM56s, 2 man flight deck, fuselage stretch for 4 more rows of economy passengers. It would of had an improved wing and obviously a new tail section to fit the bigger engines. The 757 killed the project for obvious reasons.

Another 727-300 was an straight 2 engined 727-200 with 2 "GE CF7" turbofans which never entered service though also originally offered on the 757-100 and -200 though never built obviously.

In any case, while the 727 was a great plane in it's day, it wasn't as efficient as the 757 or later 737 no matter what engines you put on it.

While some chose to disrespect others ideas, Thank you for establishing the facts on the subject.

KICT wrote:

Let it go, let it go...

Right. The 727, 757, 707, 737-200, and 720B are some of the greatest airplanes ever built. Like everything in life, there is a time to move on. Those airplanes are past their time and aren’t coming back.

hOMSaR wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

No frame less than 24 years old

Minor correction (or typo?), but the youngest 727 would be 34 years old, not 24.

Just can't count, and to be honest if it were 24 years it would be totally unfeasible, at 34 as it is its totally ridiculous

MO11 wrote:

There is also the issue of the third crewmember; you could redesign the cockpit systems so that they could be flown by two crew, but that would be really expensive. The costs of the entire package would far exceed the cost of a used 737/A320 (even with fresh cargo conversion).

In the '80s, a twin-engine conversion was being considered for the 727. The engineering folks were at odds as to what to do with the #2 air inlet. The airline brass (I won't name names) said to just "plug it".

I know the US Navy E-6's, the last 707-320's ever built, had a conversion from from the original 3 seat cockpit to a 2 seat cockpit based on the Next Generation 737 cockpit. In that case, the E-6 has decades of life left. It was built with CFM-56 engines installed at the factory, so it is much more fuel efficient than earlier 707's and has very long loiter times before requiring refueling. For the US Navy it makes lots of sense, because they are long lived assets with decades of service left. They need better engine reliability than ETOPS allows if they ever have to perform the mission for which they were designed. Over the long term, the Navy saves lots of money not having to fill slots for E-6 flight engineers for the 16 planes they have. They also same money by having more modern avionics based on the of the shelf commercial 737 program's NG avionics.

Likewise, the USAF converted its KC-135 fleet to a 2 seat cockpit that eliminated the flight engineer position. There are hundreds of KC-135 and C-135 variants still flying. It makes lots of sense to have both a more modern cockpit and decrease the crew size needed for each plane.

A one off engine conversion on one old 722 makes absolutely no economic sense.

current 727 operators operate the plane only because of how dirt cheap the airframe is to acquire right? An example I can think of is Kalitta Charters II. They probably do very few flights a day

Despite being an excellent freighter in post-pax lives, even FedEx got rid of their 727s in 2013. The economics of operating them just aren't there anymore.

As a 727 (and ever other trijet) fan since I was a kid, I miss the days of seeing the DL, UA, NW, etc 727s regularly at the airport pre-9/11.

I hate to say it, as to me it is the most beautiful plane ever built... It's not coming back.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

MO11 wrote:

There is also the issue of the third crewmember; you could redesign the cockpit systems so that they could be flown by two crew, but that would be really expensive. The costs of the entire package would far exceed the cost of a used 737/A320 (even with fresh cargo conversion).

In the '80s, a twin-engine conversion was being considered for the 727. The engineering folks were at odds as to what to do with the #2 air inlet. The airline brass (I won't name names) said to just "plug it".

I know the US Navy E-6's, the last 707-320's ever built, had a conversion from from the original 3 seat cockpit to a 2 seat cockpit based on the Next Generation 737 cockpit. In that case, the E-6 has decades of life left. It was built with CFM-56 engines installed at the factory, so it is much more fuel efficient than earlier 707's and has very long loiter times before requiring refueling. For the US Navy it makes lots of sense, because they are long lived assets with decades of service left. They need better engine reliability than ETOPS allows if they ever have to perform the mission for which they were designed. Over the long term, the Navy saves lots of money not having to fill slots for E-6 flight engineers for the 16 planes they have. They also same money by having more modern avionics based on the of the shelf commercial 737 program's NG avionics.

Likewise, the USAF converted its KC-135 fleet to a 2 seat cockpit that eliminated the flight engineer position. There are hundreds of KC-135 and C-135 variants still flying. It makes lots of sense to have both a more modern cockpit and decrease the crew size needed for each plane.

A one off engine conversion on one old 722 makes absolutely no economic sense.

The KC135 never had a Flight Engineer


And you’re wrong about the E6 as well, while the cockpit has been significantly updated this has been confined to the forward instrument panel which does look similar to the 737NG, the flight engineers panel still remains however, as does the FE


No modification program to eliminate that
crewmember and panel has ever been instituted and certainly won’t be at this point

flyingclrs727 wrote:

VetteDude wrote:

No, and there are 2 reasons why not.

1. Being a rear engine aircraft, you cannot just bolt on much heavier engines onto an existing frame. Especially the middle engine, which would be impossible to retrofit to a high bypass fan. When the MD-80 series was developed into the MD-90 with heavier high bypass engines, MD had to stretch the aircraft in order to keep the center of gravity in check. The engineering work required to do this work would make it completely uneconomical, especially considering:

2. The 737ng, A320ceo, and 757 are plentiful, with thousands of frames in aggregate going to be retired over the next decade.

Also, the desert is quite tough on frames. More than a few years in the desert, and the frames are going to be completely shot. These planes you mentioned were not parked with the intention of returning to service, so they are going to be in awful shape. This is different than the CRJ-200s that were parked for a short time and are now being dragged out of the desert.

Even 737-300's are more modern than a 727. I recall reading years ago that a company wanted to convert 727's from 3 JT-8D's to 2 CFM-56's, but Boeing wasn't interested in giving them any technical support. There's no way Boeing will support any aircraft in Iran regardless of model much less support a hack of a model that has been out of production for 34 years.

737-300s started to fly in 1984, they belong to another generation of aircrafts, the 727-200 is from 1967, totally old school if we compare the two of them.

It's good to dream a bit, the 727s were amazing machines and it would be fantastic to see them getting a re-vamp but unfortunately it's something that will never happen. I started my career flying the 727-100s, it was a great time for three-holers but that time is gone

To add to the fact that it would be extremely dificult technologically to add high-bypass turbofans to the 727s... It would have made more sense for a proposal back when there were many more 727s flying, unlike today.

Point being is that there aren't enough 727s flying today to justify such a project.

I thought there was a 727 re-engine program?!? I mean sorta there was, they put a couple MD80 engines on the back of it. That’s as good as it’s gonna get.

Max Q wrote:

The KC135 never had a Flight Engineer

It most certainly did.

Max Q wrote:

No modification program to eliminate that
crewmember and panel has ever been instituted and certainly won’t be at this point

MD-10

MO11 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The KC135 never had a Flight Engineer

It most certainly did.

Max Q wrote:

No modification program to eliminate that
crewmember and panel has ever been instituted and certainly won’t be at this point

MD-10

Incorrect


None of the KC135 aircraft had a flight engineer or associated panel



All systems control is shared between the two pilots


The E6 is a different aircraft altogether, it
uses the same, larger airframe as the B707
and the same flight deck with a flight engineer position and associated panel


While it’s true that DC10’s were modified to the MD10 configuration eliminating the FE that’s not what you were discussing


It’s a very significant modification to eliminate the FE and panel in any aircraft but in the case of the DC10 there was a template, the MD11 for which the automation required for systems monitoring, function and control had been developed.




There is no such template for the 707 !
While it would be technically possible to design and modify automation to eliminate the FE in this aircraft the cost would be enormous and require a recertification which, while worthwhile for FEDEX and the number of airframes involved would never be worthwhile for the small number of E6 aircraft

RetiredNWA wrote:

The L1011's and DC10's are being retrofitted right now for the winter flying to the South and Islands.

Id pay good money to fly any of the big trijets !!!

Aviano789 wrote:

I could be wrong, but I think Iran Aseman Airlines is probably the last operator of regular B727 passenger service. Their aircraft fly from Tehran Mehrabad and other Iranian cities domestic and international services. There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service, while the Southern California Desert is full of able frames that can still fly for a number of years if re-engine.

Woa! Hold on there Cowboy! Just WHO do you think is going to Jail in moving airplanes and Parts to IRAN from the USA?? You'd have to get an Export License to move those parts and you believe you're going to get one For Iran? REALLY? If the Air frames and Engines are already in the Region? You might have a HINT of a chance. But if they're NOT?? You're SOL Pal. Not enough Money in the world to go to Jail for "20 pieces of Silver"...

trnswrld wrote:

I thought there was a 727 re-engine program?!? I mean sorta there was, they put a couple MD80 engines on the back of it. That’s as good as it’s gonna get.

There Was a Re-engining program created by VALSAN. Where they removed the #1 & #3 JT8D 7/9/15 or -17 and replaced them with the -217 or -219's in the #1 and #3 position. It made the airplane a ROCKET!
I think Jim Gabbert has the mod on his B727-200 I've never seen one modded with the CFM-56 or the IAE V2500 though. But there was a mod with the ROLLS BR715 that UPS did on some B727-200 airplanes if I recall correctly.

strfyr51 wrote:

there was a mod with the ROLLS BR715 that UPS did on some B727-200 airplanes if I recall correctly.

It was the RR Tay engine, which was a solution available only for the -100 series. That was fine because that's the only 727 version that UPS ever flew. UPS did it on 40 aircraft initially (at $10 million a pop), with an option for another 40. Dee Howard Co. was the contractor. They had looked at the Valsan alternative, but liked the TAY better, as it was a newer design and more fuel-efficient (and replaced all 3 engines). They said that they had to replace like 7 miles of wire in each aircraft. This was a big job. And UPS ate all the program costs in the initial contract. At the time, they loved the 727-100, because it carried 8 containers and that was optimal for them. The 15 containers on the 757F (which they bought new) was at that time considered bigger than necessary for many of their routes. When they later retired all the 727s, they said that the planes were still great, but didn't carry enough containers. What a difference a few years makes.

VetteDude wrote:

No, and there are 2 reasons why not.

1. Being a rear engine aircraft, you cannot just bolt on much heavier engines onto an existing frame. Especially the middle engine, which would be impossible to retrofit to a high bypass fan. When the MD-80 series was developed into the MD-90 with heavier high bypass engines, MD had to stretch the aircraft in order to keep the center of gravity in check. The engineering work required to do this work would make it completely uneconomical, especially considering:

2. The 737ng, A320ceo, and 757 are plentiful, with thousands of frames in aggregate going to be retired over the next decade.

Also, the desert is quite tough on frames. More than a few years in the desert, and the frames are going to be completely shot. These planes you mentioned were not parked with the intention of returning to service, so they are going to be in awful shape. This is different than the CRJ-200s that were parked for a short time and are now being dragged out of the desert.

The desert is less tough on airframes. Thats why they store them in the desert!

Max Q wrote:

MO11 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

The KC135 never had a Flight Engineer

It most certainly did.

Max Q wrote:

No modification program to eliminate that
crewmember and panel has ever been instituted and certainly won’t be at this point

MD-10

Incorrect


None of the KC135 aircraft had a flight engineer or associated panel



All systems control is shared between the two pilots


The E6 is a different aircraft altogether, it
uses the same, larger airframe as the B707
and the same flight deck with a flight engineer position and associated panel


While it’s true that DC10’s were modified to the MD10 configuration eliminating the FE that’s not what you were discussing


It’s a very significant modification to eliminate the FE and panel in any aircraft but in the case of the DC10 there was a template, the MD11 for which the automation required for systems monitoring, function and control had been developed.




There is no such template for the 707 !
While it would be technically possible to design and modify automation to eliminate the FE in this aircraft the cost would be enormous and require a recertification which, while worthwhile for FEDEX and the number of airframes involved would never be worthwhile for the small number of E6 aircraft

True the 3rd person in the cockpit where the FE was is the boom operator position.

wjcandee wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

there was a mod with the ROLLS BR715 that UPS did on some B727-200 airplanes if I recall correctly.

It was the RR Tay engine, which was a solution available only for the -100 series. That was fine because that's the only 727 version that UPS ever flew.

Not exactly,

https://www.airliners.net/photo/United-P ... F5C3NVg%3D

Isn't this the same poster that went on about how dangerous CFM's were on 737's that are flying over the ocean? Good grief.

Production ended in 1984 so the youngest one is 34 years old. It is not coming back even if its name is Christine

The nasty thing about tail mounted engines is that changing the engines changes the centre of mass by a lot, as the distance from the centre of mass to the engines is long. So if you add weight on the back, you need to add weight on the front to keep the centre of mass in the same spot.

seahawk wrote:

The nasty thing about tail mounted engines is that changing the engines changes the centre of mass by a lot, as the distance from the centre of mass to the engines is long. So if you add weight on the back, you need to add weight on the front to keep the centre of mass in the same spot.

Indeed, even changing engines #1 and 3 from the original JT-8Ds to the -200 series on the 727RE required 1500 pounds of ballast to be added to the nose section for balance.

strfyr51 wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

I could be wrong, but I think Iran Aseman Airlines is probably the last operator of regular B727 passenger service. Their aircraft fly from Tehran Mehrabad and other Iranian cities domestic and international services. There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service, while the Southern California Desert is full of able frames that can still fly for a number of years if re-engine.

Woa! Hold on there Cowboy! Just WHO do you think is going to Jail in moving airplanes and Parts to IRAN from the USA?? You'd have to get an Export License to move those parts and you believe you're going to get one For Iran? REALLY? If the Air frames and Engines are already in the Region? You might have a HINT of a chance. But if they're NOT?? You're SOL Pal. Not enough Money in the world to go to Jail for "20 pieces of Silver"...

FYI: Nowhere in the post did I mentioned any one was trying to sell/smuggle aircraft parts to embargoed Iran. You might consider improving your English comprehension skills.

Aviano789 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

I could be wrong, but I think Iran Aseman Airlines is probably the last operator of regular B727 passenger service. Their aircraft fly from Tehran Mehrabad and other Iranian cities domestic and international services. There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service, while the Southern California Desert is full of able frames that can still fly for a number of years if re-engine.

Woa! Hold on there Cowboy! Just WHO do you think is going to Jail in moving airplanes and Parts to IRAN from the USA?? You'd have to get an Export License to move those parts and you believe you're going to get one For Iran? REALLY? If the Air frames and Engines are already in the Region? You might have a HINT of a chance. But if they're NOT?? You're SOL Pal. Not enough Money in the world to go to Jail for "20 pieces of Silver"...

FYI: Nowhere in the post did I mentioned any one was trying to sell/smuggle aircraft parts to embargoed Iran. You might consider improving your English comprehension skills.

You did mention Iran Aseman Airlines as "probably the last operator of regular 727 passenger service", didn't you? Inarticulate though he was, his point had some foundation to it.
The Iran embargo is just another shot in the foot for this idea that will never happen for the myriad reasons other posters brought up.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Woa! Hold on there Cowboy! Just WHO do you think is going to Jail in moving airplanes and Parts to IRAN from the USA?? You'd have to get an Export License to move those parts and you believe you're going to get one For Iran? REALLY? If the Air frames and Engines are already in the Region? You might have a HINT of a chance. But if they're NOT?? You're SOL Pal. Not enough Money in the world to go to Jail for "20 pieces of Silver"...

FYI: Nowhere in the post did I mentioned any one was trying to sell/smuggle aircraft parts to embargoed Iran. You might consider improving your English comprehension skills.

You did mention Iran Aseman Airlines as "probably the last operator of regular 727 passenger service", didn't you? Inarticulate though he was, his point had some foundation to it.
The Iran embargo is just another shot in the foot for this idea that will never happen for the myriad reasons other posters brought up.

The Post also cite the following: "There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service".

Aviano789 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

FYI: Nowhere in the post did I mentioned any one was trying to sell/smuggle aircraft parts to embargoed Iran. You might consider improving your English comprehension skills.

You did mention Iran Aseman Airlines as "probably the last operator of regular 727 passenger service", didn't you? Inarticulate though he was, his point had some foundation to it.
The Iran embargo is just another shot in the foot for this idea that will never happen for the myriad reasons other posters brought up.

The Post also cite the following: "There are still a number of operators in Latin America and Africa who fly them in freight service".

Hence a shot in the foot, not the chest.

[quote="reffado"]Pretty sure any program development costs would not be offset by potential (if any) customer interest. Most - if not all - airlines who currently operate 727 aircraft do it because the frames are cheap to buy..."

When it come to cheap, old airframes, never count Delta out! Personally, I still think those DC-9s are still fair game to fly again. Just sayin'.

wjcandee wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

there was a mod with the ROLLS BR715 that UPS did on some B727-200 airplanes if I recall correctly.

It was the RR Tay engine, which was a solution available only for the -100 series. That was fine because that's the only 727 version that UPS ever flew.

Except for the 8 or so -200s it flew. But yes, the Tay was only on the -100.

Max Q wrote:

None of the KC135 aircraft had a flight engineer or associated panel



All systems control is shared between the two pilots

I apologize. Is the guy delirious, then?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1096343/love-for-flying-kept-last-kc-135-flight-engineer-flying-for-decades/

MO11 wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

there was a mod with the ROLLS BR715 that UPS did on some B727-200 airplanes if I recall correctly.

It was the RR Tay engine, which was a solution available only for the -100 series. That was fine because that's the only 727 version that UPS ever flew.

Except for the 8 or so -200s it flew. But yes, the Tay was only on the -100.

Indeed, and the -200s were the first to go post-9/11 when UPS wanted to get rid an entire engine type.

"Could CFM International offer the B-727 a new lease on life ?"

Could have. Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney did it with the 727-300, now known as the 757-200. The Boeing 757 program was originally named the 727-300 program.

https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewconten ... text=jaaer

"Rolls Royce has successfully re-engined 727-100 models, but has not re-engined any 727-200 models. The
Rolls Royce program is a complete re-engining since all three engines are replaced with new engines. Rolls Royce
uses the Tay 651 to re-engine 727-1OOs."

"Rolls Royce conceptualized the Tay 670, which supplies 18,000 pounds of thrust, an ample amount to
lift the 727-200."

"International Aero Engines (IAE) and Volpar Inc. Both have programs to transform the 727 from its present triengine
configuration to a twin-engine aircraft. The engine in the tail would be removed, leaving the two
outboard engines which would supply enough thrust to power the airplane and still cut present fuel burn by 26%."

"Dee Howard and Mytel plan to offer a cockpit conversion for the 727 for $1 million, reducing the
number of pilots needed from three to two. The total cost of all three retrofits is $10.1 million."

The 2 bigger heavier engines without the 'mid' engine would probably keep the CG where it was, as there would be no 'mid' engine with it's aft moment, in place of the 3 lighter JT8Ds. Boeing even thought about it. Would have been neat to see....