Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
rjsampson
Topic Author
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

"Love for the 727" Thread

Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:21 pm

[Apologies if a similar thread already exists in TechOps. To protect everyone's time: Feel free to refer me to it. Anyway:]

There's obviously a lot of love that pops up throughout the forums for the 72, both from pilots and passengers..

My last memory of the type was when I jumpsat [that's a word, right?] on a Kiwi Airlines ferry. It was a cool airline

I noted cruise was .82, which I thought fast for a narrowbody. The FE told me that was "econ" cruise. Wow! From my perspective, the look of the aircraft and speed were pretty cool.

Especially given the opposite sentiments expressed for its successor the 73, I'd be interested in other reasons the 72 garners so much love, from so many people. Thoughts?
"..your eyes will be forever turned skyward, for there.." yeah we know the DaVinci quote. Unfortunately, we're grounded :(
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:02 pm

My favorite thing about it is that it was an absolute dream to hand fly. Very well balanced and responsive with no surprises. 3 man crew is the way to go too, love me an FE.

The design is very pleasing to the eye. Even though it was designed nearly 60 years ago it still looks futuristic. Built for speed she would get you there safely and cut through rough air like a hot knife through butter. The plastic airplane I fly now is very easy to fly but the buffet margins are so narrow and it's so sensitive you can tell it's just not built like they used to build them. Nothing like the tank that is the 727.

It's years remaining are numbered but I am happy to have joined the ranks that got to fly it.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:27 am

tb727 wrote:
It's years remaining are numbered but I am happy to have joined the ranks that got to fly it.


Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too. An amazing bird!
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:32 am

tb727 wrote:
My favorite thing about it is that it was an absolute dream to hand fly. Very well balanced and responsive with no surprises. 3 man crew is the way to go too, love me an FE.

The design is very pleasing to the eye. Even though it was designed nearly 60 years ago it still looks futuristic. Built for speed she would get you there safely and cut through rough air like a hot knife through butter. The plastic airplane I fly now is very easy to fly but the buffet margins are so narrow and it's so sensitive you can tell it's just not built like they used to build them. Nothing like the tank that is the 727.

It's years remaining are numbered but I am happy to have joined the ranks that got to fly it.


Couldn't say it better myself, i'd just add that not only was it beautifully responsive it was very stable as well, it didn't wander all over the sky
like an MD80, wherever you pointed it, that's where it went.


Best handling narrowbody ever made and the best looking, she shrugged off turbulence and was just a blast to fly.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:17 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
tb727 wrote:
It's years remaining are numbered but I am happy to have joined the ranks that got to fly it.


Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too. An amazing bird!


That goes to the old joke when the jumpseater looked up and said "Jeeez, why are you doing .88?!" Then the Captain turns around and says "Because she shakes too much at .89!"
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:29 pm

The -200 is easily and by a big margin the sleekest, best-looking airliner ever designed --bar none. And had something like a Mmo of 0.90 IIRC...incredible...didn't know it also handled so well too...hats off to Boeing...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
richcam427
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:32 pm

tb727 wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
tb727 wrote:
It's years remaining are numbered but I am happy to have joined the ranks that got to fly it.


Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too. An amazing bird!


That goes to the old joke when the jumpseater looked up and said "Jeeez, why are you doing .88?!" Then the Captain turns around and says "Because she shakes too much at .89!"


I whimper at the thought of the fuel burn of a 727 at M0.89.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20219
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:44 pm

richcam427 wrote:
tb727 wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too. An amazing bird!


That goes to the old joke when the jumpseater looked up and said "Jeeez, why are you doing .88?!" Then the Captain turns around and says "Because she shakes too much at .89!"


I whimper at the thought of the fuel burn of a 727 at M0.89.


AFAIK, the 727 burned about 4 tons an hour.

Compare to a full 350, which burns about 6 tons an hour on a 12 hour flight, and less than 5 on a short flight. We've come a long way.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:14 am

Starlionblue wrote:
richcam427 wrote:
tb727 wrote:

That goes to the old joke when the jumpseater looked up and said "Jeeez, why are you doing .88?!" Then the Captain turns around and says "Because she shakes too much at .89!"


I whimper at the thought of the fuel burn of a 727 at M0.89.


AFAIK, the 727 burned about 4 tons an hour.

Compare to a full 350, which burns about 6 tons an hour on a 12 hour flight, and less than 5 on a short flight. We've come a long way.


At heavier weights I always ballparked fuel burn to be 12,000 the first hour, about 11,000 the 2nd and 10,000 the 3rd, 9,000 after that. Lighter of course it was a little over 10 the 1st and down around 9 after that. They sure don't make them as thirsty as they used to.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:58 am

A Northwest Orient 727 was the first (commercial) aircraft I ever flew on, back in Feb. of '84 from MSP to ORD. Seemed so roomy...
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:39 pm

Fro completeness' sake...there was however that mention of the 727 as flying like a sink on approach...that the slightest speed/pitch attitude excursion from stabilised approach values would compromise the landing...comments?...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:39 pm

Faro wrote:
Fro completeness' sake...there was however that mention of the 727 as flying like a sink on approach...that the slightest speed/pitch attitude excursion from stabilised approach values would compromise the landing...comments?...

Faro


I never found that to be true. With a really forward CG it flew very stable approaches. Set the thrust levers "straight up" and make small adjustments from there, trim it and you didn't really have to touch it. Sometimes you could use #2 to make any adjustments you needed.

Landings, yeah, those were different every time. It was tough to try and get a great landing. It seemed that if you were like "awwww yeah this is gonna be awes..." bam you would clang it on. Other times you would brace for impact and it would just grease it on. I was taught by guys that were very afraid of tailstrikes so I think old school guys that flew them forever at passenger carriers probably had better techniques. That's another great thing about the plane, there was a myriad of different techniques you could use to fly it. Every airplane you fly though, the good landing starts way out on the approach being stable. Always stay miles ahead of the airplane and you'll do fine.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:17 pm

Faro wrote:
Fro completeness' sake...there was however that mention of the 727 as flying like a sink on approach...that the slightest speed/pitch attitude excursion from stabilised approach values would compromise the landing...comments?...
Faro


For the 727-200 let's put it this way -- having sat in the copilots seat watching dozens of different pilots from different airlines try and make a smooth landing it was interesting to say the least. From carrying extra speed to de-rotating instead of flairing -- several airlines also locked out the Flaps 40 detent. And when it bit you, it bit you -- hard to keep your sun glasses on. To make smooth landings was even more difficult in those few airplanes equipped with autothrottles that could be engaged during landing

An example of this is, in the early 80's I took the Delta chief pilot for a demonstration flight in a 732 (they had just ordered a bunch). On the first landing, in spite of the calm conditions, he was going through a lot of unnecessary control movements which seemed very weird. On downwind I thought about it and figured out he was using his 722 landing technique, told him to treat it like a C-172 and things were fine from there on.

As for the 721 I didn't spend much time in it, but it was entirely different.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:06 am

If I had a dollar for everyone that recommends flying a jet transport like a 172.


Sorry, but that's ridiculous, when operating a jet aircraft, you need to fly it like a jet with all of the relevant considerations. I've never flown any
jet transport that flies remotely like a 172, to make such a statement trivializes the significant difference between the two and can get pilots
in trouble.



The 727 was very stable on approach and as good as you can get in strong, gusty winds, no other airliner comes close, you did have to be careful not to let an excessive sink rate develop, if it did you need to respond immediately with a SIGNIFICANT increase in thrust, increasing pitch will just have you hit harder with a higher pitch attitude.


As TB said, it was hard to make consistent good landings and I saw lots of different, sometimes bizarre techniques, very important not to get slow, but with a stable, on speed approach without excessive sink you could flare the 727 and land with idle thrust for a very smooth landing.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:44 am

Max Q wrote:
If I had a dollar for everyone that recommends flying a jet transport like a 172.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous, when operating a jet aircraft, you need to fly it like a jet with all of the relevant considerations. I've never flown any
jet transport that flies remotely like a 172, to make such a statement trivializes the significant difference between the two and can get pilots
in trouble.


Mock it if you like, he must have known what I meant -- had several perfectly normal 732 landings after that -- trying to land a 732 using his 727 technique never would have worked well.
 
User avatar
rjsampson
Topic Author
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:29 am

Have never flown a commercial airliner. Just some sim time (I got a hookup at FlightSafety. 1-4 hours in all sorts of crazy things. My logbook makes me look way cooler than I am). In a Level C sim, the 72 was fun to fly...

Uh, .88 in cruise? And I was impressed with .82.

I'm not gonna be the typical anutter and engage in a thought experiment here, that would never be feasible today.

... but I can't help myself. It's the 72. I also swore off chocolate 2 months ago. Yet here I am: ensuring the heaviest passenger sit in the back, to my right, for WB. (This always a fun part of passengers, especially female passengers. "Weight and Balance" in such cases.. well you can imagine.' Especially female of its marriage to the 707 fuselage: How about we strap a pair of CFMs, or PW's shiny new GTFs to the original 722 airframe? I have no doubt how unrealistic this is.

That wing, that tail, that aspect ratio.. a man can dream.

EDIT: yes of course with eng 1 and 2 only. Not 1, 2, and 3
"..your eyes will be forever turned skyward, for there.." yeah we know the DaVinci quote. Unfortunately, we're grounded :(
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2102
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:51 pm

richcam427 wrote:
tb727 wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too. An amazing bird!


That goes to the old joke when the jumpseater looked up and said "Jeeez, why are you doing .88?!" Then the Captain turns around and says "Because she shakes too much at .89!"


I whimper at the thought of the fuel burn of a 727 at M0.89.


IIRC, The barber poll was at .88 and we sat right on top of it for whole three hours without setting off the over-speed clacker once (no auto-throttles either); this was all at FL290 and so we pretty much had to shout at each other as the flight deck was very loud. Fortunately, the ride was completely smooth. This was necessitated by a family medical emergency that I learned about just before departure and the only way to get all the way home that night was to hurry to make my connection (as originally scheduled, we were due to arrive only 3 minutes before the last departure towards home; we blocked in 23 minutes early and I made the connection).

The 727 was - and is - a truly great aircraft; I'm grateful to have had the experience of flying her for several years.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:55 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
IIRC, The barber poll was at .88 and we sat right on top of it for whole three hours without setting off the over-speed clacker once (no auto-throttles either); this was all at FL290 and so we pretty much had to shout at each other as the flight deck was very loud. Fortunately, the ride was completely smooth. This was necessitated by a family medical emergency that I learned about just before departure and the only way to get all the way home that night was to hurry to make my connection (as originally scheduled, we were due to arrive only 3 minutes before the last departure towards home; we blocked in 23 minutes early and I made the connection).

The 727 was - and is - a truly great aircraft; I'm grateful to have had the experience of flying her for several years.


When the barber pole was a goal, not a limitation.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:09 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
If I had a dollar for everyone that recommends flying a jet transport like a 172.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous, when operating a jet aircraft, you need to fly it like a jet with all of the relevant considerations. I've never flown any
jet transport that flies remotely like a 172, to make such a statement trivializes the significant difference between the two and can get pilots
in trouble.


Mock it if you like, he must have known what I meant -- had several perfectly normal 732 landings after that -- trying to land a 732 using his 727 technique never would have worked well.



There's a significant difference between recommending against using the 727 technique for landing a 737 and telling someone to fly it like a 172.


Jets should be flown like jets.




Incidentally our MMO on the 727 in 'A' mode was .9 Mach.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
rjsampson
Topic Author
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:00 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:29 am

Max Q wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
If I had a dollar for everyone that recommends flying a jet transport like a 172.


Max Q wrote:
Jets should be flown like jets.


:checkmark:

FlyHossD wrote:
Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too


A passenger version of Citation X, developed 50 years prior. Cool. Sounds like the bean counters (at least back in the day), for freight carriers were much more lax about the gas bill.

Only met the man once, but Connie was always described to me as a notorious penny-pincher. But then again, his hobby is burning massive amounts of fuel to go as fast as possible. Now I understand how TB was able to get away with the barber pole being a "goal" as opposed to a "limitation." Now that he's programming a computer these days, I would imagine the overlords paying for his plastic office look at the barber pole differently. Gotta feel for the guy.

TB: On separate note: Your avatar is "only" .86. Never got a snapshot of the .88 and .89 the others are bragging about?
"..your eyes will be forever turned skyward, for there.." yeah we know the DaVinci quote. Unfortunately, we're grounded :(
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sat Feb 11, 2017 7:21 pm

rjsampson wrote:
Max Q wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:


Max Q wrote:
Jets should be flown like jets.


:checkmark:

FlyHossD wrote:
Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too


A passenger version of Citation X, developed 50 years prior. Cool. Sounds like the bean counters (at least back in the day), for freight carriers were much more lax about the gas bill.

Only met the man once, but Connie was always described to me as a notorious penny-pincher. But then again, his hobby is burning massive amounts of fuel to go as fast as possible. Now I understand how TB was able to get away with the barber pole being a "goal" as opposed to a "limitation." Now that he's programming a computer these days, I would imagine the overlords paying for his plastic office look at the barber pole differently. Gotta feel for the guy.

TB: On separate note: Your avatar is "only" .86. Never got a snapshot of the .88 and .89 the others are bragging about?


Connie is frugal, that's for sure but he lives pretty fast. Well not so much these days.

.86 is the fastest I ever caught, I've just about kissed .88. The winglet mods had a limit of .87 even though we only had 2 of those. The other freighters were restricted to "B" which was .88.

I'm paid by the hour now, so the slower the better most of the time:) I just punch in whatever Cost Index they come up with. I was paid by the hour on the freighters too but in 5 years I only broke guarantee 3 times. We figured that we might as well just get the day over with and go fast.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
User avatar
thefactorypilot
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:10 am

tb727 wrote:
rjsampson wrote:
Max Q wrote:


Max Q wrote:
Jets should be flown like jets.


:checkmark:

FlyHossD wrote:
Me, too. We cruised it at .88 Mach for three hours one night - it was loud in the cockpit - yet she could fit onto a runway less than 6,000' long, too


A passenger version of Citation X, developed 50 years prior. Cool. Sounds like the bean counters (at least back in the day), for freight carriers were much more lax about the gas bill.

Only met the man once, but Connie was always described to me as a notorious penny-pincher. But then again, his hobby is burning massive amounts of fuel to go as fast as possible. Now I understand how TB was able to get away with the barber pole being a "goal" as opposed to a "limitation." Now that he's programming a computer these days, I would imagine the overlords paying for his plastic office look at the barber pole differently. Gotta feel for the guy.

TB: On separate note: Your avatar is "only" .86. Never got a snapshot of the .88 and .89 the others are bragging about?


Connie is frugal, that's for sure but he lives pretty fast. Well not so much these days.

.86 is the fastest I ever caught, I've just about kissed .88. The winglet mods had a limit of .87 even though we only had 2 of those. The other freighters were restricted to "B" which was .88.

I'm paid by the hour now, so the slower the better most of the time:) I just punch in whatever Cost Index they come up with. I was paid by the hour on the freighters too but in 5 years I only broke guarantee 3 times. We figured that we might as well just get the day over with and go fast.


Can you please explain the A and B modes you are talking about? Was it a physical change to the ASI and clacker, or just a method of flying it?
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:43 am

A/B mode was a function of zero fuel weight. Our 727's had a switch on the airspeed indicator that limited VMO / MMO in B mode at higher ZFW's

I don't remember that ZFW number but i'm thinking it was 130,000 pounds, below that VMO / MMO was 380/.9 and above 350 and I think .86 mach but not sure on the latter.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
thefactorypilot
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:57 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:39 am

Max Q wrote:
A/B mode was a function of zero fuel weight. Our 727's had a switch on the airspeed indicator that limited VMO / MMO in B mode at higher ZFW's

I don't remember that ZFW number but i'm thinking it was 130,000 pounds, below that VMO / MMO was 380/.9 and above 350 and I think .86 mach but not sure on the latter.

Wow vmo of 380! My vmo is 335 before it starts clackin.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:50 am

Yes, bit noisy at that speed but serious fun.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
mighluss
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 12:11 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:48 pm

Long time ago I've read a history about pulling some circuit breaker, allowing slats to be extended for higher and faster cruise...

anyone to refresh my lazy memory?
Miquel.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:39 pm

Think of Hoot Gibson, TWA and was not the slats but rather the trailing edge flaps as he wanted to prevent a slat extension or so the story goes.Sort of like the current 787 flap system. Hoot was just ahead of his time, although he denied it:)
 
User avatar
mighluss
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 12:11 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Mon Feb 13, 2017 7:58 pm

thanks! must read a little bit more about 787 flap system. :D
Miquel.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:15 am

BravoOne wrote:
Think of Hoot Gibson, TWA and was not the slats but rather the trailing edge flaps as he wanted to prevent a slat extension or so the story goes.Sort of like the current 787 flap system. Hoot was just ahead of his time, although he denied it:)



It sounds like the rumors about that incident have you convinced Captain Gibson caused that incident.
I'd suggest reading 'Scapegoat' by Emilio Corsetti.



This author dug deeply into the facts of that case and the extremely flawed, biased NTSB investigation.
I was never sure about what really happened that night but the book removed any doubts about the crew performance
for me.



I won't give much away, but the book (which was just published) points out that not one of the three cockpit crewmembers
were sanctioned or penalized by TWA or the FAA, in fact Captain Gibson transitioned to the L1011 and B747 left seats subsequent
to the incident. The Airline believed them.



There's a lot more to the book and I think it will change your mind. Worth checking out.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:10 pm

Max Q I did no such thing and as a matter of fact I have more than a couple of drinks with the man prior to his passing. I have not had a chance to read the book so I will check it out.
 
FlyMKG
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:49 am

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:59 am

tb727 wrote:
When the barber pole was a goal, not a limitation.


"You feel that shake? That's how you know you've chosen the right speed!"
"If you're not clackin, you're slackin!"
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: "Love for the 727" Thread

Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:19 am

BravoOne wrote:
Max Q I did no such thing and as a matter of fact I have more than a couple of drinks with the man prior to his passing. I have not had a chance to read the book so I will check it out.




Your 'Hoot was ahead of his time' quote gave me a different impression. Glad to hear you had a chance to meet Captain Gibson.


I think you'll find the book very interesting.


Best wishes
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: thepinkmachine, TMfcs and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos