Boeing 727

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
User avatar
pianokeys
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:35 pm

Boeing 727

Post by pianokeys » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:41 pm

Anyone here ever fly the 727 for AC? I heard its an airplane that youll never master landing, even if you grease it on once or twice, the next time wont be so lucky. How was the 727 at AC?
---------- ADS -----------
  

skypirate88
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am

Re: Boeing 727

Post by skypirate88 » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:01 am

I didn't fly it for AC but I've got about 1800 hours in them. I absolutely loved the airplane. It was built tough and hand flew very well. I don't remember having any real challenge with landing unless you were very light. When it was light there was a tendency for it to float and eat up runway, so you had to set it down. I flew them as freighters so we often landed closer to the max landing weight.
---------- ADS -----------
  
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere

BMLtech
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:37 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by BMLtech » Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:14 am

It was said that the 727 is one of those airplanes that will never kill you, only the guy in the front can do that..
---------- ADS -----------
  

Lightchop
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 10:03 am

Re: Boeing 727

Post by Lightchop » Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 am

Sounds like the Q400..
---------- ADS -----------
  

fleetcanuck
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by fleetcanuck » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:37 am

I spent quite a few years between the side seat and the right seat. I observed and found that it was difficult to get consistently good landings with it. Those few who could were indeed masters of the hands and feet, as was proven in their other endeavours as well.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by FADEC » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:25 am

it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Boeing 727

Post by Old fella » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:51 pm

FADEC wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:25 am
it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.
Ever fly the L-1011 during your AC time, if so what was it like.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by pelmet » Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:54 am

FADEC wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:25 am
it depends which version you were flying.
The -100 flew much better than the -200. The original short version and the long version shared the same wing, so the little one was easier to land; more forgiving.
The -200 was (after flying Douglas airplanes and subsequently other Boeings) a pig. A common name for it was "The Pigboat".
There was a LOT of drag in landing configuration; heaven help you if you pulled the power back before the flare; it would stop flying immediately.
It was for most, a two out of three airplane; two good landings, and one "other".
Jack Desmarais (AKA Ace McCool) was an exception; he could be telling you a story, smoking a cigarette, seemingly doing nothing at all, and he would flare at 3/8ths of an inch, smoothly touching down every time.
I was present at a different sort of landing in Halifax. A different Captain was flying and attempted to break the earth's crust. After we slowed a little, I glanced at the S/O, observing a face the colour of the uniform shirt.
I mentioned quietly to the Captain that we should write up a hard landing; he said; "I've seen lots worse than that"! I tried again on taxi in, with similar results.
I spoke quietly to maintenance who did a cursory check and found nothing wrong.
We had to deadhead back to Toronto on the same aircraft. On arrival the APU wouldn't start, because the oil had run out through the broken casing.
I went to the Chief Pilot's office and told the story. He said his hands were tied because the Captain wouldn't write up the snag.
The aircraft spent a few days in the hangar as bits of damage were found.
The 727-200 was a fuel hog; burning almost double what the DC9 did, in fact, as much as a DC8-63 which carried a lot more.
The 727 took four times the maintenance per flight hour of a DC9, had higher crew costs, and was generally not a good idea. AC only took 39 of the original 42 ordered, and it didn't last that long in the fleet.
It was an OK airplane when fuel and maintenance was cheap, but that time was long past.
The key to the 727-200 landing is to flare and then push forward(or at least relax the control column a bit) to try to roll it on. Doesn't always work but frequently does. It is the kind of plane where you can be thinking in the flare that it will be a beautiful touchdown(followed by Bang) or be thinking that it will be a hard touchdown and you get a perfect greaser.

Depending on flap setting, chopping the thrust at any significant altitude is a big no-no. Continental had a DC-10 guy try that at 50 feet with flaps 40 going into a South Pacific Island and the result was a plane crash. Cut the thrust in the flare. DC-10 techniques may not apply to a 727.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
EPR
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: Boeing 727

Post by EPR » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:44 pm

It was the plane that got me interested in aviation after a flight in the "jump seat", but I do recall the F/O blurting out an expletive right during the flare to touch down..lol.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Keep the dirty side down.

FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by FADEC » Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 am

I do recall one time when the landing seemed lost; I pushed as hard as I could and it was a thing of beauty!
I tried to do that on other occasions; usually worked.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Boeing 727

Post by pelmet » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:33 am

FADEC wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 am
I do recall one time when the landing seemed lost; I pushed as hard as I could and it was a thing of beauty!
I tried to do that on other occasions; usually worked.
Can't say that I ever would have recommended pushing forward as hard as you can. Interesting. Perhaps only in a bad situation to start with. A bit of a push can work on some other types as well that are even bigger but apparently, it is not a good idea on the old L-1011. In that case you are not changing pitch but instead, extending spoilers for the Direct Lift Control(DLC) system used on approach and the landing will just be made worse. 727 techniques may not work in an L-1011.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”