Are cockpit visits even allowed these days? I kinda 'used' my boys when they were young to get us all a visit - I was much more interested than them! But today I dunno? I guess it's still up to the Captain, but (s)he may get in trouble if 'caught'? Cheers, Ian
I believe its illegal now in the U.S. Back even when I was a teenager, it was almost guaranteed, if they flight didn't have other kids. The trick. My Dad was a private pilot and read Flying magazine. Id read Flying on flights. Flight attendants would see the magazine and usually you'd get the invite. My parents had a house in Lake Tahoe. Almost every weekend we'd fly Vancouver to Reno and back. Same airline every time. The airline used 737-200 on this route. On one trip, my brothers friends Dad started flying the route. One trip he let my brother sit in the jump seat take off to landing. Next trip he let me.
The mention of D.B. Cooper reminds me of the last time that I exited an airliner going towards the back of the airplane. It was on a Carnival Air Lines 727-200 (ex-Eastern) that my parents and I took from West Palm Beach to Nassau some years ago. It was the shortest flight that I've ever taken (air time about 25 minutes) with a ballistic trajectory. Even though the plane was full of passengers, it took off like a scalded cat since there was no luggage! It was all day-trippers so all the weight was the people only. Upon landing at Nassau, which is a one-level airport with no jetways, we exited via the rear airstair. From there the locals were nice enough to provide us with a covered red carpet that took us to the terminal.
The initial performance target for the 727 was to operate out of short fields and get to altitude as quick as possible and then descend quickly at another short unimproved field and repeat it along their intended route. Hence the aft self contained air stair that eliminated the need for boarding equipment or if there was ground equipment available, they could unload at the rear and load in the front for the world's quickest turnaround. The 727 was the first to have an on board APU so that it didn't require a ground based start cart to crank up and get going. The clean wing was a one piece masterpiece of aerodynamics and structural design. The skins were pretty thick and the complex curvature of the material was accurately achieved by shot-peening it into shape. The high lift system with triple slotted TE flaps and LE slats gave the airplane striking take off performance. Landing with everything out and dirty required a lot of power to overcome the drag and a UAL pilot didn't exercise that requirement and put one in on its belly in Salt Lake City. Forgive me for drawing from the memory well, i have nice memories from that program. It was run the way it should have been and was successful in every respect.
Oddly, the 727 flights that I took late in its career all seemed to have inordinately long takeoff rolls, certainly longer than the 757s and 767s I was flying during the same period. I remember one takeoff from Buffalo that must have used 6000 feet of a 7000 foot runway; that one really had me worried. I asked the pilot after the flight and his only reply was "we were heavy". My very last 727 takeoff was from Denver; I knew that one would be long because of the elevation, and I wasn't particularly concerned because of DEN's long runways, but that plane must have used up 9000 of the runway's 12,000 feet to get off the ground!
Late in its career. That would indicate a -200, perhaps with a heavy load. Every airplane has at some time been subjected to hot days and big loads. The figures that I quoted were for the initial -100 and I suppose with a normal load. We were on an L-1011 leaving Salt lake City that I thought was going to end up in Nevada before it got to Vr.
An ex-727 jockey talking about flying one with all sorts of technical jargon. Love it! Flying the 727
One of the writers comments brought back a favorite "scene" when he mentioned that the airplane was built like a tank. The "scene" took place in the wing group early in the design when I was searching for some wing structure data. I came across an animated discussion where the lower skin drawing was stretched out on a lofting table and about 6 engineers and the chief of the group were in a confab. I watched as Omar Biglund said ,"I don't care what "weights" said, this is where I want the doubler to go." And he drew a heavy red line on the layout where the additional thickness would be machined on the skin. The term doubler was an archaic term on this airplane because any local strengthening was achieved by increasing the thickness of the material by machining vs. adding another layer to "double" the thickness. I think that I mentioned this before on AvChat but it emphasized the value of the old guys in a company who simply have the knowledge and intuitive feel to do what's right. I asked Omar about why his "gut" told him to extend the thickness and he said, " This stuff is just Black Art and gut feel plays a big role in it." There were never any 727 wing structural problems that I know of.
Bob- Same techniques certainly worked on the B-52H, still flying 50+ years after delivery. Some KC-135s are in the same boat. Engineering rules of thumb and gut feelings played a big part in design back then.
As a passenger I flew on more 727s than any other plane from the mid-60s on. For some reason I experienced more ear aches on this plane than the others...by far. Maybe it was just me...
Hi Bob, I ran across this video of Number 1. Shows the flutter tests. My first thought was what if the stab failed? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=37LKMT7Po6E
Thanks for finding that footage. The movie of the flutter test was not as lengthy and not as close in as the one we saw but it did show some of the flutter. They weren't as concerned about the horizontal stab as they were about the vertical's ability to damp the movement and flutter of the horizontal stab. The skins on the vertical were .063 and most of the front spar was a forging. It had a heavy rear spar, too, with forged rudder hinge ribs. If the horizontal or vertical had failed it would have been goodbye airplane and probably the crew.
Nice. Could see the H. Stab 'flutter'. Wish the film was better... couldn't see the yarn tufts they were talking about very well.
Whats the rate of climb for an a320, latest 737 or my all time fast climber (based on passenger seat of pants) 757.
*Note, Rate of climb is affected by hundreds of factors so results vary* Borrowed from Airliners.net, For a 757-200 RB211-535E4 @ 100t TOM and ISA+10, using a normal 250kt to 10k, 300kt to M.80 crossover profile up to 35k. After going to CLB power, accelerating to 250kts by 3000ft, the RoC (rate of climb) is ~ 3200fpm At 10k, its down to around 2900fpm at 250kts Accelerating at 500fpm to 300kts by 11k the RoC is ~ 2800fpm by 15k RoC is ~ around 2500fpm by 20k RoC is ~ 2000fpm by 25k RoC is ~ 1600fpm by 30k RoC is ~ 1200fpm by 35k RoC is ~ 1000fpm* *This should all take about 118nm, 2.5t of fuel, and around 19min since liftoff.
I guess that the 727 in its day was a great airplane but it is an antique in engine/fuel performance now and still a narrow body vehicle but it is still an aerodynamic ground breaker. The wing, controls, and high lift systems were applied on the 747 to good advantage and some of it to many other airliners.
Yep I always heard the reason the 727 did not evolve like the DC9-MD80 is because the 3rd engine mounted internaly meant you couldnt fit modern turbofans. I do remember reading something about Boeing flirting with turning it into a 2 engined plane with two powerful turbofans. I guess ethe ability to fit moderrn powerplants is why boeing develkoped the 737 into a winner after it was the poor stepchild to the 727 in the 60s and 70s . To me the 727 is like a DC4, they can lift incredible loads out of inhospitable areas, and are inexpensive to buy. If you go to Africa 727's and old russian cargo planes are the tramp steamers of the 21st century. Given that rail and road infrastructure in much of Africa has been neglected to the point of nonuse, aircraft provide a vital role, especlay ones that can land on hardened sand as I know a 727 can. Plus from some of the youtube videos they seem to make the coolest private jets.
That airplane eventually evolved into the 757. Early models of what eventually became the 757 had the new wing with engines mounted there, but still had the 727 t-tail and nose.
I watched a Smithsonian Channel show that featured Donald Trumps 757. His previous plane was a 727, forget the year that one was built. They cited fuel costs as a reason to sell the 727.
That was merely a test bed for the 7J7, as it was the only Boeing airplane at the time with rear engines.
