727-100 and 727-200 Components

T

ted6357

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
15
Display Name
Display name:
Tedy3
As you will see on the B727 reference sheet attached, it shows the body attitude where different components will contact the runway for the 100 and 200 series models of the Boeing 727. These components are namely the TAIL SKID, TAILPIPE and NACELLE SKID. I have identified the tail skid and tailpipe on the 727-100 as shown and also identified the tail skid on the 727-200, also shown. However, I could not identify the nacelle skid on the 727-200. Can someone please post a link to a picture identifying the nacelle skid? Is it a skid that is mounted to the number 2 [middle] engine, but for some reason, isn't present on the Amerijet as shown?

http://postimg.org/image/u1y7wqu0l/

CLICK ON THE THUMBNAIL FOR THE REFERENCE INFORMATION

u1y7wqu0l


b7ow2jfkv
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    800.9 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I used to work at a place that had a ton of UPS and DHL 727 parts and catalogs. They may not know offhand but if it's business related you could give them a call and ask, they're called Stewart Industries in Guthrie OK
 
Thanks overdrive, appreciated, but I am hoping for a reply from a past or present 727 driver who may have some knowledge on aircraft component identification. Thanks anyway for your reply.
 
ted6357 said:
As you will see on the B727 reference sheet attached, it shows the body attitude where different components will contact the runway for the 100 and 200 series models of the Boeing 727. These components are namely the TAIL SKID, TAILPIPE and NACELLE SKID. I have identified the tail skid and tailpipe on the 727-100 as shown and also identified the tail skid on the 727-200, also shown. However, I could not identify the nacelle skid on the 727-200. Can someone please post a link to a picture identifying the nacelle skid? Is it a skid that is mounted to the number 2 [middle] engine, but for some reason, isn't present on the Amerijet as shown?

http://postimg.org/image/u1y7wqu0l/

CLICK ON THE THUMBNAIL FOR THE REFERENCE INFORMATION

u1y7wqu0l


b7ow2jfkv
Click to expand...

The reason you don't see it on the Amerijet -200 photo it has a hush kit (I think Dugan Conversion) and has #2 thrust reverser removed.
 
ted6357 said:
As you will see on the B727 reference sheet attached, it shows the body attitude where different components will contact the runway for the 100 and 200 series models of the Boeing 727. These components are namely the TAIL SKID, TAILPIPE and NACELLE SKID. I have identified the tail skid and tailpipe on the 727-100 as shown and also identified the tail skid on the 727-200, also shown. However, I could not identify the nacelle skid on the 727-200. Can someone please post a link to a picture identifying the nacelle skid? Is it a skid that is mounted to the number 2 [middle] engine, but for some reason, isn't present on the Amerijet as shown?
Click to expand...
I was a 727-100 and -200 second officer and line check airman for a long time... I never heard of a nacelle skid. We never talked about it, and I never saw one (as far as I know). I looked back at my 727 manuals, and we didn't have it mentioned in there, either. So, I really don't know what it is. Maybe it was removed from -200's in later models.

RotorAndWing said:
The reason you don't see it on the Amerijet -200 photo it has a hush kit (I think Dugan Conversion) and has #2 thrust reverser removed.
Click to expand...
I don't know about a Dugan conversion, but all our standard 727-200s were hush-kitted and had reverse on all three engines.

You might be thinking of the Valsan conversion, where they took MD-80 pod engines and stuck them on the 727. In that conversion, there was only reverse on 1 & 3, but that had more to do with the fact that the reversers on the pod engines on the Valsans were hydraulically actuated, and on the regular 727s they were pneumatically operated.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I was a 727-100 and -200 second officer and line check airman for a long time... I never heard of a nacelle skid. We never talked about it, and I never saw one (as far as I know). I looked back at my 727 manuals, and we didn't have it mentioned in there, either. So, I really don't know what it is.
Click to expand...

From the Boeing 727 FCTM:

9º Normal Lift Off 727-100 & 200
10º Tail skid contacts 727-200
11º Nacelle Skid Contacts 727-200 / Tail Skid Contacts 727-100



Sluggo63 said:
I don't know about a Dugan conversion, but all our standard 727-200s were hush-kitted and had reverse on all three engines.

You might be thinking of the Valsan conversion, where they took MD-80 pod engines and stuck them on the 727. In that conversion, there was only reverse on 1 & 3, but that had more to do with the fact that the reversers on the pod engines on the Valsans were hydraulically actuated, and on the regular 727s they were pneumatically operated.
Click to expand...

Dugan Conversion

The System also features winglets manufactured by Winglet Systems, Inc. to
reduce drag, adding to the increase in rate of climb as well as reducing long
range fuel burn 6% compared to other Stage III alternatives. In addition to
low thrust performance benefits, the flap and aileron droop system also
reduces drag and thus long range fuel burn. Finally, the third engine thrust
reverser is removed to decrease aft cg by almost 2500 lbs., reducing weight
and enhancing balance. The total result is a change in the aerodynamic
qualities that allow the aircraft to climb at a greater rate at reduced power.
Yet, range is extended and payload capacity is improved
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
From the Boeing 727 FCTM:

9º Normal Lift Off 727-100 & 200
10º Tail skid contacts 727-200
11º Nacelle Skid Contacts 727-200 / Tail Skid Contacts 727-100





Dugan Conversion
Click to expand...
I wasn't doubting you, just never heard of it (and too lazy to google it:rolleyes2:)

I checked both my United and FedEx 727 flight manuals, and nothing about a nacelle skid. Is there anything else in your Boeing FCTM about it other than it contacts the runway at 11º? Does it talk about where it is, if it retracts like the tail skid does, or anything else about it. Like I said, I've got about 9 years as a 727 engineer and I have no idea what a nacelle skid is.

The 727s we operated had the FedEx hush-kit (FedEx designed this particular hush-kit and sold it world wide http://www.fedex.com/us/hushkit/helpdecide/) and it didn't have a nacelle skid.

All I was trying to point out, was that when you said:
RotorAndWing said:
The reason you don't see it on the Amerijet -200 photo it has a hush kit (I think Dugan Conversion) and has #2 thrust reverser removed.
Click to expand...
It isn't the fact that the plane was hush-kitted and had the #2 reverser removed that you don't see a "nacelle skid," because ours were hush-kitted (with the FedEx one) had all three reversers installed and still didn't have a "nacelle skid," at least that I can remember.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I checked both my United and FedEx 727 flight manuals, and nothing about a nacelle skid. Is there anything else in your Boeing FCTM about it other than it contacts the runway at 11º? Does it talk about where it is, if it retracts like the tail skid does, or anything else about it. Like I said, I've got about 9 years as a 727 engineer and I have no idea what a nacelle skid is.
Click to expand...

I've only have about 7,500 hours flying them. I've seen it mentioned in the Boeing FCTM (as posted above)


Sluggo63 said:
The 727s we operated had the FedEx hush-kit (FedEx designed this particular hush-kit and sold it world wide http://www.fedex.com/us/hushkit/helpdecide/) and it didn't have a nacelle skid.
Click to expand...

Looks like one is installed on this one.

FedEXB727-200031_zps60594619.jpg
 
I didn't have the opportunity to amass thousands of hours before my gig bankrupted but I was briefly a FE on the 727. Don't remember the nacelle either. Looked back in my old manuals and couldn't find a reference. Most of our birds were former AA and Continental -200A's.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've only have about 7,500 hours flying them. I've seen it mentioned in the Boeing FCTM (as posted above)




Looks like one is installed on this one.

FedEXB727-200031_zps60594619.jpg
Click to expand...
Ok, I'll bite... Where is the nacelle skid?
 
Relevant to nothing, but I sure miss the 727; such a beautiful plane, and it was the default mode of transportation when I was growing up, and as a young adult (Braniff, AA, Continental, Delta).
 
SCCutler said:
Relevant to nothing, but I sure miss the 727; such a beautiful plane, and it was the default mode of transportation when I was growing up, and as a young adult (Braniff, AA, Continental, Delta).
Click to expand...

They were some loud airplanes, though.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Remember when Eastern called them "Whisperjets"? :wink2:
Click to expand...

I grew up about 2mi off the end of 28R at KPIT, and when the winds were east, it was very noisy. Damn, those 707s, 727s, DC-9s, and BAC 1-11s were ear splittingly loud. And those long trails of black soot.....not too efficient back then.

I'll never forget looking up in wonder at the 1st 747 I saw taking off, how could a jet so huge just whisper thru the sky like that? Thank heaven for the high bypass turbofan.
 
I grew up about 500 yards from the northern boundary of Kirtland AFB in the 60's. Talk about noise...but oh my, it was awesome to see flights of century series fighters in echelon doing overhead breaks to land.

:yesnod:
 
Eastern called both the DC-9 and the 727 "Whisperjets." Sort of a misnomer especially for the children of smokers who often found ourselves sitting next to those droning engines in the back of the plane.

I still remember one of Eastern's gate agents telling me to the easy way to spot the difference between a -100 and -200. The -100 had an oval (taller than wide) intake on the #2 engine. The -200 intake is almost circular.

Zero-G still flies a 727-200 I think as G-Force One. It lists under a 727-227 which would make it originally a Braniff plane.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
They were loud, fast and awesome. It was a pilots airplane from beginning to end IMO.
Click to expand...


Ground crew likes them too. Big doors, stand up bays, way easier to load than say, a damned MD-80, working in a long tube with your knees up around your ears trying to lift things.

Wasn't a fan of us being in charge of reconnecting the nose wheel steering after each pushback. Always thought there was some significant possibility of human error there.

I can't mess with the silly air strut on a Cessna without a mechanic's sign off, but I could be the last and only person to hook the nose gear steering back up on a 72 after we pushed it and leave the pin unlatched or partially so.

Also had to put the rear air stair down as a tail stand or bad things could happen. ;)

Liked the 72 as a ramp rat. Hated the Long Beach Death Tube. 73 was somewhere in between. Anything large enough to load via cargo containers and not by hand was of course, liked even more.

If you were by yourself when a 72 arrived, you could chock it on both sides by just walking under. No engines on the wings to eat you, plenty of room not to bump your head.

The Mad Dog, you had to walk all the way around the nose, and the 73 you had to stay the hell away from whichever engine was turning.

I watched guys walk under the 73 in a crouch from the shut down side to the mains on the other side to chock them, but I didn't really like being even that close to the running engine.

I only did that a few times when something was jacked up and the aircraft both couldn't receive ground power properly and couldn't get the APU started. Would just go under there and get the chocks in so we could get to work. Mechanics would be there shortly to figure out WTF was wrong with the airplane.

Usually I'd just wait.

The 72 wasted the least amount of my time as a narrow body on the ramp. Easy to access, easy to load, easy to push back because it was longer and less squirrely on the tug buy not as long as the Death Tube which took a lot of space to swing it into the aisle, better lighting in the bays at night. Etc. etc. etc.

And back then I'd look through the routes to see which flights I could take places as a non-Rev had a 72 running that route because the seats and seat pitch/size were still divine. People freak out now about others reclining of all silly things. You could decline in the 72 and not touch anyone and be asleep the second the wheels hit the wells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top