Re: Good 'ole 727

Date:         10 Feb 2000 05:03:13 
From:         bizfixer@aol.comspamo (Bizfixer)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

rwi@whidbey.com commented on unsuitability of a 2-engine version.  I add
thte following bit of history.
---

Saw your interesting letter to one of the airliner newsgroups dtd. 08 Jan.

You apparently bailed out in 1980 when there was no suitable engine for
a 727 'bijet'.  The engine choices at the time, as studied by Lockheed
& Boeing were 747 class  "heavies" and required complex pylons and
fuselage extension.  Perhaps that's why wing wake problems. (It
obviously didn't affect engines #1 & #3 in -100 or -200 configs.)

In 1986, we (Volpar Aircraft) had both companies' data and were looking
at the high bypass CFM56-5, which was an easy fit, plenty of power, and
required no fuselage extensions.  Engineering analyses showed no wake
problems, but we ran out of $$ before wind-tunnel testing.  The Chinese
loved the idea (a co-production deal), but insisted that we imprison
their personnel after hours.

Boeing didn't want to cooperate (in spite of potential spares business)
and top execs simply said, "We build new planes, not improve old ones."
Lockheed was buried in other projects and simply not interested, perhaps
based on their prior studies.  I think it would have worked.

Further comment?

Hokie
bizfixer@aol.com