The 727-100 seats 94 passengers. The 737-500 seats 108 passengers and flies 100 nmi further. The 735 also has one less engine. How much more fuel does a 721 burn compared to a 735?

With seat spacing the same for both, the 727-100 carried ... 30 more passengers than a 737-500?

The 727 also had one extra guy up front.

I think with 30" seat pitch the 735 seated one extra passenger.

727-100 burned around 9000 pounds per hour.


Don't know how much the 735 burns, I would guess half that.

727-100 fuel capacity: 31000 liters
Range with payload: 3000 km
giving 10.3 liters per km, or 0.110 liters per passenger/km

737-500 fuel capacity: 23830 liters
Range with payload: 3400 km
giving 7.0 liters per km, or 0.065 liters per passenger/km

That's just back of the envelope without going into per hour consumption at different stages of flight, but it looks like a huge difference.

Edit, just for shits and giggles:
A380 fuel capacity: 310000 liters
Range with payload: 15000 km
giving 20.7 liters per km, or 0.037 liters per passenger/km

747-800 fuel capacity: 243400 liters
Range with payload: 14800 km
giving 16.45 liters per km, or 0.035 liters per passenger/km

[Edited 2016-06-04 22:35:30]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5): Range with payload:

What payload ?!!!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): What payload ?!!!

Full passenger load, I suppose. I got all the numbers from the same source, so they should be comparable.

[Edited 2016-06-04 23:11:47]

Unless the range with payload numbers are for the scene of the dead-stick crash you can't just divide range by fuel capacity.

Looking at Boeing Payload Range Summary for both aircraft, it would look like the 727-100 with a full pax load 106 and baggage would have a range of 2250NM (Still Air). The 737-500 with full pax and bags would have a still air range of 2050NM. Both assume 5% Contingency Fuel, Missed Approach, Alternate 200NM distant, 30 minute hold at 1500 ft (ISA+10), Approach and Landing.

Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter): The 727-100 seats 94 passengers.

Not sure which airline that is, but a typical 721 capacity is around 110 pax with 12/14 in F/C and 34" pitch in Y/C.

Here is a early '90s AA seat map that shows 10/105.

Our 735's burned about 5000-5300 lbs per hour at MZFW

Looking at my airlines old performance tables (yes we still have them lol)
721 burned about 8500-9000 lbs per hour at MZFW

So about 3500-4000 lbs more per hour.

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 10): Quoting blacksoviet (Thread starter): The 727-100 seats 94 passengers. Not sure which airline that is, but a typical 721 capacity is around 110 pax with 12/14 in F/C and 34" pitch in Y/C.

That was in their later years of service. A typical 727-100 configuration on U.S. carriers when they first went into service was 24 F and about 75 Y. Several carriers cut F class capacity about in half in later years and reduced seat pitch in Y class.

The rather unusual mid-cabin galley on the 727-100 was a major reason why many carriers had a large F class cabin on those aircraft originally. I clearly remember CP's 4 727-100s were delivered with 22 F and 75 Y. The 22 F on the CP 721s was far too many so after a year or so they reconfigured them to 12 F and 90 Y, with the forward cabin split between F and Y rather than all F forward of the galley. That compared to 12 F and 83 Y on CP's 2-class 737-200s in their early years of service, with equivalent seat pitch on both (34" pitch in Y). Some of the original CP 732s were all-Y with 107 seats at 34" pitch. In later years, 120 or 122 seats was more typical on an all-Y 732.

Once the advanced 737-200s began arriving with comparable range and seating capacity as the 721s, but one less engine and one less person in the cockpit, the CP 721s were quickly sold.

The -100's we had a Reeve sat if memory serves. 104, 66, 58, 44 depending on how many pallets of freight you wanted to carry up front,

Roughly 70-80% more per flight hour and ~90% more per Seatmile.

Can the 721 serve shorter runways compared to the 735? What about high altitude airports like MEX? Which aircraft has superior performance?

Quoting blacksoviet (Reply 15): Can the 721 serve shorter runways compared to the 735? What about high altitude airports like MEX? Which aircraft has superior performance?

don't forget about 1 engine out driftdown performance. As I recall on warm days the early 737's couldn't clear the Rockies with anywhere near a full load.

Is the 727-100 the fastest narrowbody in service worldwide?

blacksoviet wrote:

I think with 30" seat pitch the 735 seated one extra passenger.

Hello, and sorry for reviving such an old topic...

FYI, it may interest you that Dan Air London added rear emergency type A exit doors to their ex-JAL -100s and these were operated in an all Y150 seat configuration. The CAA also insisted that they fit a stick pusher to the jets.

I flew single class charter 727-100 series and I recall 123 passengers+3 flight attendants+3 pilots. The aircraft was never designed to have long range and had good economics for short/medium segments in it's day. At that time, there were not any high bypass fan engines. While the type evolved and was a mainstay for years, the 737 evolved to move the same passengers using fewer engines, fuel, and pilots. Today, the ERJ series, Airbus and B737 variants carry passengers using even less fuel on comparable routes and even longer ranges than the 727 of 50 years ago. Over water rules have changed, too, allowing modern twins access to routes previously limited to 3 or more engines. While the 727 could sprint at M.88 it was not prudent or economical to do so. They spent much more time cruising at M.80.

According to the fuel consumption thread: -

Boeing 727-100 — 4140 kg/h
Boeing 737-500 — 2400 kg/h

So, confirms what the others have posted.

Which aircraft would you be happier flying in though?

Yes the 721 was not really designed for long range but Wardair flew them to London Gatwick from, I think Montreal ?

Not sure if they had auxiliary tanks (as several VIP aircraft did) but this was one of the more unusual uses for the -100.

It should be noted that 727-100 burns 4140 kg / h at M0.86 , if you reduce cruising speed to the usual for 737-500 then fuel consumption will drop to 3350 kg / h.

Trans International had a couple of 727-100's that they flew from the bay area to HNL. They had complete Nav stations in the aircraft as these were pre INS/Doppler days.

As inefficient as it sounds today, the 727-100 was a marvel for its day. Holding 95-110 passengers, it was an excellent compliment to the 707 which was holding 110-125 passengers. With it's new quiet (for the day) fan-jet engines and advanced aerodynamics, it brought jet service to short fields which at the time were the sole domain of the DC-6 and CV-340!

Compared to a 707-120 with JT3Cs, the 727-100 burned about half the fuel per mile!

BravoOne wrote:

Trans International had a couple of 727-100's that they flew from the bay area to HNL. They had complete Nav stations in the aircraft as these were pre INS/Doppler days.

Wardair as well flew the 727-100 to HNL. Normally non-stop from YVR, but was occassionally routed through OAK due to strong westerly winds. I don't know what they used for navigation. It was pre-INS (as an old Wardair guy told me the 707 was the first Wardair aircraft with INS), Decca? Loran? Omega?

Might of had dual Bendix Doppler and an EDO 600T loran as those were a popular combinations in the days leading up to INS. Omega came a little later as a poor mans substitute for INS. Better than Doppler but not as good as INS. I'm not sure that Decca was ever used by a US carrier but maybe the Canadians gave it a shot? Obviously the Britts used it.

BravoOne wrote:

Might of had dual Bendix Doppler and an EDO 600T loran as those were a popular combinations in the days leading up to INS. Omega came a little later as a poor mans substitute for INS. Better than Doppler but not as good as INS. I'm not sure that Decca was ever used by a US carrier but maybe the Canadians gave it a shot? Obviously the Britts used it.

Northwest flew 727's out of Guam for 3 years and they had dual omega's as did the Continental Air Mike 727s as I recall. As far as the NW units go, flying in high cirrus that sometimes produced the 'St. Elmos' fire effect also would interfere with Omega reception. We'd go sometimes a full half hour in dead reckoning mode and when finally getting the signal back might be 2-3 miles off course. But it worked most of the time.

RetiredWeasel wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

Might of had dual Bendix Doppler and an EDO 600T loran as those were a popular combinations in the days leading up to INS. Omega came a little later as a poor mans substitute for INS. Better than Doppler but not as good as INS. I'm not sure that Decca was ever used by a US carrier but maybe the Canadians gave it a shot? Obviously the Britts used it.

Northwest flew 727's out of Guam for 3 years and they had dual omega's as did the Continental Air Mike 727s as I recall. As far as the NW units go, flying in high cirrus that sometimes produced the 'St. Elmos' fire effect also would interfere with Omega reception. We'd go sometimes a full half hour in dead reckoning mode and when finally getting the signal back might be 2-3 miles off course. But it worked most of the time.

Understand but I'm talking 60's, not 70's technology:) I flew DC10's with one Omega and one INS for awhile but that was in the early 80's time frame. Omega was fairly late comer to the LRN puzzle and for the most part I bet they were all Litton LTN211's.

BravoOne wrote:

[
Understand but I'm talking 60's, not 70's technology:) I flew DC10's with one Omega and one INS for awhile but that was in the early 80's time frame. Omega was fairly late comer to the LRN puzzle and for the most part I bet they were all Litton LTN211's.

Northwest's Omegas were the trimble 7900
http://www.decadecounter.com/vta/pict15/ta7900_1.jpg
I can't speak much about nav systems in the 60s and 70s...way before my time.

Trimble? I forgot that company ever existed. I would imagine they were bought by someone? Navigation prior to the 70's was an art form:)

Nothing to add to the thread, but a simple thank you to RetiredWeasel and BravoOne for their input, in this day and age of computerized everything, it is enjoyable to read about the way things were done "back in the day".

Trimble' still around, they even have an iPad app

http://www.trimble.com

GF

I flew 727-31 for Gulf Air Transport. We operated from ORD, BOS, PHL and other places to Mexican resorts, Jamaica, and other Caribbean destinations non-stop (most of the time). Some flights were also operated between BOS and the Azores. None of these planes had extra tanks and had all economy configuration and full catering for round trip service. Full fuel capacity was usually required.

Boston to the Azores must have been a little dicey? Were you using island reserves or what? Was this a FAA oversight operation?

BravoOne wrote:

Boston to the Azores must have been a little dicey? Were you using island reserves or what? Was this a FAA oversight operation?

BOS-TER (for example) is 1997 nm, or about the same as CP flew the 727-17 YUL-YVR and about 300 nms less than YVR-HNL.

With lots of alternate options within the island chain, it seems to me that it should have been workable.

Obviously it was but I asked the question of the original poster. Did CP fly the 727 from YVR to HNL? I don't think so but may be?

A little off topic but the -100 was quite a bit lighter on the controls and easier to land consistently than the longer -200.
With the shorter body you could get away with a late flare, try that on a stretch and you'll just drive the gear in even harder.
.

Overall I still preferred the -200, the control harmony and response was really as good as it gets and it was a lot more stable,
furthermore the automatic pressurization was much easier on the ears !

BravoOne wrote:

Did CP fly the 727 from YVR to HNL? I don't think so but may be?

No.

It was Wardair that flew the 727-100 from YVR-HNL.

Ah yes Wardair, I recall seeing their 707-320's in HNL and especially recall one of their flight attendants on the beach as well. She was beautiful but I digress. Don't recall seeing their 727's over there though