Talk:Boeing 727/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

USPS

The USPS does not own any aircraft and has not for many years.

So any aircraft depicted with USPS livery are leased from GECAS or ILFC or the like?00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

High sink rate accidents and "Pilot's Airliner"

I'm a bit surprised at your enthusiasm for reverting these additions. With a few hours work I'm sure I can come up with some cites, but is it really worth it? What I stated is and has been known by professional pilots for 30 years and, IMHO scarcely qualifies as original research on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldgeek (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research, sorry! —Reedy 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said.Grumpyoldgeek (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

has been known by .. sounds like original research. You need to ensure that the information comes from a reliable source and also is notable enough for inclusion. 192.54.144.229 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a thread on a professional pilot's forum that I initiated to discuss the issue. Please advise if and how this can be incorporated into the B727 page.

pprune.org B727 sinkrate accident discussion Grumpyoldgeek (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That site requires log in to view. Sorry, forum pages are not considered reliable sources anyway. I did internet searches for 727 and pilot's airliner and could not find anything. See if you can find a reliable book or article that states the 727 is pilot friendly or something along those lines. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have a dilemma. There are no "reliable sources" that I can find, yet there is a rich and colorful story here. The plane was nearly grounded because of 5 fatal crashes in the first 6 months of introduction, yet there's no mention on the wiki page. If you are really interested in a full and accurate description of the aircraft, this part of its history needs to be told. The fact that there is not a reliable source doesn't change the history. The login for pprune is trivial to do. If you or anyone else are serious about researching this, contact me at jstewart@jkmicro.com and I'll get you a username and password to the forum. 168.150.253.55 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A forum is fine for personal enrichment, but it's content is not allowable on Wikipedia. We're not making this up - it's Wikipedia policy! If it's a story that needs telling, write a book, get it published by a reputable publisher, then we can cite it. Alternativley, contact an aerospace or aviation magazine, and if they do an article on the story, then we can use that. Sounds like the kind of story Air & Space Smithsonian likes to publish, but there are other magazines out there too that might be interested.

As far as 5 fatal crashes in the first six months, it might take some work to find them, but I'm sure there were stories written in newspapers or magazines at that time. They would be fine to source the accidents and investigations, and a number of publishers have online archives going back pretty far, so it might not be that dificult to do. - BillCJ (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through a couple of my books. The closet thing I can find to "pilot's airliner" is "The 727-200 remains popular with passengers and pilots ..." from The International Directory of Civil Aircraft copy here. That's not quite the same thing. I added an Incidents and accident summary like on the Boeing 737, 767 and other airliner pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not realize the article didn't have an "Incidents and accident"! That certainly can be expanded, and there may already be some accident articles about 727 accidents on WP which can easily be summarized. Also, there are Wikipedians who are experienced in researching FAA accident databases and other sources who would probably be willing to help out. I'm sorry that I didn't realize there were no accidents covered at all! They do still need proper sources, but that should be relatively easy to fix. - BillCJ (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't seem right to me that this article doesn't have a Accident section for such a notable aircraft, so I checked the Article History, and I found it! Per this diff, it looks liek I accidently lost the section while attempting to undo some vandalism! Anyway, I've restored it mostly whole, but there are items that need to be sourced. I also cut back the lengthy Salt Lake City 1965 accident, as it has its own article. - BillCJ (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth at this late date, here are the first 5 crashes of 727s:

1965

• August 16 – United Airlines Flight 389, a Boeing 727, crashes into Lake Michigan at night, after the pilots apparently misread their altimeters; all 24 passengers and six crew perish in the first fatal crash of the Boeing 727.

• November 8 – American Airlines Flight 383, a Boeing 727, crashes while on approach to Greater Cincinnati airport; of the 62 people on board, one flight attendant and three passengers survive.

• November 11 – United Airlines Flight 227, a Boeing 727, crashes short of the runway during landing at Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah; 43 of 91 aboard are killed.

1966

• February 4 – All Nippon Airways Flight 60, a Boeing 727-100, crashes into Tokyo Bay, Japan; all 133 aboard are killed in Japan's worst air disaster at that time.

• November 15 – Pan Am Flight 708, a Boeing 727, crashes near Berlin, Germany; all three crew members are killed.

Note that the time spread is about 15 months, not 6 months as speculated above. 65.37.66.238 (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

True but potentially misleading.....4 out the 5 were within a 6 month framework. The Number of incidents should be questioned rather than the date range. And "speculated" is both inaccurate and potentially insulting. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Military usage in Colombia

The Boeing 727 is used as a cargo plane by the Colombian Air Force can someone correct the military operators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.135.111 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a valid reference supporting that, such as a Colombian Air Force page listing the Boeing 727. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Colombian Air Force (SATENA) 727s have been withdrawn from use or scrapped (FAC1145 727-95F #19393, FAC1246 727-95F #19595, FAC1247 727-2B7 #20303). MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Max. Tank Capacity in Litres?

How many liters is 100.000 lb jet fuel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.50.196 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mexicana-LAX-radar.jpg

The image Image:Mexicana-LAX-radar.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rough Airstrip Use

Added a paragraph under Operational History about the 727's use on rough air strips (using First Air as an example). Not sure where the best place to put this, but the high mounted engines do make the aircraft a good candidate for gravel and/or ice runways. I have flown the flight from YRB to YOW myself, and know that First Air continues to use the aircraft on this route. Hans Johnson 194.137.210.183 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Passenger capasity

The article does not state the passenger capasity of the aeroplane. This should be added by someone who knows it. Hkultala (talk) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkultala (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked in the specification section under Max seating capacity ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seems to be there.. tried to search with a word "passenger". Hkultala (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MTSU 727

I'm curious whether or not anyone things that it is worth mention that Middle Tenn state university has a 727 that was donated by Fedex to the aerospace program. Reg N117FE. It however is stuck at Murfreesboro mun airport. I've been told that that for 2 reasons 1st the runway is too short and that the plane exceedes the max weight that they belie the runway and taxiways can support --T18 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What use did/does MTSU plan for this Boeing 727; for exhibit, training, or other? The part about it being stuck at the airport is too detailed for this article. Maybe for Middle Tennessee State University though with a proper reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as i know its used for exhibt and i've heard the maintance program uses it in some way.--T18 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft is mentioned in the MTSU wiki article. An entry on it could go in an Aircraft on display section. The college got it in 2002 and at that time planned it for training use according to newsletter and record. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest combining two parts of article

It seems to me that the second paragraph under "Noise" and the last paragraph under "Operational history" say largely the same thing. Since both paragraphs concern the reasons for the aircraft's retirement, I think they should be combined under "Operational history". Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I moved the 2nd paragraph in the Noise section down to the Operational history section. Rework/combine them if want. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

727 operators list

US Airways used to use a large number of both 727 100's and 727 200's, back when they were called both Allegany Airlines, and US Air. I believe that Mohawk Airlines also used the 727, prior to being purchased by Allegany. I've personally flown on them many times as a child! They were a very good plane for what they were intended - a short haul, low occupancy plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DansNowHere (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP user added comments to the civil operators list based on other wikipedia articles here. I reverted this edit as other wiki pages are not reliable sources. Also, I don't think this was needed as sentence states August 2009, matching the Flight International reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Midwest Airlines is listed as a user of several 727's. AFAIK (and according to the Wiki article on the airline) Midwest never operated 727's. They did have a fleet of 717's however.N9jig (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Kalitta Charters II does operate a fleet of (5) 727-200 aircraft in an all cargo configuration. The webpage states 3 but is out of date. http://www.kalittacharters.com/urgent.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 727driver (talk • contribs) 23 May 2010

How do you know it's out of date? —Compdude¹²³ 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

How do they compare with other models? 67.243.7.240 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Kyteto (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that the C-22 article be merged with this article, as the C-22s were virtually stock 727s with little modification and the subject could be adequately covered at Boeing 727, improving that article.Petebutt (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree —Compdude¹²³ 06:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The C-22 was used as a transport with no major changes from 727. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Without significant modification, the C-22 should be simply covered in the Operational History of the 727 article, there's no need for a small subarticle with little to no prospect of growth. Kyteto (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orders and deliveries

Ihave removed this table as there is already a graph there

Orders

1983	1982	1981	1980	1979	1978	1977	1976	1975	1974	1973	1972
1	11	38	68	98	125	133	113	50	88	92	119
1971	1970	1969	1968	1967	1966	1965	1964	1963	1962	1961	1960
26	48	64	66	125	149	187	83	20	10	37	80

Deliveries

1984	1983	1982	1981	1980	1979	1978	1977	1976	1975	1974	1973
8	11	26	94	131	136	118	67	61	91	91	92
1972	1971	1970	1969	1968	1967	1966	1965	1964	1963	1962	1961
41	33	55	114	160	155	135	111	95	6	0	0

One or the other but not both!Petebutt (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Split hull-loss occurrences

Someone added a split tag to the Accidents and incidents section in this article. This seems like a reasonable suggestion given the numerous accident entries in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree but List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 727 would be more in keeping with similar articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• or just List of accidents involving the Boeing 727. No real need to list incidents, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cruise speed

The specs section says the maximum cruise speed is "Mach 0.9 (685.1 mph)" and typical cruise "599 mph (521 kn)". As a fairly minor point, the units there should be consistent. More significantly, the quoted 685mph seems extremely high. Compare, for example, the maximum speed of the 747-400 series, quoted as "Mach 0.92 (614 mph [...])" — a higher Mach number but lower speed in mph. Strictly speaking, Mach number of a particular speed depends on air temperature so it is technically possible that these figures are both correct, if they refer to different temperatures. But the claim of 685.1mph seems implausibly fast: I had a quick look through the current offerings by Boeing and Airbus and none of them quotes a maximum cruise speed higher than that figure of 614mph. Dricherby (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 727 date of First flight versus date of Introduction

The first flight of Boeing 727 was recorded in Wiki on 9th Feb 1963 whilst the introduction of Boeing 727 with the Eastern Airlines was recorded as in Feb 1964. Is this normal i.e. the first flight was to fly to wherever the Eastern Airlines was domiciled and that took a good 300+ calendar days?

An explanation would be appreciated. Winniechui (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Introduction" means when the aircraft began service, in this case with Eastern Airlines. The 300+ dayes were spent in test flights, and achieving certification with the FAA. - BilCat (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

B727 with RATO

This YT video shows a Mexicana B727 fitted with RATO. There were only 12 727-200s that were built with the JATO provision and they were actually the more powerful 727-200 Advanced versions. Mexicana was in a unique position of serving several high-altitude airports in its network where the 727-200 as built would have been payload restricted to account for the possibility of the loss of one of the three engines at takeoff. Mexicana took delivery of twelve 727-200s that got around this limitation by having a JATO installation in the lower aft fuselage just behind the wings. These aircraft could be identified by having a shallow dorsal fairing ahead of the #2 intake that accommodated some of the rerouted avionics and air conditioning ducting that was displaced by the JATO provision. Without the JATO, the aircraft would have to be payload restricted to account for the need to reach a safe altitude in the event of an engine loss after committing to takeoff. By having the JATO provision, Mexicana could operate its 727-200s at full payload. In the event of a loss of engine at past V1, the JATO unit would fire and allow the heavily-laden jet to reach a safe altitude and get aerodynamically cleaned up. (unashamedly pinched from PPRuNe)Kitbag (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of a retired of a 727

FedEx donated one of its planes for use as an aircraft emergency training facility at Albany International Airport. I'm not sure this is notable enough for the article, but I thought it was interesting enough to share. http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Albany-airport-applies-for-FEMA-grant-for-mock-6393929.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.130.202 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please translate into meaningful English

"An unusual feature of the fuselage is the 10 inch difference between the lower lobe forward and aft of the wing as the higher fuselage height of the center section was simply retained towards the rear". Huh ? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bottom escape door

Hello.

I noted, that it's mentioned nowhere in the article, that the 727 is one of the two aircrafts that have an escape door at the bottom. (I have no idea, which one the other aircraft is. ) That's the way how Dan Cooper escaped. --S536870912 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I think that the other one with the bottom airstairs is the Yakovlev Yak-42D.

Airstairs between the engines is not that uncommon in that era, see also Caravelle, DC-9. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

After the DB Cooper episode Boeing designed a device called the Cooper Vane that prevented the rear airstairs to be opened in flight. This is depicted under the "Design" section of the main article.N9jig (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

We even have an article called Cooper vane that discusses it in more detail. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boeing 727. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503130042/http://www.boeing.com:80/commercial/727family/ to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.swipnet.se/~w-65189/transport_aircraft/b727/boeing_727_series.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524144925/http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124134814/http://www.boeing.com:80/commercial/airports/acaps/727sec3.pdf to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/727sec3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503130042/http://www.boeing.com:80/commercial/727family/ to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture showing landing gear etc.

Hi all, would anyone object to updating the infobox picture with one that is similar angle but shows the landing gear? The resolution is quite similar (aka pretty good for 727 photos on wiki). Besides showing the landing gear (as many other infobox photos of aircraft do), the newer photo has a bit more detail (you can see more regarding the windows, wing-mounted beacons, vents on engines etc. -- a bit sharper?), and the highlights are not as washed out. It also has a slightly better view of the tail-mounted #2 engine, and it helps that the tail livery is not as dark so more details can be seen.

• 
  Current photo
• 
  Proposal

Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has any comments or other suggestions, they're welcome! I realize that this page is relatively quiet at the moment. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed photo looks good to me. Cheers!Skyraider1 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with changing the image as suggested. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Regards SynergyStar (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo now updated. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing 727. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627051623/http://airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0803018 to http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0803018
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603041711/http://www.raisbeck.com/ca/stage3/index.html to http://www.raisbeck.com/ca/stage3/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306232953/http://www.aviationpros.com/news/12177335/final-flight-of-first-727-planned-for-wednesday to http://www.aviationpros.com/news/12177335/final-flight-of-first-727-planned-for-wednesday
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/03/01/boeing-727-prepares-for-last-flight
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boeing.com/commercial/727family/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Only trijet" wrong

@BilCat: At [1] I changed The 727 is Boeing's only trijet aircraft. to The 727 is the only Boeing-designed commercial trijet aircraft., and was reverted. The statement was not completely accurate as it stood (it is neither current production, nor the only production), nor was it cited; The ref explained, but made little of, one of the exceptions (the five years of MD-11 production by Boeing-owned MD), but it didn't mention the X-48/BWB. So, instead of just removing the statement, I qualified it and updated the ref with some missing details. While I was at it, I added more info about the other trijet designs they considered, since it was in a footnote anyway, and does not distract from the flow of the lede. Alternate suggestions? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Having heard nothing, I've reinstated my edit, changing the order of sentences in the footnote to stress the most significant point – the MD-11 production 1997–2001. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Tweaked the sentence to make it clearer it was the only Boeing designed commercial aircraft to enter production and removed the note which is not really relevant to the 727. Still close to your original edit. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I would still prefer the explanatory note to clarify why we had to be so specific with the statement, but I'll let it be. I'll bet someone will come along shortly and re-add the MD-11 or the X-48, ignoring the careful wording —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the laundry list of Boeing types that seemed to grow onto this disputed sentence with no discussion here. Leads are supposed to be about the subject. Listing every Boeing jet airliner is just distracting, especially using the "B" which Boeing doesn't use. I've also removed the hidden note since no one was bothering to read it first. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Another reason not to list all the types is that some people don't read, and so keep adding the 717, which isn't a Boeing design. Btw, if we really need a source here, try this one, but it says Boeing’s only trijet, so it might not be acceptable as a source. - BilCat (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Few days ago I listed all others Boeing airliners to remove the fact template. Flight is perfectly acceptable as a source, I'll add it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Main pic change

• 
  current, OK but usual approach picture, side engine hidden
• 
  proposed, air-to-air over clouds, better shows engine layout
• 
  Turkish Airlines

The proposed picture faces away from the text in default layout but it seems worth it to me.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I like the Iberia shot bit to like the work of the PR department, if you want to change to show the engines better perhaps something like the Turkish [above]. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the PR department should have done a better job cleaning up the scratches on the window through which it was taken ? Never thought about it much before, but as a main pic, I prefer the sleek cruising look with an attractive livery (like the Iberia above), instead of all the appendages protruding in approach shots. I can understand the purpose of those shots for feature identification and such, later in the article, but shouldn't the primary pic be more "artistic" (within encyclopaedic reason, of course)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Turkish pic is too sideways, shows nicely the fuselage but not the wing or stabilizer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC) NB of course the Iberia pic is a PR photo, but Iberia is nice enough to release it under a free license.

Here are some more ideas (some adjustment may be needed):—[AlanM1(talk)]—

• 
  Series 200 prototype, air-to-air over clouds
• 
  Quebecair, air-to-air over clouds
• 
  Planet Airways
• 
  Champion Air
• 
  Aviogenex

I copied those in commons and trimmed bad film scans or posters and added captions. The black & white pictures are neat but convey an older feeling than necessary, the 727 isn't a WW2 era plane. The three other (Planet Airways, Champion Air and Aviogenex) are interesting but a bit level and don't really give a view of the wing. Better than the Turkish above but not really than the current Ariana Afghan Airlines, and not as interesting as the Iberia.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's very hard to get a "high quality" 727 photo on wiki commons. The Ariana photo as it stands is rather high-quality and has many pluses, although the side engine is partially obscured. Any new photo IMO should ideally have similar attributes:

1. Has a non-distracting color scheme and background (e.g., not too many clouds);
2. Not just the side of the aircraft, but an angle of some kind, thus enabling a more 3D perspective (lots of 727 pics are basically side-on and lack that, such as the Planet Airways pic);
3. Is high resolution enough with no blurring, enabling view of details etc. clearly (unlike the Turkish Airlines pic);
4. Can see the landing gear configuration (optional, as discussed by some here and elsewhere on the project);
5. Can see both wings and also leading edge slats and flaps (again, optional);
6. Can very clearly see the T-tail (a tail that is not dark color is preferred here);
7. No obvious post-OEM modifications like winglets or large hushkits (more recent pics have this).
8. Good contrast, highlights, color.
9. Is facing the text, not away from it;
10. Has some noteworthy relevance (e.g., a major/current operator, etc.).

The point is "high quality". I think the Iberia one is the better of the new ones but it faces the wrong direction (note that there is a flipped version on Commons). If we are to change the photo, hopefully an even better one can be found. From a historical POV, a 727-100, N7001U, made a final flight in 2016 which was heavily photographed, however there don't seem to be any good pictures shared with wiki yet. Regards, SynergyStar (alt) (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ACI: preferably facing the text, but not a requirement. Many aircraft articles have their main picture facing away if they are good enough. The flipped version seems too much WP:OR for me. You can see more at commons:Boeing 727, but the best seems to be here. If a better one could be found, it would be great, but in the meantime we could improve the existing. As the 727 is in limited service at present, we don't have many modern digital photos and we have to use film scans of varying quality. Note that it also conveys the era as the dated liveries, like the B747 main picture.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's why I emphasize, per WP:ACI: it is preferred for aircraft facing the right to be aligned to the left, and vice versa. However, image quality is more important... Most of the photos shown above are of poor quality -- composition, clarity, and so on. The Iberia photo is the best contender, but is it that much better? It is such a dirty photo. To reiterate, if replacing, we need a photo that is demonstrably better than the existing one and doesn't lose image quality. Regards SynergyStar (alt) (talk)

Speaking as a non-professional non-photographer (i.e. typical reader), I think the Iberia pic is the best of the bunch, and significantly better than the current one as the lead photo. Quality is plenty fine for a sub-400 px infobox image.
BTW, someone removed some of the pics I posted; please don't do that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me (I copied those in commons:Boeing727 and trimmed bad film scans or posters and added captions), I trimmed the gallery like a collective work.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

---

For the Iberia pic: 1 proposition, 1 Not sure, 1 best contender, 1 best of the bunch, and significantly better than the current one, so I'll go ahead and change it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The Iberia one would be even better if someone would remove the scratches from it. Regards, SynergyStar (alt) (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done thanks to quick and great work by Begoon. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I restored the initial picture, as many details were lost (hatches, panels not joined perfectly, reflections... see it at 100% while switching between both). The sky background may be smoothed out, but the airplane has its own defects.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For me, at 100%, the touched-up one was better, despite the imperfections introduced. Wouldn't it be better to engage Begoon to try to resolve the issues you saw? I assume, for example, that the distracting specks in the sky field can be removed, and maybe the bad scratch in the clouds could be smoothed, without doing anything else. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• During our discussion I'd already done a couple of versions along those lines, but didn't upload them because you said you were happy, I've put them in the file history now, so you can easily revert to them if you like: Alt 1 per discussion - just what I thought were obvious scratches/specks on aircraft removed, Alt 2 per discussion - aircraft should be entirely unaltered. Also happy to make any other alterations you guys would like. Entirely up to you. -- Begoon 02:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: thanks for your work! Even in your almost unaltered revision, spots are removed, problem is: we don't know if they are film scratches, or hatches (front fuselage) or a genuine reflection (center engine), etc.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok - you're correct, there were a couple I missed - so I've now put ALT3 in the history, where I've literally overlayed the entire aircraft back in from the original - so that can't have any differences. You'll need to look at it in the file history at the second 'Alt 3' (I uploaded the wrong file in first 'Alt3'), as I reverted back to the original. -- Begoon 07:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)