DC-9 or Boing 727? Which Aircraft do you prefer?

Question

You can include the MD-80 and Boing 717(produced after boing bought out Mcdonnel Douglas) with the DC-9 as they are all newer versions of the DC-9.

I know 727's have been out of production for a long time... I just want to know which you like best.

Bossman #1: Yes the DC-9 and its later incarnations are areodanamically unstable reciuring a computer and a horizotal stabilizer that constantly adjusts pitch independant of the elevators. If the jack screw in the tail or computer fail at cruise speed, you better be able to make it to edwards AFB or Bonnaville Salt Flats or its game over. At best, it's squirrelly... At worst, deadly.

Ericbryc: Your eyes caught one of the more obvious design flaws of that aircraft. It looks unstable because it is.

Answer 1

727 by a long shot any day....it's built like a tank, has pretty good payload capacity and i've seen it do things similar size/weight aircraft can't do in the hands of a capable pilot...alot of our carriers still fly them in cargo ops every day and they are still proving to be reliable, all weather aircraft in our day to day ops....especially the ones we have that are cat III certificated.....very stable and easy to handle, unlike the -9 or the -80 which is known as the Mad Dog because it hunts around the pitch axis so much during hand flying at altitude

Answer 2

I've always liked the 727. It has a unique look (well, I guess the TU-154 and the HS Trident share it a little bit) and is still faster than most airliners still flying (I believe only the 747 is faster).

I worked as a mechanic on these aircraft for years and I am in awe of what they could do with 1950s technology. Simple systems (considering that it is a 200,000lb jet that flys close to the sound barrier) and very mechanic friendly (more so than the 737).

I don't know much about MD products because I have never worked or flew on any of them.

Answer 3

I prefer the 727.
.
The DC-9 has a lower stance that makes the nose look large and the wings seem too far back on the fuselage. As the plane was stretched and stretched and stretched again to become the MD80 the odd looking wing placement seemed even more out of balance.
.
The 727 on the other hand with it's three engine rear placement and T-tail made the plane look like it was moving while standing still. 1831 were built and they are an icon of 1960s aviation.
.

Answer 4

The 727s served their purpose but my gosh the 717 and md 90,s were so far advanced and fuel efficent there is no comparson,,, the all computerized cockpits are a world of difference,,, But northwest still flys the dc-9 and will keep on flying them,,, they will be like the dc-3,,, we only miss the fuel guzzleing 727 because they are gone,,,, Its apples and oranges

Answer 5

727.

That thing was designed by Boeing to get get out of short runways. So Boeing took the most powerful engines they could find (the JT8D's) and stuck them to the back. They also added a complicated flap and slat system that increased lift by a great ammount. The end resault was amazing. A 727 even when full still has good preformance.

Answer 6

Moot question. The 727 is out of production.

Answer 7

DC-9. The DC9 did a fantastic job of bringing jet setrvice into cities which could not support anything larger, such as a B727.

Answer 8

C-9B Skytrain II (Navy's version of the DC-9)

Though of course I'm biased... it was one of the aircraft in which I was a qualified Aircrewman. We would "bum" flight-time on C-9's when on shore-duty.

Answer 9

727 is my choice.