Talk:Boeing 727
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing 727 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Boeing 727 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Boeing C-22 page were merged into Boeing 727 on April 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
MMO measurement conversions do not match
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727#Specifications
Current: Mach 0.9 (961 km/h; 519 kn)
Mach 0.9 = 1111 km/h, 600 kn
961 km/h = Mach 0.78, 519 kn
519 kn = Mach 0.78, 961 km/h
AbigailPhoenix (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Mach number conversions varies with temperature, and thus with altitude. If the conditions are not specified in the ref, it's best to avoid. It's an operating limit anyway, not a speed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay! Thanks for the clarification :)
- AbigailPhoenix (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Changing the Main Picture
[edit]I think we should change the main picture from a -200 variant to the -100 to give new readers a intro to the -100 then progress up to the -200. Lol78231469 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- But the -200 is way more common, with 69% against 31%. Also, please read the last discussion on the subject, a good deal of thought and work has been poured in the current one. And if you want another picture, please propose one. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
New Info
[edit]I would like to add some random pop-culture information to the article but it seems the lead is not the right place to place it. It also seems that there is no "In Media" section but (Witch makes sense given there is not much media around this plane.) and I am Strongly against adding a whole new section to the article. Does anyone know where I can add some random Pop-Culture information?
PS:I have citations/sources ready if the edit is ever made. Liminality10101 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- The lead section is indeed inappropriate. You can try adding a new "in media" section, but if the tidbits are unimportant (refs or not) it can be deleted.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- The DB Cooper incident is already covered in the linked List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 727 and is not particularly significant from the point of view of the history of the boeing 727 - the album cover is pure trivia.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Boeing 727-46
[edit]The article states: "The 727-46 was a shortened variant of the 727." I do not think this is correct. The 727-46 looks identical in dimensions to the 727-100. The 727-46 does have additional rear exits similar to the 727-200. This was to satisfy the high-density requirements of Japan Airlines (Boeing customer code "46"). Some of these were sold to Dan-Air, where they were fitted with 153 seats, more than the exit limit of the standard 727-100. https://www.key.aero/article/dan-airs-trijet-boeings Meh130 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Entry removed as it was unsourced. Accident reports involving the -46 report 140+ passenger casualties and aircraft weights the same as the -100. Limited searches of Jane's directories came up blank for the -46 being a major variant or even being mentioned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)