Found info dated 1964 that claims 727 flown "satisfactorily" with airstairs lowered. Does that mean flown in the air?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Found info dated 1964 that claims 727 flown "satisfactorily" with airstairs lowered. Does that mean flown in the air?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The first 727 flight was on February 9, 1963 and the 727 was first used on revenue flights starting on February 1, 1964 with Eastern Airlines.  This Flight magazine article is dated June 18, 1964.

So to make a long story short, this demonstration of flying with the aft stairs down was undoubtedly done by the Boeing flight test crews as part of the original certification of the 727.

And 377 is correct in that it would be common knowledge about the 727 being jumpable from the aft stairs after the Flight magazine article appeared.  No need for any secret flight tests for OGOs after that point.

And this probably eliminates any possibility that Cooper had prior knowledge about how to operate the aft stairs.  However, Cooper did know that the 727 could take off with the stairs down.  This may also have been included in the Boeing flight tests but it is not mentioned in this specific Flight article.

But if Flight magazine had the information about the stairs, it is highly likely that every other major aviation publication had the information.  Just check the 1963 and 1964 issues of Aviation Week.  And I personally remember an excellent Aviation Week article on the technical aspects of the 727 in that time frame.  I remember details on the wing performance but I can't remember anything on the aft stairs, which I would probably have ignored anyway.   

I had to give up on a T Bar money plant when I saw the news video footage verifying the chard field. Now I must face the fact that in 1964 it was made public that a 727 could be safely flown with the rear stairs extended. All the spook, smoke jumper and special ops theories, while still viable, become suddenly less compelling.

I think R99 nailed it, the flight with the stairs extended was part of the FAA Type Certification tests for the 727. But why was this particular configuration required? Seems that Boeing could have precluded it by locking out the stair extension capability once off the ground. A Cooper vane is the simplest solution, but landing gear strut "squat switches" could also have been used to sense liftoff and then used to lock out extension electromechanically.

Did Boeing deliberately seek the ability to lower stairs in flight as part of the original Type Certificate? If so why? Without that being done, a civil flight with stairs extended would require a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Our jumpships have STCs for flight with door removed.

DBC biases die hard. I am holding a funeral for one of my biases today.

377

It is possible that other aircraft with aft stairs, such as the DC-9, also had to demonstrate flight with the rear stairs down for FAA certification even if it had (and it reportedly did have) other safety features to prevent the stairs from being lowered in flight.

FAA certification tests involve a lot of testing just to cover all possibilities and you may  never hear of those tests again.

Do we have the good luck to have pilots and engineers on this forum who have flown, or participated in, or just happen to know the full range of FAA tests that might apply to the aft stairs?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I had to give up on a T Bar money plant when I saw the news video footage verifying the chard field. Now I must face the fact that in 1964 it was made public that a 727 could be safely flown with the rear stairs extended. All the spook, smoke jumper and special ops theories, while still viable, become suddenly less compelling.

I think R99 nailed it, the flight with the stairs extended was part of the FAA Type Certification tests for the 727. But why was this particular configuration required? Seems that Boeing could have precluded it by locking out the stair extension capability once off the ground. A Cooper vane is the simplest solution, but landing gear strut "squat switches" could also have been used to sense liftoff and then used to lock out extension electromechanically.

Did Boeing deliberately seek the ability to lower stairs in flight as part of the original Type Certificate? If so why? Without that being done, a civil flight with stairs extended would require a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Our jumpships have STCs for flight with door removed.

DBC biases die hard. I am holding a funeral for one of my biases today.

377

It is possible that other aircraft with aft stairs, such as the DC-9, also had to demonstrate flight with the rear stairs down for FAA certification even if it had (and it reportedly did have) other safety features to prevent the stairs from being lowered in flight.

FAA certification tests involve a lot of testing just to cover all possibilities and you may  never hear of those tests again.

Do we have the good luck to have pilots and engineers on this forum who have flown, or participated in, or just happen to know the full range of FAA tests that might apply to the aft stairs?

and the No.1 customer for these planes was .....  tests equal sales.

What the 727 lacked for its customers was a cloaking device! The Klingons had one!!  Cooper had one!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I had to give up on a T Bar money plant when I saw the news video footage verifying the chard field. Now I must face the fact that in 1964 it was made public that a 727 could be safely flown with the rear stairs extended. All the spook, smoke jumper and special ops theories, while still viable, become suddenly less compelling.

I think R99 nailed it, the flight with the stairs extended was part of the FAA Type Certification tests for the 727. But why was this particular configuration required? Seems that Boeing could have precluded it by locking out the stair extension capability once off the ground. A Cooper vane is the simplest solution, but landing gear strut "squat switches" could also have been used to sense liftoff and then used to lock out extension electromechanically.

Did Boeing deliberately seek the ability to lower stairs in flight as part of the original Type Certificate? If so why? Without that being done, a civil flight with stairs extended would require a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Our jumpships have STCs for flight with door removed.

DBC biases die hard. I am holding a funeral for one of my biases today.

377

It is possible that other aircraft with aft stairs, such as the DC-9, also had to demonstrate flight with the rear stairs down for FAA certification even if it had (and it reportedly did have) other safety features to prevent the stairs from being lowered in flight.

FAA certification tests involve a lot of testing just to cover all possibilities and you may  never hear of those tests again.

Do we have the good luck to have pilots and engineers on this forum who have flown, or participated in, or just happen to know the full range of FAA tests that might apply to the aft stairs?

and the No.1 customer for these planes was .....  tests equal sales.

What the 727 lacked for its customers was a cloaking device! The Klingons had one!!  Cooper had one!

Actually, passing mandatory tests equals FAA certification which is required for sales.

FAA requirements for civilian use .... any lesser or higher difference for military or govt use?

Anybody ever look into "Frederick W. Hahneman".. 1972 hijacking of 727 to Honduras

""TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, June 3 (Reuters)—The man suspected of bailing out of a hijacked United States jet with $303,000 ransom over the jungles of Honduras a month ago surrendered to the United States Embassy here last night, Frederick W. Hahneman, 49 years old of Easton, Pa., told Ambassador Hewson A. Ryan that he was afraid and wanted to return to the United States. He Was flown to handcuffed and under guard today. An arrest warrant issued in Alexandria, Va., on Thursdny named Mr. Hahneman as the hijacker of an Eastern Airlines 727 that was seized after it left Allentown, Pa., On May 5 en route to Miami.

After stops in Washington, where 41 passengers were released, and New Orleans, where the aircraft was replaCed, the hijacker ordered the plane to fly south and left, it over Honduras.

Ambassador Ryan said that Mr Hahneman, who was born in Honduras, appeared to be afraid of something and had sought the embassy's protection. None of the ransom money had been recovered,. he said.

Mr. Hahneman walked into the embassy at 6 P.M. yesterday and said that he wanted to ‘return home. He apparently made no admission of guilt.

Mr. Hahneman told the Ambassador that he had fought in three wars — World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Federal authorities in Washington said that Ile had been an Air Force radar technician.

Does anybody know how/why Frederick W. Hahneman was eliminated as a suspect??

Latin, swarthy,
fought in three wars — World War II, Korea and Vietnam... Air force radar technician, Tie particles?

Read that he wanted to fund a Communist group in Honduras..

Money was recovered but no details or info.. maybe secret deal made.

.

R99 wrote: "It is more common for surplus military aircraft that are not FAA certified to be sold to the civilian market and the FAA determines what type certificate they can operate under and what they can be used for.  This would include military fighter type aircraft.  It takes a lot of paper shuffling and maybe a room full of bureaucrats and lawyers to work these matters out."    

In the case of the Collings Foundation's F4 civilian Phantom fighter, I think it literally took an act of Congress.

I wrote this webpage about the largest military surplus aircraft ever to fly under civilian ownership, the HUGE Douglas C 133. Read it to discover the astonishingly low price paid by the buyer. The FAA absolutely did not want it to fly, citing serious structural integrity issues. The owners skirted the FAA by operating it as a "State Aircraft" in AK conducting cargo business for the state. FAA regs do not apply to State Aircraft. The exemption allows surplus fire tanker aircraft to operate. The C 133 guys flew plenty of commercial cargo that had dubious ties to AK state business. Supposedly the late Senator Ted Stevens kept the feds off their case.

The USAF did do a few rear tailgate HALO jumps from a C 133.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

377

377, it is a small world.

In the early 1970s, I happened to be at the FAA headquarters in Washington on business with another USAF civilian engineer.  There were several USAF military types at the FAA on assignments and they found out we were there and so we all got together for lunch.  The senior USAF military officer at that lunch was a long time pilot of really big aircraft.

And he started telling us about his experiences flying the C-133.  He said that it was the most flexible aircraft that he had ever seen.  A C-133 had crashed into the Atlantic soon after leaving the USAF Dover, Delaware base and headed to Europe with a heavy load of cargo.  Some time after that accident, he took off from Dover in a C-133 with a heavy load of cargo and also headed to Europe.

He said that soon after take off, the airplane started to vibrate and flex like something he had never seen before and the aircraft was almost uncontrollable.  It was so bad that he had to tell the air traffic control people that he and his crew were so busy they couldn't talk to them.  But they eventually got the situation under control and made it to Europe in one piece.  I don't think he had any fond memories of the C-133.

A few years after that lunch, this senior pilot retired from the USAF and started to work for North American on the B-1A program.  One day he and his crew were doing some very low altitude work and ended up abandoning their aircraft.  They were flying one of the first five B-1s which had escape capsules, like the F-111s, instead of individual ejection seats.  The capsule parachute did not get fully open before it hit the ground and the senior pilot was killed although there were survivors in the capsule with him.  Ejection seats were retrofitted to earlier aircraft and used in the new production B-1s.

I think it was NBC Evening News that was preparing a story on this pilot when he was killed.  The story was suppose to be aired a few days later but they did a nice story on him a day or so after his death.