Jet Crew: Reverse Thrusters Failed in Chicago - Washington Post

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message

If I remember correctly, the 727 had a series of landing
accidents because the full flap setting was about 50-60
degrees and if the pilot got too slow, they could not
recover. Maximum extension was reduced.
Looking on the Internet, I found a further limitation for
couple approaches with certain autopilots. Is there any
early 727 pilot out there with the facts on the first 727
and any changes in certification re flaps?

I never heard of any 727 with 50-60 flaps. [caveat: Ihave no training or
experience in very early models] 40 is the max I've ever heard of, and at
many carriers 30 was the max in normal operations. 40 flaps when relatively
heavy required a fair chunk of power on the final approach. There were
early sink-rate accidents related, as Bob pointed out, to operating
procedures. Procedures were changed, leading into the era where the
stabilized approach is considered standard. As explained to me years ago,
the early 727s were flown by many pilots transitioning from large radial
powered propeller craft, who essentially tried to fly the 727 in similar
ways, trying to take advantage of the 727's clean wing and remarkable
ability to descend. It didn't work I don't really know if this explanation
is accurate, but it sounds plausible. But the approach accidents were
related to sink rate and engine spool-up time. Results would have been
similar at 30 flaps because it was the way the airplane was being flown that
was the problem, not the configuration. The 727 will come down like an
elevator if you ask it nicely.