Talk:Boeing 727

MMO measurement conversions do not match

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

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

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

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)

Lolita Express

Danners430 I actually think the TA was right here. Lolita Express is often discussed by reliable sources (including the one used for that sentence) in the context of Epstein's sex crimes rather than his business dealings. - ZLEA ^TǀC 19:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean if there's consensus to mention it I won't argue - I just feel it's a bit distracting from the topic of the article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering Epstein's reputation, I think it would be more distracting to mention him and his aircraft (the nickname of which has highly disturbing connotations) without mentioning his conviction. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

"Boeing Commercial Airplanes"?

Was the company in 1960 really named "Boeing Commercial Airplanes" in those exact words? We can't retcon a new name onto an older company, in this article we have to consistently call it what it was being called in 1960. It's fine to link readers to the right article which may be called a newer name, but in this article we need to hide that link behind the old 1960 name. (If there even was a different name at that time, which I don't know for sure.) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 06:12, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The Boeing Commercial Airplanes article states that BCA was founded in 1916 and does not mention any renames. Do you have reason to believe it went by another name at the time? - ZLEA ^TǀC 18:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I looked it up here: Boeing company name on archive.org In 1960 it still had its original name, "Boeing Airplane Company". The next year, it was changed to "The Boeing Company". According to this French Wikipedia article, the name "Boeing Commercial Airplanes" did not exist until 1997. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears French Wikipedia doesn't cite any sources for that claim, and the existing sources in the article do not appear to support it. Also, "Boeing Airplane Company/The Boeing Company" is referring to the parent company of BCA, so that's not adequate evidence that "Boeing Commercial Airplanes" did not exist (at least under that name) at the time. - ZLEA ^TǀC 20:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)