Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEx 727 Question?  
User currently offlineBobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2616 times:

I was looking at some pictures some FedEx 727 and i came across the airplane N217FE. It was The last 727 built back in 84 but a few years ago (dont remember how long ago) it had and engine mod done. It now has the same series engines the MD-80's have. It had a great shot of the #1 engine but i couldnt see the #2 engine very well but it appeard that it didnt have the engine that sits in the back of the tail anymore. Like that have the same engine set up as the MD-80. Is this accurate? Am i looking at the picture right? I always thought it would have been really sweet for someone to mod the 727 to a twin and make it more efficient so it would probably fly longer. Will someone verify this for me. Thanks

Bobby

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCalpilot From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 998 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

The #2 is either a JT8D-15 or -17. Is that what you were asking?

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

This 722F is one of 11 that Fedex operate that underwent the Valsan conversion. Basically, the 2 outboard engines were replaced with JT8D-200 with the MD-80 nacelle. The #2 engine remained the same JT8D-15 or -17.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

THe Valsan conversion yes, thats what i was thinking of. So they just replaced the Outboard engines (1 and 3) with the MD-80 engines (pratt JT8D-200's) and left the #2 engine the same. Wouldnt that cause some problems? The performance of the plane would be really different also? I could see it work but is it efficent? Thanks

Bobby


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

The Valsan conversion is considered technically successful although only a handful of 722's (and at least 1 721) underwent the conversion. Valsan went out of business but the concept was resurrected under the "Super 27" program.

The remaining #2 engine was derated to reduce thrust and engine noise, afforded by the more powerful #1/3 powerplants.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinePilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2383 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang



pilottim747



Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
User currently offlineSkydrolBoy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2276 times:

The #2 Engine was not derated to reduce thrust and noise. The reason it is still a -15 or -17 is the fact that the -217's will physically not fit in the number 2 position, to put a -217 engine there would have required a completely new "S" duct along with extensive structural modifications through out the tail to fit a larger "S" duct. It was simply not cost effective. Another problem is the fact that the #2 engine has a tendency to compressor stall, and with a -217 engine placed in the #2 spot would have increased the frequency of compressor stalls...

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

It looks like the tail cone has been replaced with an almost nonexistant opening.

N


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

I remember reading the specs on the Valsan conversion program years ago. I thought the #2 was derated to reduice noise to Stage III and because the JT8D-200's provided more thrust so less was needed from #2. I could be wrong.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fedex 727 FOs Question posted Sat Aug 24 2002 23:36:40 by Airlineguy
FedEx 727 At Purdue posted Wed Aug 16 2006 22:36:06 by ORDTerminal1
FedEx MEM Question posted Thu Jul 6 2006 01:37:24 by Iluv727s
FedEx Employees Question posted Tue Jun 27 2006 19:49:56 by Mexitli
Alaska Airlines 727 Question posted Fri Apr 14 2006 22:52:55 by 28L28L
FedEx 727 Moved From FLL By Truck (pics) posted Mon Jan 16 2006 19:05:04 by Mikey711MN
FedEx 727 Future posted Fri Aug 26 2005 10:43:05 by Fedex
FedEx 727 Returns To GFK (Equip. Issues) posted Fri Mar 4 2005 05:53:57 by AviatorTJ
Fed Ex 727 Question posted Thu Aug 12 2004 13:33:43 by DC10Heavy
FedEx 727 Acars posted Sat Feb 21 2004 18:27:50 by Whalepilot