Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MD80 And Noise Restrictions  
User currently offlineNW747-400 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 504 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2829 times:

New noise restrictions with strict guidelines are likely to be issued soon, and the JT8 powered mad dogs may or may not squeak by. If they are unable to pass any new noise restrictions, would it be feasible to re-engine the MD's with new high bypass engines? Right now they are running on a 2:1 bypass ratio and they sacrifice subsonic fuel economy. New high bypass engines, maybe something near 5:1, would improve noise and help tremendously with fuel efficiency. With Delta and American operating hundreds of mad dogs, it is not financially viable to replace the airplanes outright.

Just a thought...

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

If they are unable to pass any new noise restrictions, would it be feasible to re-engine the MD's with new high bypass engines?

There was a very long discussion on this exact topic a few weeks back... you might find better details than I can remember by going back and looking for sometihng like "AA MD-80 re-engine," ect...


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why reengine them? There already is a certified Stage IV hushkit available.
http://www.jet-md80.com/


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Pratt has also developed a mixer to squeak the MD-80 past stage 4 requirements. This is similar to the one in the nozzle of the V2500 or the RR Trents. Note: last I looked they hadn't thrown the $$$ to certify it. So noise will not force the issue.

On another front, the MD-80 engines are fairly low thrust. The BMR-175 or pw6000 would both be ok replacements. At today's oil prices, an engine change would be a close call (it all depends on the retrofit costs vs. estimated fuel and mx savings).

Lightsaber.



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2634 times:

I think that this is more likely in the US than in Europe for two reasons.

1. Europe tends to be more rigid regarding noise.

2. The number of MD80's in Europe is already declining.


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7768 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Any new noise restrictions will be phased in. The MD-80's, etc will all be grandfathered in until they are retired. There are simply too many in service, that it is uneconomical to have them all replaced for this before the end of their useable life. These regs primarily will apply to biz jets.

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

I dunno, the old 732 and DC9 fleets were forced to comply...

User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2512 times:

Aren't there some more flexible rules like landing fees as a function of noise? AFAIK, we have such rules in Germany. Furthermore, will the rules apply to all airports? I think in the US you have some quite remote airports which don't need such strict noise regulations as airports in urban areas need.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2442 times:


My understanding of the CAT 3 Regs, which I assume will form the basis of CAT 4 is that there are a number of tests, approaching, overhead, departing, side etc.

The European rule was that you had to pass every test, the US take on this was that if you passed most and only just failed one or two, then that was OK.

I think that it was partly due to population density, no one is 50 miles from an airport.


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bennett123,

As the regs are written, you can fail one test by a few db, but as long as you cleared other tests with margin, you can be a CAT 3 or CAT 4. I knew Europe takes a tougher stance, I didn't know the details. Since the ICAO regulations were supposed to be the "end all be all" of noise regulations, it has created friction that individual countries take different interpretations...

There is always a lag between new regulations and enforcement. Right now the airlines are trying to set up the politics so that the US never requires retrofit to CAT 4 (from 3). Personally, I'd like to see a phase out in 15 years (or retrofit), but my opinion and $4 gets you a Latte at Starbucks.  Big thumbs up

Seriously, non-aviation enthusiasts are really annoyed by aircraft noise. How I like to think of the noise regulations:
CAT 1: non-noise regulated. It hurts when these fly over.
CAT 2: If you're in a house, stop your conversation while the plane flies over.
CAT 3: You could yell over the plane if you're talking in the house, but you're not going miss noticing it.
CAT 4: You could yell over the plane if you're outside the house as it flies over.
CAT 5: (proposed, still under ICAO committee) You could still converse outside of the house. This is the first level where the neighbors noisy mower is more annoying than an aircraft.

Please don't get me wrong, I love aircraft. Maybe its because noise regulations would put more $$$ into engine R&D...  Big thumbs up

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
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...
DL's ATL-DKR-JNB And Etops Restrictions posted Sun Oct 29 2006 00:57:00 by Cessna057
LGA And ISP Restrictions posted Tue Jul 18 2006 05:46:50 by JFK998
AA Replacement For The MD80's And A300-600. posted Sat Oct 8 2005 10:08:14 by CV990
Airlines With 737 And MD80 And A320? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 08:28:14 by PM
Noise Restrictions On Aircraft posted Sat May 7 2005 23:56:48 by Lazyshaun
1994 Runway Collision Of TW MD80 And Twin In STL posted Tue Mar 2 2004 02:59:27 by TrnsWrld
DC9 Vs MD80 And DC10 Vs MD11 posted Wed Nov 6 2002 03:05:27 by 727_Gal
Noise Restrictions..... posted Wed Jun 19 2002 05:54:46 by Lekky-Man
Noise Restrictions posted Mon Jun 17 2002 22:05:39 by NewSwissair
Tomorrow April 1st EU Noise Restrictions posted Sun Mar 31 2002 15:16:55 by NewSwissair