Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
707 Secondary Air Inlet Doors  
User currently offlineBigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

The engines on the 707-300C's had secondary air inlet doors around the circumference just behind the engine inlet. Some airlines, such as TWA, chose openings which were long in the direction of the circumference and short from fwd to aft (so they looked tall and skinny from the side). Other airlines, such as QANTAS, used a design which was closer to being square. Why were there two different designs, and what were the advantages to one over the other?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't know the precise reasons's for the difference but my guess would be the more square doors were for engines with the higher mass airflow.

What I do know is the rectangular doors were associated with engines that had a long pointed inlet hub cover while the square doors were on engines that had the inlet hub cover, dome shaped (P & W JT3D-7)


User currently offlineDL_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1969 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

Hey BigG- I keep hoping you get an answer on this. My father was a mechanic for TWA and I can tell you that all their 707s had the small doors. This was probably so that nose cowls could be interchanged between -131Bs and -331B/Cs. I know that Pan Am and QF had both types. Later- DL_mech.


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Having done a bit more digging the large doors were on JT3D-7's that delivered 19,000 Lbs thrust while the small rectangular doors were on JT3D-3's that delivered 17,000 Lbs thrust.

All the 707-320's I worked on had -7 engines with the large doors.


User currently offlineBigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1208 times:

Thanks, VC-10. Good answer! The increased thrust would require more airflow, wouldn't it?

But I still wonder why the old nacelle designs (707, early 737/747) needed these doors and the new ones don't...?

BigGiraffe


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1207 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have found in the B747 F/E's Tech Manual that the Inlet By-pass Doors were removed from the 747 to comply with noise requirements.

User currently offlineBigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

That's interesting... I wonder if they took a performance cut to reduce noise, or whether they came up with a design change which 1) allowed more air while the aircraft was slow with high thrust, and 2) still maintained optimum airflow in cruise? (I'm assuming they came up with that neat design change, but am still curious about what it was).

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looking in the SRM the fixed geometry inlet on the 747 is 10 inches longer than the variable geometry inlet and I would venture a larger diameter, as the SB to replace the VG inlet say's a new pylon fairing above the inlet is required.

User currently offlineDL_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1969 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

Wouldn't the longer inlet also reduce the noise?


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineBigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

I sure appreciate you digging into this for us, VC-10! It never occured to me that those inlet passages would make a lot of noise although it makes sense now that you've said it, so getting rid of them would make the engine quieter. The increase in duct diameter would make up for the deletion of the secondary passages.

I'm still thinking about what effect the lengthened duct would have, and tend to agree with DL_mech that it would mask some noise from the front fan and therefore make things quieter.


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1194 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't understand the point you are making about the longer intake. I understand there will be some noise reduction from the increased length but I don't know where you are going from there

User currently offlineDL_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1969 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Hey VC-10- I think I started this mess about the longer inlet. On the 737-200 Nordam hushkits that Delta has installed, there is a two inch extension between the inlet guide vanes and the nose cowl. I assumed that this was done for noise reduction. Didn't the 707 hushkits have a similar system? I have never seen a hushed 707 up close. DL_mech


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineBigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

I guess we were thinking out loud that the increase in length had something to do with reducing noise as did the deletion of the secondary passages. They might also have been lengthened to help channel air without the passages. It is interesting that the 737 ducts also lengthened a little. I don't know anything about the 707 hushkit except it also causes a reduction in thrust.

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (14 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1189 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I never worked on hushkitted 707's so I can't answer that.

Thinking further about the 747 inlet, I only ever saw one variable geometry inlet & I don't think it had any acoustic panels, it was just a scaled up JT3D-7 inlet. There I think is the answer, the fixed geometry inlet duct is all acoustic panels less the inlet lip.


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...
Secondary Air Inlet Doors posted Tue Feb 22 2000 14:31:27 by BigGiraffe
Photos Of 1978 Korean Air 707 Forced Landing posted Fri Jun 6 2008 11:24:24 by Gyojoo
Status Of Air France 707 F-BLCD? posted Wed May 21 2008 16:52:30 by CodyKDiamond
Omega Air 707 In Bucharest posted Tue Feb 19 2008 13:02:40 by Mrcomet
Air France 707 North American Routes posted Sat Jan 27 2007 12:32:49 by Starstream707
117 Die In Air India 707 Crash 31 Years Ago Today. posted Wed Jan 24 2007 10:08:41 by Cumulus
Saha Air 707's posted Tue Jun 27 2006 17:38:10 by AEroc
Are 707 Consider Heavy By Air Traffic Control? posted Mon Jun 5 2006 04:10:31 by 747400sp
Exit Doors On DC-8, 707, 727 (pics) posted Fri Apr 14 2006 22:37:50 by MaxQ2351
Is Saha Air The Last 707 Pax Operator? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 22:59:37 by IsuA380B777