Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B737-200 Re-engineing  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4150 posts, RR: 37
Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3288 times:

Has there ever been a serious attempt to re-engine the B737-200, e.g. with the BR710/715? There are still quite a few 737-200s out there, a plane which is despite its age still quite popular - and right-sized for many markets. Instead of spending about 25-30 million USD on an Embraer 195, you would probably only need to spend 5-10 million USD on new engines but extend the life of the bird by quite a bit.


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

I seriously doubt the economics of such a conversion would be favorable. It's why no DC-9 reengine programs have taken place: it's too expensive and the airframes don't have enough cycles remaining to amortize the investment.

AA may consider reengining their MD80 fleet, but it is much younger and much larger than the handful of 732 fleets remaining...


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Structural Mods on the B732 are a lot.
It would not be Economically viable option considering the Airframe Age.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTriStar500 From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 4692 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

With the abundance of used 733/735 on the market, it is probably much more attractive to acquire those instead of shelling out some serious dough for a tricky reengining.


Homer: Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
User currently offlineBluewave 707 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3152 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

Would be interesting to see BR715s on a 733 or 735 since those airframes are not as old as 732s. It would make it available for ultra-short range & high-frequency routes like Hawaii's inter-island routes that AQ has. The BR715 has proven itself on HA's 712s.


"The best use of your life will be to so live your life, that the use of your life will outlive your life" -- D Severn
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Not really a re-engineering, looks good though!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw



User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3005 times:

Any plans of Reengining the B733/4/5s with CFM56-7s
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On Tuesday I flew on a 737 of Nationwide Airlines here in South Africa and on the engines it said "Boeing 737 Stage III". Any idea what that might be about?


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2729 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting Andz (Reply 7):
On Tuesday I flew on a 737 of Nationwide Airlines here in South Africa and on the engines it said "Boeing 737 Stage III". Any idea what that might be about?

I believe this is the hush kit system that has been fitted to the engines.



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Andz (Reply 7):
On Tuesday I flew on a 737 of Nationwide Airlines here in South Africa and on the engines it said "Boeing 737 Stage III". Any idea what that might be about?

That means the engines have the Nordam or AvAero hush kit installed to allow them to be compliant with ICAO Chapter 36 Stage III noise rules.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3139 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

There is a hushkit mod available for the 732. Take a look in the database at N767TW and N737TW. Ameristar Air Cargo has these weird birds and we see them at STL from time to time.

Also, if you've ever looked at a 737 of any variety you'll notice there is very little clearance between ground and the bottom of the nacelle. The landing gear on the models with a CFM engine are actually a little longer to get the wing higher (I have to use an extra step on the ladder when fueling these). A wider diameter engine like a BR715 might not be a realistic option as they may have to do other structural changes as Hawk21M mentioned.



DMI
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
There is a hushkit mod available for the 732. Take a look in the database at N767TW and N737TW. Ameristar Air Cargo has these weird birds and we see them at STL from time to time.

That hushkit you are looking at is the original Nordam hushkit. It met Stage III, but it increased aircraft drag by ~7%. Nordam went back and redesigned the hush kit using internal mixers and absorbers to meet Stage III, without the drag penalty. AvAero later copied their design. All three of these hush kits also have an inlet guide vane respacing that adds a little length to the forward nacelle.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
The landing gear on the models with a CFM engine are actually a little longer to get the wing higher (I have to use an extra step on the ladder when fueling these).

Not on the B733/4/5. The Landing gear is the same as for the B731/2s.Hence the CFM56-3s have a flat under surface to improve ground Clearence.
The B736/G/8/9 have a higher MLG.Hence the CFM56-7s have a more rounded Inlet.And the NGs stand higher.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2721 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I've always thought a GE90 powered 732 would make a great plane to fly on. Just think of the climb rate, or descent rate when the thrust tears the wings off.... Smile

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12409 posts, RR: 100
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Thread starter):
Has there ever been a serious attempt to re-engine the B737-200, e.g. with the BR710/715?

On the 732 the upgrade would be very expensive for several reasons as other have noted.
1. The controls in the cockpit are very custom to the JT-8D's. Quite a bit of rewiring would need to occur to re-engine.
2. One would need to rebuild the wing structure for the 733 pylon. This brings up a weight/balance issue. The 733 engine is moved "forward and up" in order to improve the ground clearance (and aerodynamics). Even then the "flattened nacelle" that others have mentioned is required. Personally, I suspect that the balance issues where key in preventing a 732 and DC-9 re-engine. On airframes such as the 742/743 where the engines are right about at the center of gravity and replacements can fit into the same "envelope," this isn't an issue.

Also note that A and B have dramatically improved their manufacturing efficiencies in the last 5 years. This has shifted the decision point a bit toward new aircraft vs. used due to the lower prices being offered.

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 5):
Not really a re-engineering, looks good though!

Yes it does and it makes much more economic sense to do winglets than new engines. The cost is less and thus the "breakeven point" is many years closer in.

Quoting NZ1 (Reply 13):
I've always thought a GE90 powered 732 would make a great plane to fly on. Just think of the climb rate, or descent rate when the thrust tears the wings off....

 rotfl  You watched the pod racing in Star Wars episode 1 too many times...  rotfl  Alas, as an engine nut, I approve of a nacelle the same diameter as the passenger compartment. Ok, back to our regularly scheduled tech ops...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
t's too expensive and the airframes don't have enough cycles remaining to amortize the investment.

As usual an excellent and concise description.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2630 times:

Quoting Bluewave 707 (Reply 4):
Would be interesting to see BR715s on a 733 or 735

A BR715 conversion would mean a drop in power.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 12):
Hence the CFM56-3s have a flat under surface to improve ground Clearence.

They also have a cantilevered pylon



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2581 times:

The Only B732 Improvements Available are the "TE Aft flap tilt" & the "Winglets" to Improve Lift.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6590 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

New engine for 732???? Why a BR715? Shove in a PW6000! LOL

MEL,
If U want to use the 733/5 for high cycle low hours kinda ops, U're better off keeping the 56-3s on them!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Thinking about it, surely a re-engineering of the 732 already exists. It's called a 735  

By the time all the R&D is done & manufacturing capabilities have been established, the costs of the project far outweigh any benefit over just getting hold of second hand -500s or even newer -600s.

Obviously there have been other models to look back on, for instance the KC-135R having CFMs. This may well be a way of keeping these aircraft flying, but in the case of the 737 the 1st generation have had their time. Constantly upgrading older aircraft is a costly procedure. Think about it as though you were running a car. After a certain age, it becomes cheaper to scrap and put money into a newer replacement.

[Edited 2005-07-03 15:51:39]

User currently offlineJetstar From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1616 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To re-engine an airplane is a very expensive proposition, especially if the airframe manufacturer does not cooperate.

In the past 20 or so years there have only been a few successful re-engine programs. The USAF KC-135’s, and the DC-60’s upgraded to the CFM-56’s and the Lockheed JetStar, Falcon 20 and the Hawker corporate jets to the TFE 731 engines, in all of these cases, the manufacturer cooperated. Lockheed used the design of the upgrade to the 731 engines when they reopened production of the JetStar and called their version the JetStar 2.

With the airframe manufacturer support, the original structural data can be used as a baseline when the engine upgrade is designed. Without this, the upgrade company has to reverse engineer the section of the airframe to get the structural data needed for certification.

One major candidate for a re-engine program is the Gulfstream 2 and 3 business jets, to replace the noisy and gas guzzling Spey engines with newer modern engines. Gulfstream, the manufacturer will not support any program because they feel it would cut into sales of their newer airplanes and also from a product labiality standpoint, by not supporting the upgrade, they have no involvement in any lawsuit that would arise from a incident involving the airplane and its upgraded engines


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2367 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Julian Whitelaw
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zak Economides


Why were the Winglets not Blended type.
It seems they were removed after the lease period.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 10):
The landing gear on the models with a CFM engine are actually a little longer to get the wing higher

Only on the NGs.

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 11):
Nordam went back and redesigned the hush kit using internal mixers and absorbers to meet Stage III,

On Ground Stage III compliant Hushkits dont really sound quieter  Smile

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 17):
If U want to use the 733/5 for high cycle low hours kinda ops, U're better off keeping the 56-3s on them!

Thats educational.
Thanks.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Airplanepics (Reply 8):
I believe this is the hush kit system that has been fitted to the engines.



Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 9):
That means the engines have the Nordam or AvAero hush kit installed to allow them to be compliant with ICAO Chapter 36 Stage III noise rules.

I thought about this but most hush-kits I have see involve an extension at the rear of the engine, while on this aircraft the engines looked identical to those on all other 732s operating here. I realise that the reverser buckets prevent anything being fitted behind the engine so how does one hush-kit a 732?



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 16):
The Only B732 Improvements Available are the "TE Aft flap tilt" & the "Winglets" to Improve Lift.

There are no winglets STCed for use on a 737-200. The only performance enhancing STCs are the AvAero and QuietWing flap droops.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 20):
It seems they were removed after the lease period.

It turns out that they were non-flightworthy parts installed for an airshow.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 20):
On Ground Stage III compliant Hushkits dont really sound quieter

Stage III has three noise measurement points: approach, fly-over and departure. Ground noise is not considered.

Quoting Andz (Reply 21):
I thought about this but most hush-kits I have see involve an extension at the rear of the engine, while on this aircraft the engines looked identical to those on all other 732s operating here. I realise that the reverser buckets prevent anything being fitted behind the engine so how does one hush-kit a 732?

The later Nordam and AvAero 737-200 hush kits involve internal mixers and acoustical treatment. Except for the stretch of the forward nacelle due to the inlet guide vane respacing, the nacelles for these hush kits are identical to a baseline 737-200. Only the original Nordam hush kit brought in external air for mixing.


User currently offlineZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1411 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 22):
There are no winglets STCed for use on a 737-200

Was the aircraft in the photo I posted above never flown with the winglets? Were they not certified?


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 23):
Was the aircraft in the photo I posted above never flown with the winglets? Were they not certified?

No, they were never flown and no, they were never certified.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 25, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 24):
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 23):
Was the aircraft in the photo I posted above never flown with the winglets? Were they not certified?

No, they were never flown and no, they were never certified.

Whats the Story behind the Above "Naturelink" B732 with Winglets.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B737-200 Re-engineing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
B737-200 Reverse posted Sun Oct 31 2004 20:05:40 by Debonair
B737-200 Converted Freighters. How Sucessful posted Sat May 29 2004 18:01:26 by HAWK21M
B737-200 posted Tue Mar 23 2004 04:37:53 by Dacanes3130
Etops B737-200,-400,-800 posted Fri Aug 31 2001 11:27:10 by HAWK21M
GPS Supply Bus [B737-200/200F] posted Thu May 31 2001 11:26:13 by HAWK21M
B737-200 Etops posted Sat Jan 6 2001 06:34:59 by L1011
AccessAir B737-200 Hushkits posted Sat Dec 9 2000 04:00:18 by N-156F
B737-200 General Info posted Tue May 23 2000 03:12:20 by Wilky
B767-200 Fuel Consumption Question posted Sun Nov 12 2006 07:06:31 by Jetline
A-340-200/300-Type Reversers posted Fri Nov 10 2006 21:47:29 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format