AS907 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 49 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2795 times:
Hi everyone. This is the first topic I have started here on A.net! While working at ANC, I would get to see AS MD-80s close up and noticed something different with the engines. It looks as though they are parallel to the ground while the fuselage has a slight downslope to it. At the time, it looked like there was a huge difference in the angle between the two, but I can't find any pictures in the database that show it very well. I was just curious... was I imagining this huge difference in the angle? And if not, what are the benefits of having the engine not parallel with the fuselage? Thank you.
Speedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2703 times:
I remember a previous thread that discussed the same thing. I can't remember for sure, I think some posters opined that, while the engines were mounted with a bit of pitch, the intakes, and thus the whole nacell, were mounted with even more pitch, thus giving the impression of a dramatic difference between the angle of the fuse and the angle of the engines.
Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
MX757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 628 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 1): Yes, the engines on the MD80 are mounted with about 2.8 degrees of pitch. This is to align the engine with the downwash behind the wing.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2): They are also toed out, that is the intakes point outwards in the vertical plane. Wing mounted engines are toed in instead. This is all to align with airflow.
It's funny, the little things like that. I worked DC9/MD-80's exclusively for 3 years back in the mid 90's and I never paid any attention to engine pitch and toe out angles. I guess I was too busy fixing the damn things. Interesting little tidbit though. Thanks for the info.
Nonfirm From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2633 times:
Quoting MX757 (Reply 4): It's funny, the little things like that. I worked DC9/MD-80's exclusively for 3 years back in the mid 90's and I never paid any attention to engine pitch and toe out angles. I guess I was too busy fixing the damn things. Interesting little tidbit though. Thanks for the info
I have been working on them for 14 years and went and looked at them again tonight i never noticed either that is because as an MD mech you only get to look at the side of the Eng.
Airgypsy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2481 times:
The MD-80 grew from the DC-9 in several ways. It got longer, so they put a longer landing gear on the MD-80 to keep the tail from dragging on takeoff (kept the same nose gear). The wing is bigger so, they added a Zero (0) slat instead of renumbering the others.
I was with PSA and worked both MD-80s and DC-9 30s. Hated the dirty thirties because they were real head bangers and tail draggers. The "dragster" rake of an MD-80 does look cool.