OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3679 times:
Aviation Fleet Systems (AFS) and Pratt & Whitney have joined forces to get noise reduced on their JT8D-200 powered MD-80 named QuietEagle. This system has recently been certified by the FAA and meets Stage 4 and ICAO Chapter 4 noise standard requirements.
Noise levels are reduced by as much as 6dB and first units will be delivered in May.
According to the company, European operator's could save up to 2400 euros (2930$) pr trip versus operating a new-generation aircraft of similar size.
My question is the following: Does this system reduce the fuel consumption so it will increase the range and enhance the operating efficiency or is the only benefit that the plane gets the noise reduced?
Does this MD-80 use less fuel pr hour than a 737NG or A320, or is it just short European flights?
Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3651 times:
Reducing noise by 6db is a lot. I wonde how they will do that. I would doubt that this system reduces the fuel consumption, though, because in that case, I would guess this would have been done much earlier. Most likely the contrary is true, other hush kits also tend to increase the fuel consumption.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3606 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): According to the company, European operator's could save up to 2400 euros (2930$) pr trip versus operating a new-generation aircraft of similar size.
Probably has nothing to do with fuelburn...
Instead of investing in a new aircraft, with this hushkit you can continue flying the MD80, even in noise-resticted airports. Landing fees are also lower for quieter airplanes (in AMS for example).
Tavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 833 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3560 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 3): Probably has nothing to do with fuelburn...
Instead of investing in a new aircraft, with this hushkit you can continue flying the MD80, even in noise-resticted airports. Landing fees are also lower for quieter airplanes (in AMS for example).
Agreed also the lease costs are much smaller in MD-80s than in newer planes (See NW and the DC-9s)
Gus
SKBO
Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days ago) and read 3397 times:
Thanks for the answers everyone!
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): I read somewhere AA are looking at a combined winglet/re-engine package for their mad dogs.
Cant remember if it was a IAE V2500 or the Rolls on the 717, or if it was a CFM56 though.
I wonder if they have figured out the cost of acquisition is higher than the benefit. I guess the future oil barrel prize will determine that. Both PW6000 and RR-715 has been talked about here on A.net.
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2): Reducing noise by 6db is a lot. I Wonder how they will do that. I would doubt that this system reduces the fuel consumption, though, because in that case, I would guess this would have been done much earlier. Most likely the contrary is true, other hush kits also tend to increase the fuel consumption.
According to the article it says the installation includes a front fan case, a 16-lobe mixer, a muffler and tabbed nozzle.
Not sure what all this means, but I hope it makes sense to you TheSonntag
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
N911ME From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 117 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
I'd like to see some BR715s on an MD-80. I don't know if this is common in the industry (though it has little, if anything, to do with noise abatement), but YX sometimes intermixes JT8D-217s and JT8D-219s on their MD-80s (I believe the MD-88s mainly) if they need an engine change and a replacement 217 is not available.
They have SOPs that govern the operation of aircraft with the mixed powerplants due to the 219's increased thrust capability - pretty cool stuff.
Access-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
The simplest solution is to re-engine the MD-80s with the engines that are on the MD-90......Then you would have an istant Stage 4 aircraft. The only problem is that with some of the more stringent European rules, Hushkitted Aircraft are less likely to be welcomed even tho they meet noise regulations. Example: Europeans were not willing to accept a Stage 2 hushkitted plane to Stage 3 standards fly, altho they ended up letting them fly anyway. I say as long as the plane is airworthy and can do the job who the heck cares how much noise it makes. Had it not been for the stupid noise regulations there would be an active and very productive fleet of BAC One Elevens still plying the skies in Europe. Now they all sit rotting away in Africa...
Oh well, thats just how I feel about it.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3081 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
Quoting N911ME (Reply 6): I'd like to see some BR715s on an MD-80. I don't know if this is common in the industry (though it has little, if anything, to do with noise abatement), but YX sometimes intermixes JT8D-217s and JT8D-219s on their MD-80s (I believe the MD-88s mainly) if they need an engine change and a replacement 217 is not available.
They are already the same engines. From what I understand it's a matter of turning a couple screws and changing the data plate.
N911ME From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 117 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2811 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 9): They are already the same engines. From what I understand it's a matter of turning a couple screws and changing the data plate.
They're not the SAME engines. I stand corrected, but the -217C is identical to the -219 except for its -217A ratings and operating limits. It also has a nearly 1,000 lb. thrust difference.
Jeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
When intermixed the -219 is trimmed to the -217 ratings so you loose power. YX did it with the -7s and -9s of the DC9s as well. You loose performance this way. The 88s take a significant performance hit when this is done. This is done exclusively to get the airplane in the air when the proper engine isn't available and must be changed out as soon as possible based on flight schedules and availability of a suitable engine.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 833 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 117 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
