Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Does John Travolta 707 Have Hush Kits?  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11847 times:

Last time I saw Jet Ella Clipper flying, it did not seem to be as loud as 707s supposed to be. It did not get as high pitch as 707 I have seen landing before. Get John put some hush kits on his toy? If so when?

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11834 times:

No... it is does not have Hush Kits


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11811 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
No... it is does not have Hush Kits

Are you sure? It looks like the fan nozzle of the JT3Ds have had the "collar extension:"


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Anders



...compared to a "regular" JT3D:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ellis M. Chernoff



User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11783 times:

Stage three hushkits are fitted.

User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11788 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
Are you sure? It looks like the fan nozzle of the JT3Ds have had the "collar extension:"

They look the same to me. Plus I thought the hush kit goes in back where most of the noise comes from.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Oates



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11766 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 4):
They look the same to me. Plus I thought the hush kit goes in back where most of the noise comes from.

You are comparing the JT3C, which is a turbojet...not the same engine as on Travolta's 707, which is a turbofan JT3D.

I am not sure of any other hushkits for the JT3D, other than the fan duct extension...correct me as needed.

[Edited 2007-02-17 03:05:16]

User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11729 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 4):
They look the same to me. Plus I thought the hush kit goes in back where most of the noise comes from.

There are some subtle differences between them. You just have to look harder.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 5):
You are comparing the JT3C, which is a turbojet...not the same engine as on Travolta's 707, which is a turbofan JT3D.

Don't forget that back in the day, JT3Cs were easily convertible to JT3Ds, which could have provided some noise reduction before the retrofit with the stage 3 hushkits. More importantly, the first picture in reply 4 is of a Rolls Royce Conway powered 707 (a former LH 707-430 to be precise), and the Conway cannot be conpared at all with the JT3, given that it was conceived as a turbofan from the beginning, while the JT3 was originally a turbojet (as the JT3C) and later evolved to a turbofan (as the JT3D). Correct me if I'm wrong though.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2546 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I was Travolta, I'd get me some JT-3Cs  Smile

User currently online113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 11672 times:

Why would you want JT-3C? It was much lower thrust and higher fuel consumption. You just think that the organ pipes on the exhaust are sound suppression. Well, they were in 1959-62. However, even with those, it was VERY LOUD compared to the later fan versions which didn't need the pipes. The JT-3D turbofan had higher thrust with less noise without the pipes. The later stage III kits have an extended inlet which allowed for additional inlet sound suppression taming the fan buzz and whine.

User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11565 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 6):
first picture in reply 4 is of a Rolls Royce Conway powered 707 (a former LH 707-430 to be precise), and the Conway cannot be conpared at all with the JT3, given that it was conceived as a turbofan from the beginning, while the JT3 was originally a turbojet (as the JT3C) and later evolved to a turbofan (as the JT3D).

My correction, you're right, the first photo is a 707-400, RR Conway Powered.

Just a side note, the RR Conway was often referred to as a "bypass turbojet," not a turbofan, due to its extremely low bypass ratio.


User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11561 times:

Quoting 113312 (Reply 8):
Why would you want JT-3C? It was much lower thrust and higher fuel consumption. You just think that the organ pipes on the exhaust are sound suppression. Well, they were in 1959-62. However, even with those, it was VERY LOUD compared to the later fan versions which didn't need the pipes.

So what! I like LOUD jets.  Big grin


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11555 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 7):
If I was Travolta, I'd get me some JT-3Cs

Not just that, make sure those JT3Cs are also waterburners.  Wink

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charlie Atterbury

I wish I would have been there, when pure jets were still flying.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting N231YE (Reply 9):
Just a side note, the RR Conway was often referred to as a "bypass turbojet," not a turbofan, due to its extremely low bypass ratio.

Curious that you mention this term, because I read on the RR website that the Conway was the first turbofan engine to enter service when it was introduced for the 707.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/history/timeline/1940-1959.jsp

I guess the term "bypass turbojet" is simply an unofficial type designation for the Conway.


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11500 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 11):
Curious that you mention this term, because I read on the RR website that the Conway was the first turbofan engine to enter service when it was introduced for the 707.

I just remember reading this in a few books...but as stated, the bypass ratio of the Conway was very low, thus why it probably had the "organ pipe" nozzle (similar to the JT3C) attached to it.

Nonetheless, the Conway still was a very advanced and interesting engine for its time.


User currently offlineTimT From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11445 times:

There is a misconception (IMHO) htat most of the noise from a jet comes from the back. From my experience standing on the ramp as they taxi into the gate, a larger percentage of the noise comes from the front. I can (and have) stood directly in front, far enough back to be safe, and then walked to the side. As soon as you get away from where you can see the fan, it's a lot more quiet..

User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11397 times:

Yeah I second what TimT is saying. My reference is to the 737-200 engines. They used to start up right in front of the terminal in Auckland, then taxiout from the parked position. It was really noisy (high pitch scream) until the turned around, it was a lot quieter from the side.

On takeoff it was a loud rour...by no means quiet, but awesome to watch.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 11391 times:

Quoting Rendezvous (Reply 14):
My reference is to the 737-200 engines

Thats the JT8Ds

Whats the Noise Restrictions out there for non Hushkitted Aircraft.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11371 times:

Canada follows ICAO Annex 16 Volume I Chapter 3. This allows aircraft under 34,000kg MTOW to fly without Stage III compliance. All aircraft in Canada over 34,000 Kg's MTOW must meet the ICAO Stage III standard. There are instances where non-Stage III compliance is waived for aircraft over 34,000kg's. These are mainly for military aircraft such as the C/KC-135, C-137, B-52, B-1, etc... which can't meet the requirement due to operational limitations or humanitarian flights with aircraft such as the Il-76.

As far as hush kits are concerned I believe that the EU has banned Hush-Kitted aircraft. All aircraft in the EU must meet the ICAO Annex 16 Volume I Chapter 3 without the use of Hush-Kits. This has dealt a blow to the DC-8, DC-9, B707, B727, B732, etc.... which cannot comply without Hush-Kits and must pay a penalty to fly in the EU AFAIK.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2546 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 113312 (Reply 8):
Why would you want JT-3C? It was much lower thrust and higher fuel consumption. You just think that the organ pipes on the exhaust are sound suppression. Well, they were in 1959-62. However, even with those, it was VERY LOUD compared to the later fan versions which didn't need the pipes. The JT-3D turbofan had higher thrust with less noise without the pipes. The later stage III kits have an extended inlet which allowed for additional inlet sound suppression taming the fan buzz and whine.

Oh come on. Airlines care about noise/thrust/fuel efficiency. From an enthusiast standpoint a JT-3C is much more exciting than a JT-3D. Not only would it be the only such 707 flying, but you get the joy of hearing a pure turbojet at work. I wonder if Travolta even had the option of getting such a 707 with JT-3Cs. If he did and decided to go turbofan then I am disappointed in him lol...not that my opinion of what he does matters  Smile.


User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11184 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 17):
I wonder if Travolta even had the option of getting such a 707 with JT-3Cs. If he did and decided to go turbofan then I am disappointed in him lol...not that my opinion of what he does matters Smile.

I would love to hear a turbo jet 707 also, but with these new noise restriction, Jet Ella Clipper would be ban in many places in the world today if it had turbo jets. You can thank those people who live near an airport, but can not stand the noise for that. Those type people really get on my nerves!


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11188 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 17):
I wonder if Travolta even had the option of getting such a 707 with JT-3Cs. If he did and decided to go turbofan then I am disappointed in him lol...not that my opinion of what he does matters Smile.

It would be a nice dream but the USA also follows the ICAO Stage III regulation so that's why there are no civilian 707's with JT3C's in the USA.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineJetfixr757 From Jamaica, joined Jan 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11171 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):

John's is hushkitted, but i do not think they are stage 4 compliant, and i think Europe is leaning that way already.
Jet


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

Quoting Jetfixr757 (Reply 20):
John's is hushkitted, but i do not think they are stage 4 compliant, and i think Europe is leaning that way already.
Jet

Stage IV compliance is going to spell the death of many classic airliners. In the EU, Stage IV means that your aircraft must meet this spec without modification. Meaning no hush kits.

I understand their point in that it keeps fleets newer and, due to this, increases reliability and reduces aging aircraft problems. I wish that North America would adopt the same philosophy... speaking from the aspect of a maintainer.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11150 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 21):
Stage IV compliance is going to spell the death of many classic airliners. In the EU, Stage IV means that your aircraft must meet this spec without modification. Meaning no hush kits.

I understand their point in that it keeps fleets newer and, due to this, increases reliability and reduces aging aircraft problems. I wish that North America would adopt the same philosophy... speaking from the aspect of a maintainer.

Cheers,

John

I under stand you are a aircaft maintainer and I see your point.

Now as an aircraft spotter, I have to say to you ( and I mean this in a respectful way) Stage IV is a buch of juke. These noise law are going overboared, soon buses will be louder than an airliner.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11149 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 22):
These noise law are going overboared, soon buses will be louder than an airliner.

Currently Out here there are No Noise Restrictions Although at Some Airports Abroad there are restrictions on Ground Runs & APU operation during nights.This can restrict Maintenance in their Rectification Action.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 11118 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 22):
I under stand you are a aircaft maintainer and I see your point.

Now as an aircraft spotter, I have to say to you ( and I mean this in a respectful way) Stage IV is a buch of juke. These noise law are going overboared, soon buses will be louder than an airliner.

I can see your point as well. I like the noise of a classic jet or a century series fighter as much as the rest of you but when it comes to maintaining aircraft that are almost as old as I am, one must consider the future and if it takes aggressive noise reduction to do this, all the better. Aging aircraft inspections are a real pain in the back side and if there is a way to get newer aircraft into a fleet, I'm all for it. Just recently we retired a 727-100 that was accepted into service by United Airlines on the day before I was born and that was in 1966. It was a great aircraft but with more than 75,000 hrs and 45,000 cycles, it was a maintenance headache.

Cheers,

John

[Edited 2007-02-19 06:13:34]


Cheers, John YYC
25 Sovietjet : True I suppose, however I was under the impression that there aren't any operational JT-3C or JT-4A 707s left in the world. I also thought private pl
26 Post contains images HAWK21M : You wouldn't have that kind of money for long if you kept paying those fines. regds MEL
27 Analog : It also shows disrespect for the environment, as forcing disposal/replacement of aircraft means that a new aircraft must be produced, something that
28 BoeingFixer : So, is it disrespectful to the environment for us to produce drastically more efficient aircraft to replace those that are blowing emissions(and fuel
29 BoeingFixer : Yes they do.... at least for ICAO Anex 16 supporting nations. Airports that have high noise abatement requirements don't care who's operating an airc
30 Post contains images ZANL188 : I'm sure you're correct. But it sure won't cause EU politicians to lose any sleep if the replacement aircraft is an Airbus will it?
31 Analog : Yes, if an older aircraft is flown infrequently, like Mr. Travolta's. Given the amount of energy need to make Al (equiv. to 1000's of gallons of JetA
32 Sovietjet : Yes, I'm not in favor of noise regulations either, but you know the only reason they were made was because of the complainers living near airports. Al
33 Analog : If you are replying to my post (31), you may have misunderstood me. I am NOT opposed to noise regulations. What I am opposed to is noise regulations
34 BoeingFixer : It's only the EU that imposes the rule of not allowing hush-kits to bring an aircraft up to standards. That includes the current Stage III and future
35 Post contains images BoeingFixer : Hmmm...... we fly our fleet of 4 727-200's (FedEx Canada) an average of 126.5 hrs per week. That's over 1600 flying hrs per aircraft per year. Hardly
36 Analog : Note that I didn't say that ALL cargo operators have low utilization. I imagine that your example is at the high end of the utilization distribution
37 Sovietjet : I was just saying it in general, but I do agree with you on the whole new aircraft/no hushkits deal. It is absurd. I think Stage IV in general is abs
38 SEPilot : Unfortunately the vast majority of people know nothing and care nothing about aviation. They even buy houses near airports and then complain about the
39 HAWK21M : Its a surprise that Folks complain about APU noise too. Till date out here no such noise restriction. regds MEL
40 Analog : Is this true? Though it's practically impossible, one could, in theory, use active noise control to make an engine totally silent, right? Maybe even
41 Kdm : I loved the way ANZ used to do that (in Wellington as well of course) Did they stop doing it when they started using air bridges. I also remember the
42 Access-Air : As far as I am concerned, the only reason they dont want to allow hushkits is because that gurantees that airlines will be forced in to buying new pl
43 HAWK21M : Very common for a 22.5kgs Ground Fire Extinguisher present during Engine Start.In fact out here its Mandatory. regds MEL
44 LH707330 : Does anybody know how much the inlet was extended on the hush-kitted engines? Did they basically just insert a donut ahead of the fan and then add th
45 Post contains images Viscount724 : How do people find these 6-year-old threads to resurrect?
46 Max Q : It is amazing, I saw 411A contributing and thought he had been resurrected !
47 Post contains links and images LH707330 : By using the search function to avoid being flamed for "why didn't you use the blue button!?" I think I found the answer though by looking at picture
48 Post contains links and images DL_Mech : I think JTs' 707 has the Comtran Super Q 707 hushkits (design later sold to Omega Air). Seen here on their own -138B: The Prototype: View Large View M
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Does John Travolta 707 Have Hush Kits?
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...
John Travolta's 707 & 747 posted Mon Jan 20 2003 04:18:08 by Mhsieh
Did Turbo Jet Powered 707 Have Trust Reverser? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 00:05:14 by 747400sp
Do Aircraft Controls Have To Be "calibrated"? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 21:26:09 by Jamesbuk
Why Do Airports Have Both 3 And 4 Letter Codes? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:28:23 by AirPacific747
Do KC-135 Land Flater And Lower Than 707's? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 22:44:13 by 747400sp
Do Civilian Aircraft Have An ABS System? posted Thu Apr 6 2006 23:16:46 by Iah744
Bragging Time!: How Many Ratings Do You Have? posted Mon Jan 30 2006 00:24:13 by FLY2HMO
Do Airliners Have A Key? posted Fri Jan 27 2006 00:17:00 by TheSonntag
What Engines Do The MD87's On IB Have? posted Sun Jan 1 2006 20:25:56 by RootsAir
Do We Have A Problem With Maitenance posted Thu Dec 22 2005 04:25:12 by Ualflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format