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, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12301 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 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12288 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 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12265 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 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12237 times:

Stage three hushkits are fitted.

User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12242 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 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 12220 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 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12183 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, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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

User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12126 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 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12019 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, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12015 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 7 months 3 days ago) and read 12009 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 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11954 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 7 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11899 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, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 11851 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, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 11845 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, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11825 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, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 11651 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, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11638 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, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 11642 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, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11625 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, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11618 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, 3615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11604 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, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11603 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, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11572 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
User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 25, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 19):
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

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 planes don't have to meet stage 3. And if you dont meet noise regulations don't you just pay a fine? If I had that kind of money I wouldn't mind paying some fine to run my waterburner out of ORD and piss off all the complainers lol.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 26, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 25):
And if you dont meet noise regulations don't you just pay a fine? If I had that kind of money I wouldn't mind paying some fine to run my waterburner out of ORD and piss off all the complainers

You wouldn't have that kind of money for long if you kept paying those fines. Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11970 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.

It also shows disrespect for the environment, as forcing disposal/replacement of aircraft means that a new aircraft must be produced, something that consumes a HUGE amount of energy. This is especially true in comparison to flying an older aircraft around infrequently (think cargo of the non-self loading type or the actor's really cool toy).

This part of the Stage IV regs is taking the term "throwaway society" to a new level. You have to throw away aircraft; you are not allowed to fix them, even if you can make them work as well (quietly) as new ones.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 11866 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 27):
It also shows disrespect for the environment, as forcing disposal/replacement of aircraft means that a new aircraft must be produced, something that consumes a HUGE amount of energy. This is especially true in comparison to flying an older aircraft around infrequently (think cargo of the non-self loading type or the actor's really cool toy).

This part of the Stage IV regs is taking the term "throwaway society" to a new level. You have to throw away aircraft; you are not allowed to fix them, even if you can make them work as well (quietly) as new ones.

So, is it disrespectful to the environment for us to produce drastically more efficient aircraft to replace those that are blowing emissions(and fuel) out their exhausts like there's no tomorrow? Although it takes energy to produce new aircraft, it creates jobs which helps the economy and spurs on technology development. I would hazard a guess that over the lifetime of a new aircraft, the energy that was used to produce it is marginal compared to keeping an older type in service.

People tend to think that transport category aircraft aren't throw-away items and can last forever. Sure, they have a useful life span but the hours, cycles, maintenance/operating costs, etc... are their un-doing. As far as I'm concerned, the EU has it right with Stage IV noise reduction and fleet obsolescence.

Cheers,

John

[Edited 2007-02-19 17:21:15]


Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 11846 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 25):
I also thought private planes don't have to meet stage 3.

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 aircraft that just pegged their noise monitors. Stage III applies to all aircraft with certain exceptions within the ICAO framework.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day ago) and read 11853 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 28):
As far as I'm concerned, the EU has it right with Stage IV noise reduction and fleet obsolescence.

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?  Smile



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (7 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 11835 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 28):
So, is it disrespectful to the environment for us to produce drastically more efficient aircraft to replace those that are blowing emissions(and fuel) out their exhausts like there's no tomorrow?

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 per ton) and the amount of CO2 released during production (more than 1kg of CO2 per 1kg of Al produced), producing new aircraft has a non-trivial effect on the environment. Besides, airlines that fly frequently do replace inefficient aircraft; it's typically only cargo operators and others with low utilization levels that fly older, inefficient aircraft.

If the goal is to replace inefficient aircraft, why don't they regulate that? Instead they say this is the standard for noise and you can't fix your old aircraft to comply. BS. If the rule were about noise, then make the rule about noise. Say this is the spec. and make aircraft operators meet it. If the goal is for force the purchase of new aircraft to promote safety, job creation, whatever, then why not set max age or # of cycles/flight hours?

It may be a good thing overall that airlines are required to purchase new aircraft; I don't deny that in sum total it would improve efficiency, but achieving this goal, and "job creation", through "noise regulations" is a regulatory cop-out.

How would you feel if the government instituted new emissions regulations for cars, but refused to let you fix your old car to bring it up to spec, if the only allowable way to meet the new rule was to buy a new car?


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 32, posted (7 years 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 11811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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. Also, I live next to a regional airport and some of the private jets like Gulfstreams or Learjets or whatever are pretty damn loud. There's one that takes off about once a week that is ear-splitting. I don't know what kind it is. That's why I thought private jets didn't need to comply.

User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (7 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 11795 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 32):
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

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 that have restrictions on how they can be met. The Stage IV regs basically say be quieter than X, but you are only allowed to achieve that by building a new aircraft (if I interpret the previous posts correctly). It does not matter if a 707 is made to be 100 times quieter than the requirements, it would not be legal, while a new aircraft that is barely quieter than the requirements is legal under the noise regulations. That is absurd.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (7 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 11752 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 33):
What I am opposed to is noise regulations that have restrictions on how they can be met. The Stage IV regs basically say be quieter than X, but you are only allowed to achieve that by building a new aircraft (if I interpret the previous posts correctly). It does not matter if a 707 is made to be 100 times quieter than the requirements, it would not be legal, while a new aircraft that is barely quieter than the requirements is legal under the noise regulations. That is absurd.

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 Stage IV.

If JT wants to keep flying his 707, he can do so by upgrading the engines to the JT8D-200 series with hush kits and get a STC for the 707. Not cheap, but it will keep it flying in the rest of the non EU world.

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (7 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 11784 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 31):
Besides, airlines that fly frequently do replace inefficient aircraft; it's typically only cargo operators and others with low utilization levels that fly older, inefficient aircraft.

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 low utilization for an older, inefficient aircraft. That's on the high side but your example of low utilization is flawed as there are many operators around the world lik us.

Quoting Analog (Reply 31):
How would you feel if the government instituted new emissions regulations for cars, but refused to let you fix your old car to bring it up to spec, if the only allowable way to meet the new rule was to buy a new car?

Guess I'd have to buy a hybrid or Smart Car.  Wink Like I've said earlier, it's only the EU that mandates compliance by original certification and not using hush-kits. You should take up your frustration with the EU.



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (7 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 11703 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 35):
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 low utilization for an older, inefficient aircraft. That's on the high side but your example of low utilization is flawed as there are many operators around the world lik us.

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 of cargo aircraft.

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 35):
Like I've said earlier, it's only the EU that mandates compliance by original certification and not using hush-kits. You should take up your frustration with the EU.

I would, except I don't own an aircraft or airline (maybe through mutual fund?), and I don't live in the EU. That doesn't mean I can't b*tch about their stupid rules.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 37, posted (7 years 7 months 10 hours ago) and read 11699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Analog (Reply 33):
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 that have restrictions on how they can be met. The Stage IV regs basically say be quieter than X, but you are only allowed to achieve that by building a new aircraft (if I interpret the previous posts correctly). It does not matter if a 707 is made to be 100 times quieter than the requirements, it would not be legal, while a new aircraft that is barely quieter than the requirements is legal under the noise regulations. That is absurd.

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 absurd, today's stage III aircraft are quiet enough I think. What more do you want. You can only make a jet engine so quiet before starting to lose efficiency to noise suppression.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 38, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11269 times:

Unfortunately the vast majority of people know nothing and care nothing about aviation. They even buy houses near airports and then complain about the noise. I ran the local airport for two years, and the first year hosted an aerobatics competition. I got no complaints and many favorable comments, and I though, Great! So I hosted it again the next year and then the complaints started (it was for one weekend.) The man who took over from me has hosted it occasionally, but did not dare do it every year because of the complaints were getting so nasty.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 39, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11180 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 38):

Its a surprise that Folks complain about APU noise too.
Till date out here no such noise restriction.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11067 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 37):
You can only make a jet engine so quiet before starting to lose efficiency to noise suppression.

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 cancel out the sound of the air moving past the engine & aircraft.

My intuition tells me that such a scheme would go from practically impossible (as is never happen) to impossible when you're dealing with "sound" whose wavelength is on the same order of magnitude as the aircraft/engine size.

Maybe I'm totally talking out of my rear end.


User currently offlineKdm From New Zealand, joined Feb 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10910 times:

Quoting Rendezvous (Reply 14):
They used to start up right in front of the terminal in Auckland, then taxiout from the parked position.

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 they always had someone standing in front of each engine when they started with a fire extinguisher just in case the engine burst into flames, all good but a bit disconcerting for the nervous flyer.


User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10671 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 16):
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.

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 planes by not only Airbus but by Boeing and any other modern producer of jet aircraft.

There is nothing eciting about the prospect of looking the endless parade at airports of 737/A320/757/767/A330/787 types planes that are twin wing mounted engines..BORING!!!

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 43, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10642 times:

Quoting Kdm (Reply 41):
I also remember they always had someone standing in front of each engine when they started with a fire extinguisher just in case the engine burst into flames, all good but a bit disconcerting for the nervous flyer

Very common for a 22.5kgs Ground Fire Extinguisher present during Engine Start.In fact out here its Mandatory.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently onlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

Quoting 113312 (Reply 8):
The later stage III kits have an extended inlet which allowed for additional inlet sound suppression taming the fan buzz and whine.
Quoting N231YE (Reply 5):
I am not sure of any other hushkits for the JT3D, other than the fan duct extension...correct me as needed.

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 the slightly wider duct extension aft?


User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25300 posts, RR: 22
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3968 times:

How do people find these 6-year-old threads to resurrect?  

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
How do people find these 6-year-old threads to resurrect?

It is amazing, I saw 411A contributing and thought he had been resurrected !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 775 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
How do people find these 6-year-old threads to resurrect?

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 pictures: Travolta's plane and VH-XBA (the Qantas one that was restored in 2006/7) have an extended bypass duct aft and the same forward section, based on the following two pictures:
Hush kit on VH-XBA (note the wider section aft):
http://www.adastron.com/707/flyhome/images/nk-220.jpg
No hush kit on vintage Bcal 707:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Boeing_707_engineviewedit.jpg/800px-Boeing_707_engineviewedit.jpg
Completely redone cowl on N88ZL (which everyone thinks is a JT8D even though it is a JT3D):


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1951 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

I think JTs' 707 has the Comtran Super Q 707 hushkits (design later sold to Omega Air).

Seen here on their own -138B:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David A. Grant
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rolf Wallner




The Prototype:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer




More Info:

http://www.aero.pub.ro/wp-content/up...E_S_AIRCRAFT_UPGRADES/jau_0852.htm


.



[Edited 2013-06-27 07:38:23]


This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
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