Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Engine On Wrong Side?  
User currently offlineAcabgd From Serbia, joined Jul 2005, 666 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14693 times:

Sorry to post a photo from another site, but it seems to me as this engine is mounted on the wrong side of the plane.

Isn't the fin supposed to be on the inside, ie. turned toward the cabin?

http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=614336


CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2717 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 14434 times:

I looked at a bunch of 733 photos and that is the only one I have seen with a cowling fin pointing away from the fuselage. I can't tell if there is a fin pointing towards the fuselage on the other side of the engine or what the #1 engine looks like. You may want to ask this question in the tech-ops forum.

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14263 times:

Quoting Acabgd (Thread starter):
but it seems to me as this engine is mounted on the wrong side of the plane.

The engine is fine. The Fan Cowl door is the issue. It could just be a alternate installation. The left hand inboard door is the same as the right hand outboard...



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14009 times:

Probably a case of part A needed replacing, part A wasn't availible, but part B was sitting right there and happened to fit just as well, and therefore was used untill a time when it is convenient to install the proper part.


CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineN243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1638 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 13391 times:

I'm willing to bet this was just a spare that the aircraft needed and that particular engine has another vortex generator on the inboard side of the cowling as well (it has two for the time being). Interesting find, though!

-N243NW Big grin



B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12709 times:

I'm suprised that any pilot would fly the thing after the "wrong" cowling was placed on the outboard side...

That strake is there for a reason (and I don't know why off of the top of my head...), and when it gets placed on the wrong side, it is altering airflow, but it is now not doing it in the manner Boeing intended, which would make the first flight crew to fly the aircraft in this manner test pilots  no 

I doubt Boeing approves of this modification, but if anyone else has proof that this is an approved modification, feel free to speak up.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineOGGFBORefueler From United States of America, joined May 2007, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12590 times:

The plane looks normal...unless I'm missing the whole picture here. Big grin

Aloha!
Keone



BPA Emp#0254/AOA Badge#69879
User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3313 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12445 times:

It looks as if the inboard cowling cover of the left engine is the same as the outboard cowling cover of the right engine, and as mentioned above, lack of spare parts could be the reason behind this. Strange to see the little strake on the outside of the engine. Do all aircraft have this, or is it only found on Boeing aircraft?


Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12445 times:

that fin would only be there to IMPROVE airflow and is by no means critical to flight. besides, if an aircraft without its winglet is an approved modification then obviously a fin such as that on the cowling is going to make a neglibable difference

User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12387 times:

A320 series have it as well, some engines have two, some have one. Depends on the installation.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12346 times:

Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 8):
that fin would only be there to IMPROVE airflow

The strake creates a high-energy vortex that passes right over the wing at low airspeeds. I've taken many a flight into/out of PDX on 733's on a humid day...  Smile



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10612 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
I'm suprised that any pilot would fly the thing after the "wrong" cowling was placed on the outboard side...

That strake is there for a reason (and I don't know why off of the top of my head...), and when it gets placed on the wrong side, it is altering airflow, but it is now not doing it in the manner Boeing intended, which would make the first flight crew to fly the aircraft in this manner test pilots

I doubt Boeing approves of this modification, but if anyone else has proof that this is an approved modification, feel free to speak up.

As usual, someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill. But I do tend to agree that substituting parts like that... just because they happen to fit doesn't mean you should use them. Good eye to the poster.

717


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10446 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
I'm suprised that any pilot would fly the thing after the "wrong" cowling was placed on the outboard side...

Why..??? It's an approved alternate...!!!! get over it....


Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
I doubt Boeing approves of this modification

Not only does Boeing approve of this, they wrote the book to allow it to happen.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 10289 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
Why..??? It's an approved alternate...!!!! get over it....

And where is the approval documented?

And I say again (the second half of my sentence which you didn't quote):

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
, but if anyone else has proof that this is an approved modification, feel free to speak up.

I dislike it when people cherry-pick my words...

I'll gladly place my foot in my mouth if and when someone proves me wrong here  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9927 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
Not only does Boeing approve of this, they wrote the book to allow it to happen.

Which book would that be? I just looked through the 733 CDL and the MEL and found nothing pertaining to this situation much less allowing it. Lacking CDL or MEL relief such a substitution would then require engineering authority with Boeing approval.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineQslinger From India, joined Apr 2006, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9067 times:

Quoting Bohica (Reply 1):
cowling fin

Whats the purpose of a crowling fin?



Raj Koona
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8917 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
The strake creates a high-energy vortex that passes right over the wing at low airspeeds.

exactly what im trying to get across, a vortex isn't always an unwelcome air flow. in fact if you look at the wing surfaces of the 737 classic series there are little nothces in front of the control surfaces / ailerons. these create a vortex to IMPROVE the effectiveness of the airflow over the wings. most likely this fin was put there to improve airflow over some control surface or the inboard slats by creating a vortex. its not critical to flight so can we get over the whole "irresponsible of the pilots / engineers to accept this modification" mentality.

seriously, major mountain out of a molehill scenario! get over it! I've done fluid mechanics, being the engineer I am. I do have an idea what i'm talking about.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8162 times:

Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 16):
exactly what im trying to get across, a vortex isn't always an unwelcome air flow

When it is located correctly. This fin, strake, vortex generator, whatever you want to call it was intended to be on the inboard fan cowl. It serves a purpose there. Who are you to say that it doesn't pose a problem when located on the outboard cowl? You have a general idea of fluid mechanics but have you ever analyzed this particular situation?

Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 16):
its not critical to flight so can we get over the whole "irresponsible of the pilots / engineers to accept this modification" mentality.



Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 16):
I've done fluid mechanics, being the engineer I am. I do have an idea what i'm talking about.

Have you done aircraft maintenance? Obviously you have no idea of the system used for accomplishing aircraft maintenance or you wouldn't make the second statement I've quoted above. Unless there is approved documentation you can't do it no matter how irrelevant to flight safety you might think something is. I can't substitute a washer on a coffee maker with one that I know is the same but with a different part number unless it crosses in our part database. That means engineering, either the manufacturer's or our own in-house, has approved that substitution.

We don't know if they had the authority to do this substitution. If they did great. It means somebody went through the work of covering their asses. If they didn't well then they f'ed up and got away with it (maybe). If the latter was the case was this a big deal? Maybe not from an engineering standpoint, I'm not an engineer so I'll have to defer to Aer Lingus's engineering assessment. From a regulatory standpoint? Yes, it would be a big deal.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

The #1 Eng and #2 Engine L/H and R/H cowlings are interchangeable. But the maintenance manual specifically states that the Inboard Vortex Control Device must be installed or Aircraft performance may be affected. It then tells you that if the replacement O/B side has a VCD then it must be removed before flight. The VCD is removable and is not a permanent part of the cowling.. The manual is very specific on this and actually gives a caution on the subject.

But I imagine that they could have received relief from a Boeing engineer or their own company engineer?


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7931 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 18):
The manual is very specific on this and actually gives a caution on the subject.

Thanks for clearing this up Wingnut. They got rid of our 733 AMM when they got rid of the planes. We still have the MEL and the CDL so that's all I had to go by.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 18):
But I imagine that they could have received relief from a Boeing engineer or their own company engineer?

I don't know if it's universal but our engineers won't/can't go against the AMM. If it's in there then that's what you have to go by.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7136 times:

Quoting Dl757md (Reply 14):
Which book would that be? I just looked through the 733 CDL and the MEL and found nothing pertaining to this situation much less allowing it.

What did the IPC say...?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 18):
But the maintenance manual specifically states that the Inboard Vortex Control Device must be installed or Aircraft performance may be affected.

Although you might be correct... most major airlines have their manuals written special for them. What airline A allows, airline B may not. The part 145 station I work for a several different manuals on the same plane, each for a different airline

[Edited 2007-05-08 02:21:18]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7080 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
Why..??? It's an approved alternate...!!!! get over it....

Any Proof?

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
Not only does Boeing approve of this, they wrote the book to allow it to happen.

Once again your source?

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 20):
What did the IPC say...?

What did it say? If you are questioning somebody you should already have the answer yourself.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 20):
Although you might be correct... most major airlines have their manuals written special for them. What airline A allows, airline B may not. The part 145 station I work for a several different manuals on the same plane, each for a different airline

Airlines do not have manuals made special for them. The only major differences will be in customer specific equipment. Boeing may print your Airlines logo on it but it is still a Boeing manual.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 7040 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 20):
What did the IPC say...?

We don't have the IPC, AMM, SSM, or the WDM any longer as we've retired our fleet of 733s. Wingnut has supplied us with the AMM telling us that this situation isn't allowed. True, it could be airline specific and not applicable to the aircraft in question but if I were a betting man I would bet that it is applicable to all 733s.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineReidYYZ From Kyrgyzstan, joined Sep 2005, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6863 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 18):
But I imagine that they could have received relief from a Boeing engineer or their own company engineer?

Sure, there is a remote possibility of either of these scenarios occurring. However, calling Boeing up for something is highly doubtful, as it would cost time and money for the engineering consultation, secondly in house engineering would base the approval on what? The example above about a washer could easily be found in some sort of cross reference guide, major (I would call this somewhat major) aerodynamic variance most likely is not found in an off the shelf manual. The MM clearly stated, as Wingnut provided, does not allow this. The question remains why not just pull it off in the first place? There was time to throw the cowl on, why not remove the VCD? Having never worked on '37s I can only guess it would be: pick out the PRC, Remove screws/bolts, don't drop the VCD, tag it as removed serviceable and throw it in stores. Wingnut, dl757 am I on the right track? I would bet it was an oversight by the one releasing the book.

Just to go a fair distance back because it was never addressed:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
I'm suprised that any pilot would fly the thing...

I'm not so surprised, if the person releasing the book said it was ok, or didn't even think about any repercussions, chances are the four stripes didn't think twice about it. And just to appease, and not 'cherry pick':

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
I'm suprised that any pilot would fly the thing after the "wrong" cowling was placed on the outboard side...


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6411 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6724 times:

Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 16):
seriously, major mountain out of a molehill scenario!



Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 11):
As usual, someone is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

And yet:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 18):
But the maintenance manual specifically states that the Inboard Vortex Control Device must be installed or Aircraft performance may be affected. It then tells you that if the replacement O/B side has a VCD then it must be removed before flight. The VCD is removable and is not a permanent part of the cowling.. The manual is very specific on this and actually gives a caution on the subject.

Sounds like Boeing thinks it's a big deal.

Pilots (myself included, even if I am but a lowly private pilot) are not aircraft engineers (and if they were, they would most likely be test pilots  Wink ).

Quote:
Part 91.3:
Sec. 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for,
and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.


Taking this a step further:

Quote:

Sec. 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an
airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for
determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The
pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy
mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Meaning: I'll trust Boeing for the aerodynamics. If it's my bird, and I find anything out of whack (like a misplaced Vortex Generator), I'll start asking questions...

Quoting Aer Lingus (Reply 16):
exactly what im trying to get across, a vortex isn't always an unwelcome air flow

Have you seen the size of the VG in question? It's not like the tiny ones out on the wing...meaning there's lots more air that this one does it's thing to. Even if it were a tiny one out on the wing, I would ask questions before it would pass my scrutiny. If the mechanic who signed off on the work told me it was Boeing-approved, then I would accept that as an authoritative answer.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
25 Wingnut767 : You are correct. Just wait for the new PRC to dry. There are also plugs to put into the now empty screw holes That was something that I was just toss
26 DarkBlue : Yes, strakes can be used to improve airflow over the wings, but that hardly means you can put one anywhere without any thought or analysis and claim
27 Post contains images KELPkid : I had a feeling this thread would wind up in tech/ops...
28 VC-10 : Let's look at this from a real world POV. The a/c was probably off a chk where the fan cowls had been removed and on re-fitting, the Eng 1 & 2 RH fan
29 IFIXCF6 : This is a bit off of the mechanical discussion, but right on in the regulatory discussion: yes, airline engineering can make decisions that contradict
30 VC-10 : The manufacturer has to issue an NTO (No Technical Objection) and then the maintenance organisation can issue its own paperwork to cover it, assuming
31 BoeingFixer : Hi Mike, Your example centres around a technical procedure which, if I read it correctly, ends with the same result in VSV rigging. The issue with th
32 ReidYYZ : Ah crap, I forgot the plugs. However, I left out the PRC as because how many times has the clock said the PRC is cured, but the brown smear after the
33 TristarSteve : Yes. Our Boeing produced manuals have small paragraphs in them which have ben added by Boeing at the airline request.To show this the airline code is
34 Post contains images Nonfirm : DL757md here is a little more info for you from the AMM. This can be found in the 71 section. If the inbd fan cowl panel is going to be replaced the
35 Post contains images Avioniker : Just in case there is any doubt remaining; In 1999 an airline based in PHX who shall remain nameless did a cowl swap after a starter shelled out. The
36 Avioniker : One other thing that apparently isn't clear to many of the participants in this forum. While Part 91 places the responsibility for airworthiness squar
37 Post contains images KELPkid : The only "real" difference I see here is that under Part 91, a squawk sheet isn't a legally binding document that would require a mechanic's attentio
38 Post contains images Avioniker : Without going totally insane here, you might want to check Parts 43 and 65. Your assumption, while commonly held, is wrong. If it's in writing, and as
39 Movingtin : Not correct- Airlines change THEIR Manuals all the time, and not just for customer specific equipment. Majors have whole departments that do nothing
40 Post contains links BEG2IAH : This was definitely wrong and somebody didn't do his job correctly. The website of the Trade Union Of Aircraft Engineers of Serbia has a short notice
41 HAWK21M : Shouldn't the strake be shifted too.Someones not reading the AMM & doing the job. regds MEL
42 Musang : Are the VCDs handed? I.e. accepting that they should only be on the inboard side of the cowl, are there right and left versions? Could the strake be t
43 474218 : Since the MM is not an FAA approved document you can not use it to change the configuration of the aircraft. Therefore, any change to the aircraft co
44 EcuadorianMD11 : Hey Acabgd, what did "Stefan Welsch" have to say about this pic? I assume you approached him before you used this pic..........the bloke seems squite
45 HAWK21M : Undoubtly. regds MEL.
46 Faro : Bottom line, if the aircraft in question were to have some trouble, an engine-related mishap or a hard landing due to unstabilised approach, could the
47 Post contains links and images Oly720man : Same photo here View Large View MediumPhoto © Stefan Welsch First picture in the new YAT cs. but notice the wrong installed fan cowl on right en
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Engine On Wrong Side?
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...
Sparks In Engine On Reverse posted Thu Sep 14 2006 11:11:58 by RyDawg82
Fast Jets Flying On There Side, How? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 17:41:21 by Tom12
Brake Failure On One Side - Know Before? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:24:59 by Julianuk
RR Engine On 767 posted Sun Apr 9 2006 09:50:20 by LukasMako
What's With This Engine on the A 340? posted Thu May 20 2004 14:39:51 by Tappan
Winglets Only On One Side posted Fri Jul 6 2001 18:59:24 by Mandargb
GE & RR Working On 10k Lbt Engine? posted Fri May 4 2007 20:55:27 by Wrldwndrer
380 Engine...Running On One Engine Or Problems posted Tue Apr 24 2007 18:43:32 by Relic
Rubber Nipple On 777 Engine....nacelle? posted Mon Apr 2 2007 06:35:58 by Mirrodie
Question On Quads...(engine Out Related) posted Thu Jan 11 2007 00:30:10 by KELPkid

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format