Can The 732 Engines Be Converted Into 734 Engines? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Can The 732 Engines Be Converted Into 734 Engines?

Hoons90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2670 posts, RR: 54
Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1356 times:

AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Can they?

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last

Skystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

Nope.

They are different, the JT-9D and the CFM56-3.
The chief reason is the difference in size - the CFM56-3 wouldn't fit under the wing of a 732 - it barely fits under a 733/4/5's wing.

Cheers,

Justin

SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1299 times:

No they can't.

SailorOrion

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1293 times:

If somebody is willing to spend the money anything is possible.....

But at this point nobody is willing to spend the money.

If there every was a 737-200 reengineering that was proposed I would suspect that they would look at the Tay or the BMR-710 engines as a replacement.

But I don't think the economics will support that work being performed.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1268 times:

Skystar...The B737-200 has JT8D powerplant not JT9D.
The B737-3/4/500s use CFM56-3 engines.
The attach fittings differ.
But I'm sure it can be made compatiable but it would prove expensive.
regds
HAWK.

Think of the brighter side!

Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

There was talk back in the early-mid 80s of a 732 reengining program with CFM. Called the 737-250. Around the time the 733 came out and before the 735. There was obviously no airline interest.

Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.

AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5344 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

No. The biggest reason is that the 732 sits much lower to the ground than the 733-4-5. Because of this, the engine nacelle on the 733/4/5 is flat at the bottom (you've noticed). They had to extend the landing gear to make the plane "taller" even with the flat bottomed engine.

The underbelly/wheel/wingbox area would have to be replaced.

When you get down to it, there isn't much point. Since 737s are still manufactured, just buy a new one. With 727s, it becomes a sensible thing to do.

Randy

Skystar From Australia, joined Jan 2000, 1363 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Hawk21M,

Good point - the -9D is a tad larger than an 8D Smile

Cheers,

Justin

HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

AA737-823....
Could you confirm that the MLG of the 732 is different from the 733/4/5.
I'm talking ONLY of the landing gear.

I'm aware of the 737NGs having a different MLG.
Pls confirm.

skystar....JT9D is used on the B747.

regds
HAWK.

Think of the brighter side!

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

I supposed you suppose that you could mount a pair of JT9D on a 737 but you probably only need one.....

IF you went with two engines would would have to mount them overwing....much like the AN-72

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.