Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Process Of MD80 Conversions?  
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11572 posts, RR: 61
Posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Having tried many times to fly a SAS MD-81, I was disappointed again recently to get another MD-82 instead. Only then when I checked the registration I discovered that the aircraft had originally been delivered as an MD-81 in 1991, but was then converted to an MD-82 in 2001.

What is the process involved in converting MD-80 aircraft like this? Is it just a case of changing the engines to the JT8D-219s and increasing MTOW on paper, or are there any physical alterations to the aircraft's structure and appearance?

I'd be very interested to know, I did a search but only found some info from 2003 on MD-83 to MD-88 conversions.

Many thanks.


Dan  


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
Having tried many times to fly a SAS MD-81, I was disappointed again recently to get another MD-82 instead.

What's the difference? I doubt you'd know that were on an MD-81 or an MD-82 unless you looked at the registration plate.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11572 posts, RR: 61
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
What's the difference? I doubt you'd know that were on an MD-81 or an MD-82 unless you looked at the registration plate.

Same goes for much of the DC/MD narrow body range. Flying different types is a specific interest of mine, and the MD-81 is a type which has eluded me many times now. However that is only the background to my question.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 2):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 1):
What's the difference? I doubt you'd know that were on an MD-81 or an MD-82 unless you looked at the registration plate.

Same goes for much of the DC/MD narrow body range.

Actually, the DC/MD narrow body range is fairly easily-identifiable except the MD-81/82/83, and if you really go back, the DC-8-10/20/30.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11572 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
Actually, the DC/MD narrow body range is fairly easily-identifiable except the MD-81/82/83, and if you really go back, the DC-8-10/20/30.

I was forgetting the DC-8 actually, but it still counts that almost half the types looks very similar.



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Thread starter):
What is the process involved in converting MD-80 aircraft like this? Is it just a case of changing the engines to the JT8D-219s and increasing MTOW on paper, or are there any physical alterations to the aircraft's structure and appearance?

Not a mad-dog driver but just looking at specs from both variants I'm guessing they merely just uprated the engines, possibly without even having to swap them. The increased thrust of course allowed for an increase in MTOW. Other than that I don't see why the conversion would be any more involved.

Of course I could be grossly wrong, as I have been before. Big grin

[Edited 2010-11-25 21:18:53]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 4):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
Actually, the DC/MD narrow body range is fairly easily-identifiable except the MD-81/82/83, and if you really go back, the DC-8-10/20/30.

I was forgetting the DC-8 actually, but it still counts that almost half the types looks very similar.

However the DC-8-10/20/30 combined only accounted for about 1/4 of total DC-8 production.

The CFM56 re-engining program that converted 110 -61/62/63s to -71/72/73s complicated DC-8 identification. It was easy to tell the stretched -61 and -63 models apart due to the different engine nacelles and pylons, but after re-engining it wasn't easy to tell them apart unless your eyes were sharp enough to spot the 6 ft. difference in wingspan.


User currently onlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4755 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):
The CFM56 re-engining program that converted 110 -61/62/63s to -71/72/73s complicated DC-8 identification. It was easy to tell the stretched -61 and -63 models apart due to the different engine nacelles and pylons, but after re-engining it wasn't easy to tell them apart unless your eyes were sharp enough to spot the 6 ft. difference in wingspan

The pylons were different on the DC-8-71 from the DC-8-73 too!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 5):

Not a mad-dog driver but just looking at specs from both variants I'm guessing they merely just uprated the engines, possibly without even having to swap them. The increased thrust of course allowed for an increase in MTOW. Other than that I don't see why the conversion would be any more involved.

AFAIK going 81-82-83.
- Uprated engines, as you say possibly without swap.
- Beefed up landing gear to handle the increased MTOW.
- More tankage for increased range?

I could be wrong.  



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2540 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
- More tankage for increased range?

They all have the same fuel capacity/tanks AFAIK. So the increased range comes from the MTOW increase in itself (or available fuel payload increase rather)


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Makes sense. I'm pretty sure about the beefed up gear though.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

The conversion from -81 to -82 was quite simple.: You take the data plate on the engine, turned it around and there were the -219 numbers! A twist on a screw increased the fuel flow and, hey presto! you've got a -219 engine. There was also the need to add an extra bolt on the MLG wing attachment for increased strength. Change the a/c data plate in the forward entrance doorway and you've got a -82. And then you had to pay McD an P&W $$$$$$ for the paper work!


"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 11):
You take the data plate on the engine, turned it around and there were the -219 numbers! A twist on a screw increased the fuel flow and, hey presto! you've got a -219 engine.

Only if it was truly that easy on the engines! Its easy enough, dont get me wrong. I was usually the guy sitting in the cowl adjusting the MIL (Part Power) and IDLE screw... Wasnt lucky enough to have the fance tool where you could stand back and hear the instructions.



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11572 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Thanks for all the replies.  

It sounds surprisingly simple. Am I right in think that SAS would have carried out these alterations during a major check, as presumably the aircraft couldn't fly again until re-certified and all the paperwork that FBU 4EVER mentioned was completed?


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineMDShady From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
AFAIK going 81-82-83.
- Uprated engines, as you say possibly without swap.
- Beefed up landing gear to handle the increased MTOW.
- More tankage for increased range?

You could go from an -81/82 to an -83? I thought you could only do an -81 to -82, or maybe -88? The -83 was extended range to begin with?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Quoting MDShady (Reply 14):
You could go from an -81/82 to an -83? I thought you could only do an -81 to -82, or maybe -88? The -83 was extended range to begin with?

AFAIK SK has several MD-83s that started as 81s. But I could be misinformed.

Yes the -83 was extended range to begin with but 81-82-83 are all externally the same size so I don't think conversions are really "that hard".



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Process Of MD80 Conversions?
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...
Process Of Painting An Airliner posted Thu Feb 21 2008 14:55:14 by SXDFC
What Is The Process Of Planning Flights? posted Tue Dec 25 2001 22:12:23 by Bio15
Process Of Changing A Jet Engine posted Tue Oct 16 2001 03:10:03 by Sharpnfuzzy
The Process Of Starting A Jet posted Thu Mar 22 2001 04:15:03 by Critter592
The Birth Of A Jetliner...Process? posted Mon Jan 7 2008 10:54:06 by ANITIX87
Removal Of Windows On Freighter Conversions posted Wed Mar 29 2006 18:37:54 by SDWranglers
What Is This "piece Of Tooling"? posted Sat Nov 20 2010 10:36:43 by DocLightning
What Is The Thickness Of An Asphalt Runway? posted Tue Nov 16 2010 04:20:34 by mehairy7
Can Flight Crews Of Cargo Flights Abandon A Plane? posted Thu Nov 11 2010 06:20:11 by EstorilM
Life Cycle Of An Airplane posted Sun Oct 31 2010 09:53:55 by will777

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format