Process Of MD80 Conversions? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


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

Process Of MD80 Conversions?

PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63
Posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2570 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

15 replies: All unread, jump to last

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2501 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.

PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2484 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

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2466 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.

PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2436 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.

Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 2382 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]

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 2237 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.

longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 2231 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

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 hours ago) and read 2197 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo

Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months ago) and read 2162 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)

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2153 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo

FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2113 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"!

B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!

PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11141 posts, RR: 63
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1914 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

MDShady From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1710 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?

Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1691 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo

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

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: