Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
747 And PW JT9D Questions  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

Hi there.

I had a question regarding the PW JT9Ds and why they were discontinued in favor of the PW 4000s...had they already reached their technical limitations? Also, i'm curious as to how many 747s that carried the original JT9D-3s were retrofitted with the JT9D-7As (I think that was the model...47,900 pounds of thrust vs. 43,000 pounds of thrust). I see a lot of photos of numerous TWA, Pan Am, and United 747s, among many others, that were delivered with the blow-in door JT9D-3s, and by the early 1980s most had been refitted with the upgraded versions...yet I noticed that the 747s that fly for the Iranian Air Force today still feature the original engines. I guess my question is, were virtually all classic 747s retrofitted with the more powerful JT9Ds, or was it varied...I know there were many 707s that were never retrofitted with turbofans vs. the original turbojets, but it seemed like the JT9D-3s were mostly absent on the first 747s by the late 1980s.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinejetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 6517 times:

My understanding is that once the JT9D-7 went into service, Pratt and Whitney offered JT9D-3 operators a conversion kit to upgrade the less powerful -3 engines to -7 standard. This involved modifications to the combution system and turbines. So the engines weren't changed as such, but upgraded. Perhaps as a military operator the Iranian Air Force weren't interested in the modification. To be honest I was surprised to hear any JT9D-3s were still flying.

The PW4000 has fewer moving parts than the JT9D and is therefore more reliable. Also all engine designs have a growth potential, increasing thrust as developments are made, but there is a limit. To go further you need a new basic design.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6361 times:

Yeah...if you look up the Iranian Air Force, you'll still see the signature blow-in doors of the JT9D-3...they are still flying the 747s TWA sold to them back in 1975....I'm surprised those jets can even stay in one piece anymore...the other reason I might suspect the JT9D-7s never got retrofitted on them would be the breakdown in relations between the U.S. and Iran.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6301 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The blow-in doors may be a red herring. The blow-in doors disappeared as a result of the introduction of a redesigned nose cowl that was part of a noise reduction mod. I remember discussing it on this board at the turn of the century

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2177 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 6176 times:

The blow-in doors installed on the early 747-100 and 200's are mostly deleted after the introduction of new nose cowls , called "quiet or fixed lip "nacelles.

For stage 2 or later stage 3 Far 36 Noise certification fixed lip nacelles had to be installed.
See for the difference in noise levels of a B747-100/JT9D-7(W) with blow-in door nacelles installed and the same aircraft/engine combination with fixed lip nacelles installed, here :
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1974/1974%20-%201086.html


AFAIK both nacelles can still be used on all subtypes of the first JT-9D series, produced under Type Certificate Certificate E20EA and the installed nacelle type is not an indicator for the installed subtype of JT-9D engine on that aircraft.
Also an JT9D nacelle intermix is allowed, according the 747 type certificate- note 6.

[Edited 2012-03-19 07:00:10]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6067 times:

BA's first 747-136's had the JT9-3 and when the newer -136's started coming in with the JT9-7A they purchased a conversion kit from PW.

All engines were eventually modified to the -7A standard, however significant differences remained.

For this reason BA painted -7A and -7CA (converted) on all of the motors so the mechs knew what they would be dealing with before opening the cowling.



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineMarkC From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

The -7 conversion also brought a noise reduction benefit. Because the aircraft could gain altitude faster, it was less noisy from the ground as it was further (higher) away.

User currently offlineNorthwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5933 times:

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 3):

I was thinking that the cowl design had nothing to do with the type of engine, but wasn't sure. The redesigned intakes appeared around the mid 1970s, after the -7 made its debut but just before the tougher noise regulations went into effect (1978, I believe). Thanks for clearing this up.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):

Thanks for that chart. What's incredible is that the BAC 1-11 and its Speys, which everyone makes fun of for its noise, is actually quieter than the 747-100 with the JT9D-7W's. The only thing louder than it are low-bypass JT3Ds and the JT4A turbojet!


User currently offlineB747FE From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2004, 230 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
why they were discontinued in favor of the PW 4000s

As jetlagged said, it was at the limit of it's potential.
The last -7R engines were significantly different when compared with the -3's: Improved fan/case, compressor (from the -7Q on it had 16 stages), combustion chamber & turbine blades (single crystal), different materials, different seals.
Sub-systems were also greatly improved, especially the compressor control, fuel metering and case cooling systems.
From a throttle bar in the cockpit, turbine reversers and water injection to an electronic engine control. The list goes on.

Quoting Thrust (Thread starter):
how many 747s that carried the original JT9D-3s were retrofitted with the JT9D-7As

Probably most of them had there original -3 engines upgraded to -7 and subsequent upratings to -7A, F & J.
Most of the -7A's I saw were originally built as -3.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
AFAIK both nacelles can still be used on all subtypes of the first JT-9D series, produced under Type Certificate Certificate E20EA and the installed nacelle type is not an indicator for the installed subtype of JT-9D engine on that aircraft.

  

Regards,
B747FE.



"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime"
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

So the blow-in doors were not to help the engine suck in more air?


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 9):

So the blow-in doors were not to help the engine suck in more air?

AFAIK, they were. But they also made more noise. The new cowl had both the benefit of better airflow and quieter noise.


User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 573 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4910 times:

Later -200 models had -7Q, -7R and -70A versions of the JT-9D to name a few. However, all of the JT-9 are conventional hydromechanical fuel control unit engines while the later PW series powerplants feature FADEC (Full authority digital electronic control) . These assist in accurate power settings, efficiency, and observance of limits which aid in service life.

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2177 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4577 times:

Quoting 113312 (Reply 11):
Later -200 models had -7Q, -7R and -70A versions of the JT-9D to name a few. However, all of the JT-9 are conventional hydromechanical fuel control unit engines while the later PW series powerplants feature FADEC (Full authority digital electronic control) . These assist in accurate power settings, efficiency, and observance of limits which aid in service life.

To be exact : The installed JT9D-7R (R for Rosati, the lead engineer of P&W) series on late 747-200 and all 747-300 series were still conventional controlled, but had also a supervisory EEC (electronic engine control) for more accurate pwr settings and limit observance. This was a sort of "in between solution" before the appearance of the FADEC on the PW4000 series.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2565 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 12):
To be exact : The installed JT9D-7R (R for Rosati, the lead engineer of P&W) series on late 747-200 and all 747-300 series were still conventional controlled, but had also a supervisory EEC (electronic engine control) for more accurate pwr settings and limit observance. This was a sort of "in between solution" before the appearance of the FADEC on the PW4000 series.

I thought it was called the 7R because the previous version was the 7Q. More puzzling to me was why the version lettering jumped from 7J to 7Q.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 747 And PW JT9D Questions
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...
Final With Gear Up And Go Around Questions posted Sat May 14 2011 09:39:05 by Gonzalo
VOR/TACAN And Runway Lights Questions posted Thu Nov 25 2010 05:07:49 by smartt1982
Equipment Question On 747-8 And 787 posted Tue Feb 9 2010 10:53:08 by micreaux
Takeoff Rolls And Climb Rate Questions posted Thu Jul 24 2008 13:28:00 by Thrust
UPGRADE, And Aircraft Rating Questions posted Thu Aug 2 2007 23:50:48 by JETBLUEATASW
747-8 And 787 Commonality posted Thu Mar 1 2007 21:57:14 by AF022
Overhauling Gyros And Other Avionics Questions posted Sun May 2 2004 03:22:08 by Arch89U
747's, And Fueling. posted Sat Mar 13 2004 18:23:03 by Go3Team
Hong Kong Cargo 747 And New Runways?/ posted Mon Dec 8 2003 21:26:05 by Backwater
747's Cockpit Overhead Panel Questions? posted Wed Jul 17 2002 19:06:53 by Mr Spaceman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format