Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
L1011/B747-737 Classic Question  
User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3836 times:

Hey guys,
I have a few questions. First, the famous L1011 engine start:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dirk Jaeger



I believe the excessive amount of smoke coming from the engine's is due to unburned gas, which collected in the burner cans? Is this correct. Is it typical of Rolls Royce engines?
#2. The exhaust cone section on early RB.211's on the L1011's appear to be extended compared to later versions. Was were the differences between the two, old and new? What was changed?
Old:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Oertle


New:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Schaefer



#3. The inlets on the engine nacelle lip of early Classic 747's and 737's (Non-Adv models). What was their purpose. I know that these were phased out, but why? They can also be seen on early JT8D's on classic B737's.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria



Thanks alot,
-Tom

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

#1 Yep, your right it's fuel, it happens to cold engines on cold days which is also discussed here, http://airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/59393/

#2 The L1011 used to have core thrust reversers which were removed mainly due to weight. 747s used to have core reversers but were removed for the same reason.

#3 They are blow in doors they supply the inlet with more air when at high thrust, removed due to weight and maintenance costs like the core reversers, plus improvements in inlet efficiency.



C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Hey CCA,
Thanks for the explanations. Just to dig in a little deeper, how exactly did Core Reversers operate? What other a/c used them?

Thanks again,
-Tom


User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 836 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3595 times:

Core reversers were just small versions of the big ones with a similar set up, using blocker doors and cascade vanes.
I suppose it was more engine type rather than A/C, I know RR used them on the L1011 and P&W used them on the 747, but I must say I'm not sure about GE and the DC-10, a quick search found this which looks like it could be fitted with a core T/R.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett




C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

RE: the 747/737 cowling doors, to add to what CCA said, the most common name for these things are "sucker" doors, and if you search for that term, I think you'll find at least 1 or 2 threads, although they may have been awhile ago.

On the 737s, these doors were on the 737-100s and the 737-200 "Basic" (non-advanced) aircraft. When Boeing upgraded to the 737-200 Advanced version on the production line, the sucker doors were history, as advances in cowling design made them unecessary. A similar situation existed on the 747s.


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Try

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/54437/


User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

The RB211-22B engine on the L-1011 has only primary orifices in its fuel nozzles; the fuel nozzles are the units that inject fuel into the annular combustion chamber. The orifices are sized to allow for proper atomization of the fuel during engine operation. In very cold weather, the fuel thickens and does not atomize very well during engine starts resulting in the cloud of fuel vapor coming out of the turbine.
In very very cold weather, ignition can occur so slowly that you could see, if you are in the correct place, gaps appear in the fuel vapor cloud at the (approximately) 5:00 and 7:00 positions. These are the locations of the igniters and these holes occur where fuel ignition has occurred. Slowly the holes will grow until ignition is occurring throughout the combuster.
Many other engines have primary and secondary orifices in the fuel nozzles. The secondary orifices are much smaller in diameter and are used during engine starting to properly atomize the fuel to allow for easy ignition, the primary fuel nozzles come into play when the engine is running.
There are several methods of allowing only the secondaries to feed fuel during a start; one such system uses a pressure sensitive fuel valve that will select either the secondary or the primary orifices.
Some L-1011 operators would use JP-4 fuel in the winter at alleviate that starting problem; an unintended result were fires (JP-4 is cut with gasoline) that destroyed some airplanes.
The RB211-22B was a nasty engine to start in cold weather and the fuel nozzles were only a part of the problem. Low pneumatic air pressure to the starter, deteriorated compressor blades and vanes, deteriorated turbine blades and vanes, and/or a malfunctioning fuel flow regulator (FFR) are some of the other problems that affected engine starting.
Cold weather starting of the RB211-22B bcame a black art with many theories and techniques used to get it running. Flame outs in bitter cold weather were not uncommon and the starters took a real beating; being used longer and more often that they were intended to get a balky engine up and running.


User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3541 times:

RB211-22B tail cones. The L-1011 originally came with a reverser system that included buckets or diverters on the exhaust of the core or hot stream as well as a fan reverser system. The hot stream reversers were very unreliable and were eventually removed (not nearly as easy as that, unfortunately). One result was a change in the tail cone and was called the 5 degree afterbody.
The L-1011 was not meeting its design drag coefficients and wind tunnel testing indicated that replacing the tail cone with one of a steeper angle would reduce drag and reduce the aircraft fuel burn.
First came the 10 degree afterbody and then the 15 degree afterbody, later a fairing was added between the fuselage and the inlet lip of the #2 engine. Delta used the fairing, Eastern did not.
The 15 degree afterbody became the standard, but noone that I know of was ever able to confirm an improvement in fuel burn attributed to the revised afterbodies.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

Another one..

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/90748/


User currently offlineDC-10Tech From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 298 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

"Core reversers were just small versions of the big ones with a similar set up, using blocker doors and cascade vanes.
I suppose it was more engine type rather than A/C, I know RR used them on the L1011 and P&W used them on the 747, but I must say I'm not sure about GE and the DC-10, a quick search found this which looks like it could be fitted with a core T/R."


You are correct, the turbine reversers were used on the DC-10 back in the day. I'm not sure why they were removed, but my guess would be that they caused premature stress fatigue to the turbine blade, caused performance problems, were costly to maintain, or just weren't needed. I've worked on a few older DC-10-10's that still had some of the turbine reverser indication system still installed.



Forums.AMTCentral.com
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

As far as core reversers and fan reversers... the core reversers have been removed in all 747s that I know of, since the mid-1970s... at least I have not seen one 747 with operating core reversers... In any case, when reversing, most of the braking-reversing "action" came from the fan reversers anyway, little work was done by the core reversers... so, they were eventually deleted in the 747...
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic L1011/B747-737 Classic Question
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...
737 Ehsi Question posted Fri Jul 28 2006 15:17:58 by Oli
Engine Failure Checklist 737 Series Question posted Wed May 3 2006 23:16:19 by JulianUK
737 Classic Vs. 737NG Flight posted Thu Jan 26 2006 22:34:37 by MrPhoo
Wing Differences 737 Classic To 737NG posted Tue Dec 13 2005 02:10:17 by Lnglive1011yyz
737 Tail Question. posted Thu Feb 10 2005 15:44:40 by RootsAir
737 Wings Question posted Sat Feb 15 2003 03:04:58 by Airportmanager
737 Tail Question posted Fri Apr 26 2002 18:57:50 by Arsenal@LHR
Ice Cream Scoop On 737 Classic Wing Pylons? posted Sat Nov 10 2001 01:23:50 by SFOintern
A Really Dumb 737 Rudder Question posted Thu Sep 7 2000 01:38:17 by FlyingDummy
Boeing 777/737 Ground Spoiler Deployment Question posted Fri Sep 1 2006 03:29:11 by Aaron747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format