737's engine mounted on wrong wing!

[RedBelly]

From airliners.net:

January 27, 2007: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aero...1172045/&sid=e5d7ec1bc036df0d98e8a85916f16bec

April 22, 2007 Sporting a new paint scheme: http://www.airliners.net/photo/JAT-...1221168/&sid=e5d7ec1bc036df0d98e8a85916f16bec

April 30, 2007: http://www.airliners.net/photo/JAT-...1341257/&sid=aff02d45d246f5e283d4dcf1ab011e27

May 19, 2007: http://www.airliners.net/photo/JAT-...1274419/&sid=aff02d45d246f5e283d4dcf1ab011e27

Either someone has gone through a lot of effort to photoshop multiple pictures, or it is possible to put the nacelle on the wrong side. If it did happen, it looks like it may have something to do with the new paint scheme.

As a Mythbusters fan, I would call this one "plausible".

 

[aa73]

My point is, I bet the nacelles are interchangeable. How much difference does a little itty bitty vortex generator make anyway? On the 767 they are on both sides of the nacelle.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

We had a 767 come out of HMV a while back.... the FO was doing the walk around and noticed that something didn't look quite right about the engines... turns out they strapped a wrong engine type for that ship on one of the wings. We have 3 different engine possibilities for the 767-300s...

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

My point is, I bet the nacelles are interchangeable. How much difference does a little itty bitty vortex generator make anyway? On the 767 they are on both sides of the nacelle.

Apparently enough that Boeing puts a placard on the engine that says something to the effect that the vane must go on the inside.

 

[overseas boy]

Same reg in 2009

http://www.airliners.net/photo/JAT-...1524184/&sid=eafcc70436e8f753b298fec72ff6b72f

apparently they fixed it

 

[avbug]

From D. Lednicer:

To quote from Dick Shevell's AIAA paper "Aerodynamic Bugs: Can
CFD Spray Them Away":

"DC-10 wind tunnel tests showed a significant loss in maximum lift coefficient in the flap deflected configurations, with landing slat extension, compared to predictions. This resulted in a stall speed increase of about 5 knots in the approach configuration. The initial wing stall occured behind the nacelles and forward of the inboard ailerons. The problem was traced by flow visualization techniques to the effects of the nacelle wake at high angles of attack and the absence of the slat in the vicinity of the nacelle pylons. The solution was developed in the NASA Ames Research Center 12 ft. pressurized tunnel and turned out to be a pair of strakes mounted forward on each side of the nacelles in planes about 45 degrees above the horizontal. The final strake shape was optimized in flight tests. The strakes are simply large vortex generators. The vortices mix the nacelle boundary layer air with the free stream and reduce the momentum loss in the wake. The vortices then pass just over the upper surface of the wing, continuing this mixing process. The counter-rotating vortices also create a downwash over the wing region unprotected by the slat, further reducing the premature stall. The effect of the strakes is to reduce the required takeoff and landing field lengths by about 6%, a very large effect."

Rumor has it that Douglas has the patent on nacelle strakes, but the patent calls for pairs of strakes (one on each side). Hence, Boeing aircraft only use single nacelle strakes (737-300, -400, -500 and 767-200 and -300). Boeing calls them "nacelle chines".

The installation error can be as simple as swapping nacelle panels, rather than the entire nacelle. A potentially easy mistake to make on a large shop floor.

 

[UALRATT]

My point is, I bet the nacelles are interchangeable. How much difference does a little itty bitty vortex generator make anyway? On the 767 they are on both sides of the nacelle.

Ask the folks at Boeing because they were the one who took the time to observe airfow around the nacelles and airfoils of their design. Just be sure to not miss that on the next preflight unless your CDL indicates otherwise and that all responsible parties are aware of it...

 

[aa73]

So if that's the case, how did that 737 not crash? Unless it was altered by Photoshop.

 

[mynameisjim]

It would only crash if it was within about 5 knots of stall speed, according to that little blurb up above

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Well apparently according to the photos the plane CAN fly just fine with it on the wrong wing. Remind me never to fly with a pilot from JAT Airways though.

 

[glasspilot]

Makes you wonder what else has been mounted "backwards".

 

[Captzaahlie]

It would only crash if it was within about 5 knots of stall speed, according to that little blurb up above

IT WOULD ONLY STALL (NOT NECESSARILY CRASH ) IF IT WERE AT DC10!

""DC-10 wind tunnel tests showed a significant loss in maximum lift coefficient in the flap deflected configurations, with landing slat extension, compared to predictions. This resulted in a stall speed increase of about 5 knots in the approach configuration."


this test was done on a DC-10 not 737, so your 5 knot assumption is just that ...an assumption. You Einstein types are killing me!

 

[sigler]

That exact thing is a preflight item on the bus. 319 or 320 I can't remember which.

Both the 19 and 21 have them on both sides of the nacelle. The 320 usually only has them inboard, however some LIP aircraft have them on both sides also.

 

[jetdok]

the fan cowls have provisions to move the strake to either fan cowl. example left eng outboard fan cowl is same as right eng inboard fan cowl. So the left eng, left fan cowl can be installed on the right hand engine left side, but the strake must be removed and intstalled in same position as removed.

 

[Captain X]

We should so let foreign carriers operate in the US!

It would be a great way to control costs in the industry.