Ok guys, here goes, worked on them for years.

All of the DC-10-40's that NWA had were equipped with water injection. All the
airplanes were certified with the water injection system working. The aircraft were
"never" operated in service using the water injection. Both the JT9-20, and -20J
were equipped with water injection manifolds and associated parts early on. But
these were removed later on to save weight, not to mention they were right in the
way, and not being used. Some of the aircraft water injection lines were removed to
ease maintenance in the LH wheel well, the wing leading edges, and the engine
pylons in the early 80s. The rest of the system was removed, other than the tank,
in the early 90s. The water tank is mounted on the lower LH side of the fuselage,
just aft of the wing, and looks like a body fairing. The drain mast for the tank is
just below the aft or bulk cargo door, just left of the center line of the belly.
The tank held 600 gal of de-mineralized water. There were three pumps located in
the tank. The tank was mounted to the fuselage by straps at the top, and hinges at
the bottom. I would have loved to have performed an engine trim with the water
injection operating.

The only parts of the water injection system that were left on the engines were the
fuel nozzles with the water injection ports capped off, these were right behind the
primary and secondary fuel lines in each fuel nozzle. There were some lines on the
fuel control for the water pressure signal to the fuel control so it could increase
fuel flow once water pressure was sensed, otherwise everything else was removed.
There was never a -W- in the engine designation on the data plates for either
engine.......so it doesn't always apply.

The JT9-20 was a JT9-7A, minus the 4.0 bleed valves, and it was adapted for the
Douglas application, which means that the gearbox was mounted under the fan case,
and you guessed it.........was a whole lot easier to work on than ANY JT9 ever
mounted on a 747. You could change the main engine fuel pump and fuel control in
about two hours, now any one that has changed a main pump, and control on a JT9-7Q
on a 747, just let out a whistle, because they know it is quicker to change the
engine than the main pump and control on a -7Q.

The JT9-20 had a takeoff EPR of 1.46, and put out somewhere in the neighbor hood of
44,000 lbs thrust, without water.

The JT9-20J was a JT9-7F, that had the turbine section out of the -7J, and a
different fuel pump than a -20. This engine had a takeoff EPR of 1.51, and put out
roughly 48,000 lbs of thrust dry, or without water. The -20J had a higher max EGT
limit than the -20, I can't remember the exact numbers, but I will dig out my old
engine run-up book if someone really needs to know.

These two engines side by side were basically identical, you could only tell at a
glance that an engine was a -20J by the number of EGT probes, one more on a -20J.
Or glance at the serial number, or data plate. We were allowed to intermix these
two engines on any given aircraft, and the engines were trimmed (adjusted) to their
specified power, but held back to -20 EPR limits when in intermix.
All of NWA DC-10-40s were certified at 535,000 lbs gross weight, so a J powered
aircraft simply had more power. There was no rhyme or reason as to which aircraft
were designated as J powered aircraft. The J powered aircraft were used on
different routes though. Now some might ask "why not convert all the aircraft to -
20J power".......well that cost money. In the mid 80s P&W offered to convert the
DC-10-40s to JT9-7R4 power, like they did at JAL, but the aircraft was being looked
at for retirement at that time, so they passed, and the -40s stayed on for another
18 years or so.

Now on to something that some of you may not have known. The NWA DC-10-40s were
actually DC-10-20s.........I know shock and awe..... Well here's the deal. Donald
Nyrop, who was the CEO at the time, ordered his DC10s with the JT9s and the
extended range upper and lower auxiliary fuel tanks, longer wing span, center gear,
and so on. He found out that Douglas was going to hang CF6-50 engines off of the
same airframe, and call it a DC-10-30, well he flipped out and basically demanded
that his P&W powered DC-10s be re-designated -40s........he wanted to have the
higher number, not to be outdone by the new and higher numbered -30s that would
follow. While working on the DC-10-40, one would find numerous data plates on parts
of the aircraft that pertained to the P&W application, and they would be stamped
DC-10-20. The upper and lower auxiliary fuel tank access panels were also stamped
"DC-10-20/-30 only".......See what a temper tantrum can get you.

I hope this clears up some of the questions.