Afterburners
Author
Discussion

Ayahuasca

Original Poster:

27,580 posts

308 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
Squirt fuel into the rear of the jet engine to increase thrust.

But this can only work if there is unburned O2 coming through the engine surely? (Note not Shirley). Which led me to wonder what percentage of the available oxygen is burned in a typical jet? I guess turbofans have better reheat potential as there is more unburnt oxygen available?

TheTurbonator

2,792 posts

180 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
The max power output of a Turbofan engine is limited by (amongst over things) what is known as Turbine Inlet Temperature (TIT).

Exceeding the maximum value would cause engine damage, so to prevent this, at maximum thrust fuel flow is restricted. So at maximum thrust, it is not available oxygen that limits the power but fuel flow. Thus meaning that oxygen is left over from combustion, this "left-over" oxygen is then used for the afterburner process.

I have no idea what percentage of oxygen is left from combustion but you are right that Turbofans are more efficient than Turbojets, they can be as much as 15% more efficient.

Edited by TheTurbonator on Wednesday 1st January 06:22


Edited by TheTurbonator on Wednesday 1st January 06:24

Mave

8,217 posts

244 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
Modern engines run with max turbine temperatures in the region of 1800-2000K. Guessing stochiometric temperatures to be in the low to mid 2000s makes me think that there's probably 20% ish spare oxygen in the core. However, that's at take off, turbine temps are much lower at cruise, with the engine throttled back there would be more spare oxygen. But... Most of the available oxygen is actually in the unburnt bypass air, so you could have anything from an extra 20% to an extra 1000% of available spare oxygen for the afterburner, depending on engine type. Unfortunately you then need the nozzles and stuff to accelerate all this burning oxygen to turn it into thrust...

Edited by Mave on Wednesday 1st January 12:52

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

291 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
One thing worth considering is that the cores of modern turbine sections run hotter than the melting point of the materials used to make/grow/construct the turbine blades.
That is the very secret/expensive "magic" bit.

Anyway on Topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJGDmThP_BY

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st January 15:57

anonymous-user

83 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
Surely, in terms of afterburners there is one clear leader:




The P&W J-58 as fitted to the SR-71 and it's derivatives!

(iirc, still the only jet engine rated for cruise under continuous afterburning operation)

Brother D

4,419 posts

205 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
One thing worth considering is that the cores of modern turbine sections run hotter than the melting point of the materials used to make/grow/construct the turbine blades.
That is the very secret/expensive "magic" bit.

Anyway on Topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJGDmThP_BY

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 1st January 15:57
The hotter the gas stream the more efficient the engine can run. The manufacture of the HT blades is very interesting, (as is the extremely expensive process of applying the ceramic coating to the blades)

If you click on the picture you can make out the microscopic holes to allow cooling air to pass through.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/materi...



Mave

8,217 posts

244 months

Wednesday 1st January 2014
quotequote all
Brother D said:
The hotter the gas stream the more efficient the engine can run.
I'd kind of agree, but its really pressure ratio which most strongly improves efficiency. As pressure ratio goes up power drops, so you then need higher turbine temperatures to get the power back....

AER

1,145 posts

299 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of afterburners there is one clear leader:




The P&W J-58 as fitted to the SR-71 and it's derivatives!

(iirc, still the only jet engine rated for cruise under continuous afterburning operation)
That's a nice standing wave going on there in the exhaust gas!

Tango13

10,050 posts

205 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
AER said:
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of afterburners there is one clear leader:




The P&W J-58 as fitted to the SR-71 and it's derivatives!

(iirc, still the only jet engine rated for cruise under continuous afterburning operation)
That's a nice standing wave going on there in the exhaust gas!
It's possible to work out the relative Mach number of an aircraft from the angle of the diamond shockwaves in the afterburner plume.

dr_gn

16,924 posts

213 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
AER said:
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of afterburners there is one clear leader:




The P&W J-58 as fitted to the SR-71 and it's derivatives!

(iirc, still the only jet engine rated for cruise under continuous afterburning operation)
That's a nice standing wave going on there in the exhaust gas!
It's possible to work out the relative Mach number of an aircraft from the angle of the diamond shockwaves in the afterburner plume.
What's the mach number of that test rig then? hehe

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

291 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
Tango13 said:
AER said:
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of afterburners there is one clear leader:




The P&W J-58 as fitted to the SR-71 and it's derivatives!

(iirc, still the only jet engine rated for cruise under continuous afterburning operation)
That's a nice standing wave going on there in the exhaust gas!
It's possible to work out the relative Mach number of an aircraft from the angle of the diamond shockwaves in the afterburner plume.
What's the mach number of that test rig then? hehe
hehe

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

290 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
There is a story that using afterburner on the Gloster Javelin at certain altitudes actually slowed the aircraft down. Something to do with reducing the fuel flow into the engine itself, but I don't know how much truth there is in it. Ginetta? Eric?

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

291 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Lack of variable nozzle causing gas flow stagnation below a certain altitude?

Mave

8,217 posts

244 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
IIRC it was a fuel pump capacity issue. Using reheat at low / medium altitude led to reduced fuel flow available for the more efficient core engine - so the net result was a thrust reduction.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

213 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Most Javelins didn't have 'burner, IIRC it was only the FAW Mk8 and FAW Mk9.

As Mave said, it was a HP Fuel pump problem. The pumps couldn't keep up with the fuel flow demands of the engines at maximum RPM at low level, thus leading to a reduction in thrust. Indeed with the early AFRCU and BCU (Air Flow Ratio Control Unit, Barometric Control Unit), selecting full throttle at low level would lead to a flame out.



Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 2nd January 19:18

IforB

9,840 posts

258 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
A mild design flaw there...

TVR1

5,478 posts

254 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Brother D said:
The hotter the gas stream the more efficient the engine can run. The manufacture of the HT blades is very interesting, (as is the extremely expensive process of applying the ceramic coating to the blades)

If you click on the picture you can make out the microscopic holes to allow cooling air to pass through.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/materi...
I've watched this many times. There is a section on the blade perforations.

22.30
Clever stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfomloUg2Gw

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 2nd January 20:22

Mojocvh

16,837 posts

291 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Most Javelins didn't have 'burner, IIRC it was only the FAW Mk8 and FAW Mk9.

As Mave said, it was a HP Fuel pump problem. The pumps couldn't keep up with the fuel flow demands of the engines at maximum RPM at low level, thus leading to a reduction in thrust. Indeed with the early AFRCU and BCU (Air Flow Ratio Control Unit, Barometric Control Unit), selecting full throttle at low level would lead to a flame out.



Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 2nd January 19:18
But was it the HP pumps or the fuel feeds to them? I'm only slightly amazed that rolls couldn't supply the required on unit fuel supply.

Benni

3,711 posts

240 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Tango13 said:
It's possible to work out the relative Mach number of an aircraft from the angle of the diamond shockwaves in the afterburner plume.
Not by the number of shockwave Diamonds ?

How do these form anyway ?

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

213 months

Thursday 2nd January 2014
quotequote all
Mojocvh said:
But was it the HP pumps or the fuel feeds to them? I'm only slightly amazed that rolls couldn't supply the required on unit fuel supply.
The engines in the Javelin were Armstrong Siddeley Sapphires not RRs.

As I understand it it it was the HP Pump output. Apparently the pumps fitted to the Sapphire engines in the Javelin were fixed stroke pumps.


Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 2nd January 23:27