Jump to content

The Jet Engine thread


Vitormouraa

Recommended Posts

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep, I think it is.

 

Tragic, it shouldn't happen. But this does not put the passengers at risk.

 

Tell them that.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3456490&postcount=63

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3499725&postcount=79

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That has nothing to do with that...

 

FYI this second case the engine fan failed and it hit the fuselage, it ended up killing a woman. This was a catastrophic failure, it was supposed to be a "contained failure" since the outer case is supposed to keep the fan inside the engine in case it fails/comes off from the N1 shaft, but that wasn't the case, the fan flew right at the fuselage.

 

There was another case back in the 80s where the fan of a CFM-56 failed and the aircraft crashed because the pilot shut down the wrong engine, 47 people were killed. But see, fan failures have absolutely nothing to do with your first post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't it jeopardise blade containment in the event of a bird strike?

 

 

 

The fan blades are strong enough to withstand bird strikes, in fact the fan is what 'protects' the core in case the engine ingests a bird or even FOD. Of course it will bend the blade and all that, but it shouldn't cause more issues than that, blade separation is usually much more complex, many of these cases the blades are involved in material fatigue, they have a very long background, sometimes a crack inside the fan structure which has increased over time until it reaches a point and it fails.

 

We know that when a blade separation happens, the engine is completely destroyed, as we have seen in many engine tests. But they didn't know about the possibility of the blade striking the fuselage, if I remember correctly.

 

Southwest was being investigated about the two CFM-56s that failed in flight, I think they had some issues with maintenance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically, D30-F6 engine on Mig-31 should be optimized for high speed,so why is its bypass ratio so high?

 

According to this source, the D-30F6 has a bypass ratio of 0.57, which isn't that high, Viggen, for example, has a bypass ratio of 0.97 and F100-PW-229 is 0.36 according to Wiki. So I don't think it's that high?

 

The D-21A1 though is different. It has a bypass ratio of 0.83.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this source, the D-30F6 has a bypass ratio of 0.57, which isn't that high, Viggen, for example, has a bypass ratio of 0.97 and F100-PW-229 is 0.36 according to Wiki. So I don't think it's that high?

I meant F-135 also has a bypass ratio of 0.57 and it is optimized to much slower speed regime.

Engines optimized to high speed such as F-119, M88, EJ200 often have a lower ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant F-135 also has a bypass ratio of 0.57 and it is optimized to much slower speed regime.

Engines optimized to high speed such as F-119, M88, EJ200 often have a lower ratio.

 

Yes, and that makes sense. Bypass ratio is associated with the frontal area, when you're flying at very high speeds you want to minimize drag, so using a lower bypass ratio is a good idea, only at supersonic speeds, however. Bypass ratio is also associated with the propulsive efficiency, pretty much in all phases of the flight, where the aircraft is subsonic, the lack of a higher bypass ratio will affect mainly the fuel and thrust efficiencies. Increasing, however, the bypass ratio of an afterburning engine will also provide more oxygen to the combustion in the jet pipe, more unburnt, colder air will be feeding the afterburner, which greatly increases the thrust and efficiency of this engine.

 

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the purpose of the engine, whether you'll be flying at high supersonic or subsonic speeds. A turbojet/low bypass turbofan will have good numbers at high speeds due to ram conditions, but if the aircraft is spending most of its time at subsonic speeds, using a low bypass engine might not be the best idea, perhaps increasing the bypass ratio will improve the performance of this aircraft at lower speeds, therefore it'll perform well in both regimes.

 

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages for both designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...