PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Pratt & Whitney J58 vs General-Electric J93
Old 17th Oct 2012, 19:31
  #39 (permalink)  
peter kent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Answers to questions

Hi folks,
Sorry this is a bit cryptic but I'm scared to spend too much time typing words in case I lose the whole lot with one wrong mouse click. It's already happened.

Good news for oldBUFFkeeper,
Six tube BPR is 0.25 as they passed 20%. See below for this and much, much more

http://www.enginehistory.org/Convent...ropulsion2.pdf

Hope this new revelation on low flow reqd raises your opinion of the elegance or lack of it for the tubes.
BTW Jane-DOH had already summed them up in one line although I think the relevance of the statement was missed, ie "there's only a certain degree of efficiency you need to accomplish a task. The rest is gravy" or big waste of money actually.
The apparently crude tubes were engineeringly elegant I'm sure ie reqd min mods to min # of components They did what was reqd cheapest and lightest and durable.

Following answers come from "The Engines of Pratt & Whitney, a Technical History" by Jack Connors

There are 3 pages on J91.
J91 compressor, in order to pass req flow for M3 with smallest size, hadnew low level of hub-tip-ratio, about 1/3 re previous 1/2, and also transonic blading so no IGV reqt. JT3D fan was slightly scaled down 1st 2 stages.

Finish off with thought for the day:
overall PR of subject matter above at M3 is today attained by your big fan engines at zero flt speed, ie over 40:1

That's about it for now.
Any more P&W Qs I can look up for you in the book.

Thank you all for renewing my interest in above details.

PK

Last edited by peter kent; 17th Oct 2012 at 20:51. Reason: addition
peter kent is offline