Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

When did "Reheat" become "Afterburner" ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

When did "Reheat" become "Afterburner" ?

Old 1st Oct 2016, 05:53
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,819
G'day NutLoose. The figures I quoted, ironically, come from a speech made by Lee Atwood. Lee had made claim to something that he was not. He did not design the P-51, that came down to Edgar Schmued, Lee has a reputation for promoting himself as doing things he did not with respect to the P-51. It’s interesting that he claims he was the Chief Engineer, when he is listed by Edgar, and others, as Vice President and Assistant General Manager. The following is what Ed Schmued had to say re the radiator design,
“Then there were some other features of the airplane that are essential. For instance, the radiator of the airplane; if it is a ducted radiator (surrounded by cowling), it has a tendency to spill air. The air that is coming into the opening cannot all go through the core of the radiator itself and spills around the edges. Here it is very important to locate the radiator in a position where it cannot interfere with either wing or main-fuselage drag, because any spillage is turbulent air, producing drag. To keep that to a minimum, I moved the radiator as far aft as I could, and as far below the wing as I could. With the radiator located in this position, we really got an optimum.

”Since the radiator was far enough aft, it interfered as little as possible with fuselage drag and with wing characteristics. We had a world beater! We also found out, later on, that the heat from the engine actually produced thrust in the radiator by increasing the velocity of the air flowing through.

“That horsepower gained by the radiator was only discovered by wind-tunnel investigation. We were contractually required to wind-tunnel test the P-51, and long after the first airplane flew, we got around to test a model which had an electric motor to drive a three-bladed propeller. We found from wind-tunnel data that the P-51 should not be as fast as it was actually clocked. Our chief thermodynamicist, Joe Beerer, studied the problem and noticed the favorable effect of the radiator." This added thrust is called the Meredith effect, after the British engineer F. W. Meredith, who described it in a paper published in 1935.

The distribution of power is approximately as follows: 100 percent energy in fuel is put into the engine, but about 30 percent of this has to be radiated into the air to cool the engine. Another 30 percent of the energy is lost in the exhaust heat of the engine. Then 25 percent is usually used on the propeller. This amount of power drives the airplane, overcoming the drag, so 15 percent of the fuel energy is lost in mechanical friction. This indicates that an airplane, or any other heat machine, is not a particularly economical device.

“The British Air Ministry was extremely helpful. Among others, they sent us Dr. B. S. Shenstone [who arrived February 25, 1941], to assist us in some of the airflow problems into the radiator. The radiator, as we had it, consisted primarily of a fairing, which started at the bottom of the fuselage and enclosed the radiator. Dr. Shenstone advised us to provide an upper lip on the radiator housing, which was about 1.5 inches below the fuselage contour. By doing this, we got a much better pressure distribution in the air scoop.

“Previously, air would go in at the bottom of the scoop and spill out on top. By providing this lip and the gap between the fuselage and the radiator lip, we actually equalized the pressure distribution in the duct and got a much better cooling system. We reduced some of the loss due to spilling, which is always detrimental and will produce a certain amount of drag. lt is always a problem with any kind of a ducted radiator installation, so this all helped to reduce the spillage."

Aerodynamicist Ed Horkey fills in the details. “The back was the greatest place in the world to put [the radiator]. However, we started out with an opening to the radiator duct, the top line of which was the bottom line of the fuselage. The problem was that being so far back in the fuselage caused the boundary-layer build up and the airflow wasn’t doing the job of furnishing enough [air] to the radiator to give efficiency or enough cooling.
“Meredith had brought forth the theory or proposal to take in air at a high velocity and slow it down, which, of course, builds up pressure. As it goes through the radiator core, the pressure helps some, but primarily you have more dwell time. Then with the increased pressure and temperature, you squeeze the air down again as it goes out the back and you actually get some thrust from this, or what can be called negative radiator drag. It was great, but with the problems we had at the inlet, we weren't achieving cooling or a drag reduction.

“Ed certainly looks at it from a different viewpoint than we in aerodynamics did at that time. Actually, with the one-quarter scale model at Cal Tech, Irving Ashkenas, who had been working with me, was doing the night shift and I was doing the day shift. He was over one night and came up with the idea 0f why not put a boundary bleed in. ln other words, take that top line of the radiator duct and bring it down from the bottom line of the fuselage and let the turbulent boundary layer that built up under the fuselage go by the entrance and therefore you would get more efficient air into the duct. He went ahead one night and did this on the model and the results were great. Other people may have come up with that later on. I want to give full credit to Irving Ashkenas as really being the developer of the boundary-layer bleed. This is in full use yet today. For instance, one can look at the F-16 and see the tremendous boundary-layer gutter that they use.

Perfection of the cooling system was an ongoing process, requiring the input of Horkey’s department, wind-tunnel model work, and, above all, continuous flight testing. And most of it would have to be redone in 1943 and 1944 when the Mustang shifted to the more powerful Merlin engine.

Writes Horkey: “The boundary-layer bleed wasn't all that simple. If you drop the radiator inlet down far enough to get rid of all of the turbulent boundary layer, the drag would be too high; so it ended where it was a compromise of the bleed depth to get an acceptable cooling performance with minimum drag.

“It so happened that later on when we started the P-51B project, we got the boundary-layer bleed a little too small. What would happen was that it caused a duct rumble. Chilton described it to us as somebody pounding on a locker. The boundary layer would build up, and airflow would go around the duct inlet, and then it would all of a sudden go inside again, and this would create a large impact load. We did two things. We got the model out again and started checking the bleed. We also took an actual P-51B up to Ames Aeronautical Lab and cut the wing span down a little and mounted in the 16-foot high-speed wind tunnel.
“I took the first ride, and when we got up to 500 mph in the tunnel, we got the rumble. lt was quite a thrill. Smith J. DeFrance of NACA at Ames, Manley Hood, and Bill Harper all worked with us. We lowered the top inlet of the radiator duct a small amount and also went to the cutback, or slanted, inlet shape and solved the problem on the P-51B. Later on, on other airplanes like the P-51H, we had to make an eighth of an inch change, and again make sure we had this problem in hand.

“l am absolutely certain, having been there, that the boundary-layer-bleed solution credit should be given to Irving Ashkenas. He later went on to Northrop and participated in the development of the P-61 and their flying wings. He still has a company that does aerodynamic consulting on drag, stability, and control, etc."
What gets lost in the discussion is that, yes the radiator produces thrust, but not sufficient to overcome cooling drag. You can see evidence of this in one of the P-51 Reno racers that has dispensed with the radiator completely, and has a complete loss system, whereby the coolant boils off and is vented overboard. You can see the steam venting from the outlet in the fuselage immediately above and behind the wing trailing edge, they claimed removing the scoop and radiator substantially reduced drag.

megan is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 14:48
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
I guess the pilot of an aircraft with a 'total loss' cooling system needs to be 100% sure to be on the ground before he loses the last of his water.

Still, if u make the duration of the water greater than the duration of the fuel, I suppose it takes care of itself.....
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 14:57
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of the M4
Posts: 1,515
Re the photo above, is that the same "The Galloping Ghost" that crashed at Reno in 2011, killing the pilot and 10 spectators?
Warmtoast is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 15:02
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Warmtoast.

Yup.

Here you see it, in one big bit.

It now exists in many more, smaller, pieces...
AtomKraft is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 20:23
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,342
Never realised core of the Harrier engine was the Orpheus - now if we had had that much thrust in Aunty Betty's little fun jet..................
Wander00 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2016, 20:34
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 15,988
Yup, with the LP bits off the Olympus thrown in for good measure, see

Rolls-Royce Engines: Pegasus
NutLoose is online now  
Old 2nd Oct 2016, 05:21
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Don't know that we ever officially went from "Airscrew" to "Propeller". What I do know is that my RAAF Fitter IIE Flight Mechanics Notes (Issue 5 -1943) issued to me in 1958 refers exclusively to Airscrews. No mention anywhere of propellers.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2016, 08:33
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
I think afterburner is a better term, since there is combustion taking place.

Doesn't reheating take place in turbofan engines as the bypass airflow mixes with, and is reheated, by the exhaust gas flow?
riff_raff is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2016, 13:56
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,848
Barry Jones recalls in his book 'The Meteor', that an 'exhaust reburning system' had been discussed by RAE before 1945. An experimental system was tested in Meteor EE215 in April 1945.
In a similar time scale Rolls Royce had been investigating an 'after burning' system, but fully operational systems for Derwent engines were not available until 1949; these had variable nozzles.

Of interest John Grieson's book 'Jet Flight', Jan 1945, did not mention reburning systems, even though advanced concepts of turboprops and bypass were foreseen. In a chapter by George Carter (designer of the E28 and Meteor) on future engine systems, he noted a divergence between civil and military designs, but this section was subject to security restrictions at the time.

From the above it might be concluded that 'reheat' preceded 'after burning'; perhaps the latter coming from a 'different' system designed the USA, or a corrupted amalgamation of the preceding terms.
safetypee is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2016, 16:00
  #50 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 534
Variable nozzles on Derwents in 1949 - we had some amazing engineers back then. I always thought that variable nozzles came much later.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2016, 22:51
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,397
I always thought that variable nozzles came much later.

Variable area nozzles are almost mandatory with afterburner/reheat - if you burn enough fuel to make it worth while, the nozzle must get bigger or your engine match goes all to hell.
tdracer is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2016, 01:56
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,819
The British projected 1946 supersonic Miles M.52 incorporated a type of after burning, but the term used at the time was "thrust augmentation". Only the burning took place, not in the core flow, but in the bypass.
megan is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 16:07
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 69
Posts: 253
Reheat?

A buddy recommended I take a look at AirForces Monthly, but in the first feature I read the author uses the term 'reheat'. I guess he meant afterburner - does anyone say reheat anymore?
Thud105 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 16:12
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 487
I guess he meant afterburner - does anyone say reheat anymore?
Yep, reheat is what one uses to make the airplane aeroplane fly faster!

Whatever next, you'll be calling the fin a vertical stabiliser!!
H Peacock is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 16:15
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 69
Posts: 253
Ha ha ha! So do current serving RAF aircrew select reheat in their Typhoon? That's what I'd like to know - what is the correct terminology?
Thud105 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 16:23
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 214
Even now, some dudes refer to it as reheat, others as burner. Much excitement once in a formation fly past of Lightnings, as the leader called "Reheat, reheat go....now"
57mm is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 17:14
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 617
We are, indeed, two nations divided by a
common language ....
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 18:33
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 352
I'm immediately reminded of the feared but respected propulsion instructor Mr Garrett (ex Chf Tech) on my fitters course at Halton in 1976 when one of my fellow students used the "A" word. "Its called reheat" said Mr Garrett. We won't tolerate any Americanisms here. I tend to agree with Mr Garrett, after all, we did invent it
Vendee is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 18:58
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,823
This is indeed an unusual Americanism because it does not consist of three words, which appears to be a formal requirement in American "Aircraft Technical Manuals". So for example, the AWACS radar does not have Tilt, but an "Elevation Command Angle". The console (Mission-crew Work Station) does not have a keyboard, but an "Alphanumeric Entry Device" and so forth. Indeed, the occasional aberration of this rule has been corrected in the mid-life update, where the older "Situation Display" has been replaced by the "Primary AWACS Display". Needless to say, this approach to military systems certainly meets the requirement for a surfeit of acronyms.
Wensleydale is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 19:07
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 74
Posts: 5,237
Originally Posted by 57mm View Post
.... Much excitement once in a formation fly past of Lightnings, as the leader called "Reheat, reheat go....now"
Reminded me of the Javelin 4-ship in immaculate echelon joining the circuit, although that ws "Break - Break - Go - Now." Much wobbling of Javelins ensued!
MPN11 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.