Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Reload this Page >

3rd turbine in the tail?

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.

3rd turbine in the tail?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16th February 2006 | 21:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
3rd turbine in the tail?

This is probably the first time I've posted on this forum, but had a curiousity that I wanted to lay to rest. On some aircraft there is a 3rd turbine in the tail section of the airplane.. I've heard (from where, I can't remember) that this is primarily used to generate power for the aircraft, and is not necessarily used for thrust. Is this just myth or is it actually used to power the aircraft while in flight, etc? Thanks in advance!
Joel
Mandenbar is offline  
Old 16th February 2006 | 21:48
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: netherlands
Hello mandenbar,

It is what we call a Auxillery Power Unit (APU).
It's primary use is to provide the aircraft of electrical power and air to run the airconditioning packs and to start the engines.

The unit is mostly used on the ground but can also be used in flight as a back-up when one of the engine generators fails.

hope this helps.

regards Vincent
vincent van gogh is offline  
Old 16th February 2006 | 21:52
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge, UK
Well there's always the L-1011 or B727 but the "extra turbine" on those is a bit easier to spot
Henry Hallam is offline  
Old 17th February 2006 | 19:22
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
We spell it "Auxiliary". I've also not heard of any that provide thrust that is used to power an aircraft. However, that does not mean to say that no thrust is generated - I'm sure it is, it's just that it's so relatively small it is of no consequence.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 17th February 2006 | 20:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Bucks
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man
We spell it "Auxiliary". I've also not heard of any that provide thrust that is used to power an aircraft. However, that does not mean to say that no thrust is generated - I'm sure it is, it's just that it's so relatively small it is of no consequence.

I believe its like a car's exhaust, any "propulsion" coming from the APU is just exhaust, the inlet of air is important to gain the power from the movement of the turbine.
AlexB is offline  
Old 17th February 2006 | 20:41
  #6 (permalink)  


Sims Fly Virtually
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
From: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Question

Probably not relevant to the question asked, but didn't the Trident (late model) have a "plastic engine" in the tail to provise thrust just for take-off? (as well as the usual APU) Or is that "Snopes"?
ExSimGuy is offline  
Old 17th February 2006 | 21:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
From: Bucks
Originally Posted by ExSimGuy
Probably not relevant to the question asked, but didn't the Trident (late model) have a "plastic engine" in the tail to provise thrust just for take-off? (as well as the usual APU) Or is that "Snopes"?
yup the 3B used a single Rolls-Royce RB.162-86 engine for take off boost, it had just less than half or each of the main 3 engine's power ( 5,250lbs) .
visible here:
AlexB is offline  
Old 18th February 2006 | 09:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3
Likes: 5
From: Wor Yerm
They certainly did. The engine was a bit binary though: On & "Full Welly" or Off. Apparenty, following a rejected takeoff, this thing was still going full tilt. It was somebody's job to remember to turn it off after such an event.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 18th February 2006 | 09:47
  #9 (permalink)  
Spitoon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And the noise was impressive too
 
Old 21st February 2006 | 20:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: Stockholm Sweden
Originally Posted by ExSimGuy
[COLOR=blue] "plastic engine" in the tail ]
Yes , all the compressor blades were glass fibre. It was amazingley light weight as well, Rolls designed it as a VTOL engine. Those were the days, did my apprenticeship on the Trident.
Swedish Steve is offline  
Old 21st February 2006 | 22:50
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Thanks for the info guys, my question has been answered

-Mandenbar
Mandenbar is offline  
Old 21st February 2006 | 23:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
From: UK
Another aircraft which uses the APU for forward thrust is the BAe 145, in fact it uses all Five of them!!
window-seat is offline  
Old 22nd February 2006 | 01:32
  #13 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
I know this thread has been a bit on the humorous (humourous??) side, but my recollection is that the 747-200 actually took a bit of credit for TO performance on the APU, and if APU were not operating there was a slight (250kg???) penalty.

Not sure if that applied to other 747's.
barit1 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.