Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Jet Engines 101

Wikiposts
Search
Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Jet Engines 101

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 24th Jun 2002, 19:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jet Engines 101

Found a good site on the jet engine, for anyone who might be interested.

Engines 101
Dave Jackson is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2002, 01:57
  #2 (permalink)  

Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Push comes to shove

Discounting turbofans if you read the text accompanying the animated illustration and compare it with the engine explanation provided by Rolls Royce you will find a basic disagreement. The Rolls Royce explanation uses a balloon analogy, which is correct, but the animated illustration (text) is incorrect because it leads the uninitiated reader to believe the jet exhaust is pushing against the surrounding air mass. If this were true, rockets would not work in outer space.

Lu Zuckerman is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2002, 19:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 14 Posts
The balloon analogy is wrong anyway - Lu is right - that's the way rockets work.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2002, 20:22
  #4 (permalink)  

Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wright from rong

To: Paco

Actually the balloon analogy is correct. If you look closely at the illustration you will note the forward inner surface of the balloon is indicated as being the reaction point. On a turbojet engine the forward surfaces of the combuster can(s) is the surface that provides the reaction to move the engine forward with the engine being attached to the airframe it moves also.

Lu Zuckerman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 10:39
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes on 14 Posts
Sorry, I don't see how it can be. I haven't seen the illustration, but a jet works by accelerating a thin hot stream of air backwards, so it comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. This does not happen with the balloon which is self contained.

Phil
paco is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 11:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Darkest Wiltshire
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy

Oh Christ. Here we go again.

Taff
Taff Missed is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 21:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"All jet engines, which are often called, gas turbines, work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward."

Has anyone, including the author, actually read this sentence? Since when did need become a principle of physics?
Flash2001 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2002, 23:39
  #8 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wow, here we go!

The engine101 web site is great, and not misleading at all. nowhere does it infer that the jet exhaust pushes against anything. It is quite accurate and precise.

The balloon is just like a rocket, in that a stored energy source propells mass backwards, which reacts against the chamber to push the vehicle forward. A balloon stores the energy in its elastic walls, a rocket in the chemistry of its fuel.

A jet does suck in air and heats it to toss it out the back, so it is different in that respect. Were a jet to have to carry all its oxygen, it would have a vastly reduced payload. For a 767 with 100,000 pounds of fuel, if the typical 15 to 1 mixture ratio is met, it must carry 1.5 million pounds of air for the journey (or 300,000 pounds of pure oxygen). This would put a big dent in its payload, like all of it!
 

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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.