3 spool
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: Northern Hemisphere
3 spool
OK, so after a harrowing self teach on 3 spool engines I think I have made a breakthrough.
Can someone confirm 2 things for me please?
1. Fan, IP compressor and HP compressor all powered by there own turbine. Each is connected by its own shaft (therefore 3) and these shafts sit inside one another?
2. An advantage of a 3 spool engine is that only one spool needs to be spun by the starter. Question is which spool? I think it would be the HP spool as it appears the smallest with probably the least inertia.
Who would have thought I have an interview coming up!!?
Cheers all
WC
Can someone confirm 2 things for me please?
1. Fan, IP compressor and HP compressor all powered by there own turbine. Each is connected by its own shaft (therefore 3) and these shafts sit inside one another?
2. An advantage of a 3 spool engine is that only one spool needs to be spun by the starter. Question is which spool? I think it would be the HP spool as it appears the smallest with probably the least inertia.
Who would have thought I have an interview coming up!!?
Cheers all
WC
Mistrust in Management
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 986
Likes: 11
From: UK
Wheezy,
Correct on both one and 2. However the fact that the starter drives the lower inertia H.P. spool is an additional benefit, but the main benefit is that each compressor spool is better matched to the airflow so in theory there are increased stall/surge margins over a twin spool engine. Surge margins at different power settings are however maintained by the use of engine bleeds and variable intake guide vanes on both twin and triple spool engines.
A couple of disadvantages of triple spool engines (in theory at least) are increase in weight, increased complexity and therefore higher lifetime maintenance costs.
Regards
Exeng
Correct on both one and 2. However the fact that the starter drives the lower inertia H.P. spool is an additional benefit, but the main benefit is that each compressor spool is better matched to the airflow so in theory there are increased stall/surge margins over a twin spool engine. Surge margins at different power settings are however maintained by the use of engine bleeds and variable intake guide vanes on both twin and triple spool engines.
A couple of disadvantages of triple spool engines (in theory at least) are increase in weight, increased complexity and therefore higher lifetime maintenance costs.
Regards
Exeng
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 508
Likes: 16
From: Under the sea
What can you tell me about the RB211-524?
Triple spooled engine
Physically smaller than other similar engines [3 spools]
Less shaft-flex and distortion [longer life]
3 sections mean each section works closer to its optimum
N1 100% = 3900rpm
N2 100% = 7000rpm
N3 100% = 10611rpm
Easier to start as only 1 shaft needs to be turned
Better thrust to weight ratio than competitors
Better propulsive efficiency
Lower fuel consumption
Reduced noise
Slightly heavier due to the extra spool
86.3" fan diameter [75% of thrust]
Modular construction [easier to build and maintain]
Seven-stage IP compressor
Six-stage HP compressor
Single annular combustor with 24 fuel burners on the G/H-T
Single-stage HP turbine, single-stage IP turbine and a three-stage LP turbine
I believe the starter rotates either the N2 or N3 section. Depends on the version of RB211 you are discussing.
Triple spooled engine
Physically smaller than other similar engines [3 spools]
Less shaft-flex and distortion [longer life]
3 sections mean each section works closer to its optimum
N1 100% = 3900rpm
N2 100% = 7000rpm
N3 100% = 10611rpm
Easier to start as only 1 shaft needs to be turned
Better thrust to weight ratio than competitors
Better propulsive efficiency
Lower fuel consumption
Reduced noise
Slightly heavier due to the extra spool
86.3" fan diameter [75% of thrust]
Modular construction [easier to build and maintain]
Seven-stage IP compressor
Six-stage HP compressor
Single annular combustor with 24 fuel burners on the G/H-T
Single-stage HP turbine, single-stage IP turbine and a three-stage LP turbine
I believe the starter rotates either the N2 or N3 section. Depends on the version of RB211 you are discussing.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
From: Smogsville
I'm fairly sure all RB211s have the HP/N3 shaft connected to the gearbox therfore the pneumatic starter, the new Trent 1000 for the 787 has the IP/N2 spool connected to the gearbox, but uses an electric starter/generator.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Sounds perfect
It sounds so good but it is such a pain to operate. Takes forever to start them, hot and high you have trouble with the autostart and the performance, the complicated reversers are deactivated quite frequently, maintanance has to crawl in.
And last not least: It climbs like a snail above FL 250!
Compare it to the CF6, that's a pilots engine, I can easily live with the imperfect 2 spools on this one.
And last not least: It climbs like a snail above FL 250!
Compare it to the CF6, that's a pilots engine, I can easily live with the imperfect 2 spools on this one.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 243
Likes: 42
From: South Glos
A couple of disadvantages of triple spool engines (in theory at least) are increase in weight,
Well, theoretically the triple spool is lighter than a twin spool, but for some reason RR couldn't seem to make the RB211-524 lighter than the competition on the B747. However, the triple spool Trent is the lightest engine on the B777 and the Trent1000 is lighter than the GenX.
Well, theoretically the triple spool is lighter than a twin spool, but for some reason RR couldn't seem to make the RB211-524 lighter than the competition on the B747. However, the triple spool Trent is the lightest engine on the B777 and the Trent1000 is lighter than the GenX.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 1
From: AEP
P&W, GE and RR on 747s
As a pilot of old 747s, I have flown the 3 different engines. A pilot point of view -
xxx
The JT9s have the reputation of being very easy to maintain, and are known to be able to sustain bad treatment (from pilots like me) for a long time before requiring overhaul. The CF6 is, like our friend 16down says, a pilot's engine, it is my favorite when it comes to handling the thrust levers, although I personally prefer EPR to N1 as means to set power. I liked the RB211 as well, but it is often a maintenance nightmare.
xxx
I remember my airline having leased a 747-238B (ex Qantas) for a few years, the engines were (supposedly) JT9D-7J, but actually, one of the engines was a JT9D-7A and this was not known by the crews (including myself). We often operated that -7A at 7J power (EPR) settings, and it survived the bad treatment for well over a year or two, when it was discovered it was actually a -7A and was soon replaced by a proper -7J.
xxx
In short, JT9s can suffer gravel and birds with little worry for FOD, which is not the reputation of the CF6s and certainly not for the the RB211s. Our director of maintenance jokes in saying that with a RB211, to expect damage if ingesting little butterflies...
xxx
Nice peace of technology, that RB211, and a pain to study in the classroom.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
The JT9s have the reputation of being very easy to maintain, and are known to be able to sustain bad treatment (from pilots like me) for a long time before requiring overhaul. The CF6 is, like our friend 16down says, a pilot's engine, it is my favorite when it comes to handling the thrust levers, although I personally prefer EPR to N1 as means to set power. I liked the RB211 as well, but it is often a maintenance nightmare.
xxx
I remember my airline having leased a 747-238B (ex Qantas) for a few years, the engines were (supposedly) JT9D-7J, but actually, one of the engines was a JT9D-7A and this was not known by the crews (including myself). We often operated that -7A at 7J power (EPR) settings, and it survived the bad treatment for well over a year or two, when it was discovered it was actually a -7A and was soon replaced by a proper -7J.
xxx
In short, JT9s can suffer gravel and birds with little worry for FOD, which is not the reputation of the CF6s and certainly not for the the RB211s. Our director of maintenance jokes in saying that with a RB211, to expect damage if ingesting little butterflies...
xxx
Nice peace of technology, that RB211, and a pain to study in the classroom.
xxx
Happy contrails
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 52
From: .
The JT9s have the reputation of being very easy to maintain
These things are the worst ever to work on. You try getting the reverser fwd after it's got stuck in full reverse, operate the 3 way valve, can't do that as you need to open the cowl, which you can't do as the reverser is out
If you do manage to get the cowls open try closing them again!
Having worked on (rather still working on) all 3 I'd say the RR, then the CF6 then the Pratt for ease of maintenance.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Down Under
I would have to agree with spannersatcx also having worked on all three. Each has their own foibles in certain areas during maintenance.
I would also be more worried about a butterfly if I was in a CF6 rather than a Roller. Rollers are pretty tough but not as robust as the Pratt.
I would also be more worried about a butterfly if I was in a CF6 rather than a Roller. Rollers are pretty tough but not as robust as the Pratt.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
From: BNE
On the weight issue, the following is from the 744 maintenance manual.
RB211 - 13,882 lbs (6302 kg)
CF6-80C - 12,725 lbs (5785 kg)
The figures are engine dry weight with inlet cowl, fan cowls and thrust reversers fitted.
RB211 - 13,882 lbs (6302 kg)
CF6-80C - 12,725 lbs (5785 kg)
The figures are engine dry weight with inlet cowl, fan cowls and thrust reversers fitted.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 36,145
Likes: 5,739
From: Falling off the end of the thread
N1, N2 and N3 are the spools....... LP, IP and HP stages
If you look at the other post above
3 sections mean each section works closer to its optimum
N1 100% = 3900rpm
N2 100% = 7000rpm
N3 100% = 10611rpm
The RPM's are to do with speeds of the stages, the optimum speed where a blade is most efficent is near the speed of sound tip wise, so if you have a big blade such as on a RB211 it will be running near the speed of sound and if it just had one compressor, the smaller blades rearwards at the compressor will not be running as near efficent, having 3 separate stages the RPM's can vary and allow each spool to run more efficently..... in an ideal world you would run every stage independant, but the weight gain would negate this.....
Incidentally on the RB199, the 2nd spool If memory serves me correctly runs in the opposite direction to reduce the forces of having all three compressors rotating in the same direction.
If you look at the other post above
3 sections mean each section works closer to its optimum
N1 100% = 3900rpm
N2 100% = 7000rpm
N3 100% = 10611rpm
The RPM's are to do with speeds of the stages, the optimum speed where a blade is most efficent is near the speed of sound tip wise, so if you have a big blade such as on a RB211 it will be running near the speed of sound and if it just had one compressor, the smaller blades rearwards at the compressor will not be running as near efficent, having 3 separate stages the RPM's can vary and allow each spool to run more efficently..... in an ideal world you would run every stage independant, but the weight gain would negate this.....
Incidentally on the RB199, the 2nd spool If memory serves me correctly runs in the opposite direction to reduce the forces of having all three compressors rotating in the same direction.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 243
Likes: 42
From: South Glos
any idea what is the meaning of N in N1, N2, N3?
Further to NutLoose's answer, N is the scientific/engineering designation for rotational speed, in revolutions per second.
The Pegasus has its spools rotating in opposite directions to cancel out gyroscopic forces on the airframe (especially useful whilst hovering). There is some debate over whether this clever idea originated from Hawker or the Bristol Engine Company ...
Further to NutLoose's answer, N is the scientific/engineering designation for rotational speed, in revolutions per second.
The Pegasus has its spools rotating in opposite directions to cancel out gyroscopic forces on the airframe (especially useful whilst hovering). There is some debate over whether this clever idea originated from Hawker or the Bristol Engine Company ...
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Not sure where the counter-rotation idea originated, but the very earliest Lycoming T53 helo engine had it. Later T53's did not.
Actually, counter-rotation offers a couple of advantages - One turbine nozzle (stator) can be eliminated, with weight and efficiency benefits. As pointed out earlier, the gyro loads from the rotors are self-cancelling, as are engine seizure loads for the guys who design the mounts.
One very real disadvantage is if differential (intershaft) bearings are needed - they turn at VERY high speed and are a real engineering challenge. But despite this, several modern engines are counter-rotating.
Actually, counter-rotation offers a couple of advantages - One turbine nozzle (stator) can be eliminated, with weight and efficiency benefits. As pointed out earlier, the gyro loads from the rotors are self-cancelling, as are engine seizure loads for the guys who design the mounts.
One very real disadvantage is if differential (intershaft) bearings are needed - they turn at VERY high speed and are a real engineering challenge. But despite this, several modern engines are counter-rotating.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: heaven
This might seem like a dumb question.... the 211's have a 7 stage IP compressor and a 6 stage HP compressor, but what about the LP compressor? There's 3 spools, so why does the technical data (such as given on the rolls royce website) only mention the number of stages for the IP and HP compressors?
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Because on many engines the LP stage is JUST the fan i.e. there's a single stage only. That's what I'd assume in the absence of anything else.
(Much like if an aircraft has a quoted wingspan today, I assume it's a monoplane, or if it has a quoted wing sweep one would assume aftwards sweep rather than forward sweep)
(Much like if an aircraft has a quoted wingspan today, I assume it's a monoplane, or if it has a quoted wing sweep one would assume aftwards sweep rather than forward sweep)