Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Why are all APUs turbines?

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Why are all APUs turbines?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 25th Jul 2009, 20:19
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why are all APUs turbines?

As far as I know, efficient turbine engines have never been developed for road vehicles. Around 45 years ago there was an experimental Rover turbine-powered car, but it never got beyond being an experiment experiment.

If turbine engines are so inefficient, especially at ground level, why are piston engines, whether spark or compression ignition, not employed as aircraft auxiliary power units?

I would have thought that paraffin was near enough Diesel to power a compression ignition engine, so fuel is probably not much of a problem.

So is the problem weight, installation complexity, engineering inertia, or something else?
Dairyground is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 20:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Turbines are very efficient at delivering high power from a lightweight unit. They are especially efficient when they can be designed to deliver a relatively constant output. They are also relatively maintenance-free.

A diesel would be too heavy and maintenance-intensive, and would not work well airborne.
Intruder is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 20:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Power to weight ratio, fuel compatibility and of course bleed air output that is native to their operation.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 22:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Several of the aircraft I used to fly employed piston APU's; typically ranger V-2 motors with a direct drive generator.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2009, 23:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Respect your elders

Did the aircraft designation start with a B and end with a number?



and were there large doors fitted to the underside?
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 02:16
  #6 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe that the heat generated by a piston engine would require extra drag for cooling. Also the simple fact of the usage of jet fuel simplifies a turbine/centrifugal compressor type APU simplifies turbine APU usage, supplying an alternate fuel source would be impracticable.

Not to mention the regulated air source for a piston engine that would require a supercharger for apu's that ate certified to operate at altitude. The other factor is creating a piston powered apu that could maintain the 400 hz required for the generator and reliable power to do so.
muduckace is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 07:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Both airbus and boeing do work on a fuel cell APU system as far as i know. Especially boeing is very interested in that approach with their newfangled idea of the "more electric" aircraft as there is no need for bleed air supply from the APU anymore.
Denti is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 09:08
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No need for bleed air from the APU?

- how would you start the engines?
- how would one dry crank an engine in case of tail-pipe fire?
- how would one keep cool in all of those greek airports which doesnt even have ground power :P

I think the apu will live for a long long time... =)
Founder is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 09:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There was a gent, in the '70s who was running around in a B25 with a Briggs and Stratton 4hp 2 stroke engine to supply electical power.
captjns is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 10:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: India
Age: 68
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
power weight ratio would be critical. You would be lugging a great big piston engine about the sky for the entire life of the airframe.

ability to start and run at high altitude would also be critical. A piston engine's power drops off rather fast at high altitudes. And probably could not run at all above 250 without supercharging, let alone providing any power offtake.

another killer is the separate fuel system required. Maybe piston APUs on piston aircraft made sense, but not on a jet aircraft. The US Navy did fly jets off carriers using avgas for a while, but I don't know with what results. Certainly not commercially sensible.

Thanks for starting the thread. I think we need to ask ourselves fundamental questions like this to get some clear thinking on the subject. Like, why don't we tow aircraft to the takeoff point instead of sitting around with engines running.?
salamanderpress is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 10:43
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did the aircraft designation start with a B and end with a number?
Nope. PB4Y, P2V, DC-3 (an addition), C82, C97, etc.

and were there large doors fitted to the underside?
For the APU, no. Just a small exhuast. For mission purposes of dropping things, yes.

No need for bleed air from the APU?

- how would you start the engines?
- how would one dry crank an engine in case of tail-pipe fire?
An lot of aircraft don't have APU's to begin with, and don't need bleed to start, using electric starter-generators. Or separate starters and generators. So far as a tailpipe fire...if no bleed is required to start, lack of it from an APU has no bearing on continuing to crank during the start process.

I believe that the heat generated by a piston engine would require extra drag for cooling.
Cooling drag is irrelevant for ground power, and many aircraft do not or cannot use their APU in flight. We could use our piston APU's in flight, with no additional drag penalties.

The other factor is creating a piston powered apu that could maintain the 400 hz required for the generator and reliable power to do so.
Applicable for those aircraft which use 400 Hz...which not all do, and for those which do, stable inverter output can be regulated as needed.

There was a gent, in the '70s who was running around in a B25 with a Briggs and Stratton 4hp 2 stroke engine to supply electical power.
While some operators do use commercial generation, more than likely he was using the standard four stroke APU, which was generally a two cylinder carbureted piston motor with a direct drive generator.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 12:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reliability.
Turbines are much more reliable than their reciprocating counterparts, especially at the lower operating temps found in most APUs.

Power to weight has t obe another biggie, as well as providing its own compresor for the airstart case.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 14:00
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No need for bleed air from the APU?

- how would you start the engines?
- how would one dry crank an engine in case of tail-pipe fire?
- how would one keep cool in all of those greek airports which doesnt even have ground power :P

I think the apu will live for a long long time... =)
All true in conventional aircraft, but no longer true in Boeings future scheme of things starting with the 787. "More electrical" airplanes, as Boeing calls it, do not need bleed air for all that. The engines are started electrical with their starter generators (787 two 250kVA per engine), not with bleed air anymore, which eradicates the first two problems. And the packs are driven electricly as well which helps keeping your head cool.

Granted, in existing planes we will have turbine APUs for a long time come, even in the 787 we will have it for quite some time (driving two 225kVA starter/generators), but in other future projects or even as a replacement packs fuel cells are quite possible.
Denti is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 16:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No need for bleed air from the APU?

- how would you start the engines?
- how would one dry crank an engine in case of tail-pipe fire?
- how would one keep cool in all of those greek airports which doesnt even have ground power :P

I think the apu will live for a long long time... =)
As Boeing is doing with the 787, all that can be done with electricity...
Intruder is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 18:27
  #15 (permalink)  
ENTREPPRUNEUR
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"...driven at LeMans by Graham Hill and newcomer Jackie Stewart, was 10th overall at 99mph (13.5mpg) in spite of engine damage."

That's 1965 - doesn't sound that inefficient.
twistedenginestarter is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 19:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stockholm Sweden
Age: 74
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
another killer is the separate fuel system required.
Bit of a red herring, most diesel engines will run quite happily on Jet A1.

But
power weight ratio would be critical.
That is the big problem with a diesel piston.

Even on the ground Truck mounted Air starters for jet engines have changed from Diesel engines to turbines. The equivalent turbine is much smaller and compact than the diesel.
Swedish Steve is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2009, 22:17
  #17 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We had a piston APU in our DC-3, it provided electrical power for lighting, avionics and the air conditioners. We had window style air conditioners mounted in the foward and aft cabin bulkheads.

To be honest, I don't believe these air conditioners would be approved for aircraft use in this day and age. But thirty years ago you get away with a lot of things that are strictly forbidden today.

The majority of small jets do not have APUs, some have been retro fitted to have APUs installed and some newer versions of the older jets now have APUs as options. However, for the most part they are only for comfort during ground operations and are not required for normal aircraft operations.
con-pilot is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2009, 05:08
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Like everyone has written here, it's mainly have to do with the fuel compatibility and power to weight ratio and ease of maintenance. A 744 APU provides around 1500++ horsepower if I can remember and the APU is still smaller than a heavy duty truck's engine which provides half of that horsepower.
leewan is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2009, 09:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bit of a red herring, most diesel engines will run quite happily on Jet A1.
I didn't think modern diesels would run on Jet A1, as it doesn't meet the lubricity requirements of the higher pressure pumps?

I think older 'clockwork' diesels would be ok though.
asyncio is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2009, 09:36
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I stick it in my '02 BMW I don't go above a 25% A1/ 75% diesel mix and it runs fine!
itsresidualmate is offline  


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.