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

Thick Heavy Black Smoke

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

Thick Heavy Black Smoke

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Feb 2010, 04:41
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thick Heavy Black Smoke

Hello,

I was watching a G4 take off. From the engines spooling up to, till as far as I can see her disappear, I can see thick trail of black smoke out of both engine. It used a good amount of rwy so knowing she's heavy I realise. Can someone explain what this usually means? I was first thinking maybe that's an indication of service times are coming up. What else? This is got me curious.....
tinyfuzz is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 07:00
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South of N90º00'.0
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was probably not a G4, but actually a G2. From a bit of a distance, they look pretty much the same. G2's usually blow stacks of smoke and use a bunch of runway.
PappyJ is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 07:23
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up Smoke

Nothing wrong with it at all. Back in the 70s the whole world stank of kerosene... newer designers are leaner.. better combustion.
DERG is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 08:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
older jet engines have a lower bypass-ratio. of even maybe "direct-jets" where all the air goes thru the combustion process.
FCS Explorer is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 09:00
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Standard call with the old engines was "smoke on" when setting T/O thrust.
rogerg is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 09:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
If it was a G-IV, then it would be RR-Tay powered, and I've never seen them that smokey on either Fokkers or Gulfstreams...just the usual light mist....
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 10:13
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia.
Posts: 308
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So can someone explain why low by-pass ratio engines produce so much black smoke?

B-707, B-727, B-52! come to mind.

Thanks.
Blip is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 10:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brighton
Posts: 968
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
So can someone explain why low by-pass ratio engines produce so much black smoke?
Nothing to do with bypass ratio. Look at photos of, say, F-86 and B-47, both powered by straight jets. Black smoke is unburnt carbon from incomplete combustion. The US engine technology of the time was not capable of full combustion. Compare British engines of the same time, e.g. Derwent, Ghost, Avon, Sapphire - little or no smoke because of better combustion technology.

Standing by for incoming from the West!
kenparry is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 13:31
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Nothing to do with bypass ratio. Look at photos of, say, F-86 and B-47, both powered by straight jets. Black smoke is unburnt carbon from incomplete combustion. The US engine technology of the time was not capable of full combustion. Compare British engines of the same time, e.g. Derwent, Ghost, Avon, Sapphire - little or no smoke because of better combustion technology.
Generally agree

The smoke thing was a nusisance visually like chemtrails but of more serious concern in the military.

From an engine cycle effiicency (lb of fuel per lb of thrust per hour) it had little impact.

The designers addressed it by moving holes arround in the burner cans inside the engine. In the end, same internal pressures and temperatures and same fuel efficiency, just turned up the heat in local areas inside the burner.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 13:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,413
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
B-52s thru the G model, like the KC135As used water injection on take-off. No water, no take-off. Water ran out at about 400 feet, which someone here said is how 400 became the end of Zone I or level-off height.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 14:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Admittedly slightly O/T, but I've always wondered why Sud/BAC and RR didn't do something sooner about the smoke of the prototype Concorde engines, and in particular before sending 001 and 002 on world tours.....
By the time the preprod aircraft flew, with annular combustion chambers and very much less smoke, all the tree-huggers were already out in force.

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 14:54
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southeast U K
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 1-11 also used water injection. Not a lot of smoke
from them. But they compensated for that by producing
a hell of a racket!!! The Crackle was painful at times.
Storminnorm is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 15:17
  #13 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Black smoke is unburnt fuel.

By lower bypass ratio I believe the above poster was referring to blade clearances.

Other factors such as burner section design and nozzels that spray fuel to atomize better in conjunction with higher pressure ratios burn a much larger percentage of fuel resulting in increased engine efficiency and lower emissions.

High bypass engines become more efficient and burn less fuel because a larger percentage of thrust is created by the fan. But remember this, higher tolerance engines become less tolerant, we counteract this by creating tougher materials to make these engines less susceptable to failure. Progress and failure in the desire to progress are just a factor of life.
muduckace is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 15:21
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Storm...
The Caravelle was not so much a 'crackle' as a screeching, tearing noise.
Concorde may have produced more decibels, but it was a lower-pitched roar.
The Caravelle was 'ear-splitting'....

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2010, 19:05
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bozeman, MT
Age: 64
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and other Spey favorites....

I always enjoyed our pre-stage II Gulfstream II at T/O power. From the inside.

Then we got banned at TEB and had to "upgrade", sigh.
skylimey is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2010, 02:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
... which someone here said is how 400 became the end of Zone I or level-off height.
No, that 400 feet is a holdover from CAR4B and the pistion airliner era.
Also consider screen height, jets 35 feet, piston aircraft, 50 feet.
Why the lower figure for jets?
Believe it or not, some of the early types (B707-120 for example), simply could not meet the fifty foot requirement anticipated, performance-wise, so the screen height was lowered to 35 feet.
Some of those early models were...lead sleds, in the extreme.
411A is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2010, 17:05
  #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
Believe it or not, some of the early types (B707-120 for example), simply could not meet the fifty foot requirement anticipated, performance-wise, so the screen height was lowered to 35 feet.
Some of those early models were...lead sleds, in the extreme.
Yes, that was the reason for the lowering to 35 feet.

I can recall quite a few accidents in the KC-135 caused by the failure of the water injection system. One of the worse was in Wichita, Kansas. They lost water injection right at rotation, they immediately started dumping fuel out of the refueling probe, but to no avail. The aircraft crashed and the flames from the resulting crash followed the stream of dumped fuel and caused a lot of homes to be burned down causing the deaths of a lot of people on the ground. A total of 30 people were killed, the seven crew members and twenty three people on the ground.

City of Wichita - 11 - The Reawakening 1965
con-pilot is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 01:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: CYZV
Age: 77
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A G2 smoke? Naw mate, this is smoke.

pigboat is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 06:36
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OMG I wish I was in aviation in the early 70's!
toolowtoofast is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2010, 07:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He wasn't messing around getting the gear up was he!!!
G-SPOTs Lost 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.