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

Combined turbopro and jet ?

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

Combined turbopro and jet ?

Old 13th May 2002, 09:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Samsonite
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Combined turbopro and jet ?

I don't know if I dreamt this or what, but suddenly it appeared to me as an idea to "take a twin turboprop and mount a jet engine in the tail". I am just a pilot, not an engineer, so maybe some clever head here can either tell me that is has already been done, or why it has never been tried.

I think the advantages of jet and turboprop engines could both be derived of such a mix, making it a more (fuel) efficient, economical and flexible aircraft.

For certification purposes it should be called a jet aircraft (with regard to legislative matters), or the most limiting of the two from case to case.

Advantages of the turboprop

Better braking capability in the air (discing the props instead of using spoilers)
Closer to "instant power" than a jet (go-around, windshear etc)
Better fuel performance at low levels
Shorter take-off and landing distances (but that is probably mainly due to wing construction of the TP)

Advantages of the jet

Better fuel economy on cruise at higher levels
Faster speed at higher levels
Higher service altitude

Advantages to the combination

Three engined - no ETOPS hazzle
Combined fuel economy and top speed/performance
Two cheaper turboprop units, yet having jet performance


If the jet pushes the aircraft faster at higher speeds, would the props then be of any use, or just making drag and extra weight, or could the right prop with the right pitch still be effective enough to be of any use?

Well, just a thought ...
TheDrop is offline  
Old 13th May 2002, 11:06
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This has been tried before but obviously wasn't a huge success. Most combinations used jet power for take-off augmentation and emergency power only.

The airplane used in ConAir (some US military transport) had jet engines (with closeable air intakes) in pylons under the wing and there was a bomber before that as well (B-36?)

A civil airplane using the concept was the Hustler (http://www.k12.nf.ca/sptech/aviation...ustler500.html) which probably fell victim to the 1980s crisis of general aviation.

As for the merits, there is probably too high a penalty for carrying around useless equipment most of the time, and a jet engine cold-soaked at altitude for several hours might also be hard to start (with heavy wear) as a go-around backup.

There seems to be some merit to the KISS principle and many of the obviously beneficial setups seem not to work in real life.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 15th May 2002, 15:11
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Normandy
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As in most hybrid project you will end up rather with a combination of all disadvantages than with good points.
As a matter of fact the C-123 was using the Jet to increase Take-off and climb perfs.
I think, as you suggested, the prop will generate more drag than thrust beyond a given speed... which will invariably increase your fuel consumption.

The Aircraft used in Conair (what a crappy movie !) was a C-123 Provider. You could have mentionned "Air America" as another famous operator . Who was flying Provider from during the 60's in Asia, til the mid 80's in South America, and probably in some other places I don't want to know about ....
Amazingly before being fitted with 2 turbojet, the C-123 was a classic piston twin . Therefore we can consider it was a succesfull hybrid (it's rarely the case in technology history )
What people don't know about the C-123 ( I know , I disgress ) is that, before being fitted with piston engine, it was fitted with ...nothing. Originally, it was designed as a glider !
The glider had so good flying characteristics that it was decided to turn it into an aircraft .
PorcoRosso is offline  
Old 15th May 2002, 16:56
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Using jet engines to push aircraft around on the ground is also
inefficient - but aparently not as inefficient as carrying gas or
electric motors to drive the wheels directly.
cwatters is offline  
Old 16th May 2002, 16:41
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
P2V Neptune another..C-119 a recip with a single jet on a pylon overhead....closest thing nowadays was boeing's idea few yrs back to out fit a large 777 with a "thruster APU" mmmm....
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 30th May 2002, 00:04
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Many of the examples quoted were originally piston powered aircraft, that ran into gross weight creep and tropical operations. Hence the designers were desperate for more power, regardless of little details like efficiency.

The only other turboprop jet combos I can recall were the original Breguet Alize, which quickly dropped the jet, and the Japanese built Neptune that used T64s and small home grown jet engines (a fuel sellerís dream, no doubt).

One final rambling: the downfall of the Hustler was a combination of really bad low speed handling and the all-too-common North American phenomena of an airplane company run by people who were more interested in raising money that building airplanes or running companies, and who had no hesitations about leaving the poor wage slave engineers in the lurch (huff huff). Been there, done that.
Weight and Balance is offline  
Old 30th May 2002, 20:16
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just for completeness, the Avro Shackleton Mk 3 Phase 3 (?) had four RR Griffons and 2 Bristol Siddeley Vipers. The Vipers were in the back of the outboard nacelles, were just used on take off and burnt AVGAS. They used to burn out pretty quickly.
Stan Evil is offline  
Old 31st May 2002, 02:34
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vipers in Shacks

They may have burnt out pretty quick Mr. Evil, but I can think of one occasion when a Shack *just* made it back to nearest land with multiple dead Griffons, courtesy of a Viper that kept going for an inordinate amount of time... IIRC one of the larger issues was the fuel pump suffering from AVGAS, considerably less lubricative than the stuff it was designed to pump...

Now if we're going to get into boosters, what about the 'plastic fantastic' (AKA RB 162)

Ranger One is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2002, 09:03
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The Antanov 26 (Russian F27) has a turbo jet mounted at the rear of one of it's engines ,which is used as an APU and for additional thrust on take off.It can even taxi with it ! Interesting to watch them moving around with both props stationary.However it is extreamly noisy ,worse than a non hush kitted F28.
Metro man 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

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.