What determines spool up time?
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 346
Likes: 1
From: Mordor
My E145 uses the AE3007 engine (a variant of which is used on the Citation X), and the response to lever movement is almost immediate. Would I be correct in assuming that it's less prone to thermal choking because of a more advanced design of the compressor/burner sections?
- the surge margin (as explained so neatly in previous posts) limits the excess power that can be used to accelerate the engine
- with the limited excess power available, it takes more time to accelerate a bigger fan than a smaller one.
I guess you can improve the former a bit by designing a more advanced compressor, but there's not much to be done about the latter, especially if efficiency dictates designing a small core/large fan combination.
Because of relatively small fan in your Allison engine, the core has an easier task of accelerating the fan, than in a GEnx...
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
dixi188
To quote an old book title on my shelf, "It all depends".
A modern high-efficiency compressor might be quite happy at steady state conditions (TO, cruise etc) but have little tolerance for a transient over-fueled/over-pressure condition. It stalls, and when it stalls, it's like a Harvard stalling with crossed controls - only more violent.
OTOH, a brief overtemp by itself might not cause immediate big damage, but if the operator expects to keep that engine on-wing for many thousand hours and cycles, o/temp is definitely to be avoided.
Surly the ultimate limiting factor is turbine temp. If you put too much fuel in before the compressor has had time to spool up then things will over temp.
A modern high-efficiency compressor might be quite happy at steady state conditions (TO, cruise etc) but have little tolerance for a transient over-fueled/over-pressure condition. It stalls, and when it stalls, it's like a Harvard stalling with crossed controls - only more violent.
OTOH, a brief overtemp by itself might not cause immediate big damage, but if the operator expects to keep that engine on-wing for many thousand hours and cycles, o/temp is definitely to be avoided.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,698
Likes: 1,305
From: Australia
have observed that the spool up time required for takeoff is significant
Is it possible you are mistaking the hesitation at 40% N1 as part of the total spool up time when it has got nothing to do with it?
My recollection is that from idle of 23% N1 to 40% N1 there is up to three seconds tolerance between any engine in rate of spool up with equal thrust lever angle. However, from 40% N1 to take off power using autothrottle the tolerance between engines is only one second assuming both thrust levers advance equally.
The reason for the 40% N1 figure is that if TOGA was used from idle of 23% N1 and one engine took the full three seconds of allowable tolerance, while the other engine accelerated normally to high thrust, the aircraft would likely become uncontrollable in a very short time and in danger of leaving the runway centreline at a high angle.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 289
Likes: 2
From: The Netherlands
Correct
Checkairman,
Your observation is correct - take two 767's, one with GE CF6 engines, one with P&W 4060's. Both engines very similar in max thrust etcetera, otherwise they could not be an engine of choice on that one type of aircraft.
When spooling up the engines at the start of the take-off run, the P&W's spool up MUCH quicker off the idle RPM than the GE's.
Also, in flight, at the end of an idle descent, you have to anticipate that the GE's come off the idle RPM much slower than the P&W's.
Once a medium RPM has been established, acceleration is comparable.
This all is not a result of pilot technique - with both engines you start the take-off roll by setting the initial (off idle) thrust manually, then you engage autothrust, which runs thrust up to take-off setting. The initial manual setting CAN be done as a slam, to 1.1 EPR on P&W or to 70% N1 on GE. The actual acceleration will be regulated by the EEC's.
From what I gather from engineers, the GE's are a bit more sensitive to stall, perhaps their stall margin is engineered a bit tighter, resulting in slightly more max thrust than the P&W's and somewhat better fuel efficiency. Downside apparently, very sluggish initial acceleration.
Your observation is correct - take two 767's, one with GE CF6 engines, one with P&W 4060's. Both engines very similar in max thrust etcetera, otherwise they could not be an engine of choice on that one type of aircraft.
When spooling up the engines at the start of the take-off run, the P&W's spool up MUCH quicker off the idle RPM than the GE's.
Also, in flight, at the end of an idle descent, you have to anticipate that the GE's come off the idle RPM much slower than the P&W's.
Once a medium RPM has been established, acceleration is comparable.
This all is not a result of pilot technique - with both engines you start the take-off roll by setting the initial (off idle) thrust manually, then you engage autothrust, which runs thrust up to take-off setting. The initial manual setting CAN be done as a slam, to 1.1 EPR on P&W or to 70% N1 on GE. The actual acceleration will be regulated by the EEC's.
From what I gather from engineers, the GE's are a bit more sensitive to stall, perhaps their stall margin is engineered a bit tighter, resulting in slightly more max thrust than the P&W's and somewhat better fuel efficiency. Downside apparently, very sluggish initial acceleration.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
The latest generation of very high bypass engines (such as the GEnx) are very lazy off of minimum ground idle. Tiny core, really big fan - it takes a while to get that fan spinning.
Thanks. That makes sense...
Because of relatively small fan in your Allison engine, the core has an easier task of accelerating the fan, than in a GEnx...
Is it possible you are mistaking the hesitation at 40% N1 as part of the total spool up time when it has got nothing to do with it?
EMIT: Never been in the jumpseat of a PW powered plane. I'll pay attention if I am though.
Thanks all, for enlightening me.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Yet another factor:
The core engine may be capable of relatively fast acceleration, but if the acceleration is controlled in the traditional way - via a 3-D cam - one engine may wind up faster than the other, with possible Vmca or Vmcg issues arising.
And so FADEC can now be programmed to follow a "N-dot" logic, requiring the fuel rate be limited to that necessary to just meet cert accel requirements, and no more. Advantages: No yaw as thrust is advanced, and lower peak temperatures in the turbine.
(N-dot is the rate of change, in rpm/second, of rotor speed)
The core engine may be capable of relatively fast acceleration, but if the acceleration is controlled in the traditional way - via a 3-D cam - one engine may wind up faster than the other, with possible Vmca or Vmcg issues arising.
And so FADEC can now be programmed to follow a "N-dot" logic, requiring the fuel rate be limited to that necessary to just meet cert accel requirements, and no more. Advantages: No yaw as thrust is advanced, and lower peak temperatures in the turbine.
(N-dot is the rate of change, in rpm/second, of rotor speed)
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
Just read that RR is developing a large turbine engine with variable pitch fan blades, may be to compensate for the extremely large fan blades we are seeing and the need to keep spool time down. No doubt efficiency is the largest goal.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,349
Likes: 1
From: FUBAR
Look to car technology. . .the original Porsche Turbo from 1974 . . lets go. . .Uh ? . . . .what happened . . .Ooops, why we left the road backwards, versus, smaller more efficient Turbos , VTG (variable turbine geometry ) & now, instant thrust when you ask for it.
An aero engine is pretty much the same, on a larger scale (or a turbo the same on a smaller scale ? ) so, lots to learn from the auto industry ( & vice versa )
An aero engine is pretty much the same, on a larger scale (or a turbo the same on a smaller scale ? ) so, lots to learn from the auto industry ( & vice versa )
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
check airman
I would hazard a guess that the much smaller total thrust increment on the AE engine between idle and full power maybe a factor, a smaller fan will be easier to spin up.
I once flew a 737 which seemed to have quite a high taxi speed (but we had several different variants 300,400,500) after 3 sectors i discovered that the ground idle CB had been inadvertently pulled by the F/0 seat belt shoulder reel strap, learnt something from that !!
I once flew a 737 which seemed to have quite a high taxi speed (but we had several different variants 300,400,500) after 3 sectors i discovered that the ground idle CB had been inadvertently pulled by the F/0 seat belt shoulder reel strap, learnt something from that !!
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
Likes: 3
From: CE
QUOTE:
Just read that RR is developing a large turbine engine with variable pitch fan blades, may be to compensate for the extremely large fan blades we are seeing and the need to keep spool time down. No doubt efficiency is the largest goal
1) 'R-R might develop....' Nothing in concrete yet.
2) Variable pitch will be to optimise fuel burn, any other benefits will be a bonus.
Just read that RR is developing a large turbine engine with variable pitch fan blades, may be to compensate for the extremely large fan blades we are seeing and the need to keep spool time down. No doubt efficiency is the largest goal
1) 'R-R might develop....' Nothing in concrete yet.
2) Variable pitch will be to optimise fuel burn, any other benefits will be a bonus.
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: In thin air
I'm not an expert on engines, but IMHO it's not the inertia of the fan that governs the spool-up time. The fan is driven by a turbine that is driven by the power generated in the gas generator, and the surge margin of the gas generator does not allow it to spool up faster.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 660
Likes: 20
From: England
The inertia of the spools determines how fast they will accelerate for any given increase in torque on the turbines.
The surge margin determines how much of a torque increase can be applied without the compressors stalling/surging.
The turbine temperature limits determine how much extra fuel can be added without damaging the turbines.
The FADEC limits the rate of increase in fuel flow to prevent surge/stall of the compressors and overheating of the turbines.
They are all in it together.
The surge margin determines how much of a torque increase can be applied without the compressors stalling/surging.
The turbine temperature limits determine how much extra fuel can be added without damaging the turbines.
The FADEC limits the rate of increase in fuel flow to prevent surge/stall of the compressors and overheating of the turbines.
They are all in it together.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,683
Likes: 3,359
From: Everett, WA
captplaystation, variable geometry - both the fan and the hot section - has been a wet dream of aircraft turbine engine designers for decades (variable geometry compressors have been SOP for a long time). The problem has been cost, weight, and especially reliability have not been there to support it. The biggest problem is reliability - if the variable geometry on that automotive turbocharger fails, the piston engine will probably still run well enough to drive it to the dealer. If that happens on an aircraft turbine, your best case is probably in inflight shutdown - and it can easily lead to an engine overspeed, and it's not like you just pull over to the side of the road when it breaks 
. On a car, one failure per 100,000 miles might be acceptable, on a commercial airplane one failure per 100,000 hours would be totally unacceptable. Hence aircraft turbine designers MUST be more conservative.
Gysbreght, it's both. As the fans have gotten bigger relative to the core, the accel characteristics from min idle have gotten much slower, and those big fans start out slower to boot. For example the CF6 typical ground idle was ~60% N2 and ~28% N1. The GEnx ground idle is more like 70% N2 and N1 is ~21% N1. When you advance the throttle on the GEnx, N2 goes up fairly quickly, but it takes a long time to get to 40% N1. From 40% to 100% the CF6 and GEnx are pretty similar.
. On a car, one failure per 100,000 miles might be acceptable, on a commercial airplane one failure per 100,000 hours would be totally unacceptable. Hence aircraft turbine designers MUST be more conservative.Gysbreght, it's both. As the fans have gotten bigger relative to the core, the accel characteristics from min idle have gotten much slower, and those big fans start out slower to boot. For example the CF6 typical ground idle was ~60% N2 and ~28% N1. The GEnx ground idle is more like 70% N2 and N1 is ~21% N1. When you advance the throttle on the GEnx, N2 goes up fairly quickly, but it takes a long time to get to 40% N1. From 40% to 100% the CF6 and GEnx are pretty similar.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,738
Likes: 2,119
From: Reading, UK
The inertia of the spools determines how fast they will accelerate for any given increase in torque on the turbines.
The surge margin determines how much of a torque increase can be applied without the compressors stalling/surging.
The turbine temperature limits determine how much extra fuel can be added without damaging the turbines.
The FADEC limits the rate of increase in fuel flow to prevent surge/stall of the compressors and overheating of the turbines.
They are all in it together.
The surge margin determines how much of a torque increase can be applied without the compressors stalling/surging.
The turbine temperature limits determine how much extra fuel can be added without damaging the turbines.
The FADEC limits the rate of increase in fuel flow to prevent surge/stall of the compressors and overheating of the turbines.
They are all in it together.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
From: earth
Variable pitch fan, should we discount the torque resistance as a result of air flow loading on large fan blades? Seems to me propulsers could accelerate faster with a lower pitch on the blade at the compression rates RR is going for, then lay the torque on a higher pitch fan that produces most of the thrust gradually. I understand this tech has been of interest for years, more moving parts more complications. The higher compression values/lower tolerances is the big challenge in the core compressor/turbine sections.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Looks have (almost) nothing to do with it.
The Turboprop moves a large mass of air at relatively exit pressure, low velocity. Great low-speed (takeoff) performance, and efficient cruise at moderate airspeed. Limited in max speed, however.
Turbofans use the case and shroud and fan stators to achieve higher pressure ratio, higher exit velocity, mostly benefiting high altitude cruise.
BTW: taking the turboprop to the logical extreme, turning the shaft to vertical with a very large low-speed prop, results in a VTOL machine such as a helo.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
The Turboprop moves a large mass of air at relatively exit pressure, low velocity. Great low-speed (takeoff) performance, and efficient cruise at moderate airspeed. Limited in max speed, however.
Turbofans use the case and shroud and fan stators to achieve higher pressure ratio, higher exit velocity, mostly benefiting high altitude cruise.
BTW: taking the turboprop to the logical extreme, turning the shaft to vertical with a very large low-speed prop, results in a VTOL machine such as a helo.
You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
