• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Can you explain the different kinds of aircraft engines?

And there we have another fine example of why this site is so useful: do read the linked article on steam flight and try to keep a straight face! Most entertaining.
 
Guitar - the confusion comes from the marketing people, not the designers or engineers. In the case of what Carenado calls the Turbo Commander it was always called the Aero Commander 690 and everyone knew it was a turbine that was powered by Garrett turbines, I am not sure why Carenado have chosed to call it a Turbo-Commander. Cessna marketing people were also responsible for the confusion about the 406 by firstly calling it the Twin Caravan when in fact it was the 404 airframe with PT6's (derated ones at that) and it was produced by Cessna at Rheims in France not in the USA. I can think of no example of any aeroplane that kept the same name when they were upgraded to being powered by turbines, except now I think of it the Piper PA31 Navajo or Chieftan there was a turboprop version of that at one stage (there was also a pressurised version about as well) and they still called it a PA31, it later was redsigned and rebuilt, pressurised and called the Cheyenne. You see the dilemma here, for Cessna and Piper, just putting turboprop installations on the airframes gave you a marginal increase in speed and climb but they were still unpressurised so why would you buy one, both were total flops as far as sales were concerned. I actually flew the C406 for a little bit and it was a dog believe me, its engine out performance was dreadful in fact a 404 with pistons performed better on one engine.

As for the Duke it was always turbocharged but never released or built with a turbine or turboprop engine installation and Beech just called it the Duke or BE60.

So your safe to assume if it is referred to as being a Turbo it is a turbocharged piston, it is is a turboprop it is a turboprop but again the marketing people got in the way and for awhile in the early 1960's they were calling the turboprops - PropJets and the pure jets - PureJets, go figure, it was about trying to differentiate in the early days that this new aeroplane was powered by a jet engine, if you want an idea of the ridiculous nature of marketing departments, and that includes the airlines, they once called the 727 the Whispering T-Jet, what a joke, it was one of the noisiest aeroplanes around with three JT-8s at full bore on take off and the reason you do not see any today is they were basically outlawed everywhere around the world because of noise regulations.

A clue to what pistons had turbochargers and which ones did not is found in the ICAO designator, all the turbocharged ones invariably have a T in the designator and P if pressurised. If it has neither then it is a bog standard piston version. I think even the venerable Connie was once modified as a turboprop and had the T in the designator. The diffenentiation was considered unecessary for big aeroplanes as everyone knew that a L188 was an Electra and it had turboprops and a B707 was a pure jet etc etc.
 
There's planes that are powered by a turbine engine, no propeller, no ducted fan, nothing. Just a powerful "jet" engine, like many military fighters have these days. The F/A-18, the F-14, the F-5, T-45, F-4, etc etc.

Not strictly true. A turbo prop drives the prop via a gearbox to reduce the rpm, in a turbo fan the fan is connected directly to the turbine at the exhaust end of the engine and a proportion of the air goes around the outside of the engine rather than through the middle. The ratio of air going around the outside to air going through the middle is known as the bypass ratio. The Rolls Royce Trent on airliners has a bypass ratio of around 9:1, the F404 in the F/A-18 has a ratio of about 0.34:1, so more air is going through the middle than not, but it's still a turbofan.
Low bypass turbofans started being used in military aircraft in the '70s* as you get better fuel efficiency and low speed thrust, for a slight drop off in thrust at high speed.

* I think the UK Phantoms were the first with Speys, all other F-4s had turbojets with all the air going through the hot bit.
 
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most of the Phantoms had the J-79 in it, not counting the UK birds. I honestly don't know about those. There was a small amount, relatively speaking, of bleed air from the compressor section used for various reasons. Cockpit AC and pressurization, fuel tank pressurization, laminar airflow in the turbine section and tail pipe to keep them cooler, and so on. A "small amount" compared to the total airflow through the engine, that is. Most of the bleed air was from the 17th compressor section. There was more than enough available for what it was used for. But not a lot was used for actual propulsion, as far as I know. That all went through the turbine section as hot gas from the burners.
The Israeli Kfir has the J-79 in it too. Popular engine in it's day.

Have fun all!
Pat☺
 
There is no Duke that now has jet turbo props like a Cessna 441, just a version that has turbos added to the piston engines?

I don't think I noticed anyone addressing this question. There is in fact a turbine conversion of the Duke, referred to as "Royal Turbine" or "Duke Turbine" or various combinations. Northwest Turbine LLC and Rocket Engineering Corp of Spokane, WA replaced the piston engines with P&W PT6A-35s, making various other modifications to enable the engine swap. You can read about it on their website here. As far as I know, RealAir are the only ones who made a version of this for FSX. EDIT: Sadly no longer available.
 
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure most of the Phantoms had the J-79 in it, not counting the UK birds. I honestly don't know about those. There was a small amount, relatively speaking, of bleed air from the compressor section used for various reasons. Cockpit AC and pressurization, fuel tank pressurization, laminar airflow in the turbine section and tail pipe to keep them cooler, and so on. A "small amount" compared to the total airflow through the engine, that is. Most of the bleed air was from the 17th compressor section. There was more than enough available for what it was used for. But not a lot was used for actual propulsion, as far as I know. That all went through the turbine section as hot gas from the burners.
The Israeli Kfir has the J-79 in it too. Popular engine in it's day.

Have fun all!
Pat☺

All of the operational F-4's had J-79s, except the F-4s built in Britain, they used the RR Spey. However, they did end up flying some US F-4Js for awhile. {url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._74_Squadron_RAF}No. 74 Squadron[/url].
 
Bypass air should not be confused with bleed air - all jet engines use bleed air to keep the flame off the metal etc. Turbofans in fighter jets have better low speed performance, so the J79-fitted Phantom was faster in level flight but the Spey-equipped ones took off and climbed better. Turbofan-equipped Tomcats don't need afterburners for carrier takeoff and climb out, significantly increasing their operational range. All from using the engine power to blow extra air out the back.
 
Last edited:
In reply to a subsequent question of piston prop aircraft being converted to turboprop or jet engines. There were the Basler, Braddick and Dart DC3's. The Conroy Mustang and I believe a Vickers Viking became a jet testbed.
 
Yup.. the Viking had a pair of Nene's strapped one under each wing! An unlikely looking jet for sure but it set a passenger aircraft speed record from London to Paris!! Unlike many test aircraft.. the Viking was converted back to props. There was always a hope that one of the team at CBFS would take it on for FS9 but data on it was scarce.

ATB
DaveB:)
 
Love reading the discussion guys, thanks. When I was a boy I used to get my older brothers talking about baseball and football and I could just sit for hours and hear them tell stories about their baseball heroes and memories. It's the same with places like the Sim OH. I love getting some of you knowledgeable guys started talking and giving up your experience and knowledge so I can just kick back and read about it all. Much more fun somehow that watching YT vids. I like those too, but there's just something interesting in reading the thoughts from smart guys like the aviation lovers here.

Thanks again.
 
No mention of the Convair 580, the most successful conversion from piston to turboprop?

The title of reengining queen shall be taken by the Douglas DC-8. Turbojets to low bypass turbofans to high bypass turbofans. The latter squeezed another good 20 years of use out of a design hailing from the late 1950s.
To be fair, some KC-135 models also deserve the title, going the exact same route but being exclusive to the military.




Bypass air should not be confused with bleed air - all jet engines use bleed air to keep the flame off the metal etc. Turbofans in fighter jets have better low speed performance, so the J79-fitted Phantom was faster in level flight but the Spey-equipped ones took off and climbed better. Turbofan-equipped Tomcats don't need afterburners for carrier takeoff and climb out, significantly increasing their operational range. All from using the engine power to blow extra air out the back.

Tomcats were never equipped with anything but turbofans. With the original TF-30s, they were a bit underpowered, requiring afterburner takeoffs and were prone to flameouts. The later F-110s were reportedly the single best aircraft improvement in history with all that power and reliability.

Might want to mention that the bigger intakes and larger frontal area of the Speys (more area = more drag = less effective thrust) were the reason for the reduced top speed. And that the afterburner weakened the carrier deck due to the heat. :biggrin-new:
 
If you want a real oddball of a jet engine, look no further than the RB.199 from the PA200 Tornado. Consider that normal military aircraft engines are built for simplicity, with two independent compressor and turbine sections (spools) at best for at least rudimentary efficiency and as much power as possible. And most modern engines are built with a bypass (turbofan) to increase mass flow through the engine (increasing available power) and to provide laminar air flow for cooling along the engine walls. The burner section in more modern engines is trimmed for reliability and the afterburner section is quite long to ensure proper combustion of the additional jet fuel. And there's a (flexible) nozzle with a shrinking and then expanding diameter to make the best use of the kinetic energy in the exhaust gases for maximum power.

Now you've got the cheeky little, multinational bugger in the Tornado. First, it's a turbofan, which is good and as normal as it gets with this engine. But unlike its brethren, it's a turbofan with three(!) independent compressor and turbine sections (triple spool). First oddball property. Triple spools are only found in Rolls' other modern civilian engines like the RB.211 (think TriStar, 747 and 757) and beyond. The reasoning behind this is that three spools have each compressor section rotate at its optimal velocity throughout its envelope, providing maximum efficiency in compression - in theory. Practically, during power changes, trying to get three independent compressor sections is like trying to get three kids to do chores. The eldest (high pressure section) does what you tell it to without much hesitation, but while you try get either the youngest (low pressure section) or the middle one (middle pressure section) to join in, the other of the two will smply do what it pleases. To the effect that, in the worst case, the chores won't get done as quickly as they should or, worse, that the entire process will momentarily break down. Yep, that's an operational limitation right there. One other property of three spools is a very elaborate system of lubrication because oil rules the world and everybody hates friction. In their infinite wisdom, the engineers devised a bearing and lubrication system that's only really tight at high rotation speeds, meaning that part of the engine oil takes a stroll into other engine compartments at lower power settings. When seeping into the turbine sections, it causes a mild case of combustion visible as smoke and the blackened vertical stab so typical for the Tonka.

Continuing the theme of inefficiency and oddballness, the fuel injectors in the combustion chamber inject fuel in the opposite direction of the air flow. No elaborate mixing into the direction of the flow to optimize things like in other engines, just a simple "Here's fuel, here's air, now sort yourselves out" to keep the combustion chamber as short as possible. Efficient? Not quite.

The turbine section ties a into the compressor section above, but it isn't really special. The exhaust gas bumps into the turbine rotors, basically converting a bit of velocity and pressure into rotational energy and thus driving each of the three shafts and its attached compressor section. Standard, yawn, NEXT.

Aaaand it's the afterburner, which, for a military jet engine is SHORT. So short, in fact, that the reheated exhaust gas doesn't have much time to cool down and expand, giving the Tornado its characteristic blue afterburner flame and the heat signature of an B class star. It's said that a Tonka in afterburner can be spotted with the bare eye from Proxima Centauri and that the only usable countermeasure is a tow array for an O0 (o zero) supergiant star.

As if the intense heat of the exhaust is not bad enough, the nozzle adds insult to injury because it totally does away with the standard shape of tighten-widen and just tightens, essentially trading some thrust for mechanical simplicity (shoulda simplified the compressors instead, eh?). The nozzle, however, still widens to accomodate the added exhaust gas flow when in afterburner, so it's got that going for itself, which is nice.

Just when the exhaust gas thought it was clear of this rollercoaster ride among engine construction, it slams right into the thrust reverser panels, the last oddball characteristic of the 199. The Swedes thought that putting thrust reversers on military aircraft was a superb idea because it saves some poor conscript from having to handle the mess of nylon and lines called a braking parachute or blowing on superheated brakes, so Fritz, Giovanni and Lord Mc Lordface ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that it was perfect to offset the horrendous R&D costs for getting the compressors (again: THREE SPOOLS!!!) to work by reducing the number of required wheel brake changes. Great thinking, folks! What the three musketeers didn't realize, however, is that the exhaust gas gets super miffed at being thrown out in the opposite direction it came in and therefor will merrily deposit anything remotely sooty (lubricant, partially burnt fuel) on any surface of the aircraft it can find - most prominently the vertical stabilizer. This is the reason why any Tornado looks worse than most Air France airliners and why there's absolutely no point in cleaning them around the tail end. Rumors have it that a good number of Tonkas still carry 30+ year old reverser marks...

And this concludes the general oddities about the RB.199. I didn't dive into the minor ones (the starter comes to mind...), but this shall do.
To recap, this bit of drunk powerplant engineering has a very complex compressor prone to hiccups, leaks oil at low RPM like the Exxon Valdez, has inefficient combustion (how they got it smoke free is a mystery to this day), the heat signature of the surface of the sun and a "no tractor needed" reverse gear.
On the upside (yes, rumor has it that these exist), it doesn't need any additional mechanical devices to optimize the flow through the compressors because of the three spools, it's compact, has a good power to weight ratio, a device to shorten the landing roll, hyper ultra awesome blue afterburner flames and an exceptionally sweet sound and noise level. Oh, and its concept's been proven and working for 40+ years by now.

But it's so odd when compared to the other engines, I can't help but love it.
 
The F-14's were permitted minimum AB take-offs from shore stations, if really necessary, but not the ships, and no max AB take-offs from anywhere. If they had a flame-out during an AB cat shot, it would cause an un-recoverable yaw moment. Get that on a cat shot, it's all over. Probably all over the bow of the boat.
The engines, in AB, had enough power, far enough off to the side of the plane's centerline, that if one quit, but the second kept running, again, in AB, the plane would start to do a flat spin then and there, no matter how much rudder the pilot input. Grumman even stated the F-14 wouldn't do a flat spin, no matter what, at first. But after loosing a few to flat spins, they changed the NATOPS. No corrective action to a flat spin under any conditions, other than EJECT. Top Gun got that right in the movie anyway.
I can copy the entries from the NATOPS about all this...

The F-14 is a still a fun as heck plane to fly though! Especially if it's modeled with the TF-110 engines, as in the D model '14s. Better than 1:1 thrust to weight, which fighter pilots had been dreaming of since jets came about. Understandably!

Have fun all!
Pat☺
 
And this concludes the general oddities about the RB.199.

I'm not sure if it's unique to the RB.199 but there's also an arrangement where if electrical power is lost it goes to full throttle. Great if you're airborne and need engine power while you sort out the electrical gremlins, not so much if you're overly enthusiastic getting out of the aircraft at an airshow and get ahead of yourself during the shut down checks. Cue the entire crowd ignoring the flying display and looking towards the increasingly high pitched whine coming from the parking area followed by bits of engine being liberally spread across dispersal.
Took them a couple of weeks before it was ready to be flown out.
 
Other oddball turbofan's, the GE CJ-805 and CF-700 aft-fan engines, with an LP turbine at the back driving a nifty transonic fan, with attendant hot gas and oil leakage.
One class of engine not mentioned as it dead-ended-for now-are the compound-turbines, like the Napier Nomad's. A 41.1L/2502 cubic inch H-12 supercharged diesel engine/gas generator driving half a contra-prop and an axial 3-stage turbine/12-stage compressor set that drove the centrifugal supercharger and the other half contra-prop through a combining gearbox. In case this monstrosity failed to provide enough diversion for the fitters, an afterburning system injected more fuel into the turbine on take off. It weighed four and a half thousand pounds, had more moving parts than a box-car full of swiss watches and was highly temperamental on a good day. When it all ran in the same direction at once, it gave 4000 hp/320 lbf at take off, but it's cruise fuel consumption was an amazingly low 0.36 lb/hp/hour@3030hp in cruise.
The Nomad II cut the turbine-propeller gearbox and afterburning for a simplified turbine-compound blowing the diesel and hydraulic clutched to the diesels crankshaft, chopping 1000 pounds and removing most of the gremlin nests.
Nomad II: max take off at a staggering 208" hg boost-4100hp/320lbf thrust.
Cruise sfc @ 11000ft/300kts/3030hp: 0.345 lbs per equivalent horsepower per hour. An unsurpassed SFC. However, the devil is in the details.
Jets burn more fuel, but are (mostly) lighter and simpler, and go faster. The reduced chock to chock times give a comparable average sfc for long distance flight.
 
Last edited:
Might want to mention that the bigger intakes and larger frontal area of the Speys (more area = more drag = less effective thrust) were the reason for the reduced top speed.

That was a necessary trade-off for the much improved low altitude performance required to get them off our tichy carriers. Not ideal I know but needs must!
ATB
DaveB:)
 
Back
Top