Speedracer1407 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2295 times:
Ok folks, here comes what might be a fairly rudimentary question, but one that I've been curious about and never bothered to ask.
Some modern turbofans, seem to collect all bipass and core exhaust into a single nozzle before it reaches the atmosphere, as on this 757:
Others (seems like MOST others) rout bypass and core exhaust seperately all the way to the atmosphere, as on this 777:
What are some of the factors that engineers consider when choosing one design over the other. I'm guessing noise may have something to do with it, since power rating is not consistent with the use of either design.
Also, on all wing-mounted engines, the pylon displaces bypass airflow at the 12 o-clock position. Obviuosly, this can't be avoided, and the overall thust of an engine as on the 777 couldn't be too bothered by a thin, aerodynamic obstruction, but does it reduce total thrust output at all? would engine #2 on a trijet like the MD-11 produce fractionally more thrust than the others? Thanks for any replies,
Dassault Mercure: the plane that has Boeing and Airbus shaking in their boots.
Air2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
As to design, I have no idea. But your hypothesis about tail mounted engines is incorrect. The engine is the same. Therefore the support structure for the engine doesn't change. Airflow through the core and the bypass is identical whether the engine is mounted on a wing or in the tail. Any performance variation comes from the length and/or shape of the inlet duct.
Widebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
The different types of mixing nozzles on HBPR turbofans is dictated by the method of noise attenuation. The cowl integrated mixer nozzle found on the Rolls-Royce 535 and 524 allows the bypass airflow to completely surround the hot high speed core exhaust flow on these relatively low, 4.3:1, BPR engines. It also serves to make the engines considerably heavier than their counterparts. By contrast, the higher BPR of for example, Trent 800 and GE90, allows for the use of segmented mixer nozzles because the relatively small core exhaust airflow does not make as high a contribution to noise. Basically it comes down to BPR. In general a BPR above 5.4-6 allows the use of lighter segmented mixer nozzles and engines below that will use cowl integrated mixer nozzles. There are also structural considerations depending on the type of installation, tail vs wing mounted, to consider as well but general the principal driving factor is BPR and noise attenuation.
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do