Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Combustion Chamber Question  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

When was it first physically possible to design a combustor that would not require any film air or anything like that?

Because the GENx uses such an arrangement with it's TAPS combustor, and the HSCT engine design also was to use a filmless combustion chamber with a premixing antechamber (a chamber ahead of the combustor) to mix the prevaporized fuel and air mixture in a lean, dropless environment prior to ignition.

What would be necessary for something like that to work?

Andrea K

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Blackbird,

Backside cooling has been around for a while. Its easier in a lean burn design (such as TAPS) due to the lower peak flame temperature in the dome area of the combustor.

What's necessary is good air impingement onto the backside of the combustor liner. It also helps to have finned channels to cool the hottest sections.

Eventually the cooling air must be dumped somewhere. Now, I haven't seen the GEnX cross section to that level of detail. (If you have a link please share), but its possible to bypass most fo the combustor before dumping the cooling air at either the Turbine inlet vane roots (to create a film at the ID and OD, post combustion, to protect the turbine) or even to have it go into the turbine inlet vane.

You only care to keep the film air away from the dome and first 2/3rds of the combustor to prevent the quenching of CO. Once enough residence time has been given to burn out the CO, its ok to quench the combustor gases as they have to finish burning sometime.  Wink

What's necessary?
1. Good backside cooling designs
2. Good Thermal barrier coatings
3. Good casting processes (to create the backside heat transfer enhancement)
4. I'm assuming its still a double wall combustor (with impingement jets). There has been a tremendous amount of work in this area.


What helps? Efficient compressors. The more efficient the compressor, the cooler the gas entering the combustor and thus the less cooling required.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1640 times:

I was actually talking about the NOx emission rate. Some of NASA's HSR program went into the development of a combustor design that allegedly used no film air at all. According to their figures, film air would increase NOx levels. So they wished to develop a combustion chamber that used NO film air at all.

Andrea K


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1618 times:

From what I understand, the elimination of film air (or dilution air) would make a highly efficient jet engine-one with unimaginable efficiency by today's standards.

The problem is, no material yet exists that can withstand the temperatures of combustion, at an affordable price.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 3):
The problem is, no material yet exists that can withstand the temperatures of combustion, at an affordable price.

Or the right weight....combustion chambers are pretty heavy as is, especially in older applications.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
I was actually talking about the NOx emission rate. Some of NASA's HSR program went into the development of a combustor design that allegedly used no film air at all. According to their figures, film air would increase NOx levels. So they wished to develop a combustion chamber that used NO film air at all.

Aaghh...

Yes, eliminating the film cooling air does lower NOx emissions in both RQL and lean burn combustors. However, with TAPs, if they are going sans cooling film (I cannot verify, this is the first I've heard of it), it would be to lower CO emissions, not NOx. Why? Film cooling is more effective than pure backside cooling. Thus, a more efficient cooling stream frees up process air for minimizing NOx. However, film cooling in lean burn combustors (like TAPs) will quench CO. As GE engines tend to have a little more CO than the others and thus if they went film free it would be for CO reduction, not NOx reduction.

In an RQL (rich burn, quick mix, lean burn) film cooling in the rich section will add to NOx production. However... its not that bad. (I designed RQL's for years for low emission applications.)

I'm still curious if TAPs does have a film less cooling design.

The only one's I'm familiar with... I'm not supposed to know about.  Wink

Got popcorn?
Neil



I've posted how many times?!?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Combustion Chamber Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Combustion [chamber] Questions posted Sun Nov 28 2004 06:33:25 by Lehpron
Basic Combustion Question posted Sun Jul 25 2004 21:06:45 by Lehpron
Combustion Chamber Question posted Sat Feb 10 2007 09:08:49 by Blackbird
A Question About Aircraft Decommissioning posted Thu Feb 8 2007 19:19:07 by Britjap
Question About The Propeller Contrails posted Wed Feb 7 2007 18:05:28 by Ariis
BA Body In Landing Gear Question posted Sat Feb 3 2007 23:51:29 by Door5Right
Headwind/tailwind Question posted Thu Feb 1 2007 02:57:40 by Viscount724
N187UA At NRT On 2007-01-12 Question posted Wed Jan 31 2007 23:24:56 by WestWing
Landing Gear Question posted Wed Jan 31 2007 13:03:09 by Eaglewarrior
Flybe. Dash 8- 400 Windscreen Wiper Question posted Wed Jan 31 2007 10:17:34 by Strathpeffer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format