Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Low A/B Use Improving Specific Range  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

I remember when I was asking questions about the GE-4 and the PW JTF-17A, and found out that they both used low afterburner in cruise someone said that some afterburner actually improves specific range.

First of all, what's specific range? Second of all, how does it improve it?


Andrea Kent

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
First of all, what's specific range?

Speed per unit fuel

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Second of all, how does it improve it?

Short answer: because it makes speed go up more than fuel consumption.  Smile

Longer answer: it would be aircraft-dependent, and probably even mission-dependent, since it has to do with the L/D you can get with and without afterburner, the speed you can get with and without afterburner, and the drag as a function of speed with and without afterburner. My guess would be that any aircraft whose specific range improves with afterburner use is underpowered (at least for the mission in question) and would in fact have an even higher specific range with slightly more powerful engines and no afterburner use.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Could exhaust velocity play a role?

Andrea K


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
Could exhaust velocity play a role?

The main point of lighting the afterburner is to increase the exhaust velocity. By heating the exhaust stream, its pressure increases, which translates into higher velocity. There is a minor mass increase due to the added fuel, but that's pretty negligible.

Given that the mass does not change (negligible contribution from the A/B and the front of the engine doesn't start pumping through more air), the only way thrust can increase is if the exhaust velocity increases.


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6728 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

Quoting 3201 (Reply 1):
Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
First of all, what's specific range?

Speed per unit fuel

Mile per lb fuel, surely?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting 3201 (Reply 1):
Speed per unit fuel

If the fuel is burning at a constant rate, increasing the speed per unit fuel increases the distance per unit fuel in proportion.  Wink



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2162 times:

Quoting FredT (Reply 5):
If the fuel is burning at a constant rate, increasing the speed per unit fuel increases the distance per unit fuel in proportion.

Yeah sorry it's speed per unit fuel flow, which is indeed distance per unit fuel.

Knots / (lb/hr) is the same as nm / lb.

But speed per unit fuel flow is an instantaneous quantity that can be measured or calculated, while range per fuel mass you'd have to integrate or just measure total values.


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

3201,
I intended to quote Oly720man (reply #4) and not you. Just to make it absolutely clear (and less confusing to those reading the thread) you were right in your initial post, which is what I intended to reinforce by my reply to post #4. Messing up the quote didn't help a bit, my sincere apologies.

Rgds,
/Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting FredT (Reply 7):
I intended to quote Oly720man (reply #4) and not you. Just to make it absolutely clear (and less confusing to those reading the thread) you were right in your initial post, which is what I intended to reinforce by my reply to post #4. Messing up the quote didn't help a bit, my sincere apologies.

No worries, that's what I guessed (and I should have quoted his and not yours as well!), and thanks!


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 3):
By heating the exhaust stream, its pressure increases, which translates into higher velocity.

I thought combustion decreases pressure but burning fuel increases temperature which would translate to a higher velocity flow?



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 9):
I thought combustion decreases pressure but burning fuel increases temperature which would translate to a higher velocity flow?

Assuming volume remains constant, pressure is linearly dependant on the number of molecules of gas and the temperature. That's a slight oversimplification, but close enough for most purposes. It breaks down at very high and very low pressures, and in the presences of gasses who's molecules tend to "stick" to each other for various reasons. Also, the simple rule breaks down if some of the reactants or products are other than gases.

The temperature thing is simple. Double the temperature (relative to absolute zero), and you double the pressure. For example, if you heat a gas from 0C to 100C (273K to 373K) the pressure will increase about 37%.

As for the number of molecules, that depends on the exact reaction. For example, if you combine hydrogen gas and oxygen, you get two water molecules out of every three input molecules (2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O), which will result in a one-third reduction in pressure. That reaction releases a fair bit of heat too, of course, so the net is often a very significant pressure increase).

For hydrocarbons heavier than methane, all reactions increase the molecule count. For example, jet fuel is a mix of hydrocarbons, with an average length in the ballpark of 12. So the basic reaction is approximately 2C12H26 + 27O2 --> 24CO2 + 26H2O. So pressure increases by a ratio of about 50/29, plus what’s caused by the temperature increase.

Non-gas reactants and products are mostly a non-issue for jet engines. The unburned fuel is pretty well vaporized by the sprayers and by mixing it with the quite warm compressed air (although that does cool the incoming air a bit), and the exhaust stream doesn't cool enough to condense the water vapor until it's well out of the tailpipe.

The only point of burning fuel with air in an internal combustion engine is to increase the pressure. In a jet engine, that compressed gas is then expanded, which increases its velocity, and then that fast moving gas is let out the big hole in the back, which is what causes thrust (mass times velocity). Ideally, you want to gas to be released at the ambient pressure, because if you release it still compressed, you're wasting energy (the compressed gas will just uselessly expand sideways once it's out of the nozzle). You can see that quite clearly in rocket engines designed to work in space vs. ones designed to work well within the atmosphere - the expansion bells are proportionately much bigger on the former.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2032 times:

Would a turbofan with an outer-annular combustion chamber in lieu of an afterburner provide the increased specific range while avoiding excessive emissions problems?

Andrea K


User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 10):
For hydrocarbons heavier than methane, all reactions increase the molecule count.

I should point out that the increase (or decrease) in the number of gas molecules due to the chemical reaction applies only to those molecules actually participating in the reaction. If you're burning a hydrocarbon fuel in air on earth, at most the 21% of the atmospheric gas that's oxygen participates (the 78% nitrogen and 1% argon are mostly non-reactive in this scenario, and while some of the trace stuff will react, there's not enough of it to matter).


User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 11):
Would a turbofan with an outer-annular combustion chamber in lieu of an afterburner provide the increased specific range while avoiding excessive emissions problems?

My guess is still that the increased specific range is a side-effect of under-sized engines for the mission and aircraft in question. A turbofan that is sized correctly, allowing both airframe and engine to operate in their optimal design regimes, will provide the best specific range.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1901 times:

3201,

Are you sure?


User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

Quoting 3201 (Reply 13):
guess



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 14):

Are you sure?

guess = not sure

Just doesn't make sense that afterburner, which has a low efficiency, would increase overall efficiency. Given that you've heard it did increase specific range, which is a metric of overall efficiency, I created a scenario that could make that true given my understanding of engine efficiency. It's all conjecture, I have no information whatsoever on this.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

My only guess other than the jet engine being relatively underpowered for the altitude/speed/mach-number, is the exhaust velocity is WAY higher on an afterburner than on a non afteburning jet-engine.

Andrea K


User currently offline3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 16):
My only guess other than the jet engine being relatively underpowered for the altitude/speed/mach-number, is the exhaust velocity is WAY higher on an afterburner than on a non afteburning jet-engine.

Yes, but that's not an efficient way to translate chemical energy into thrust. If it were, afterburners would be used a lot.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

True, still some kind of outer-annular combustion chamber would be far more efficient and with a convergent/divergent nozzle would produce a superbly high exhaust velocity.

Andrea


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
I remember when I was asking questions about the GE-4 and the PW JTF-17A, and found out that they both used low afterburner in cruise someone said that some afterburner actually improves specific range.

First of all, what's specific range? Second of all, how does it improve it?

Correct - the GE4 would have used some afterburning at cruise, and the JTF-17A would have used duct heating (afterburning in the bypass stream, not the core stream) at cruise.

As mentioned above, specific range is an instantaneous measure of range, often quoted as as nm/pound of fuel. The chart below shows the B2707-100's specific range at various altitudes and gross weights for maximum dry thrust, minimum augmented (afterburning) thrust, and maximum augmented thrust conditions.

http://www.airliners.net/uf/536881769/1169966701oSYnsb.jpg

Note that the maximum specific range for any gross weight occurs a relatively small amount of augmentation. This surprised me as well when I first saw the chart. I have no explanation other than that the increased fuel consumption resulting from some degree of afterburning was more than offset by the drag reduction resulting from achieving a higher flight level than would be possible with dry thrust alone.

If a specific range curve is presented on the Y axis with aircraft weight on the X axis (assuming optimum cruise altitude for each gross weight), taking the definite integral of the curve between the beginning and ending aircraft weights gives the cruise range achievable for a given initial gross weight and a given amount of fuel burn. For the 2707-100 "reference mission," specific range approximated 0.15 nm/lb at initial cruise (61,000 feet, gross weight approximately 570,000 lbs.) and reached about 0.21 nm/lb at the top of descent (68,000 feet, gross weight approximately 390,000 lbs.), burning about 180,000 pounds of fuel to cover 3,227 nm during cruise.

Note that by 1971, the afterburner had been deleted from the GE4 design, so cruise obviously would have occurred without augmented thrust. I don't have comparable charts for the 2707-300, and even if they were available, it would be difficult to isolate the effects of the new "dry" GE4 configuration from the switch to a less efficient fixed delta wing.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2007-06-25 06:55:17]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineXv408 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1843 times:

Burning fuel in the afterburner increases the gas temperature, but this is principally used to increase gas velocity, not pressure. Note that when an afterburner is lit, the exhaust nozzle opens up significantly. This is to keep the pressure drop across the turbine largely unchanged. Some afterburning engines use convergent/divergent nozzles to expand the hot gas more in the engine, but the trade is between extra weight and complexity vs. small increase in thrust.

Note also that burning fuel in the bypass duct is generally not efficient because the pressure is low. In some high-supersonic engines, the pressure recovery in the intake is sufficient to counter this, e.g. the J58 in the Blackbird, which at Mach 3 is effectively a ramjet.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

B2707SST,

The JTF17A used no core burning at all? Is duct-burning more efficient then regular afterburning out of curiousity?

Regarding the specific range increase on AB, I would guess it's two factors... the higher exhaust velocity and the ability to cruise at higher altitudes to reduce drag...


Andrea K


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Low A/B Use Improving Specific Range
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...
High By-pass Core Use For Low By-pass Engines posted Sun Apr 22 2007 01:22:15 by 747400sp
Low A/B Use Improving Specific Range posted Tue Jun 12 2007 03:29:16 by Blackbird
734 Max Range? posted Sun May 13 2007 15:30:20 by EIPremier
Last Commercial Airline/airplane To Use Navigators posted Sat May 12 2007 12:02:01 by DIJKKIJK
Which Frequency Do Delta 757-200 Use For Acars? posted Tue May 1 2007 01:37:10 by Tomascubero
Very Low Approaches During Bad Weather posted Thu Apr 19 2007 00:20:11 by HighFlyer9790
Typical Flight Data For Long Range Mission posted Wed Apr 18 2007 15:11:26 by Benair
What Is The Actual New Range Of 772LR? posted Sun Apr 8 2007 18:44:51 by Ferdinando
Do Any Flight Attendants Get Trained To Use Radio? posted Sun Apr 1 2007 01:53:30 by JAM747
787 Payload/range Charts posted Sun Mar 25 2007 20:38:57 by AF022

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format