Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
In Theory, Could A Jet Engine Do This?  
User currently offlineTazzrassinIDA From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 38 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

Ok, the searches did not pull anything similar to this, so here it goes. (not that I am proficient at using the searches yet either.)

For some odd reason, I started thinking about this today. Who know maybe I had too much time on my hands. I am familiar with scenes in movies, like in Castaway, where it shows a jet running under water, threatening to eat the stars. There is no way this could happen I know. What if a plane crashed into water in such a way that the engine stayed attached to the wing, and it's fuel supply. The intake is clear of the water, sucking only air, and the safeties that should shut it down have failed. Would it be possible for it to keep running if the exhaust end were under water?

In my pondering, given the "perfect" conditions for the engine to run, except that the tail end is submerged, I would say no it would not. I would think it is kind of like plugging the tail pipe of a car, the engine would eventually not be able to sustain its self.

I hope to stir up some good natured conversation about this, express a question I have been pondering in hopes that my hypothesis is confirmed by others, and see how things go.

Tazz


Tazz
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

Here is a close one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYhrpA0tmBQ


User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Using your assumptions, I see no reason why it woud not continue to run. Performance may suffer a bit, but water at a depth of about 12 feet, assuming the engine is vertical, would be easily pushed away by the high speed exhaust.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineTazzrassinIDA From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 38 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4183 times:

Wow, that video is pretty amazing. I guess it is possible... Thanks for sharing.


Tazz
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

As long as the engine has fuel and sufficient air and appropriate electrics (I'm not sure what jet engines require by way of electrical signals; piston aircraft engines require none) it will continue to run, regardless of whether the exhaust is under water or not. What would probably cause it to stop (assuming it doesn't run out of fuel) is water getting into the fuel, as the tanks have to be vented and if the vents are under water they will suck water instead of air, or if the engine settles into the water enough to suck enough water to drown it. It can actually suck a fair amount of water and still run, but there is a limit, of course.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
I'm not sure what jet engines require by way of electrical signals; piston aircraft engines require none

Well, not "signals" maybe, but sparks are useful, I suppose.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 5):

Well, not "signals" maybe, but sparks are useful, I suppose.

An aircraft piston engine has magnetos, which require no outside input, and so I consider them part of the engine. No outside signal is required for them to keep running; there is a grounding wire to short them out to prevent them from firing, but they will run happily all day long with no external connection.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

If you somehow isolate the engine core from the water, and give it some kind of a snorkel for the intake and exhaust, then yeah, it could work (I'm talking about a turbofan here). I don't think it would work too well though, it takes thousands of HP produced by the turbine section to make the fan turn in air, and water is only *slightly* more dense and heavy than air Big grin

In a pure turbojet, or turboprop, hell no, there's no way that could work. While they can sustain extreme rain intake, they are not submersible.

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 1):
Here is a close one.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYhrpA0tmBQ

Very close indeed, but if you look closely, the waterline barely goes into the exhaust, and I really I doubt the last turbine stage is in contact with the water at all, the waterline is just too low.

[Edited 2007-06-27 06:10:45]

User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3766 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):

An aircraft piston engine has magnetos... they will run happily all day long with no external connection.

That's a bit scary to this engineer, but ON is a better default than OFF for this application, I guess.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6683 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 7):

In a pure turbojet, or turboprop, hell no, there's no way that could work. While they can sustain extreme rain intake, they are not submersible.

The situation was that the intake was out of the water but the exhaust was under water. As long as the engine was running when it went in I believe it could continue running until it sucked too much water in the intake. I totally agree that any substantial submersion (meaning a couple of inches) of the intake would drown it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineMoriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Never the less, that video is quite remarkable! It is not too common to see crashes and their aftermath up close like that. Glad everyone seemed ok. Amazing the guy filming the whole thing kept shooting instead of assisting. I guess he made the decision that there was no need for more helping hands.

What I failed to understand was if the engine spooled up due to some technical reason or if there actually was a pilot left trying to do something (heroic or stupid, I'm not the person to judge that if so)...



Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Quoting Moriarty (Reply 10):
What I failed to understand was if the engine spooled up due to some technical reason or if there actually was a pilot left trying to do something

No one was left in the plane. I believe the engine restarted when they were trying to tie off the jet to the boat using some of the jets wiring. By the way the guy got a new jet with an ironic registration.  Smile



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Regin Krøigaard



User currently offlineMoriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 11):
By the way the guy got a new jet with an ironic registration. Smile

That is absolutely hilarious!  bigthumbsup 



Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting Moriarty (Reply 10):
Amazing the guy filming the whole thing kept shooting instead of assisting. I guess he made the decision that there was no need for more helping hands.

I would like to think so. But he probably just thought: "This will be great on YouTube"...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Quoting Moriarty (Reply 10):
Amazing the guy filming the whole thing kept shooting instead of assisting. I guess he made the decision that there was no need for more helping hands.

I am one of the first to criticise people for filming and not helping but what could this guy have done? All the action was in the water and I don't think he had a boat. He was also the first person to call 911.


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3695 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On a modern engine you would have to keep the EEC & the control alternator dry.

User currently offlineF14D4ever From United States of America, joined May 2005, 319 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2834 times:

Quoting TazzrassinIDA (Thread starter):
What if a plane crashed into water in such a way that the engine stayed attached to the wing, and it's (sic) fuel supply. The intake is clear of the water, sucking only air, and the safeties that should shut it down have failed. Would it be possible for it to keep running if the exhaust end were under water?

Absolutely not.

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 15):
On a modern engine you would have to keep the EEC & the control alternator dry.

The EEC is the least of the concerns in this scenario. With the exhaust under water, there would be insufficient pressure drop across the turbine to sustain compression, which in turn means insufficient pressure and temperature for combustion. At some point as the combustor inlet p & t spiraled down, the compressor would surge violently, at which point it's all over.



"He is risen, as He said."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic In Theory, Could A Jet Engine Do This?
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...
Please Help Identify This Jet Engine posted Fri Jul 14 2006 23:34:50 by EDDM
What Does The Squigglely Thing In The Engine Do? posted Sat Apr 8 2006 04:19:14 by Tony Lu
A Jet Engine Question-What's This? posted Sat Sep 18 2004 16:36:32 by Mr Spaceman
What Do These Jet Engine Tubes Do? posted Thu Sep 12 2002 21:00:22 by Mr Spaceman
Need Good Jet Engine Reference Book posted Thu May 24 2007 03:44:40 by Lotsamiles
380 Engine.Is This A Fuel Dump Or Another Test posted Wed Apr 25 2007 19:36:07 by Relic
Introducing A New Jet Engine? posted Sat Mar 24 2007 04:29:51 by NASOCEANA
Weights Of Honda And/or Eclipse Jet Engine posted Tue Jan 30 2007 19:39:08 by Mlglaw
Single Jet Engine GA Plane (Is It Possible?) posted Sat Jan 6 2007 22:19:36 by Blackbird
Could The Concorde Do A Loop? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 23:22:53 by Vio

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format