Bypass Ratio Of The CJ-805-23 Engine? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Bypass Ratio Of The CJ-805-23 Engine?

Happy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 298 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5013 times:

Anyone know what the bypass ratio was in the rear-fan-stage CJ-805-23 that powered the Convair 990? I have been looking around but could not find this info online.

Interestingly, there are some rare videos on Youtube of a Spantax CV990 in operation in its twilight years. Like most, I had never heard or seen one flying, so it was nice to finally get a chance. Here are some interesting ones:

CV990 landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXl9AgWTb0w
CV990 taxiing in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPF-bNgpYHk
CV990 taxiing out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHN8AfDSCbo
CV990 takeoff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTlT2-i4gjw

Interesting sound; different than the JT3Ds that were so much more common in those days. Note the wild howl on power-down, just on the landing flare ...

May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.

5 replies: All unread, jump to last

Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Page 29 of the following document shows the bypass ratio of the CJ-805-23B as 1.46.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...asa.gov/19770012125_1977012125.pdf

[Edited 2008-06-18 19:07:54]

Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4963 times:

Viscount724,

Fascinating, I always thought it was 2.2 : 1 as lots of sources listed it as such including a book I own.

Andrea Kent

Happy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 298 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

Thanks for the info. It seems that it was an engine ahead of its time in some ways, although the smoky exhaust was terrible.

They must have done something to modify the core because as you can see in the videos above, the Spantax 990 was actually a pretty clean burning jet - not much smoke at all.

May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.

Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

Happy-flier,

That's correct they did go to great lengths to reduce the smokiness of the exhaust and apparently succeeded. Not only did this curb the smoke, it increased thrust slightly

Andrea Kent

Boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 992 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4854 times:

Quoting Happy-flier (Reply 3):
They must have done something to modify the core because as you can see in the videos above, the Spantax 990 was actually a pretty clean burning jet - not much smoke at all.

The reduced smoke was a result of the miltary wanting to reduce the smoke from the J-79's. GE found by welding some of the cooling holes in the burner can you increase the temp of the flame which reduces the soot. The added bonus was the increase in thrust. My friend was a crew chief on a f-4 that had one engine with a ashless can and a regular engine, he said it was interesting to see on finally appoarch.

David

Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Bypass Ratio Of The CJ-805-23 Engine?

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

Check Spelling

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

Similar topics: