Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Please Name A TurboJet Engine In Civilian Use  
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1106 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 27137 times:

Hey folks,

can someone please give me a short insight in the use of turbojets in civilian airliners?

Please name some engine models and the corresponding airliner  Smile

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetMech From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 2699 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 27139 times:

Quoting NicoEDDF (Thread starter):

Rolls Royce / SNECMA Olypmus 593 - Concorde







Pratt & Whitney J-57 - Boeing 707 ( for civilian purposes   )


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Söderström





Pratt & Whitney JT4A - Douglas DC-8

Rolls Royce Ghost / Avon - De Havilland Comet

Tupolev Tu-144 - Kolesov RD-36-51

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2008-08-13 05:40:26]


JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair.
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 27116 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

US:

Pratt & Whitney JT3C: 707-120/320, DC-8-10
Pratt & Whitney JT4A: 707-220, Dc-8-20
General Electric CJ802: Convair 880

UK:

deHavilland Ghost: Comet I
Rolls Royce Avon: Comet II/III/IV, Caravelle
Rolls Royce Derwent: AVRO Canada CJ102 Jetliner*
Rolls Royce Nene: Viking*, Viscount*

UK/France

RR/Snecma Olympus 593: Concorde

Germany (East):

Pirna 14: Baade 152*

USSR:

Mikulin AM3M: Tu104
Lyulka AL-7P: Tu110
Koulesov RD-36: Tu144

*= did not enter service with these powerplants or at all



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 27097 times:

Thank you so much  Smile  Smile

User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 27021 times:

GE CJ-610 on Lear 23s


Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 26962 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Pratt & Whitney JT3C: 707-120/320, DC-8-10

And the 720 but not the 707-320 (original turbojet model) which used the JT4A..

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Pratt & Whitney JT4A: 707-220, DC-8-20

And 707-320 and DC-8-30.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
General Electric CJ802: Convair 880

Minor correction. It was the CJ805.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 26950 times:



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4):
GE CJ-610 on Lear 23s

And the JT15D on Citation 560

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6517 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26886 times:

RR RB-162.

#4 engine on Trident 3B.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26878 times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85

GE J85 is used by scaled composites...

[Edited 2008-08-13 16:01:47]


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6896 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26867 times:



Quoting Larshjort (Reply 6):
And the JT15D on Citation 560

Sounds unlikely.


User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26852 times:

Wikipedia says different Mr Timz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation

Edit: Just noticed Wikipedia citation is from a.net, look-
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=162

[Edited 2008-08-13 16:35:16]


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3056 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26849 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR



Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 10):
Wikipedia says different Mr Timz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_...ation

"# Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D4B turbofans, 2,500 lbf (11.1 kN) each"

Not turbojets, JT15Ds are turbofans. Anything P&W with a D after the model number is a turbofan: JT3D, JT8D, JT9D, JT15D...

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Pratt & Whitney JT3C: 707-120/320, DC-8-10

And the 720 but not the 707-320 (original turbojet model) which used the JT4A..

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
Pratt & Whitney JT4A: 707-220, DC-8-20

And 707-320 and DC-8-30.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
General Electric CJ802: Convair 880

Minor correction. It was the CJ805.

Note to self... proofread!



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26846 times:

Timz was challenging that those weren't the engines used on the Citation V, not that they weren't turbojets..


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10259 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 26801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 12):
Timz was challenging that those weren't the engines used on the Citation V, not that they weren't turbojets..

Actually don't think he was.

Considering that the topic is strictly about turbojets, and that the JT15D was the only engine mentioned in Larshjort's post, I read Timz's reply as saying that it was unlikely that that engine was a turbojet.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 26788 times:



Quoting Wingscrubber (Reply 8):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85

GE J85 is used by scaled composites...

A J85 and a CJ610 are the same motors. Just one is the military designation.

Actually as far as straight jets go, I can't think of any in current service other then the 610.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 26759 times:

JT12 / J60 on the Sabre 40, 40A, and 60.

User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2392 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 26608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Most (all?) of the real* jets used on models are turbojets. Manufacturers include AMT, Artesjets, Baird Micro Turbines, Bay Turbine, Behotec, Jakadofsky, JetCat, Microjet Engineering, and a bunch of others.

A number of those have been put into (model) airliners.  Wink


*As opposed to the more common piston driven ducted fan on most "jet" models


User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 26601 times:

Oh well Vikkyvik, I bow to your superior forum-post-interpretation skills, nevermind the Citation V then, another Cessna with turbojets - the Dragonfly had J85s. (And yes I know it's not civilian)


Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineG4Doc2004 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26493 times:

Don't forget the old JT-12A's used on old Sabreliners......and the RR Viper on old DH-125's


"Failure to prepare is preparing to fail"--Benjamin Franklin
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 26418 times:



Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 2):
UK:

Rolls Royce Nene: Viking*, Viscount*

The Nene is a centrifugal turbojet. What you are thinking of is the RR Dart which is a Turboprop and is out of the scope of this thread. You must also be thinking of the "Vickers" Viscount. Don't know what the Viking is other than the Grumman S-3.



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2572 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 26382 times:



Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 19):
The Nene is a centrifugal turbojet. What you are thinking of is the RR Dart which is a Turboprop and is out of the scope of this thread. You must also be thinking of the "Vickers" Viscount. Don't know what the Viking is other than the Grumman S-3.

The Vickers Viking was a twin engined post war airliner, based on the Wellington bomber. One Viking was modified with two RR Nene engines for test purposes. So that predates the S-3 by a couple of decades.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_VC.1_Viking

Similarly a Vickers Viscount was experimentally modified with two RR Tay turbojets. The Tay was a more powerful version of the Nene. Not to be confused with the RR Tay turbofan which powers the Fokker 100 and 70.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_tayviscount.php

[Edited 2008-08-16 00:58:08]


The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 26296 times:



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 20):
Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 19):
The Nene is a centrifugal turbojet. What you are thinking of is the RR Dart which is a Turboprop and is out of the scope of this thread. You must also be thinking of the "Vickers" Viscount. Don't know what the Viking is other than the Grumman S-3.

The Vickers Viking was a twin engined post war airliner, based on the Wellington bomber.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 20):
One Viking was modified with two RR Nene engines for test purposes.

The Nene Viking testbed.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/PippinBill/5104L.jpg


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 26173 times:

Modern day, I don't know... but here's some designs from the past...


De-Havilland Ghost

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Svenska_Flygmotor_RM2.jpg
(The RM-2 is essentially a DH Ghost Mk 50 -- same engine as the Comet's)


It was a centrifugal-flow jet developed by De Havilland itself, originally for the purpose of powering a Swedish-Fighter design, the Saab Tunnan, and ended up being used as the first powerplant for the De Havilland D.H.-106 Comet 1 -- the worlds first production jet-airliner.

Technically, by the time the DH Comet first flew more powerful axial-flow jets such as the Armstrong/Siddely Sapphire and Rolls-Royce Avon engines did exist, but they were virtually brand-new and they were being used exclusively for military purposes (either because the engine had not been released for civilian applications, or because military needs were so great) at the time, forcing De Havilland to make due with the DH Ghost.

The engine produced approximately 5,000 lbs of thrust by the time it first flew with the De-Havilland Comet. Considering the Comet 1 weighed 105,000 lbs (later increased to 107,000 lbs), and the heavier Comet 1A (which carried extra fuel) weighing in at 110,000 lbs (later increased to 115,000 lbs) the thrust to weight ratio was not impressive resulting in rather flat-climbs although the airplane could perform takeoffs and landings in approximately the same distance as a very large piston-powered airliner due to it's huge wings, light wing-loading, and (by modern standards) relatively low takeoff, and landing-speeds.

Since the Comets had serious structural design deficiencies (the plane blew up in mid-air twice due to explosive de-compression), the fuselage had to be strengthened (and fitted with re-designed windows), which added at least two-thousand extra pounds of weight to the Comet 1 design (which by now were upgraded to 1A's, with the extra weight taking the plane up to 117,000 lbs), which was now known as the Comet 1XB. This particular variant was powered by a more powerful variant of the Ghost which went up to 6,000 lbs, which actually more than offset the weight increase. Unfortunately, it only increased the service live to 20,000 hrs (not to mention by this point, at least one of the Comet operators scrapped their Comet 1's)


Rolls-Royce Avon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Rolls-Royce_Avon_GG.jpg


It was the to the best of my knowledge the second axial-flow turbojet built (The Armstrong-Siddely Sapphire was the first if I recall-correctly) being run up for the first time during the late 1940's.

The first civilian airplane the engine ended up powering were growth variants of the DeHavilland DH-106 Comet -- the Comet 2 and Comet 3. Since the Avon was shaped differently than the Ghost, had a different diameter, and different airflow requirements, all of these new Comet-variants featured re-designed intakes, and engine-bays to accomodate this engine. Either due to the RR Avon being louder than the DH Ghost, or due to noise-regulations (or a simple desire to reduce noise) these airplanes also featured cookie-cutter type sound-suppressors, which also used some entrained air to enhance the effectiveness of sound-suppression (although the RR Avon was not quiet by any means, and it produced an awful, shrill, high-pitched noise).

The Comet 2, design-wise was closest to the Comet 1, with only a small stretch in the fuselage, necessary modifications to accomodate the Avons, and a revised wing with increased camber to improve low-speed performance. The airplane carried the same fuel capacity as the Comet 1A, with an increased payload and maximum takeoff-weight (120,000 lbs). Even though the particular Avon variant used on the Comet 2 were not particularly powerful (7,300 lbf apiece), it was still substantially greater than the DH Ghost, with overall thrust increased 50%. The airplane's thrust to weight ratio was drastically improved (although by today's standards, they would be considered poor) allowing shorter takeoff-runs, and improved climb-performance. The plane made it's first flight in August, 1953

The Comet 3 was stretched considerably, featured enlarged wings with streamlined bullet-shaped pinion-tanks to further increase fuel-capacity and range, and featured a revision to the exhaust nozzles moving them slightly outboard to reduce sonic-fatigue. The larger fuselage, wings, fuel and payload all ended up increasing the maximum takeoff weight to 145,000 lbs. Despite the weight gain, more powerful RR Avons with thrust-levels in the 11,000 lbf class, and to an extent the larger-wings more than helped compensate for this. The aircraft made it's first flight in July, 1954.

Due to two mid-air structural-failures involving Comets, the fleet ended up being grounded, and public-confidence in the Comet waned, airlines that were planning on ordering Comet 2's and 3's pretty much dropped all their orders. Over a roughly four-year period, the Comet disasters were investigated, solved, and new requirements were made based on findings to meet safety requirements, including a sturdier, heavier skin, ovalized windows (to my knowledge they came in two sizes -- the larger size came with metallic rip-stoppers around them to prevent fatigue cracks from spreading), and structural modifications.

During this time, the RAF bought the Comet 2's which were already built, fitted them with 11,000 lbf thrust RR Avons, and over the course of two modifications, increased the service-life of the airplane. They used them as transports.

The Comet 3 was a one-of-a-kind plane. It ended up being modified as a prototype for the Comet 4, which was the same size, but had all the new structural modifications, allowing it to be operated safely with a long service-life. While the design was now up to 162,000 lbs, the thrust to weight ratio was still reasonable (although takeoff and landing speeds were now higher). The Comet 4 also came in two stretched variants -- the 4B and 4C which featured equal fuselage lengths, with the 4B featuring a shortened wing, and the 4C featuring the regular 4's wing. To my knowledge, at least the 4B featured thrust-reversers on the number 1 and 4 engines (technically the Comet 2's used by the RAF also were fitted with number 1 and 4 thrust reversers IIRC)


The second civilian-airplane to be Avon-powered was the SUD Aviation SE-210 Caravelle, which was a dedicated short/medium-range jetliner with rear-mounted engines to reduce sonic-fatigue, and un-clutter the wings, improving aerodynamic performance (which was further enhanced by the large wing-area and substantial flaps). Since it would have to be able to slow down quickly as well as speed-up, the airplane featured speed-brakes.

While later versions of the Caravelles would adopt turbofans, (Such as the Caravelle VII concept, Caravelle 10A, 10B, 10R, 11R, and Caravelle 12) the Caravelle I (prototype), Caravelle IA, Caravelle III, Caravelle VIN, and VIR are all turbojet examples. The Caravelle IA, III, VIN, and VIR's all are the same lengths with the differences between the first 2 being engine power and weights, with the VIN also having revised speed-brakes, and the VIR having a redesigned cockpit and thrust-reversers (which was used by United Airlines)



Pratt & Whitney J-57 / JT-3C





It is the first twin-spool axial-flow turbojet to enter mass-production -- it started out as a straight turboprop (no reduction-gear) called the T-45 during the very early preliminary stages of the B-52 program, when they were uncertain whether to go with a turboprop, or a turbojet, and then evolved into a pure-jet design.

The first civilian-plane to be powered by the J-57 was the Boeing 367-80, which doubled as a proof-of-concept for a jet-powered tanker to replace the KC-97 (which is actually a military role), and as a prototype for a commercial jet-airliner concept. The design was based on a thoroughly bastardized KC-97/B-367, featuring a cleaned up-fuselage (no double-bubble, re-shaped cockpit and nose-area, and tailcone), swept-wings (with inboard and outboard ailerons to deal with aileron-reversal, and spoilers for braking and roll-assist), tailplanes and fins, pylon-mounted engines (based on Boeing's previous work on the B-47 and B-52) with thrust-reversers, an all-moving stabilizer for trim, and a sturdier fuselage skin. Overall the plane was designed for altitudes of at least 42,000 feet, with a wing optimized for cruise of Mach 0.88 and a service life of 40,000 hrs. The 367-80 first flew July 15, 1954, and despite some problems (dutch-roll tendencies, horizontal stab was too thick) proved a valuable research tool for the KC-135 tanker, and the B-707, and other future Boeing planes (including the 727)

The Boeing 707 was the United States' first commercial-airliner and was an outgrowth of the Boeing 367-80, with a wider, longer fuselage, with a redesigned nose, mid-span kreuger-flaps, revised wing-design, increased overall weight, sound-suppressors, and a revised turbocompressor set-up.

The B707-120 and B707-138, in particular, were powered by JT3C's, which are civilian grade J-57 designs, which initially produced a total thrust of 12,000 lbs, with 12,500 in air temperatures less than 40-degrees. Considering the B707-120's weighed at least 247,000 lbs fully-loaded, it's thrust-to-weight ratio was not the most impressive, and when combined with its rather highly-swept wings, it's takeoff speeds were relatively high, and the takeoff-run was long (7,500 to 9,500 feet?), a water-ethanol injection system was adopted which involved an elaborate mechanism which injected large amounts of water into the compressor inlet and combustor inlet cooling down the airflow and increasing flow density (the fuel-control system had a bellows which sensed the water pressure and automatically ran up the thrust as long as water was flowing) which added between 1,000 and 1,500 lbs extra-thrust for approximately 2 minutes. The system was inefficient (almost as bad as an afterburner) produced a great-deal of soot and smoke, a great deal of noise, and required 5,000 lbs of water to be carried for one takeoff. As time went on, more powerful JT3C variants were developed that could achieve 13,500 lbs thrust un-augmented, which made the water-injection system useless. It also allowed weights to increase as high as 257,000 lbs.

The Douglas DC-8, which was the Boeing 707's rival was developed rapidly, forgoeing the development of a prototype and simply using the first production models as prototypes. It originally started out as a 1953 advertisement brochure depicting a four-engined, 30-degree swept-wing 5-abreast design with two engine options (Engine A = JT3C, Engine B = JT4A)[/i] and two different set-ups (overwater, overland) designed in the typical rugged Douglas style, which rapidly evolved into a much longer six-abreast version with even larger wings, and a longer nose.

The DC-8-10 (-11, -12, -13) which used the JT3C's as well, which had weights ranging from 265,000 to 276,000 lbs (with the 265,000 lb dash-11 possessing a slightly smaller wing and no leading-edge slots, which the dash-12 and dash-13 had) had similar problems to the B-707 in terms of takeoff-run -- The DC-8 actually had a poorer T/W ratio than the B-707, but featured translating ejector nozzles which actually increased acceleration for the first 100 kts of accelerating -- but like the B-707, they both required water-injection, and had the same problems with it. Like before, when the more powerful JT3C variants came out, these engines were used instead, and the water-injection system was largely done away with.

The B-720 was essentially a shortened (by 8 feet), stripped down B-707's, with a revised inboard leading-edge "glove" (which increased maximum mach to 0.906, and maximum airspeed of 378 kts) and inboard and outboard kreuger-flap leading-edge coverage. Since the airplane was lighter, water-injection was not needed at all, with takeoff runs uniformly decreased due to the extra kreuger-flap coverage (and on all but the heaviest B-720 models, superior thrust to weight ratio). Once the more powerful JT3C's came out, they were fitted to the B-720's.


Pratt & Whitney J-75 / JT4

http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/f-105/images/j75.gif
(Note engine depicted is a military afterburning design, civilian design would lack afterburner)


The J-75 started in much the same way the J-57 did, as a straight-turboprop known as the T-57, which was essentially a scaled-up T-45. Eventually a turbojet derivative was made of it, which became known as the J-75.

In civilian-applications, the engine was known as the JT-4.

It powered hot-and-high variants of both the B-707 (707-220) and DC-8 (DC8-20 series), and some intercontinental-variants of these aircraft-families (The B707-320, and DC8-30 Series).


General-Electric CJ-805



(Note engine depicted is a military afterburning design, civilian design would lack afterburner)

The CJ-805 was a civilian J-79 design released for civilian use in 1956 and ended up being used to power the Convair 880 as the engine had a better power-to-weight ratio and may have been better suited for higher-speeds than the JT3C.

The engine is a single-spool axial-flow compressor with a 17-stage compressor, and a 3-stage turbine, with variable guide-vanes for the first six compressor stages to regulate airflow through the engines at low-RPM's especially. The overall design is relatively lightweight, and rather stable in regards to abrupt airflow-changes, and is capable of spooling up virtually as fast as you can move the throttles. Overall thrust for the CJ-805 was 11,200 lbf to 11,650 lbf depending on the model built.

The Convair 880 which it powered was a smaller aircraft design than the B-707 and DC-8, with the aim of forming a niche in the medium-range market (it was actually better suited for short-range, but it was deemed too expensive for short range operators to actually buy so it was pitched as medium-ranged which it could perform) having the capability of traveling trans-continentally at maximum range with the ability of operating out of 5,000 foot-fields. The design was also designed to capitalize on speed, and was slightly faster than the early B-707, and all DC-8 models.


Well, I'm tired, and need to go to sleep... I think that's enough for now


Blackbird


User currently offlineClydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 26153 times:

Lockheed Jetstar 1 - JT12 (Orpheus on the prototype)

Hansa Jet - CJ610

Jet Commander - CJ610


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2572 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 26071 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 22):
It was the to the best of my knowledge the second axial-flow turbojet built (The Armstrong-Siddely Sapphire was the first if I recall-correctly) being run up for the first time during the late 1940's.

The Sapphire may well have been the first axial turbojet run outside Germany. The Junkers Jumo 004 was the first in the world.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
25 Post contains links Boeing767mech : CJ-805-3A was 13,000 lbs of thrust 880 CJ-805-3B was 13,500 lbs of thrust 880M CJ-805-23 was 16,000 lbs of thrust 990/990A Source: Convair/GD 880/990
26 Blackbird : Boeng767mech, How weird... it's like all the data I had on the CV-880 over the years is wrong. Thanks for the catch Blackbird
27 Post contains links Baroque : In a sense that is true because the Sapphire was descended from the Metropolitan Vickers F1 and F2. The F2 flew in 1943 on a Lancaster and "productio
28 Lapa_saab340 : Correct, and also BMW developed the 003 an axial-flow turbojet during WW2.
29 Blackbird : The BMW-003 actually had an annular combustion chamber -- which was for turbojet purposes, state of the art. Blackbird
30 Baroque : Although the A-S Sapphire was in line descendant from the F2 you really cannot say the Sapphire was the first non German axial flow engine. The F2 fi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Please Name A TurboJet Engine In Civilian Use
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...
Turbojet Sizes In Turbofans? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 16:55:27 by ATA1011Tristar
Engine In Tri-jets. posted Tue Nov 28 2006 00:52:14 by AerLingus747
Series Of Turbofan-Turbojet Engine Questions posted Sat Feb 14 2004 06:48:10 by Lehpron
Starting An Engine In-Flight posted Mon Dec 22 2003 02:56:47 by WGW2707
Engine MRO And Its Development In Todays Market posted Fri May 16 2008 02:40:35 by NicoEDDF
Use Of Metric System In Aviation posted Sun Apr 27 2008 10:40:02 by DocLightning
Do Those "Dings" You Hear In Planes Have A Name? posted Sat Jan 5 2008 01:27:24 by LASOctoberB6
Engine Manufacturer Starts In Daytona Beach posted Sun Dec 2 2007 11:33:45 by Pilotboi
Little Stick (or Probe?) In Engine Intake? posted Thu Nov 29 2007 15:39:24 by Jawed
Engine Toe-in posted Sun Nov 25 2007 20:03:36 by Cpsarras
Turbojet Sizes In Turbofans? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 16:55:27 by ATA1011Tristar
Engine In Tri-jets. posted Tue Nov 28 2006 00:52:14 by AerLingus747
Series Of Turbofan-Turbojet Engine Questions posted Sat Feb 14 2004 06:48:10 by Lehpron
Starting An Engine In-Flight posted Mon Dec 22 2003 02:56:47 by WGW2707
AA Gets FAA Approval To Use IPads In Cockpit posted Wed Sep 12 2012 05:30:29 by Gonzalo
Will WiFi Use Become Common In Cockpits? posted Thu Apr 26 2012 09:49:11 by bjorn14
Use Of Tablets In Aircraft Maintenance posted Wed Mar 28 2012 16:53:16 by withak
Noob Question: Rudder Use In Flight posted Sun Jan 29 2012 17:02:29 by bristolflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format