Aviation nostalgia...

"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

james_anatidae wrote:

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets?

Yes. Rent the movie "Strategic Air Command" for more examples. The early jets ran
very rich down low.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:58:06 -0400, "james_anatidae"
wrote:

"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

The earliest turbojets used to inject water into the engine in order
to increase the thrust produced. This pic shows an aircraft that was
barely adequately powered (hence the gear being retracted so close to
the ground -- there's no problem with retracting the gear as soon as
you're off the ground, but these days pilots tend to delay messing
with the aircraft's config until they have some more space beneath
them).

Malc.

"james_anatidae" wrote in message
...
"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.


Cursing aside, (please lay off that, by the way) yes, they all smoked that
bad, or nearly so. I used to have my parents stop on a overpass at the end
of the runway at Toledo airport, and watch them take off, CLOSE overhead.
Now "that" is the smell of jet fuel being burned. (at least partially) g
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004

On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:58:06 -0400, "james_anatidae"
wrote:

"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

Depends upon how far back you want to go. It got better as the engines
improved. All that dark stuff is essentially unburned hydrocarbons,
literally energy going out the tail pipe. The really ugly ones like
the reference photo usually involved water injection, which increase
the mass going out the tail pipe, it also tended to greatly increase
the unburned hydrocarbons going out the tail pipe as well. During the
summer months, these types of takeoffs can be still be seen with US
Air National Guard KC135's that have very old JT3 (and water
injected) engines. There are pretty rare now, most have been
re-engined with late model JT4's, and quite a few have CFM56's.

The combination of improved burner cans (combustion chambers) and the
ending of water injection largely brought the smoke plumes to an end.

Early jet engines often had multiple small combustion chambers, the
volume to surface ratio prevented the temperatures from getting high
enough in parts of the chamber to burn the fuel effectively and some
even had an exhaut pipe for each chamber. As the materials improved,
a switch to a single combustion chamber, with a much more favorable
surface to volume ratio and higher combustion chamber temperatures
produced more complete combustion, and the black exhaust plume started
to disappear. By the early 1970's such plumes had become rare on
commercial jets in the USA.

Smokey wrote:

james_anatidae wrote:
"avfan" wrote

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

Quite common:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/004414/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/004413/M/

I remember them back in the 1960s, flying in and out of the airport, the
707, 727 and DC-8. Very smoky.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"matt weber" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:58:06 -0400, "james_anatidae"
wrote:

"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

Depends upon how far back you want to go. It got better as the engines
improved. All that dark stuff is essentially unburned hydrocarbons,
literally energy going out the tail pipe. The really ugly ones like
the reference photo usually involved water injection, which increase
the mass going out the tail pipe, it also tended to greatly increase
the unburned hydrocarbons going out the tail pipe as well. During the
summer months, these types of takeoffs can be still be seen with US
Air National Guard KC135's that have very old JT3 (and water
injected) engines. There are pretty rare now, most have been
re-engined with late model JT4's, and quite a few have CFM56's.

The combination of improved burner cans (combustion chambers) and the
ending of water injection largely brought the smoke plumes to an end.

Early jet engines often had multiple small combustion chambers, the
volume to surface ratio prevented the temperatures from getting high
enough in parts of the chamber to burn the fuel effectively and some
even had an exhaut pipe for each chamber. As the materials improved,
a switch to a single combustion chamber, with a much more favorable
surface to volume ratio and higher combustion chamber temperatures
produced more complete combustion, and the black exhaust plume started
to disappear. By the early 1970's such plumes had become rare on
commercial jets in the USA.

Matt...are you sure you still A model takeoffs with water injection? It was
my understanding, and I refueled behind many of them, that the Guard KC-135A
models were all converted to E models in the late 1980's to early '90s. In
fact, it's these aircraft that need to be retired that's driving the KC-767
controversy. The Guard -A models all had TWA and American fans hung on them
and thus water injection TOs ended, if I remember correctly. The Reserves
and Regular AF got CFM-56 engines and were designated -R models.

Cheers,

JB

"matt weber" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:58:06 -0400, "james_anatidae"
wrote:

"avfan" wrote in message
news:j1c2b0h37tm0cvslp7o92q0k47rrsjdf8t@news...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/541868/M/

Ah those were the days...

God damn. Was a common thing to see on the old jets? I wouldn't have
wanted to live downwind of an airport back then if it was.

Depends upon how far back you want to go. It got better as the engines
improved. All that dark stuff is essentially unburned hydrocarbons,
literally energy going out the tail pipe. The really ugly ones like
the reference photo usually involved water injection, which increase
the mass going out the tail pipe, it also tended to greatly increase
the unburned hydrocarbons going out the tail pipe as well. During the
summer months, these types of takeoffs can be still be seen with US
Air National Guard KC135's that have very old JT3 (and water
injected) engines. There are pretty rare now, most have been
re-engined with late model JT4's, and quite a few have CFM56's.

The combination of improved burner cans (combustion chambers) and the
ending of water injection largely brought the smoke plumes to an end.

Early jet engines often had multiple small combustion chambers, the
volume to surface ratio prevented the temperatures from getting high
enough in parts of the chamber to burn the fuel effectively and some
even had an exhaut pipe for each chamber. As the materials improved,
a switch to a single combustion chamber, with a much more favorable
surface to volume ratio and higher combustion chamber temperatures
produced more complete combustion, and the black exhaust plume started
to disappear. By the early 1970's such plumes had become rare on
commercial jets in the USA.

As a boy growing up in the mid 50's we lived near a SAC Base. An "Alert
Scramble/Launch" was a sight to see.

The above Pic is from a single 707. Consider the smoke put off by a dozen
B-52's followed by a dozen KC-135's using "Powder Charges" to start the
engines. It would take ~ 30 minuets for all the B-52's & KC-135's to get
airborne.

If there was little/no wind the smoke would hang over the base for hours.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type
Posting From ADA

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"matt weber" wrote

Early jet engines often had multiple small combustion chambers, the
volume to surface ratio prevented the temperatures from getting high
enough in parts of the chamber to burn the fuel effectively and some
even had an exhaut pipe for each chamber. As the materials improved,
a switch to a single combustion chamber, with a much more favorable
surface to volume ratio and higher combustion chamber temperatures
produced more complete combustion, and the black exhaust plume started
to disappear. By the early 1970's such plumes had become rare on
commercial jets in the USA.

As a boy growing up in the mid 50's we lived near a SAC Base. An "Alert
Scramble/Launch" was a sight to see.

The above Pic is from a single 707. Consider the smoke put off by a dozen
B-52's followed by a dozen KC-135's using "Powder Charges" to start the
engines. It would take ~ 30 minuets for all the B-52's & KC-135's to get
airborne.

If there was little/no wind the smoke would hang over the base for hours.

What has been done to make the B-52s less smoky? There was talk about
15 years ago of re-engining them with 4 large turbofans to replace the 8
original Jet engines, but that was not done.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 00:11:32 -0400, "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"matt weber" wrote

Early jet engines often had multiple small combustion chambers, the
volume to surface ratio prevented the temperatures from getting high
enough in parts of the chamber to burn the fuel effectively and some
even had an exhaut pipe for each chamber. As the materials improved,
a switch to a single combustion chamber, with a much more favorable
surface to volume ratio and higher combustion chamber temperatures
produced more complete combustion, and the black exhaust plume started
to disappear. By the early 1970's such plumes had become rare on
commercial jets in the USA.

As a boy growing up in the mid 50's we lived near a SAC Base. An "Alert
Scramble/Launch" was a sight to see.

The above Pic is from a single 707. Consider the smoke put off by a dozen
B-52's followed by a dozen KC-135's using "Powder Charges" to start the
engines. It would take ~ 30 minuets for all the B-52's & KC-135's to get
airborne.

If there was little/no wind the smoke would hang over the base for hours.

What has been done to make the B-52s less smoky? There was talk about
15 years ago of re-engining them with 4 large turbofans to replace the 8
original Jet engines, but that was not done.

The current inventory I believe is all H models, and H's have ended up
with TF33PW-103's engines, which is the miltary version of a late
model JT4, in otherwords a turbofan without water injection.All prior
model B52's used the J57, which is a turbojet, not a turbofan, and no
doubt water injected...

In short, replace the cans with larger burner, get rid of the water
injection, add a turbofan and a better designed combustion chamber,
and most of the smoke disappears...


The civilian vesion of the J57 is a JT3 (turobjet), used on early
707's, the civilian version of the TF33 is the JT4, used on later
707's. J57 is a 12,000-13000 pound thrust engines, most of the TF33's
are 17,000-18,000 pounds.