If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Aviation nostalgia...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aviation Spotting from the inside out | Windowseat | Air travel | 3 | March 7th, 2004 06:50 PM |
any experiences with aegean aviation? | Miriam Nadel | Air travel | 1 | February 6th, 2004 04:47 PM |
Anyone see the CBS piece on General Aviation? | Jordan | Air travel | 9 | January 17th, 2004 03:53 PM |
Future of Aviation | Dustin Lambert | Air travel | 5 | November 5th, 2003 08:47 AM |
Long term future of aviation | vicdam | Air travel | 22 | November 3rd, 2003 01:01 AM |