Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
This question is probably solved but I found one more interesting video Actually it could be familiar to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMVF5yzDVvc
Against all explanations explained here I can't see the engine smoking. [0:52, 5:10] Perhaps really sharp throttle movements might skip the "smoking" MIL section or...
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 09, 2008 - 1:53 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
That_Engine_Guy
Posted: Oct 12, 2007 - 10:38 PM
Elite
Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 634
Status: Offline
Hard to tell since the video is clipped so much. The smoke's visibility is also effected by lighting and background. Being an evening demo, it is rather dark...
_Viper_
Posted: Oct 13, 2007 - 10:22 AM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Hard to tell since the video is clipped so much. The smoke's visibility is also effected by lighting and background. Being an evening demo, it is rather dark...
Yeah. Darkness and editing might hide the evidences what I was looking for. I have also noticed that takeoffs without burner aren't so smoky at all. I also wonder is there a significant difference between GE or PW smoking. I mean I haven't found any specific data about MIL at takeoffs from my pdf procedures. Or probably pilots turn it off before I can see it. This might be the answer and my eyes were wrong again
Anyway thanks for your patience.
I always see that smoke whenever the engine is going from aug to mil during takeoffs and demo runs. Never seen our GE's steadily smoking when atmil. Must be a Pratt thing!! Just joking TEG...
F-104 Starfighter at 1:14 and 1:40 there's a fairly good smoke trail from the J79. I think (someone back me up) that all the QF-4s still flying have had the smoke kit that SixerViper mentioned installed. Looks like the F-104 is one of the last jets sitting in the smoking section...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3Rq-bdqrs
4:58 = AV-8B Harrier. I'm not sure if the pilot was using water injection but the hover lasted a lot longer than 40 seconds (however there were no stores on the jet).
In an ideal jet engine, all the fuel would be burned. This is called stoichiometric combustion. However, it is a little tricky to make a fuel control unit that does a perfect job. The problem is that if the fuel air mixture is to lean, the engine quits. Therefore, especially on older engines, it was safer to design the fuel controller to schedule a rich mixture. That would keep the engine running, but you got some smoke...
asiatrails
Posted: Nov 03, 2007 - 07:05 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 595
Location: San Antonio
Status: Offline
DesignAndConquer wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ1kCNoDfQA
F-104 Starfighter at 1:14 and 1:40 there's a fairly good smoke trail from the J79. I think (someone back me up) that all the QF-4s still flying have had the smoke kit that SixerViper mentioned installed. Looks like the F-104 is one of the last jets sitting in the smoking section...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3Rq-bdqrs
4:58 = AV-8B Harrier. I'm not sure if the pilot was using water injection but the hover lasted a lot longer than 40 seconds (however there were no stores on the jet).
The AV8 display shows why the engine is the primary flight control in VSTOL flight, good illustration of the hot gas recirculation plumes. The puff of smoke as he enters the break to the hover is caused by the nozzles going down and opening the bleed air ducts to combustion air. In VSTOL flight, when the plume is dark, water is flowing.
Smoke index is a measured parameter during engine certification and is primarily driven by turbulence within the combustor. Its a constant design battle to get both a low visible smoke index and low Nox emissions.
The "smoky joe" F-4's used by the USAF had an old design of combustor, the lower smoke engines used by the USN/USMC had a newer design of combustor fitted with a different design of swirler.
Here is a NASA report with a lot of information on this issue.
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
When the burner kicks in, the smoke goes away as the flame of the augmentor cleans up the exhaust of the engine. (The smoke still enters the augmentor duct, but it burns off before it can emerge.)
Sorry to get back this old and discussed thread but I can swear that I've seen a few videos where jets drag a faint smoke trail even at full afterburner. In some occasions It can only be seen from a specific angle. Especially twin engined jets like Eurofighter, F-15, Hornet, Super Hornet, Panavia Tornado and Raptor tend to do that. Hopefully I'm not seeing things or something but there's definitely something action there. The quote probably means that the flame fades most of the someke away but not everything? I'd be pleased if I got some confirmation about that.
Last edited by _Viper_ on May 09, 2008 - 09:06 PM; edited 1 time in total
Guysmiley
Posted: May 09, 2008 - 04:36 PM
Elite
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: 1057
Location: NoDak. USA
The smoke is unburned hydrocarbons. Read Dolby's response, that is exactly what is happening.
Enginetester
Posted: May 29, 2008 - 07:14 PM
Newbie
Joined: May 10, 2008
Posts: 5
Status: Offline
That_Engine_Guy wrote:
seat_dreamer wrote:
What model B-52 is that ??
The B-52H had TF33s with more thrust than that of the J57s with water.
(But you have to consider water injection on any engine only lasted a specific amount of time before it ran out... typically 1 minute or less.
Actually, water injection operation lasted for about two minutes on both the bomber and the tanker, with the J57 engine. The B-52G had a water tank with a 1280-gallon tank. For two minutes of operation, each engine had to consume 160 gallons of water, or 80 gallons a minute. However, only the even numbered engines (2, 4, 6, and had water pumps installed, so they pumped the water for both engines on that pylon. If I recall right, the limit for water operation was 120 plus/minus 10 seconds.
Joined: Nov 04, 2007
Posts: 19
Location: San Antonoio
Status: Offline
Demineralized water was always fun on a SAC base. I worked around the B52D's and KC135A's. If no wind was a blowing, the heavy black smoke would stay around for a while. If you look at old pictures of B52's taking off from Guam, you will see what I mean. During excerises when all the jets took off, you could see for miles the heavy black smoke that stuck around in the air.
And then of course there was the water truck that came out and soaked a crew after a last flight
The G & H's used demineralized water for the cameras on the nose. I don't know if they still use a truck for that anymore or not.
Another tradition at SAC for POL troops was on your last day there, you
got thrown under the fill stand and soaked at 600 gpm!
That_Engine_Guy
Posted: May 31, 2008 - 04:35 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 634
Status: Offline
Purplehaze wrote:
Do we still have anything water injected?
I believe only the Rolls-Royce F402 of the USMC AV-8B Harrier II still has water injection.
Quote:
Hot weather takeoffs and landings are aided by a water injection system that increases thrust by 2,500 lb. (1,134 kg) for 1 1/2 minutes.
scorpio110367
Posted: May 31, 2008 - 06:23 AM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Jul 31, 2005
Posts: 86
Status: Offline
I remember them days of old SAC... love them water burners on old A frames, i do miss it a lot.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
Actually it could be familiar to you.
Just joking TEG...
but there's definitely something action there. The quote probably means that the flame fades most of the someke away but not everything? I'd be pleased if I got some confirmation about that.
What model B-52 is that ??
