kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
In the recent topics where jet engine development has come up in discussion, there hasn't been much mention of turbofans (or any form of high speed ducted fans) beyond noting their efficiency in the speed ranges actually useful for WWII aircraft.
During some of the pulse jet and rocket engine discussions, I linked this reference to a 1932 publication of NACA studies on thrust augmentation for jet (including rocket) propulsion: file:///home/chris/Desktop/jets/pdf%20links/Rocket%20Science%20Books:%20Thrust%20Augmentors%20for%20Jet%20Propulsion.html
The benefits of adding more cool/low speed air to a rocket or jet exhaust stream apply to pretty much any sort of jet/rocket engine and overlap with some of the NACA duct research applied to engine cowlings.
And while there were a great deal of advanced, exotic, and unusual turbine engine developments progressing in Germany, there didn't seem to be much of any simple or conservative attempts at applying bypass fans to augment thrust and improve efficiency in the subsonic and transonic speed ranges actually useful for the time, particularly with the practical limits on temperature and pressure in the hot section of those engines.
There was the overly complex 109-007 turbofan design, but the only example I'm aware of that's remotely simple or practical for short term development appears to be Ohain's HeS 10 design, adding a ducted bypass fan to the HeS 8, apparently in a single-spool arrangement. (Heinkel had also been developing a couple ducted fan arrangements using Hirth air cooled piston engines, and while those may not have ended up being very useful, the testing may have aided adaptation to a turbofan)
P1010101.jpg Photo by Quinto_Sertorio | Photobucket
In terms of single-spool designs (even single turbine ones) use of reduction gearing to better optimize for the fan stage would probably be beneficial. Beyond that the use of independent 'free wheeling' low pressure turbine driven, rear-mounted fan modules (ducted or open rotor) similar to what was implemented on the Metrovick F.3 (and later open-rotor F.5) as well as Whittle's thrust augmenter for the W.2/700 intended to power the Miles M.52.
It seems like adapting some of the first generation turbojets to turbofans would have been simpler and more effective than many of the second generation designs (especially in Germany) as well as possibly even simpler than several of the first generation attempts. (a fair amount of the unattractive elements of Ohain's HeS 3 and 6 would have been mitigated by turbofan adaptations and, indeed wouldn't be too different from some small turbofan engine designs employed on -or proposed for use on- drones and cruise missiles: Patent US7055306 - Combined stage single shaft turbofan engine - Google Patents )
With the delays in the Jumo 004 and BMW 003, it also seems like parallel turbofan developments might have even caught up with the turbojet counterparts.
Given the limitations placed on German engines, use of rear mounted fan modules might have been the most practical option on the whole given the potential for use of low pressure turbines with lower stresses and the modular configuration allowing independent manufacturing and maintenance/overhaul. (particularly important given the vastly varying TBO for different major engine components)
During some of the pulse jet and rocket engine discussions, I linked this reference to a 1932 publication of NACA studies on thrust augmentation for jet (including rocket) propulsion: file:///home/chris/Desktop/jets/pdf%20links/Rocket%20Science%20Books:%20Thrust%20Augmentors%20for%20Jet%20Propulsion.html
The benefits of adding more cool/low speed air to a rocket or jet exhaust stream apply to pretty much any sort of jet/rocket engine and overlap with some of the NACA duct research applied to engine cowlings.
And while there were a great deal of advanced, exotic, and unusual turbine engine developments progressing in Germany, there didn't seem to be much of any simple or conservative attempts at applying bypass fans to augment thrust and improve efficiency in the subsonic and transonic speed ranges actually useful for the time, particularly with the practical limits on temperature and pressure in the hot section of those engines.
There was the overly complex 109-007 turbofan design, but the only example I'm aware of that's remotely simple or practical for short term development appears to be Ohain's HeS 10 design, adding a ducted bypass fan to the HeS 8, apparently in a single-spool arrangement. (Heinkel had also been developing a couple ducted fan arrangements using Hirth air cooled piston engines, and while those may not have ended up being very useful, the testing may have aided adaptation to a turbofan)
P1010101.jpg Photo by Quinto_Sertorio | Photobucket
In terms of single-spool designs (even single turbine ones) use of reduction gearing to better optimize for the fan stage would probably be beneficial. Beyond that the use of independent 'free wheeling' low pressure turbine driven, rear-mounted fan modules (ducted or open rotor) similar to what was implemented on the Metrovick F.3 (and later open-rotor F.5) as well as Whittle's thrust augmenter for the W.2/700 intended to power the Miles M.52.
It seems like adapting some of the first generation turbojets to turbofans would have been simpler and more effective than many of the second generation designs (especially in Germany) as well as possibly even simpler than several of the first generation attempts. (a fair amount of the unattractive elements of Ohain's HeS 3 and 6 would have been mitigated by turbofan adaptations and, indeed wouldn't be too different from some small turbofan engine designs employed on -or proposed for use on- drones and cruise missiles: Patent US7055306 - Combined stage single shaft turbofan engine - Google Patents )
With the delays in the Jumo 004 and BMW 003, it also seems like parallel turbofan developments might have even caught up with the turbojet counterparts.
Given the limitations placed on German engines, use of rear mounted fan modules might have been the most practical option on the whole given the potential for use of low pressure turbines with lower stresses and the modular configuration allowing independent manufacturing and maintenance/overhaul. (particularly important given the vastly varying TBO for different major engine components)
Last edited by a moderator: