Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
By pampering I mean that e.g. when sand was used to combat slipping due to ice, this sand had to be cleared away when turbine engined Fouga Crapsters (aka Magisters) operated on these runways as their turbine engines had to be pampered. When erecting temporary shelters for FAF Hornets, special care has to be taken by using self-locking nuts on any shelter structures as, again, Hornets' turbine engines have to be pampered. When I served at an FAF airbase operating turbine engined aircraft, walking across the runways was forbidden as "sand or small stones may be transferred to runways". This is what I mean by pampering.
I know that after take off the pilots back way off the throttles almost making those planes as fast or as slow as an old constellation. If there was a modern recip, why does everyone think it has to look or be like an old radial? A proper designed recip will always be more economical than a turbine and could burn the same fuel. Power density? they claim 10K HP from the average nitro burning dragster engine that probably doesn't weigh more than an average auto engine, that is way less than say the XR7755, and yeah I know the responses here will be about how its torn down every run etc. but does prove what can be possible.
What helped the jets in the old days was the fuel was pennys a gallon (very likely some government subsidies), it had to be that way as it was guzzled by turbines. That was the economics for those hard headed ones, I've always wondered if there was also subsidies for jet engine use in aircraft designed with them. And since this is likely a non political area I'll end there.
Torn down after every run, etc.
I guess that etc. also covers that it's burning pure nitromethane, only about $55.00 a gallon.
It just shows what's possible when you barely contain a explosion for a few seconds.
TOP FUEL DRAGSTER FAST FACTS - Super Coupe Club of Iowa* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
Good old thread resurrection since I have not come to this site in a long time. Out of all this posted here no mentions of economy, at least someone mentioned diesel and turbo compounding. Jet engines suck fuel like a vacuum cleaner, only time there is efficiency is when the plane they are powering is going fast. Jet engines are not cheaper to overhaul than even an old 18 cylinder radial recip, the materials they (turbines) are made from and the manufacturing process makes them very expensive, and like someone mentioned they have a certain life, turbines may look easy and simple but the design is much more complicated than a recip. Working on one? Balance is ultra critical at the speeds they run at, just search out "agent jayz" on you tube and see how difficult it is to work on them. With the blade vibrations etc. I don't see how they get the life they do from them.
I know that after take off the pilots back way off the throttles almost making those planes as fast or as slow as an old constellation.
If there was a modern recip, why does everyone think it has to look or be like an old radial? A proper designed recip will always be more economical than a turbine and could burn the same fuel.
Modern take-off profiles often call for a steep climb to get the aircraft as high as possible as soon as possible to reduce the area affected by noise on the ground.
I don't think the turn around time on a modern passenger liner has much to do with the engines, in 1986 the plane to Japan via Anchorage stopped for an hour, basically how long it takes to get all the "stuff" out and put new "stuff" in. Modern jets with budget airlines spend much of their time in the air, then they have an overhaul.Piston airliners took a very long time to turn around, frequently 12 hours or more, so they were much less productive than even the early jets, which could be turned around in less than half the time. Modern jets turn around in an hour from a trans-Atlantic flight.
So those 4360's where drinking what? 150 gallons each per hour if that? And the jets about a gallon per minute per engine that is 3600 per hour each. Maybe they weren't drinking quite that much and maybe more like 1800 per engine per hour, that still makes that 1.5 extra hour nothing. The catch is with a recip that uses jet fuel and an efficient airframe that comes close to 737 speeds, why not? The recip will always be way better at fuel economy than a turbine.Conspiracies are always much more fun than reality.
Jet fuel is fancy Kerosene.
The Big Piston engines in the late 40s early 50s airliners were using 115/145 gas or 108/135. This was not cheap stuff. It either needs a different base stock than 100/130 or it needs extra refining steps and additives (lead alone doesn't do it, commercial fuel wasn't allowed the same amount of lead as military fuel in some cases, like 100/130)
Operating economics included fuel used per seat mile and also the number of seat miles that could be flown in a week or month. You not only have to pay for the fuel/flight crew and maintenance. You have to pay for the airplane itself in a timely fashion.
The Boeing 707 could carry more passengers than the Boeing Stratocruiser and flew at around 550mph cruise vs the 350mph Cruise of the Stratocruiser, The Stratocruiser's 28 cylinder R-4360 engines were notorious maintenance hogs.
And fuel has to be looked at in passenger seat miles per hour.
A 1500 mile trip takes roughly 3 hours in the 707 compared to around 4 1/2 hours for the Stratocruiser, so it is not just the fuel burn per hour.
The jets could carry more passengers per day or week using less flight crew personnel and increased the overall capacity of the airline.
So those 4360's where drinking what? 150 gallons each per hour if that? And the jets about a gallon per minute per engine that is 3600 per hour each. Maybe they weren't drinking quite that much and maybe more like 1800 per engine per hour, that still makes that 1.5 extra hour nothing. The catch is with a recip that uses jet fuel and an efficient airframe that comes close to 737 speeds, why not? The recip will always be way better at fuel economy than a turbine.