True, but from the point of view of a classroom textbook, which you obviously know, these things don't count in affecting the efficiency of a gas turbine. the clue is in the word ancillaries...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And if you want to exact - I have yet to see a jet engine that runs without its gearbox and ancillaries
I visited the British Science Museum last week and was surprised by how compact British jet engines were compared to their long German competitors.This very interesting period is expanded upon in a very good paper here, written by Frank Armstrong (former head of the British NGTE facility, once the most advanced turbojet development site in Europe. "National Gas Turbine Establishment").
I visited the British Science Museum last week and was surprised by how compact British jet engines were compared to their long German competitors.
I wonder what aircraft the Germans could have designed had they had Britain's compact turbines.
I don't think that the length of the jets was particularly a problem, but increase in diameter may have been.
I do wish Wikipedia would decided on the order of weights and measures. Sometimes it's metric first, sometimes it's imperial first. It's the same for ship displacement, sometimes it's tons, tonnes, short tons, long tons or even (for old ships) bm. And volume, sometimes US gallons first, sometimes litres, often with imperial gallons randomly thrown in the mix. For speed it's sometimes kph first, or mph, with knots thrown in somewhere. I'm fine with all the terms being used, but for comparison purposes why not decide on an order? I know, information online is often worth what you pay for it, and Wikipedia is anarchical by design, so I'm asking too much.Compact in length, not in diameter.
Length: 84 in (2,134 mm)
Diameter: 43 in (1,092 mm)
Dry weight: 975 lb (442 kg)
Length: 3.86 m (152 in)
Diameter: 81 cm (32 in)
Dry weight: 719 kg (1,585 lb)
I suppose, but I'd put a deHaviland Vampire (first flight 1943) and it's single fat engine up against a skinny-engined Heinkel He 162 (first flight 1944) and my guess is the Brit wins hands down.Drag, drag, drag. With any early jet, you need to trim that any way you can.
Drag, drag, drag. With any early jet, you need to trim that any way you can.
I don't think that comparison sticks - especially not with wooden stripped down "Notloesung" (temporary stop-gap) solution such as a He 162I suppose, but I'd put a deHaviland Vampire (first flight 1943) and it's single fat engine up against a skinny-engined Heinkel He 162 (first flight 1944) and my guess is the Brit wins hands down.
I do wish Wikipedia would decided on the order of weights and measures. Sometimes it's metric first, sometimes it's imperial first. It's the same for ship displacement, sometimes it's tons, tonnes, short tons, long tons or even (for old ships) bm. And volume, sometimes US gallons first, sometimes litres, often with imperial gallons randomly thrown in the mix. For speed it's sometimes kph first, or mph, with knots thrown in somewhere. I'm fine with all the terms being used, but for comparison purposes why not decide on an order? I know, information online is often worth what you pay for it, and Wikipedia is anarchical by design, so I'm asking too much.
Wetted area and separation. The engine, itself, is not a source of drag.
No need to speculate, the Heinkel He 178 was based around the HeS 3, and ended up being basically identical to the Gloster E.28/39.I visited the British Science Museum last week and was surprised by how compact British jet engines were compared to their long German competitors.
I wonder what aircraft the Germans could have designed had they had Britain's compact turbines.
I suppose, but I'd put a deHaviland Vampire (first flight 1943) and it's single fat engine up against a skinny-engined Heinkel He 162 (first flight 1944) and my guess is the Brit wins hands down.
The rule is to use the originally provided measurement and then put conversions in parens. This avoids a loss of accuracy if you "convert the wrong way".I do wish Wikipedia would decided on the order of weights and measures.
Not at speeds below about M=0.75Not even the frontal area?
Blame Thomas Jefferson. I think he wanted the U.S. to go metric but he didn't follow through.I do wish Wikipedia would decided on the order of weights and measures. Sometimes it's metric first, sometimes it's imperial first. It's the same for ship displacement, sometimes it's tons, tonnes, short tons, long tons or even (for old ships) bm. And volume, sometimes US gallons first, sometimes litres, often with imperial gallons randomly thrown in the mix. For speed it's sometimes kph first, or mph, with knots thrown in somewhere. I'm fine with all the terms being used, but for comparison purposes why not decide on an order? I know, information online is often worth what you pay for it, and Wikipedia is anarchical by design, so I'm asking too much.
Rotary? Come on. No Mazdas or Clergets in WWII.Inline it has to be the Merlin.
Rotary its a toss up between Pratt Whitney and BMW.
I voted for the Poms because of the Merlin.
Metric Schmetric, I think however, it's safe to say we CAN blame the Declaration of Independence on him...Blame Thomas Jefferson. I think he wanted the U.S. to go metric but he didn't follow through.
How many corrections will I receive for this post?