Hurant Karibian wrote:

I belive I said this before. In the navy flight engineer school we

were told

the R3350 turbo compund produced no more exhaust back pressure as the

space

between the turbine blades equaled the area
of what would be a normal exhaust system for that engine.

Thanks Hurant,

I didn't know that.

Say Paul what do you estimate the HP to be on the first jet turbine on

the

charts?

Doug in Japan.

The HP of jets depends on how fast they are going.
19.8 pounds of thrust at 400 feet per second (270 MPH) = 7920 pound feet

per second

or 14.4 HP. What is more interesting is the mass flow at .55 pounds per

second

which is just about the mass flow of an RX8 engine at 3000 RPM and 40%

volumetric

efficiency. In other words this tiny turbine is just about right for a car
turbo compound. The large one is almost right for an 13B aircraft turbo

compound.

Before you get too excited you should probably look at the pressure ratio
and rpm of that turbine.
I thought the goal was a larger, slower turbine, to reduce the gearing
requirements.  If you can live with 100K+ rpm
it might work-if you can get a high enough pressure ratio across the
turbine.

Monty

We started out with 100K RPM gearing. Pushes the limits of gearing but 
I think a traction drive planetary is still the way to go.

Paul Lamar

 
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.