Posts about: "LP Compressor" [Posts: 8 Page: 1 of 1]¶

Biggles78
You are right on the button. Under NORMAL circumstances, Concorde never flew supersonically in level flight. You would always follow the Vmo bug on the ASI during the supersonic climb. (The ASI pointer actually nudged into the bug; it was a beautiful design). Initially this would be at a constant Vc of 400 kts, the 400 KT segment then went off towards 530 KTS as you climbed. You then 'stuck' to 530 knots until a fraction over 50,000', when 530 KTS became Mach 2. You would then continue the climb at between Mach 2 and around Mach 2.02, depending on the temperature of the day. (the colder the temperature, the faster you tended to fly). There was an extremely complex AFCS mode for the supersonic climb, that I promise to cover in anaother post.
So yes, on the whole, TOC did equal TOD.
The 'subsonic climb' wasn't quite as you thought; you'd normally subsonic climb to FL280, staying there (at Mach 0.95) until the acceleration point. Mach 0.95 was 'subsonic cruise'. But you were on the right track.
Oh, and NOPE, they never boomed us either
Nick Thomas
Keeping the powerplants as separate as possible was a major design headache, but generally they were just that; there was a titanium centre wall between the two engines and a really substantial heatshield above the engine also, to protect the wing above. To give you an idea how all this worked in practice, in 1980 G-BOAF, flying at Mach 2 between JFK and LHR had a major failure of one of the engines, caused by a defective material ingot used in the forging of one of the 1st stage LP compressor blades; which was subsequently shed. (The analysis done by Rolls Royce ensured that no such incident ever happened again in the life of Concorde). The resulting mayhem terminated in a large amount of engine debris flying around, and a titanium fire burning in the engine bay also. The aircraft however decelerated and landed at Shannon safely. On inspection, although there was extensive damage found in the engine bay, the adjacent engine was completely unmarked, protected by the titanium centre wall, and more importantly, when the heat shield werer removed, the wing was found to be completely undamaged!
The only problem you ever had with the dual nacelle arrangement was if you had an engine surge above Mach 1.6 (These were relatively rare, but could happen with an engine or intake control system malfuntion). If one engine surged, the other would surge in sympathy, because of the shock system being expelled from one intake severely distorting the airflow into it's neighbour. These surges were loud, quite scary (to the crew that is, most passengers never noticed much), but in themselves did no damage at all. Delicate movement of the throttles (employed during the subsequent surge drill) would invariably restore peace and harmony again to all. (The intake on Concorde was self-starting, so no manual movement of the intake variable surfaces should be needed in this event). After this was over, normal flying was resumed again As I said before, these events were relatively rare, but when they did occur, they would be dealt with smartly and professionally; the engine and intake structure being undamaged. (Post surge inspetion checks were always carried out on the ground after an event, on both engine and intake, but nothing much was EVER found).
The reduction of fuel flow as you climbed was quite interesting. Although the throttles would be 'at the wall' (dry power remember), the electronic control system was constantly winding fuel off as a function of Static Air Temperature, as well as falling Total Pressure. The system was always 'tweaking' as you climbed, and you only used as much fuel as you really needed to stay at Mach 2. There were various ratings that would also be manually selected at various phases of flight; each rating change 'detuned' the engine slightly, so yes, you did not run the engine when flying fast at anywhere near the levels you did at lower speeds/altitudes. The engine final ratings were changed from 'Climb' to 'Cruise' manually at FL 500, just as you hit Mach 2).

The reason that #4 engine was limited to 88% N1 on take-off was an interesting one, down to something known as 'foldover effect'. This was discovered during pre-entry into service trials in 1975, when quite moderate levels of first stage LP compressor vibrations were experienced at take-off, but on #4 engine only. Investigations revealed that the vibrations were as the result of vorticies swirling into #4 intake, in an anti-clockwise direction, coming off the R/H wing leading edge. As the engine rotated clockwise (viewed from the front) these vorticies struck the blades edgewise, in the opposite DOR, thus setting up these vibrations. The vorticies were as a result of this 'foldover effect', where the drooping leading edge of the wing slightly shielded the streamtube flowing into the engine intake. #1 engine experienced identical vorticies, but this time, due to coming off of the L/H wing were in a clockwise direction, the same as the engine, so were of little consequence. It was found that by about 60 KTS the vorticies had diminished to the extent that the N1 limit could be automatically removed. Just reducing N1 on it's own was not really enough however; some of this distorted airflow also entered the air intake through the aux' inlet door (A free floating inward opening door that was set into the spill door at the floor of the intake. It was only aerodynamically operated). The only way of reducing this part of the problem was to mechanically limit the opening angle of the aux' inlet door, which left the intake slightly choked at take off power. (The aux' inlet door was purely aerodynamically operated, and diff' pressure completely it by Mach 0.93).

Yes and no....
She's not that unique.... there are many vintage and "heritage" aircraft flying in the UK.

But more than anything else, I think the Vulcan is about as far as the Campaign Against Aviation is willing to go in the UK in terms of a "complex aircraft".
With less obstruction, and some more work, I would have thought a Lightning could have flown in the UK.
A Concorde... no way.
I would say... Teasin' Tina is a different case...
Yes, in a better state than 'SD, overall, and again much less complex than Concorde, and more in the category of the Vulcan.

In her case, I would say it's before all a matter of money.
After the Falklands, the Vulcan, in a way, was THE icon among the V-bombers, and the money was raised to return her to the sky (and we know with what difficulties).
Somehow, I can't see that enough money can be found to return a second, less symbolic, V-bomber to flight, however much she's shown us she wants to!
(Yes, I've seen the videos... and I've had the pleasure to meet her in person at Bruntingthorpe a couple of years ago.)

And are you forgetting 'Canopus' ? An even sadder story.

The "engine testing" was a publicity stunt, where they pretended to do a borescope inspection of one of the engines. In the end they did have a look at two or three of the blades of three LP compressor stages, and proclaimed the engines (note the plural) "were in perfect condition".
The picture below is not a moon crater landscape but a capture from the video published by the museum.



Draw your own conclusions.

CJ

From what I know (mostly quoting fromTrubshaw's book), things would have been even better than that.

Reheat on the existing aircraft supplied about 25% extra "wet" thrust.

The Olympus 593 "B" engine was going to have about 25% more "dry" thrust, so the reheat could most likely have been deleted altogether.
This was achieved mostly by increasing the diameter of the LP compressor, hence increasing the mass flow, and adding a second LP turbine stage.

The "B" engine was destined for the "B" Concorde which, thanks to several aerodynamic improvements, would have had increased performance and more range, allowing direct flights from Frankfurt and Rome to New York.

Concorde #17 would have been the "prototype" for the "B" model... sadly, as M2dude says, it was not to be.

CJ

Mr Vortex
First of all, 'welcome aboard'; I'll do my best to answer your queries.
The area of the primary nozzle Aj, was varied for 2 'primary' purposes :
a) To act as a military type 'reheat' or 'afterburning' nozzle; opening up to control the rise in jet pipe pressure P7, as reheat is in operated.
b) To match the INLET TOTAL TEMPERATURE RELATED (T1) speed of the LP compressor N1 to the HP compressor N2 against a series of schedules, ensuring easch spool is as close as safely possible to its respective surge boundary, (with a constant TET, see below) and therefore at peak efficiency.
Now, in doing this a complex set of variables were in place. As the nozzle is opened there is a REDUCED pressure and temperature drop across the LP turbine. This has the effect of enabling a HIGHER N1,as less work is being done by the turbine. Also the change (in this case a decrease) in the temperature drop across the turbine will obviously affect the turbine entry temperature, TET. A closing down of the nozzle would obviously have the opposite effect, with a DECREASE in N1 and an INCREASE in TET.
In practice at a given T1 there was always an ideal N1 versus N2 on the control schedule (known as the E Schedule), the TET staying more or less constant from TAKE-OFF to SUPERSONIC CRUISE!!
As far as noise abatement went; when reheat was cancelled and power reduced after take-off, an E Schedule known as E Flyover was automatically invoked. This had the effect of driving the primary nozzle nearly wide open, reducing both the velocity of the jet efflux and in essence the noise below the aircraft.
The real beauty of this primary nozzle system was that it really did not care if the engine was operating dry or with afterburning ('it' did not even know). P7 was controlled against a varying compressor outlet pressure, the variable being controlled by a needle valve operated by the electronic engine controller. (If this is unclear I can post a diagram here that shows this control in action).

As soon as I receive back the majority of my technical notes that I have out on long-term loan (I've requested their return) I will post a schematic here. But for now; The tanks were vented to atmosphere via tandem vent galleries, the two vents openings being on the left hand side of the tail-cone. At an absolute static pressure of 2.2 PSIA (around 44,000') twin electrically operated vent valves, also in the tail-cone, would automatically close; the tanks now being pressurised via a small NACA duct on the right side of the fin. A tank pressure of around 1.5 PSIG was maintained by the action of a small pneumatic valve at the rear of the aircraft. There was massive protection built in to guard against over-pressure (eg. if a tank over-filled in cruise).

I hope this answers some of your queries
Best Regards

Dude

Bellerophon
Ahhh this 'other operator' (I'd quite forgotten our code for *** ******). And as for this obviously baseless story .... er yes it did happen. I should really have qualified my post and said 'The controlled N1 as long as the aeroplane was operated CORRECTLY was always at least in the upper 90's, well away from our blade resonance area'. I don't quite recall after the engines were removed post-flight (At Rolls-Royce's insistance) whether the entire LP compressor sections or just the first few stages had to be replaced at the engine overhaul base. In either case it was a rather expensive piece of experimentation.

ChristiaanJ
Certainly my friend (but hey, remember that I'm an old Volts and Amps and Ohms ancient at heart too ).
The lighting of a reheat flame can be achieved in three ways:
1) By using an electric arc ignitor.. the least reliable system, although relatively simple in concept.
2) Catalytic ignition, where the reheat fuel is sprayed over a platinum based catalyst, spontaneously igniting. I recall that although generally reliable, eventually the catalyst compound erodes away and you are left with no ignition source.
3) Hot streak injection (or ignition). I this case a sizable jet of fuel is injected through a single injector placed the the combustion chamber of the engine, a powerful streak of flame then 'shoots out' of the turbine, and ignites the reheat fuel. Generally reliable as long as the injector itself does not carbon up (as our new friend Howiehowie93 pointed out). What amazed me with this system when we were looking at it for Concorde, was that the Olympus 593 designer I spoke to at Rolls-Royce told me that it has a negligible effect on turbine blade life, as the hottest part of the flame does not hit the blades themselves, and also of course it is a very short duration burn anyway (1 - 2 seconds).
And Christian my friend, you should indeed 'rabbit on' here about some of your observations regarding Concorde electronics technology, you have a unique insight here as (probably) the only Concorde systems designer that regularly visits 'here'. I'm sure I speak for many of us here when I say that your experiences are unique and your contributaions are always illuminating. Come on, let's have some Volts/Amps and Ohms

Best Regards
Dude

M2dude,

The event I was shown the pictures of was probably about 1995 or 96 I think.

The engine LP compressor was very badly chewed by something.

Jane-DoH
One of the real beauties of the Concorde intake was that it was completely self-startiing, and so unstarts as such were never heard of.
Regarding the vibrations thing, here is my post #80: I seem to remember that Rolls Royce proposed a solution of their own, whre the right hand pair of engines would rotate ant-clockwise (viewed from the front) rather than the clockwise norm for just about any 'Roller' that I can think of. Although this would have completely solved the vibration problem, and was great business for the folks at RR in Patchway (just about doubling the required number of engines) it was a pretty lousy idea if you were an airline and required a much latger holding of spare engines.