J79 Turbojet Engine: Just the Jet
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 09. 2022
- The video preceding this one was all talking about reducing the noise made by jet engines near airports.
This video is not about that. Probably as opposite as can be.
For your enjoyment, we made as much noise as possible, using multiple afterburner pulls, and burning prodigious amounts of JetA.
The Jet fuel hoax crowd are idiots; every moronic one of them.
This is a J79-19, normally installed in a supersonic aircraft used to train military pilots in a dissimilar adversary environment... yes, exactly like Top Gun.
Other models, such as the J79-15, were used in the F-4 Phantom 2.
The -11 was used in the early F-104 Starfighters.
It was sent to us for overhaul and made new again by the boys at S&S Turbines: Clayton, Justin, and Walter. The operator is Electron Bill.
The engine burns:
5 gal per minute of fuel at idle. 5000 rpm.
35-40 gpm at full dry power. 7685 rpm. Nominally 11,500 lbs of static thrust
85-90 gpm in full afterburner. 7685 rpm. Nominally 18,300 lbs of static thrust
Each engine's actual number vary, depending on many factors...
The engine uses 155 lbs of air per second at both of those max settings.
The extra 50 gpm in AB is used to "reheat" the exhaust of the basic engine, making it hotter, and expanding more, so it leaves the engine much faster.
This day, we were running for about 30 minutes, with a lot of idling, which I cut out. We burned through 1,800 Litres of JetA. Good thing we bought 4,000L from the airport, which they delivered to our tank.
According to our instrumentation guy, the thrust was about half what I expected, because only one of the two (left and right) load cells on the engine mounts was connected.
The AB does not sound louder in the vid, but it is in real life. The mic is a lapel unit, inside a high density foam shield, and the shield is placed inside a Pelican case, on the ground, about 70 yards back and to the side. You can see the position of the tripod, showing why it is not blown away: it's not in the jet stream. In that setup, the mic is completely overwhelmed at or even before max dry power.
I try to explain how dangerously loud the noise is in my video "Testing a J79 with Afterburner"
Please let me know if you like this non-talking video. - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Your comment about the whole world smelling like burnt kerosene brought me back to my childhood when dad would sometimes take my brother and I to Dorval airport in Montréal and its outside observation platform. The acrid smell of burned kerosene was everywhere. Bring on these jet only videos. Not that your comments are not interesting and instructive, but sometimes you just gotta get the noise of the afterburner.
Edit: I had to look up what the "jet fuel hoax" is. Turns out it's proof that people who don't pay attention during science class shouldn't comment on matters of basic science.
Love it! Takes me back a couple decades with the phantoms. Imagine 2 of these beasts, lighting up the burners. Left your core shaking at the end of runway when 6 or 12 took off. Thanks.
Loved night time launches at Homestead. Or at Maple Flag with that cold Canadian air. Really seemed to amplify the sound.
Agent JZ. I stopped in at the US Air Force museum in Dayton Ohio today. An impressive place. They have a cutaway of a J79. It was very impressive and informative to me. If you would like the photos I took I will certainly share. Your channel is very informative, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Variety is good. Non-talking is fine, I like hearing the engine spin up and spin-down.
I've overhauled both automotive and motorcycle engines and that first start is always a tense moment. With the amount of time and precision required on the overhaul of these engines, that moment must be on a much higher level of tense. Thanks for your efforts and the great channel.
I've been contemplating sending you a custom diffuser for your lapel mic, but after reading that you have it inside a pelican case, I'm now on the fence for its effectiveness. I'm sure it'd be perfect outside of AB scenarios.
I can't speak for everyone, but I do enjoy your knowledgeable tidbits and backstory with every engine in the videos. As long as jet-only vids are the exception and not the rule... Oh who am I kidding. It's a J79 with AB! Who Wouldn't want to watch that repeatedly?!
Sweet! Many, many hours working -15 & -17 J79. Loved F-4 J79s!
Thanks for posting! Really enjoyed this video as well as your others.
Enjoyed ..i can smell the kerosene from here in Cape Breton lol ..nice engine runup :) spent 5 years on CF-104's
It has been a long time for such a video AgentJayZ !
Takes me back to the sixties when I worked in test cell at CFB Cold Lake.
J1E - Old memories from my service many moons back :-)
Correct, sir! I called it a dash 19 because it is a much more common variant, but this is a J1E.
Im in tears.. What a bealtiful machine!
I love the nuts and bolts, the how and why videos, but some good old AB is always entertaining.
Very very outstanding video. Great job. Keep up the great work. Thanks a lot friend. SC Navy vet.
J79 - one of the best ways of converting jet fuel to noise.
I think only the Avon in an EE lightning does it better ;-)
Don't forget the Olympus, the only engine that sounds like a musical instrument when it starts to turn. Oh and can burst your eardrums, void your bowels and make the fillings of all the people's teeth in a 50 mile radius fall out when it lights off.
@@HeliNerd1701 Having enjoyed living under the flight path for both I think the Avon wins by having a higher pitch than the Olympus.
Ah, the joys of old jet engines at zero feet and full chat.....
As a PS to my previous comment, in one of the comments that I posted elsewhere, I mentioned the fact that reheat/afterburning was flight tested on a Gloster Meteor in 1944, to provide more thrust for it to chase down V-1 ‘Doodlebugs’.
It was flight tested with the PowerJets/Whittle W.2/700, which had a max thrust of 2,200lb (subsequently increased to 2,480lb), almost three times the thrust of the W.1 engine of 1941, with no increase in engine size and a modest increase in weight. The reheat gave an increase in speed from 420 to 460 miles/hr. However, it was not added as a production feature.
The W.2/700 was also flight tested in the Gloster E.28/39, giving it a top speed of over 500 miles/hr, as compared to the 360 miles/hr it achieved with the first W.1 flight engine in 1941. That top speed was better than that of the Spitfires currently in service with the RAF at the time.
Whittle also designed, built and ground tested his ‘No.4 Augmentor’ before the end of the war. This was a free-turbine, aft-fan with reheat, behind the W.2/700 engine, which was intended to power the Miles M.52 supersonic research aircraft. Elsewhere on CZcams, there are film clips of the augmentor running, with the jet pipe glowing brightly. It obviously needed some development work on the cooling.
Magnificent Beast.
J-79 and TF-30 my two favorite engines.
I remember the days when I serviced this engine.İt's a really great engine.
Super cool, thanks for posting!
I like this non-talking video as-is. I also like the talking ones. Well done!
The most awesome shop heater EVER. It'd probably take care of my #($&^(# neighbor's 24/7 barking dogs too. I'd be happy just having the start cart around...you know...just to listen to. Awesome stuff... makes me feel like a kid again. Thanks for posting.
That was awesome.
I wonder if the occasional J79 with A B run will deter development around the test cell neighborhood? I see that it is fairly rural looking there but I have said that about some areas around here that have been developed! Thanks for sharing the great sounds of the J79 with us.
And have you fired up your J44 recently?
Thank you AgentJayZ! This is what I needed a Sunday morning to wake up to with a cup of coffie 🙂!
Gawd I miss being around afterburning aircraft.
Nice to see the start cart gauges come to life. Have you ever shown the start cart with its housing removed?
Ah memories of my youth......having my soul shaken out of me from the roar of a GE J79-15A/E.
Good times
Awesome video, thanks for making it. I wish I could visualize just how much air 150+ lbs per second actually is. Like maybe with a fog machine or something
0.0765 lb/cu ft
Imagine a three inch by three inch square on the ground. It's approximately all the air on top of that until space.
Outstanding 👌👍😉😇💪 Cheers 🍻
Thanks AgentJayZ....An all they had to do was follow my black smoke trail in the sky....Old Navy flying Show🇺🇸
Did you notice any smoke? This is a -19, just like it says in the description. Your comment is completely irrelevant, and therefore offensive.
Kinda wish you had a video of this engine running on the stand at night.
Me too. Our permission from the airport and nearby farmers is from 9:00am to 5:00pm.
In winter we get some darkness.
Jay, apologies if you have posted this answer before but does the sled/engine mount have strain gauges to measure static thrust?
You can get down on your knees and apologize for not reading the description.
dam that was awesome !
Aww man. The start cart is under-rated for coolness
I love the tach that goes around twice.
here's one from the ages for you Jay, do you know about the turbine disk failure on Qantas F32 ? would love to hear your opinion about this and how likely is it to occur again in the future ? a faulty stub pipe the cause . can you explain more about this event and the likelihood of it happening again ,
Hats off to the amazing pilots to by the way for how they saved all those lives
The subject of the QF32 engine failure has been discussed several times before on AgentJayZ’s channel and I have done my best several times to explain the sequence of events to those who have less of an understanding of the complexities of the modern jet engine. Can I suggest that you go to the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) website, where you will still be able to access information about the event, including the final report?
Just days after the event, having seen a photo of the recovered segment of the failed IP turbine disc, I set down my hypothesis. It was apparent to me that a raging oil fire had overheated the disc drive arm, causing it to shear and release the disc, which burst in overspeed. I forwarded this to an old friend in Australia, a retired senior lecturer in engineering at the University of Melbourne, who had worked briefly for R-R at Derby. He was quite impressed when the ATSB’s briefings confirmed my hypothesis.
An eccentrically machined ferrule (oil tube end fitting) had failed in fatigue, resulting in a massive oil leak. It appears that someone (a junior manufacturing engineer?) had changed a manufacturing process that had produced a perfectly satisfactory component, which had accumulated millions of safe and uneventful flying hours in the RB211 and Trent series of engines.
Needless to say, there was a major campaign to identify other suspect engines, of which there were several, withdraw them from service and rectify them. Changes were also made to the engine control system software, with the objective of preventing a dangerous overspeed.
Will such an event happen again to a Trent engine? With all the negative publicity that followed the event, I have no doubt that R-R will continue to ensure that this and similar components are correctly manufactured and, equally importantly, inspected for conformity.
The -19 was used by the Italian Starfighters, F-104S and siblings.
It just occurred to me that we are in essence listening to broadband noise stuffed into a MP3 encoder, thus the audio is full of artifacts and all of them will be. One needs a multi-channel recording rig to capture the dynamic range of the engine, and some acoustic attenuators to prevent some microphones from exceeding maximum input values.
It's not possible to electrically, electronically.. capture the violence. It is not possible to describe it meaningfully. The only way to know what it sounds like is to listen to it live.
I am closely following your content with great interest. You are doing a fantastic job. Do all engines have a mechanical fuse, which is a breakable branch, for Fan Blade Out? Or is this something only applied in civil aviation? I suppose it's not very crucial in military engines, right?
No engine has a mechanical fuse on fan blades.
The fan blade out test employed during development and certification makes use of an explosive charge placed at the root of a fan blade to make it break off, to test how tbe engine handles such a failure.
In production engines, there are no pre-planned failure points, no mechanical fuses, and no built-in weaknesses.
I want to get one of those APU for the shop
Greetings (again) from Singapore, where I will be spending an extra week. A couple of days after watching F1 final practice and qualification last weekend, I felt a cold coming on and did a precautionary LFT/ART. It was positive, so I'm in self-isolation, having to shoo my granddaughters away.
I've been entertaining myself on other channels by debunking the myth that Nazi Germany's axial flow jet engines were more advanced and altogether superior to Britain's centrifugal flow engines.
hi agent Jay Z. it's been 4 years since I knew your youtube channel, a real happiness and sanctuary of knowledge. I have dreamed of building an aircraft since childhood. it obsesses me. I have a question and in fact the answer will determine whether or not I should embark on the project. my question is the following: is it possible for a single person to manufacture a basic and simple turbojet from scratch with limited resources?
I think, Willy, your research skills may need sharpening. I'm surprised you have not seen my relatively recent video called "Designing and building your own jet engine"...
Any individual hoping to do that needs a voracious appetite for all information on the subject, and near limitless curiosity.
My channel has a search box.
@@AgentJayZ Sorry, I didn't know you made a video about it. so I'm going to look. thank you very much for responding.
That's one of the most Canadian nicest answers I've ever heard..well done
What a beast j79 I like it better than the F100
Here’s a thought….
How many J79’s at full afterburner, bolted to the earth like this one, would it take to speed up the rotation of the earth on its axis?
I say 4. Yep, it’s definitely about 4.
It's a closed system, this world of ours. A thousand of the most powerful thrust engines... even giant rocket engines... all pointed in the same direction mounted to the ground... would have zero effect on the rotation of our planet.
Just One
@@AgentJayZ So what are you actually saying we need to mount them on towers so the engines are outside our atmosphere 😂 Something like "The Annihilatrix" but blowing out of the atmosphere.
Can former military engine be used for commercial purposes?
LoL I went into the wrong business you-all have all the fun
No Thrust/Shock Diamonds? Or Mach Diamonds if you prefer.
Phantom pushers !
Have you ever considered a method to harness some of that energy? I don’t know maybe a little turbine or something out in the field..
All of the energy that can be harnessed, is being harnessed. It used to accelerate 150lbs of air from zero to supersonic, each and every second. This produces thrust, to make an aircraft fly.
Have you ever thought of a way to harness the incredible heat and torque produced by the front brake of your bike?
What percent of the engines coming through the test chamber are J79?
A lot testing with the after burner nozzle. Is the J79 still used quite a bit in the air?
Just a guess, about 30%.
The J79 is the only engine we test that is equipped with afterburning. It is always part of the test.
"Quite a bit" ? has various meanings.
Yes.
No.
Hi just a quick question. Please do you have any video of the VSV actuators moving. Love the content
I have several J79 test run vids posted where I show the vsv system moving.
Hear is a video where i am hooking up the vsv system on a T58: czcams.com/video/N-c3OPmR3tw/video.html
@@AgentJayZ thank you sir. 👍
is there any way I can contact you for a business inquiry ?
If only there was a way...
Are there cool down procedures so you don't cook the oil inside the bearings?
Yes. Also:
- The bearings are protected by many layers of shielding, which are surrounded by chambers fed cooling air.
- The oil can tolerate temps of over 500F without coking.
Have you flown recently? So how long did it take from turning off the runway onto a taxiway until the airliner came to a halt at its stand and the engines were shut down?
The way the vast majority of airliners are operated after they have landed provides a very effective cool down procedure for the engines.
Love your videos best part of my free time
When young and in the USAF (1964-1968) at Edwards AFB a mechanic on a TB-58 the only thing better than one J-79 is 4 J-79's. 6515 OMS Flight test, chase for the XB-70.
That would be an awesome sight.
Have I ever not smiled watching an afterburner kick in? I think not.
What type of engines does the starting cart uses ?
Garrett GTC 85
@@AgentJayZ thank u sir
just wonna say you are the best being an inspiration for me for the last few years i wish u all luck
what generates thrust? Is it the volume of hot air being pushout from the nozzle? also can the hot air leaving the engine be recycled back into the engine which would make the engine more efficient.
It's the volume AND the velocity of the air (the temperature is actually basically inconsequential). A 'pure jet' engine (as single shaft engines are known) like the J79 pushes out a (relatively) small volume of air, but at a VERY high velocity. You can see Agent JayZ's other videos on how the nozzle works to accelerate the flow at the back there and why it has to close in dry thrust but open in afterburner to work correctly. A modern multi spool turbo-fan accelerates a somewhat larger volume of air to a slightly lower velocity. The reduction in velocity is what causes the noise footprint to reduce. That's why even more modern turbo-fans are now geared like those on the A320NEO and 737MAX so you can put an even larger fan on there and accept a net exhaust velocity reduction but an increase in volume. Then at the 'extreme' end you have a turbo-prop engine (yes, yes different method because the gas turbine in this case is turning the propeller and not generating the thrust directly... but for my example this is a VERY large volume of air being accelerated to a low velocity. There are of course a lot of other aerodynamic reasons that propellers are not efficient on large aircraft that travel above a certain speed/altitude range.
There is such a thing as the ultra high bypass fan (moves a lot of air, fast), but those things make WAY more noise than a pure jet does! Which is why they have never been used on a production aircraft.
@@High_Alpha I have a couple of comments for you.
There are two-spool "pure jet" turbojet engines out there: the Olympus (based on the Vulcan bomber engine), which AgentjayZ has shown us in the past, is one. The Olympus 593, which powered the Concorde, is another. I worked on both.
An ultra high bypass engine is a further extension of the current high bypass turbofan engine principle: it accelerates an even greater volume of air, with an even lower change in velocity, to produce a further improvement in propulsive efficiency, with a corresponding reduction in noise level.
I just wonder whether you are thinking in terms of the unducted fan principle? This can be extremely noisy, because the tip speed of the uncowled blades is supersonic. This is the same phenomenon as the 'buzz saw' sound that is so characteristic of the current high bypass turbofans at their take-off ratings.
I also have a third comment for you.
The temperature of the air being accelerated to produce thrust is "inconsequential" insofar as it is essentially the product of the mass of air and its acceleration that results in thrust (ie, Newton's Second Law). However, in terms of the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine cycle, temperature is extremely important. The higher the maximum cycle temperature (in combination with higher pressure), the higher the thermal efficiency.
For the word "volume" in Ben I's comment, please substitute the word "mass".
Ignoring the fuel, the same amount of air entering the engine is the same amount of air exiting the engine. But the exiting air is exiting much faster than the air entering. How can that be? That same exiting air occupies a much larger volume than it did when it entered because the combustion heat expanded the air. So that super expanded exiting air has to exit extremely fast to exit at the same mass rate as it entered. Now for the thrust part. The thrust is due to the change in momentum, ie mass x velocity, of that air, plain and simple, but totally unbelievable to the average person thinking the the exiting air is pushing against the air behind.
The answer to your question about recycling hot exhaust air back into a jet engine to improve its efficiency is a definite NO. Would you like to try breathing in your own exhaled breath?
The only practicable way of approaching your suggestion would mean putting a heat exchanger matrix of some form in the exhaust, which would obstruct the flow and result in a significant pressure loss. Compressor delivery air would have to be taken through external ducting to the heat exchanger and returned to the inlet to the combustion system.
All of this would take up a significant amount of space and add a lot of weight. However, it wouldn’t work in terms of improving the efficiency of a jet engine, because of the effect on the exhaust efflux velocity..
It was actually tried in the Bristol Theseus turboprop engine just after the war, where the loss of residual jet thrust might have been more than recovered by an improvement in the thermal efficiency of the engine. However, it was abandoned and the engine was reverted to a conventional arrangement. The additional weight of the heat exchanger and the high pressure losses in the compressor delivery air negated any potential benefits.
Having said this, such arrangements are used in gas turbine engines that don’t fly, where weight and space can be less important and the efficiency can be significantly improved. The WR21 engines in the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers have a heat exchanger arrangement, which recovers heat from the power turbine exhaust and transfers it to the compressor delivery air.
hey, I am student of aircraft engineering and It is my homework to design an egt for this engine. Can you give information about the EGT system of J79?
EGT stands for exhaust gas temperature. It will be interesting to see you design a temperature.
As an engineering student, that is a massive error.
7:42 I feel this is closer to the true experience.
That shot was from 15 yards. I was wearing the protected mic, but on throttle up, I backed up and ducked behind the building. Nobody has ever stood where the cam is in that shot at full power.
Love the smell of burnt kerosene in the morning 🙂
Does the afterburner have a number of discrete settings? It looked like it was maybe cycling through 3 different settings.
Fuel is fed by four separate fuel manifolds, each connected to a different section of several orifices on each of 21 spraybars. The amount of fuel that can by supplied is smoothly progressive from none to max.
@@AgentJayZ Ah, just the operator making it look a bit like discrete settings then. Btw I can recommend a recent tweet from Tory Bruno with a full duration test of a BE-4 engine from Blue Origin. They are slowly digging their own test cell canyon in Texas.
I guess the Rocketdyne engineers were smarter in the 1960s. They pointed their rocket test stand exhaust where there was no ground...
@@AgentJayZ I assume it is cheaper, easier and more convenient to build and operate a horizontal test stand compared with a vertical one. Having said that they probably need a vertical test stand somewhere anyway to test a complete first stage. Maybe they can rent Stennis.
Rocketdyne test stands were vertical. Like I said, they might have been smarter.
What kind of volume or pressure does that huffer cart need to throw out to spool the big girl up?
The output air is about 30 psi, and I think the name of the engine, GTC 85, means gas turbine compressor, 85 lbs per minute output.
I was stationed in Germany during the Cold War when the Canadian Air Force flew CF-104 Starfighters (J79-OEL-7). For daily operations we used a towable GTCP 85-97 for air starting. We called them CSU's presumably short for Combination Starting Units? They also provided 115VAC electrical power. My training manual provides output ratings but I don't have a handle on some of the terms & acronyms as my specialty was electrical.
Bleed Air Load - NACA STD SL DAY
WB - 112.5 lbs/min
PB - 95.0 In. HG ABS
During tactical exercises for the 'real thing' we launched the aircraft out of Hardened Aircraft Shelters (HAS). Each HAS featured a compressor which charged a large air tank used to start the aircraft. HAS were of course also wired with electrical power. Near the end of 104 operations in Germany the CSU's were getting long in the tooth & difficult to get parts for so it was decided to replace them with separate towable units, one for compressed air, another for electrical power. What a step back that was lol. Each of those was as large or larger than the CSU they replaced. ;)
エンジンもいい音
Pay attention on T 4
Kfir engine?
Mmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh.......
I think we can say that that one works.
I'm still testing positive, which is no surprise only 4 days after my first positive test, so I'm having to amuse myself, alone in my room. My apologies to AgentJayZ for this lengthy contribution, but it has brightened a dull and very wet day for me here in Singapore.
I've been crossing swords with a Russian (which I assume him to be, as he refers to 'The Great Patriotic War') on a couple of other channels, where he has described the Whittle engine as a "Mickey Mouse" machine, which is a gross insult to an excellent little engine. He offered his critical and biased comments on a video entitled, 'Dyson engineers throttle up the Whittle engine' and, on another channel, with a video entitled, 'Restored Whittle Jet Engine'.
The engine in the Dyson video was, in fact, a Rolls-Royce Welland, which was described, not unreasonably, as the last operational Whittle engine, in that it retained Whittle's reverse-flow combustion chambers. It was (and, I presume, is still) owned by Sir James Dyson of vacuum cleaner fame. He staged an event some 7 years ago at his UK headquarters, at which Ian Whittle, Sir Frank's son, was present. The engine started and was run up, albeit briefly, without a hitch. Incidentally, the Welland engine was cleared for 150hrs TBO (time between overhauls), having been type-tested to 500hr. In contrast, the Jumo 004B in the Me262 had a life of 50hrs, if it lasted that long.
Dyson made complimentary comments about Whittle getting his design "right first time", which was far from true. He certainly got the principle right, in using a centrifugal compressor, thereby avoiding the lengthy and costly development process of an axial flow machine. Nevertheless, Whittle had trials and tribulations on the way to getting his engine to run reliably. It went through major design iterations to turn it from a 'ground use only' machine into a reliable and airworthy engine.
In denigrating the Whittle engine, our bigoted Russian claims that it was grossly inferior to the Me262's Jumo 004 engine, which, with its axial flow compressor, was the future of the turbojet. He compares the 860lb thrust of the W.1 engine of 1941 with the 1,980lb thrust of the 004B in 1944. In that year, however, the Power Jets/Whittle W.2/700 engine was giving 2,200lb thrust, which was increased to 2,480lb in1945. The W.2 was the same size as the W.1, with a modest increase in weight from 700lb to 895lb. It was, nevertheless, significantly lighter than the 004B which weighed 1,642lb. It was more efficient in terms of SFC, and far more reliable. So much for the "inferiority" of the centrifugal flow principle.
For the benefit of the Russian contributor, I did mention the fact that the Klimov VK-1, which powered the MiG-15, was basically a reverse-engineered copy (with a few tweaks) of the Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal flow engine that was designed towards the end of the war. It achieved its target thrust of 5,000lb almost straight off the drawing board.
I say almost, because Stanley Hooker made provision for the fitting of inlet swirl vanes at the 'eye' of the compressor rotor. However, he did not allow the vanes to be fitted on the first build, because of some previous bad experience, with sheet metal vanes failing and damaging the engine. Consequently, the engine only produced 4,000lb thrust at its TGT limit during its first run.
The story goes that the vanes were fitted overnight and the engine immediately produced its design thrust. With 5,000lb thrust, it was the most powerful jet engine in the world at the time, for a weight of around 1,600lb. Almost certainly, this weight also made it the engine with the highest thrust/weight ratio at the time.
And what of the myth that Nazi Germany's axial flow engines laid the foundation for the future of the jet engine? Take a look at Wikipedia's entry for the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 engine, which first ran in late 1941. It initially producing a thrust of 1,800lb, which was soon increased to over 2,000lb. It had an axial flow compressor, an annular combustor, and weighed around 1,500lb. Its technology was probably in advance of the equivalent German engines of the time.
As a large company producing steam turbines and electrical generators, Metrovick had both the financial and technical strength to undertake the cost of development of an axial flow engine range. Whittle's Power Jets company was, in contrast, a start-up concern, albeit with government backing, once the potential of the Whittle engine had belatedly been recognised.
The Metrovick F.2 series eventually led to the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine of the immediate post-war era, with the Sapphire 6 being licence-built as the Wright J65 in the USA. I had the privilege of beginning my career lifetime in the design of gas turbine engines, industrial, marine and aero, alongside the designers and engineers who had created the Sapphire.
Graham, the book you sent on the Olympus engine development mentions the Bristol Simplified Reheat system. It says that an Orenda engine successfully ran using it in the early 1950s. This was very likely an example of the engines I work on. Have you heard of this system? Do you know how I can find out more about it?
I figure if anyone knows about this, it'll be you.
@@AgentJayZ I have heard of the system and read about it in the same book. However, more than that I don't know. I was still at primary (elementary) school in the early 1950s and the industrial and marine engines I worked on until 1982 didn't have reheat.
Nevertheless, I can certainly try the question on a fellow retired colleague, who deals with the archives at the Heritage Trust. As he's a former combustion engineer, he might have a bit of inside knowledge.
What in the world?
So what's the engine going into?
The supersonic aircraft it was removed from , to be serviced at S&S Turbines.
Bring back the B58 !
hello, I'm Samsam, I'm from Indonesia, I've always been watching this channel, I'm very interested in learning how jet engines work on airplanes.
Search for "the Jet Engine". It's a book by Rolls Royce, and you will find it very interesting. I found a free version in less than one minute.
That will get you started.
@@AgentJayZ Thank you sir, very helpful advice
Hello buenos dias
You should turn one of these on in a dense residential neighborhood.
You really don't belong here.
Love the smell of burnt kerosine in the morning.
I'd never heard of the "jet fuel hoax" before. Of course I had to see what it was about, and now I'm stupider than I already was. Thanks :(
The "jet fuel is a hoax" brigade really annoy me and, together with AgentJayZ, I've tried to challenge their idiotic notions. Perhaps we should ignore them and their crass stupidity. However, as someone who has had personal responsibility for the design of fuel system components, combustion chambers and burners, I take their utterances as a very personal insult and, unfortunately, I rise to the bait.
So do they think that this J79 is running on compressed air? And does this mean they think that an LM1500, which is essentially the same engine, is running on compressed air when it is pumping gas somewhere in the world.
And what of all those Industrial Avons and Industrial RB211s, which I know a lot more about? They were once aircraft engines. Did I magically convert the Industrial RB211 to burn gas, instead of running on compressed air?
@@grahamj9101 something about free energy and we’re all in on the scam 😂
😂🤣 what a beaut!
Hello Best people's of Turbo Jet's, this J79 was very good calibration in afterburner, no smoke whem on anf off , only this Flames Blue and Orange/ Red Very Good Job!
It's not adjustment or calibration that determines how much smoke is produced.
Early J79s made a lot of black smoke. Later models use a redesigned combustor liner and fuel nozzle combination, which eliminates the smoke. The older engines can be easily converted, using this "Low Smoke" kit.
I've got a few videos comparing the original "Standard Can" engines with the newer "Low Smoke" ones.
Also have a look at my Combustor Liner series of vids, as well as the Jet Fuel Nozzle series, where we show the actual parts...
@@AgentJayZ WOW ! Thanks a lot of explains.You are best and lovely people's!!
Best wishes!
I wish I have the engine like this in my car
Yeah. That's gonna be replaced with battery power pretty soon...
I don't understand your comment at all.
Do you watch the Kentucky Derby and say " yeah... cars are faster".
You sir, are pointless.
Carry on, aimlessly.
@@AgentJayZ Some say: "electric flight is the future"
Uh.... that's not what you said. Or can you not tell?
@@gjgeurts9372 Some say, "electric flight is the future"? Maybe for short commuter and inter-city flights in 20 or 30 years time? However, for trans-continental and trans-oceanic flights, engines will be burning fuel for decades to come. That fuel may be Hydrogen, or some form of sustainable aviation fuel (aka SAF), which may be synthesised or derived from sustainable biochemical sources.
What you need to understand is that there are big downsides to electric flight. The first problem is the weight of the batteries, which doesn't reduce during a flight, as the weight of fuel does. The landing weight of an electric aircraft will be the same as the take-off weight. The second problem is the fact that, towards the end of a flight, the power available from the batteries will be reduced, with no reduction in battery weight. In contrast, the power of a jet engine remains the same and the weight of the aircraft is significantly reduced.
Battery technology may take further leaps forward in the next couple of decades and reduce the weight of batteries still further. However, in the foreseeable future, there is no chance of batteries that are light enough and capable of discharging the megawatt-hours necessary to fly for thousands of miles.
@@grahamj9101Great reply. Not to mention push a fighter jet to Mach 2+ at 60,000 feet & above... Harbour Air out of Vancouver are working hard at getting certification for commercial passenger flights with their electric DHC-2 Beaver aircraft. As you've mentioned, short commuter flights at this point & we're still not quite there yet.
Yo Dawg, I heard you like jet engines so I put a jet engine on a jet engine. 😁
Heyyy is this going into that Starfighter in Norway?? I've been following that project eagerly and I know they sent one over to you for servicing! I'm so excited to see it in action and can't thank you guys enough for keeping these great birds flying so that I could see them.
Not this one. We worked on a Dutch Starfighter engine last year. I'm not remembering a Norwegian engine, but we are ready for the call.
Fairly certain the Norwegian bird you're thinking of is an ex RCAF/Canadian Forces 2 seater. It would therefore have a J79-OEL-7 version of the engine built under license by Orenda, a Canadian jet engine manufacturer.
Jet fuel hoax?
You are better off not knowing. You can watch my video called Hoaxter discussion. But you will be happier if you don't.
@@AgentJayZ I literally told one of those a-holes that "Everyone knows commercial jets run on sand" and had him just as convinced as he was that jet fuel is a hoax.
@@AgentJayZ I just went and watched that video, good god, I had no idea that was even a thing. We've very clearly made it too easy for people to survive. The scary part is they're breeding. The documentary "Idiocracy" details this perfectly.
Also recommended is a documentary from the future ("one possible future; I don't know tech stuff") called The Age of Stupid.
@@AgentJayZ I'm getting that this is a "dihydrogen monoxide" kind of hoax and the "compressed air" is really just referring to the air ingested and compressed by the engine. What some people believe about something is heavily determined by the way it's framed.
Experto Crede… mean anything to you? I have some tales to swap 🥷🏿