Why is it, that with up to 50:1 compression in modern jet engines, and all the heat that creates, that they do not have a problem with pre-ignition, or detonation, or knocking?
When people send me mail with weird names on it I just print some business card with that name/address on it and say to the post office "hey look, it IS me!" and it always works.
Mr. Z, I have been enjoying your videos for many weeks now. I really enjoy the way you explain things and make it easy for folks to understand. I've learned a great deal about turbine engines. Keep up the great work!
Love watching your channel , my son just joined 400 sqn. last year . The history of our airforce and engines makes me proud of being a Canuck.... keep up the great work.
Some rough translation of the posters 1) It's the "banner" of the aeroclub of Vatili (founded in 1968 I guess) (Αερολέσχη) and bellow their moto "Power through force" 2) the same but of the aeroclub of Cyprus 3) pretty obvious (on the bird-plane says "action" and on the fumes "reaction" ) 4) describes this bird-like flying device, made from copper and constructed in 369 BC by the greek admiral-mathematician-philosopher "Achytas" from southern italy (Taranta) propelled by steam without him knowing the 3rd law of Newton (actionreaction) 5) bernoulli principle and such
Basically a jet engine is just like a blowtorch, a continous flame and since the process is continous there can be no knocking since there are no cyclic explosions happening requiring that components are in the right position before they occur like a car engine. When a car engine knocks it basically tries to force the crankshaft backwards again since the piston have not yet reached the top/turnover position yet when the explosion occurs and this backward/forward slamming can potentially damage the engine really bad like bending the crankshaft and piston rods, damaging the bearings ect.
Thanks for your videos. I like the way you simplify and breakdown otherwise complex concepts. At same time you remain humble and genuine. Enough reasons for me to subscribe...
Sorry. I was daydreaming about an ancient memory. Me, Casey and Andy were told that if we could get it to start, we could have a '64 Polara that was sitting in a field... for free. Slant six, and a push button automatic. Life was good.
Jet engines compression ratio cannot be directly compared with piston engines because they are defined differently. In a piston engine compression ratio is defined as the ratio of volumes (i.e. - defined in terms of density) while in turbine engines it is defined as a pressure ratio. Therefore you need to "translate" one to the other. To convert the piston volumetric compression ratio to a pressure ratio you need to raise it to the power of gamma (the specific heat capacity ratio - 1.4 for air). So for example a high performance NA gas engine with a 12.5:1 volumetric compression ratio (Ferrari 458) translates to 12.5^1.4 = 34:1 pressure ratio. A high performance turbocharged gas engine with a 9.5:1 volumetric ratio and 1.8 bar of boost (Ferrari 488) translates to (101325 + 1.8e5)/101325*9.5^1.4 = 65:1 pressure ratio. With turbo diesels these numbers would be higher still. As you can see when comparing "apples with apples" piston engines are generally "ahead" of jets in terms of compression ratio - but it doesn't mean anything since they are completely different in operation. The point however is still correct in that preignition is not a thing for jets because the burn is continuous and doesn't need to be timed to a moving piston.
You appear to know something about these things, but please be prepared to be corrected - as I once did a very senior engineer at R-R. The term compression ratio is incorrect for gas turbine engines: the term is pressure ratio.
Yes I know. I only used it to show that the terminology and definition is different without calling it by a different name but I probably should have stuck to pressure ratio vs compression ratio.
I was taught that a jet engine was a one continuous cycle engine. Awesome tutorial on how they work. 15% rpm, then fuel, or you'll get a shunt start, I think it's called. Looks like you got a #1 fan too. :) Cool stuff he sent ya.
Dear AgentJayZ, many thanks for the time you're spending to explain in details all these things work, I'm an airline pilot, I fly B737NG and also B767-300ER and I love watching your videos to have a much better look inside of the engines! once again Thanks a lot! best regards from France
Hey AgentJayZ, if you're working on merchandise, consider putting jet girl on a t-shirt. It might prove popular with your fans :) And congratulations on your honorary degree. I've learned SO MUCH about jet engines watching your videos. You're a natural jet professor.
I remember there being a big hoorah about the great mileage of fuel homogenizers for car engines, back in the 60s and 70s. Just a few problems with them, like blowing the top of the engine through the hood if you ever had a backfire.
For pre-ignition to apply, the system must have (a) a state of no combustion and (b) a determinate time and state where ignition /should/ occur. Because the Jet engine effectively sprays fuel directly into an ongoing combustion chamber, the only time ignition occurs is when the unit is first starting up - combustion then (ideally) lasts until it's shut down.
2:28 That's a de Laval nozzle made up of what appear to be two aerofoil sections. The choke point seems to be in the right place but I'm not sure what the colours are supposed to represent.
With a port injected supercharged or turbocharged engine, you'd have "compressed" air and fuel traveling from the injector down the runner through the intake valve and into the cylinder, but that is a short distance and the overall pressure is still relatively low. A 10:1 compression engine is going to have roughly 150-200 PSI of pressure at the moment when detonation could occur. Compare that to say, 20psi max on a port-injected, forced-induction motor and you can see why the mixture doesn't detonate prior to the compression stroke in the cylinder. This also explains part of why the newer direct-injection motors can run much higher boost levels - the fuel/air mixing can be much more precisely tuned and avoid the chance of a hot spot from which detonation could occur.
Is it that the compressor / turbine sections are not shown in the diagram? Also, looks like there's no temperature gradient on the compression side of the diagram. As in ... it doesn't show that the air is warmer at the outlet of the compressor than at the inlet.
Would if you fueled it with hydrogen, towed it up to Mach 5 or so, and injected the fuel in the exact correct position ahead of the nozzle neck and if made of materials that would survive it :p (It's called a Scramjet - Supersonic Combustion Ramjet - and YES they are hard to make)
It 's great to take a look at the cross-sectional GA of the Iroquois: I always enjoy poring over engine GAs. For me, however, the only illustration that might beat a GA, in terms of interest, would be a pretty-coloured diagrammatic GA of the internal/secondary air systems. I have kept my counsel until now, but I can't help myself commenting on the combustion chamber. It bears an uncanny resemblance to Armstrong Siddeley's annular combustion chamber for the Sapphire and later engines, with those double right-angle vaporisers (replacing the original candy canes or hockey sticks) and secondary air tubes/chutes in the head of the chamber. The design of the ASM vaporiser arrangement and its development in an annular combustor was/is credited to Pat Lindsey and Sid Allen, for whom I worked in my very early days at R-R IMD. I wonder what 'technology transfer' there was and in what direction? I will also comment with detached professional interest on two other facts: i) the LP compressor is 'overhung' and ii) the HP turbine bearing is an intershaft bearing.
What happened to the Orenda Iroquois you were building? Did you manage to get enough parts to get it running? Was looking back at the old videos recently but note it wasn't complete in the last one.
My First Car Mazda RE Capella coupe ! I have been Watching & enjoying your Videos for years & now I find out that your a bit of a Rotor Head too :) keep up the good work Oh & i still drive Rotaries
My first car was a 1970 R-100, which I've come to realize was fairly rare. I should have kept it, but it had the same fuel economy as the space shuttle...
Nice, i have worked on a few R100's in my time, I still build Rotaries & i Still have my Capella coupe & I drive an RX8 too and yes they have the fuel economy of the space shuttle with my right foot lol. Like my Canadian Cousin in law says " keep it cool man"
The fuel economy of the space shuttle (at least per passenger mile) was actually rather decent considering it could take 7 people 200 laps of the Earth :-)
Could you have a discussion on ratio of the inlet nozzle from the compressor to the exit nozzle going to the turbine Or could you show a Compressor nozzle beside a turbine nozzle of a LM 1500. It seems like it would have to say how much the air and fuel expands after the fuel has burn. The velocity of the air through the nozzles would also make a difference. Or maybe you can talk about size of the final blades of the compressor compared to the first turbine blades. Maybe that would be relative to the compression ratio.
The newer jets have high compression but the older ones where pretty low and the RC jet engines are really low, like 7 or 8 to 1 not very efficient a med size RC jet burners 2 liters of fuel in around 13 minutes, but are still fun as hell!
It seems to me that in a way, unlike with piston engines, we do the "priming" of a turbojet with air, instead of fuel. That allows a more controlled combustion as the video explains. (maybe this is a bad analogy)
Back in the glorious days of HMS Ark Royal (R09), I believe the RN used to spray gycol into the intakes of jet engines as they were spooling down (I think after the fire was out) to reduce corrosion. Is this a good proceedure in a maritime environment? Should I copy it on, say, an Allison T63-A-5A ?
Engines which are to be stored for more than 30 days without being run are typically preserved by fogging the inlet with a fine corrosion preventing oil as it winds down after fuel cutoff. You can make a suitable fluid out of WD40 and about 1/3 engine oil. A T63 would need about a tablespoon of that sprayed in. Next startup will be a little smoky. This does not eliminate the need for covering the inlet and exhaust, and for storing the engine indoors.
Mr Z, do you have a video explaining the forces and stresses on the individual components ? I am amazed that the casings dont just split wide open after running at 600psi and 3000F with 20,000 lb axial load and 30,000 ft.lb. torque applied to them!
The structural outer casings do not experience temperatures anywhere near 3,000degF.. Even the turbine casings are typically cooled by a small flow of compressor delivery air.
Jay 1.-if the 50 to 1 air compression when you inject fuel it would burn automatically because fuels/air mix will auto ignite at that pressure ? 2-- What is the purpose of the igniter (electrical ) does this mean that when in low rpm it could be possible that compresión is not good enough so it needs a spark to ignite? (I assume 1 spark igniter per combustion chamber or fuel nozzle) 3.- what is the psi pressure generated by the fuel pumps you have already shown in other videos .. I assume there’s a way to prevent air to enter to the fuel pump/lines in order to prevent an explosive mixture
There is no place where non- burning fuel is mixed with air. This question is looked at in detail in a recent video: why jet engines don't detonate. It's not a good idea to apply piston engine thinking. .
OK, so let's be careful about our terminology. When a full-blown surge happens, there's a transient reversal of the flow through the compressors, flames briefly shoot out of the intake of the engine, accompanied by a loud 'bang', which potentially can be heard miles away. However, it's not a 'detonation' and it's not an 'explosion': it's simply the sudden release of the pressure in the combustor. It can happen multiple times and you will find several instances of it happening on RU-vid. I tell the story of waiting for a flight at JFK years ago, when a CF6 engine on a DC10 suffered three rapid surge events on take-off. The 'bangs' could clearly be heard right across the airport.
I don't know why I'm still comparing this but it seems more comparable to a Diesel engine than a petrol. Simply by injecting fuel into the pressurized combustion chamber and instantly combusting it. Glow plugs would be your igniters. I guess it's just my way of digesting your lessons. It helps me understand why things are happening/designed the way they are. I'm careful to distinguish that jets and pistons are different. Thank you so much for continuing to share so much technical know-how from your experience working with jet engines!
Legin Sreep not even close to a diesel. There's no autoignition of the fuel, there's no injection timing, there's no need to preheat the engine using the glowplugs. As AgentZ said, they're just different.
That would be combustion. Detonation is an often misused term with a real technical meaning. Another term often misused by piston people is explode. The fuel air mixture in a piston engine does not explode. Like in a jet engine, it burns and expands.
@AgentJayZ Great topic. Would another way of explaining your reasoning here be to say that it's because the combustion process here is continuous? Whereas in a piston engine it is intermittent? By the way, I am an ATPL(A) student from the UK just about to sit my Aircraft General Knowledge exam. A large section of the syllabus is Turbine engines. I'm finding your videos really useful in learning the material for the exam. It will also be good to have this understanding when I come to actually operating the machinery! Many thanks
To my knowledge, pre-ignition is different to detonation. Pre ignition occurs because the fuel air mixture is going off before desired usually due to hotspots or lean mixture. Detonation however occurs because the mixture is too lean and has no real heatsync by means of fuel around it. Therefore it burns unpredictably and doesn't propagate down the cylinder. Jets working similar to diesels in that fuel is only mixed the instant it's needed means pre ignition can't occur. Jets always run lean from what I read since it merely burns the fuel it needs. But what stops it from burning explosively like in detonation. Surely the oxygen rich environment will also lead to high temperatures risking unpredictability?
Sorry, but you're wrong, Mr Nighthawke 70. Donald Campbell originally used his father's K4 hydroplane, which was powered by a Rolls-Royce 'R' racing engine, dating back to the Schneider Trophy contests. However, that was wrecked in 1951. He then came up with Bluebird K7, which was powered by a jet engine. I have the impression that it might originally have been powered by a Metrovick Beryl engine, but I could be wrong. Bluebird K7 was subsequently fitted with a Bristol Orpheus engine for more thrust, and this is the engine that was powering it in January 1967, when Bluebird K7 and Donald Campbell tragically met their end on Coniston Water. There's a couple of very good accounts on Wikipedia, if you care to check them out. For the sake of historical and geographical correctness, I'm going to be pedantic here (I usually am). Donald Campbell both met their end on Coniston Water. It's an old catch question for English geographers: "How many lakes are there in the English Lake District?" The answer is "One". In the English Lake District, there is only one lake, Bassenthwaite Lake. All the others are either Waters or Meres, plus a few small areas of water known as Tarns.
AgentJayZ, I'm going to leave it to others of your faithful following to comment on that venturi thing, which appears to be masquerading as a jet engine. In these days of political correctness, I wouldn't dare say, "it's all Greek to me." What does concern me is that, with the wing profile shown above the venturi, it might be peddling the fiction that a wing works like "half a venturi". I've mentioned before that my son was told this by a retired airline pilot, as part of his pilot training ground school. And, as I've said before, thank goodness the wings that he flew with knew how they worked, because he didn't.
I forgot to add, is there a certain confining effect of the flame front at the fuel nozzle that is due to the fact that everything is already hot, up to temperature, and burning, but may not be that way at engine start up???
Elsewhere I've mentioned that the nearest I've been to a 'hard' start of an engine was on a combustion test rig, when we were testing the altitude light-up and cross-light capability of a new design of cannular combustor. The second combustor was slow to light up, which it finally did with something of a 'thud', and which we most definitely felt. I'm not aware of any reports from service of similar 'hard' relights after an in-flight shut-down, but it's perfectly possible.
To ignite you will need 3 elements temperature fuel and oxigen fuel could Be compressed but without oxigen it should be able to ignite since it needs to be mixed with oxigen to be oxidated
You're not going to get air to ignite into combustion at any temperature or pressure regime, as far as I know, because all the non-O2 molecules in air are chemically stable or fully-oxidised, so there aren't any chemical reactions they can undergo which are exothermic.
@@AgentJayZ Well with your back turned to your jet when it burps it sure makes you react like it was a detonation. DANG that was loud!!! Especially when you see the fireball out of the corner of your eye! :>) TF30 is loud no matter which way the flame is moving.
@@dremwolf5419 Deflagration and detonation are two ways energy may be released. ... If the explosion moves outward at supersonic speeds (faster than the speed of sound), it's a detonation. While the action of deflagration is to push the air in front it, objects do not explode because the rate of combustion is relatively slow. When a shock wave is created by high explosives such as TNT (which has a detonation velocity of 6,900 m/s), it will always travel at high, supersonic velocity from its point of origin. if a shock wave is not produced it is considered deflagration
A Wankel engine produces three power pulses per rotor revolution, but rotors are geared 1 to 3 with the eccentric shaft (also known as the drive shaft). By that, there is one power pulse per revolution of the drive shaft per rotor. So both of you are correct.
Shop next door to me is owned by a guy who races quads in the Best in the Desert series. I gave him a set of tires for winning the Vegas to Reno. That's his number.
What is wrong with the picture? I am going to guess that on the intake side the air would increase in velocity but the pressure would decrease, and on the exhaust side, assuming you could get it to combust, there would be no thrust.
Preignition is not synonymous with detonation. It can, however, lead to detonation in a piston internal combustion engine. Detonation is a combustion regime characterized by rapid combustion of a fuel/oxidizer mixture that is driven by a supersonic shock wave. This causes a violent, rapid cylinder pressure spike which may damage components. The desired combustion regime is deflagration, which is characterized by a subsonic, slow moving (
F84's if I recall correctly had a start sequence that involved a gigantic boom at the introduction of fuel on start up. I always assumed that unlike all the turbine gear I've run they did some kind of intentional "detonation" at start instead of the common "just start burning" thing either by modulated fcu or a mechanical or in modern times digital fuel derichment profile.etc. I was just wondering if you had any insight on how the F84 (I don't know what engine they used) differed on startup and wondered if this might be an occasion of a detonation like event being taken advantage of. Sorry to be so terse.
That is not detonation. It's an accumulation of fuel that goes boom when ignition finally happens. It was very common with the engines back in the day. The J47 and the Orenda 14 do that all the time. It took me ten seconds to find out that the engine used by the F84 was the J35. Claimed to be the first American axial compressor turbojet, it looks a lot like the J47, which appears to be a slightly improved design. All those old time engines lit off with a woof. You see how being a bit more specific pays off? Your original request was far too vague, but your second one was great!
So an modern engine got 40 to 1 compression ratio so at ground level it's 40 bar pressure but at 15 kilometres upp there at 2000 km/h ram air speed. how much pressure is in combustion chamber?
Airliners travel at about 900 Km/hr, not 2000. Ram air helps the compressor do its job, but does not change CDP. Combustor pressure is slightly less than CDP. Burning the fuel heats the air, but does not raise its pressure.
@@who88777 Jet engine combustors are designed to be as close to constant pressure as possible - the expansion takes place as acceleration of the flow instead - and in practice there is always a few % pressure loss
I wonder if in the new jet engines , because of the heat generated, the last stage(s) of the compressor are made from the same material as the turbine blades. Anyway, totally addicted to your channel. Some serious binge watching going on.
Yes... the last stage of compressor blades in the LM2500 are made from an Inconel - like alloy, because the titanium alloy that the other stages are made of can't take the heat.
Yes, final stages of airline compressors are nickel superalloys from the diagrams I've seen. 50:1 compression makes for very high temperatures! There's a nice colour-coded diagram of a RR Trent 800 I've seen where the last 2 compressor stages are nickel alloy (previous ones being titantium blades, titatium or steel stators)
The rear stage blades/vanes of the HP compressor of the Olympus 593 in Concorde were in Nickel alloy, as were the rear stage discs (Waspaloy, as I recall).
They are getting close, approaching 60:1. But don't forget, at Mach 2, a lot of the compression was done by the aircraft intake, with a pressure increase from under 2lb/sqin to 9lb/sqin in supercruise at 58,000ft. This resulted in an air inlet temperature at the front face of the engine of 127degC. The engine itself still had a pressure ratio of around 13.5:1, from memory. Doing the math(s), that gives just over 60:1, but I recall hearing nearer 80:1 quoted by a performance engineer. I will try checking the quoted P/R for the engine.
It says "Aeroclub (of) Vatily, 1968, Power via the force". PS: The second one says "Aeroclub of Cyprus". I can't really read the third one but it says about the evolution of use of thrust from the steam powered pigeon to the date and time man first landed on the moon. The fourth one describes the operation of the depicted 369 AD ancient steam powered pigeon in old Greek and the last one is about Bernoulli duct nozzles (I'm pretty sure it's a Venturi though) of wet or dry fuel rockets and how they share the basic design with ramjet and pulse engines (I couldn't find a focused frame here either).
I get it that jet engines produce a constant combustion as opposed to the cycle of piston engines. But what about the V-1 buzz bombs of WWII? Sometimes referred to as pulse jets? I could never get a clear understanding of how they worked. It seems that they produced intermittent thrust, is that right?
Edward Whetsell they use a combination of a valve that prevents backflow, and a resonant chamber so each pulse draws new fuel/air mix in as it exhausts.
Hi Jay Question, please help me understand. Can you do a video on this? What would be the compressor to turbine blade ratio to get a 10:1 - 50:1 compression? How many blades to each? What would be the pressure at the last stage of the compressor... Pressure in the combustion chamber... Pressure at the start of the turbine... Is the pressure at the turbine... 2, 3, 4 times that of the last stage of the compressor?
Sorry AgentJayZ, I can't resist coming in on this one, as we've been here before. There is NO pressure increase in the combustion process of a gas turbine engine operating on the Brayton Cycle. In fact there is a pressure loss of a few percent of the pressure at (HP) compressor delivery. The pressure at turbine entry is essentially the same as that in the combustion chamber(s) and the pressure reduces progressively through the turbine stages. Having been brought up with piston engines, many years ago, I got this wrong at an interview for an apprenticeship at Rolls-Royce, Derby.
grahamj9101 Thank you for the reply, is there a difference between the last compressor stage and the combustion chamber? Combustion chamber would be less?
Take a look at AgentJayZ's diagram: that gives you the basics. And yes, there is a pressure drop from compressor delivery and across the walls of the combustion chamber(s). There has to be a reasonable pressure difference a) to ensure sufficient penetration of the air into and mixing in the combustion process, and b) to ensure adequate cooling of the combustion chamber walls.
Sounds like your explanation of how not to start a turbine engine is the only way to backfire and detonate one, lol. So, normally the propagation of the flame front is controlled by the engine design, ignition sequence and fuel delivery system. Get them out of sequence and bad things could happen. As you were talking about the fuel nozzle and flame, I was picturing an oxygen, acetylene torch tip. I know it's different burning in free air but I was wondering if there could be some scenario if, like when you shut off the acetylene on a torch, you could create a pop in a turbine engine? I guess the abundance of air flow keeps this from happening .......if you were to shut off the fuel flow at wot.
I asked a question a while back, I guess I didn’t word it properly. If instead of using fans to compress the air, a gas turbine engine used a centrifugal compressor, rotary screw compressor, or a piston air compressor, how would it compare to conventional gas turbine engines?
Some jet engines, (Rolls Royce Nene for one) did use centrifugal compressors. I think a lot of APU type engines use centrifugal compressors too. The Caproni Campini used a piston engined powered compressor ahead of a gas turbine. I'm guessing a rotary screw compressor would need to be HUGE to provide enough air and would be far too heavy to fly. There's also one more compression option: ram air compression such as in a ram jet like the Bomarc used and like the engine of an SR-71 works when it's at speed. I'm not sure where the engine in a V-1 "Buzz Bomb" fits, it used shutters at the front that opened to admit air and then closed to contain the expanding gas and direct it out the exhaust when the fuel was burned. Axial flow is probably just the most efficient for the applications it's used for. If another type is better for a certain job, they'd use that. Engineers don't arbitrarily choose one or the other, there's always a reason.
Centrifugal compressor engines are successful, and have been used as aircraft turbojets in the past, and are currently very widely used as turboprop. A rotary screw or piston compressor are both quite limited in their capacity, so have to be very large in proportion to their combustor. Plus the turbine spins much faster than either of those two types of compressors. It could be made to work, but would be more complex and much heavier than the axial or centrifugal compressor engines.
A lot of turboprop engines use centrifugal compressors or turbines instead of axial. Screw and piston compressors probably aren't used because they're efficient across a broad range of RPMs instead of super efficient at a specific RPM.
You could even use a diesel engine, instead of a 'conventional' gas turbine HP spool: it's been done. Check out the Napier Nomad engine. In its day, it was probably the most efficient aero engine around - but it was too heavy and too complicated.
To translate anything even Chinese and other symbolic writing open up Google translate on your phone and it will allow you to use the camera to translate in real time.
Delicious DeBlair - Good call, that monocyclic thing. However, the single cycle does have all four of the distinct events - i.e. intake, compression, ignition/expansion, exhaust. That's why calling a two-stroke engine is wrong, wrong, wrong! And yet, oil companies do it all the time. And yes, two-strokes also have all four events, just controlled differently and in fewer strokes than the typical automotive internal combustion engine.
i would love to buy the Sabre jet with jet city on Dad gave me a leather brown motorcycle jacket with AVIATRIX CLASSICS on not sure if related too I would be so proud with this addition on
+AgentJayZ - The closest thing to a detonation in a gas turbine engine is a "compressor stall" or "compressor surge", which, like detonation in a reciprocating engine, is a sudden, explosive event that can cause flame to come out of the inlet and can cause engine damage. I'm sure you know all that, but you didn't state it in the video.
There's a short Boeing training film here on RU-vid wherein it is described as an "explosive" event. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MQWYhsYfMxE.html.
@@AgentJayZ Dear Sir, if I understand this correctly the compressor and the turbo fan are connected with one shaft and they spin at the same speed. Are there any engines made that would use a planetary gear system to change the speed of the compressor to spin faster? Isn't that the whole idea to try to force more air into the combustion chamber? So once the engines up and running you could use a planetary gear system to speed the compressor fan faster then the turbofan. Or is there just not enough power to do such a thing?
Fuel always added after the supercharger. On modern fuel injected engines, That is true as far as I know. Carbureted engines can be done either way though.
I think the closest (but imperfect) reciprocating analogy would be a direct-injection engine, assuming they spray after the compression cycle. My explanation: A typical reciprocating engine can detonate because there’s fuel present at the compression stage. There’s no fuel at the compression stage to detonate in a turbine.
Secret AgentJayZ -- Both my first car and airplane were rotary's You wound that rubber band up until almost breaking point, and wah-la rotary power. I really hope they get that darn Apex Seal issue solved and the need to mix oil with the fuel when injected into the combustion space. I loved revving my 1981 RX-7 up to 9,000 and not have one vibration from the engine. That was as close as i got to what I assume a jet engine powered car would feel like when the turbine was in its operating RPM range.
I’m not a jet tech, but without watching the article, I would hazard a WAEG, (wild ass educated guess), that the airflow thru the engine is faster than the flame front, (propagation speed). Please let me know if I’m correct, JZ.
I'm from India completed bachelor degree in mechanical engineering and I want to do internship at your garage, I really need this experience. Is it possible??
