Thanks for that Robert. We’ll take extra care when putting it back in.
Something I forgot in my original post:
A broom handle is handy for ‘adjusting’ the chipper when in place. Push it through the intake into the chipper and lever it carefully until it fits correctly.
Cheers
Rob
Take great care when you fit the chipper back in (duct, vane assembly on the front of the RAT).
Fit the clamp snug, but not tight. Line the chipper up in the scoop and close slowly by hand to ensure that it lines up correctly. Tighten the clamp and check again by hand. The hydraulics are more than capable of wrecking the chipper. It’s not a thing you should rush.
The photo’s brought back some memories though.
Cheers,
Rob
If you could post a picture or give me some sizes I’ll see what I have left.
Do you have an address, e-mail or whatever?
I’ll give them a go.
Cheers,
Rob
I notice how you are unable to show how where I am ill-informed…
I just have to read the majority of your posts to see that everyone is ill-informed but you. You state it not me, even though you have no personal experience with tanking operations, something else you have stated. You have also mentioned that you get some of your info from third parties even tanker commanders. That makes it secondhand information subject to interpretation errors.
It always amazes me how everyone is so ill-informed but you.
Look, it’s pretty clear of what am I talking about.
If you have anything to say, then say it.
If not, skip my posting altogether.
That’s the problem.
What you have to say isn’t clear, in fact it’s very muddled.
If you wish to explain something in simple terms to a layman without using ‘dry knowledge’, then you have to understand the subject yourself.
You don’t.
I can’t put that any simpler.
I use mineral hydraulic oil (OM15/DTD585) for easing things. Will give the ATF a try though as it has a high dopes content. ATF is also good for flushing piston engines out. Add a small amount to the engine oil (1/2-1 ltr) run it up to a good temperature, then drain.
Cola, reference post 15. No we are not on the same page.
Go and read some more and try and get your head around the basics.
It’s not rocket science you know.
The problem you (and others) have, is in perception of the engine.
The engine isn’t a core with “glued” bypass as many of you apparently think, but is a profile (a bore) of which some percentage of airflow goes through a core and some through bypass.
Take a look at J79 and F100 engined F16 and comparative top speeds, which is a subject here for those who missed it.
I’ve noticed this kinda thing many times over, but I can understand that since you look at the engines linearly and in your book the turbofan is a turbojet with bypass, which it isn’t.
Ramjet is a turbojet without a “turbo” part, though.
I bet you’ll ask me why now, won’t you? 😀
Whilst the F100 is a bypass (fan) engine, the J79 is a turbojet. The reason for using a fan engine for a fighter is that it gives you a better sfc (and less thrust) than a comparable turbojet and still a higher thrust when reheat is applied. Because the air is cooler in a fan engine the percentage of thrust increase with reheat is far higher before it encounters buzz or thermal limitations. There are however difficulties with mixing the air in the reheat pipe
Bypass air does not cool the turbine. If you look closely at the sectioned drawing you’ll see it does not come into contact with the turbine otherwise it wouldn’t be a bypass engine, it would be a twin spool. Compressor air is used (in general high stage)to cool the turbine, even Avons had that so it’s not just bypass engines.
I find it interesting that you quote MigL as being unknowledgeable about gas turbines. He might not use all the correct terms, but what he says is essentially correct. Perhaps you should read a few books again, or listen to someone who actually knows haw a gas turbine works.
Sens.
To explain how a gas turbine works does require more than three lines on a forum.
However to reply to your post on the matter.
1. The primary, secondary and tertiary cycle you allude to is actually the qay the air is split up in the combustion chamber. Primary air (around 18%) is used for combustion, Secondary air shapes the flame and adds where needed more oxygen for the burn. Tertiary air cools the combustion chamber.
2. Indeed the task of the inlet is to deliver stable, subsonic (about 0.4 Mn) air to the engine with the minimum of losses.
3. The simple equation for thrust is T= M (V2-V1) or mass flow of air times the delta V of forward speed to jet efflux.
4. Higher pressure ratios give a better thermal efficiency (amount of heat turned into kinetic energy)
5 whilst everyone knows by now, intakes are incredibly important in the higher mach registers (Concorde and the SR71 being the most quoted examples) the improvement in compressor technology means you can achieve far higher PR’s with less stages. The fewer number of stages the less the losses through it.
Doing such a strong claim like “and most is factually wrong” has to be bolstered by two examples at least. Otherwise such a claim is **** to stay polite.
Actually I could also stamp all over Cola’s explanation with very little effort.
Turbofans (bypass engines) were originally conceived to ensure that more of the total compressor section could run at optimum speed within the stall/surge margin. As has rightly been pointed out the OPR is the total pressure differen between the beginning of the compressor and the diffuser (the bit between the compressor and the combustion section). A higher rpm doesn’t neccessarily convert to a higher thrust, that is dependant on the choking of the thrust nozzle and a whole raft of other factors. Further, theoretically, the lower the velocity difference between the intake and the thrust nozzle the less thrust loss there is. The reality does deviate from this though.
Just like Tintagel only with a happier (for the a/c) ending.
Looking at the bolts I would say it’s of British origine. They look very AGS to me.
I have a Dutch neighbour who speaks both French and English in a manner that puts me to shame. I cannot recall anyone in the UK, when I lived there, of whom I could speak in similar fashion!
I have loads of Dutch neighbours, a few German, a couple of Brits, Turks, Marrroccan the list goes on.
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/nederlandse-boeken/we-always-get-our-sin-too/1001004006216044/index.html#product_images
The sequel.
These books were written by a Dutchman who used to collect all these snippets on his travels. They are in general, not made up.