I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
engine this is?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M

Stefan > wrote in news:156cb$4740457b$54487377
:

> I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
> engine this is?
> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>

Yeah, it's the GE unducted fan from the late eighties. The idea was to make
an engine that was more fuel effecient and quiter. AFAIK it was neither.
The props were slightly supersonic and very noisy. A friend of mine saw it
at an airshow around then adn thought it sounded like a Mustang. I think
there was a 727 with a single installation as well, but I can't remember.
It died a death, anyway..




Bertie

On Nov 18, 9:00 am, Stefan > wrote:
> I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
> engine this is?http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M

G.E. Unducted Fan. Bottom line: it worked well but was too noisy. Read
about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE-36

David Johnson

On Nov 18, 9:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Stefan > wrote in news:156cb$4740457b$54487377
> :
>
> > I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
> > engine this is?
> >http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>
> Yeah, it's the GE unducted fan from the late eighties. The idea was to make
> an engine that was more fuel effecient and quiter. AFAIK it was neither.
> The props were slightly supersonic and very noisy. A friend of mine saw it
> at an airshow around then adn thought it sounded like a Mustang. I think
> there was a 727 with a single installation as well, but I can't remember.
> It died a death, anyway..
>
> Bertie

Believe it or not, Snecma is looking at the open rotor design again to
counter Pratt's geared fan (which had its first run last week) to
power the next gen narrowbodies.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>engine this is?
>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M


I read in AW&ST that there is re-interest in UDF technology.

Big John

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>engine this is?
>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M

Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the rate
at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be subjected to
extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be damaged?

Matthew Speed > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>>engine this is?
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>
> Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
> damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the rate
> at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be subjected to
> extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be damaged?
>


Well, the blades go considerably slower than a turbine does!
All the same, they're pretty fast compared to a standard prop.
If a jet engine loses a fan blade it's not a good thing either. You've got
to shut down reasonably quickly. It'd be about the same for this engine, I
would think


Bertie

"Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>>engine this is?
>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>
> Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
> damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the rate
> at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be subjected to
> extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be damaged?

I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get ripped
out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it is good on any
engine!

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>>>engine this is?
>>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>>
>> Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
>> damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the rate
>> at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be subjected to
>> extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be damaged?
>
> I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get
> ripped out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it is
> good on any engine!
>
>
>

It will. one of the guys in my EAA chapter lost a blade on his Tailwind.
The prop was an "experimental" McCauley clip tip prop IIRC. The mounts
broke completely, but the cowling, throttle cable and what not kept the
engine on board. He deadsticked back to the field. The Navy called up
asking f anyone owned the blade later that day. it had landed in
someones back yard just missing the lady of the house as she was hanginr
her laundry!
It's happened many times over the years, in fact. There was one in
england where the engine on a Navajo shed a blade, the engine came off,
and the engine went over the top of the fuselage and took out the second
engine. the guy succesfully deadsticked the airplane into a field..



Bertie


Bertie

One thing that would make me nervous, would be flying an engine like that,
if a blade turned loose for some reason. It would bring uncontained failure
a new meaning.
--
Jim in NC

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>>>>engine this is?
>>>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>>>
>>> Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
>>> damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the rate
>>> at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be subjected to
>>> extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be damaged?
>>
>> I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get
>> ripped out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it is
>> good on any engine!
>>
>>
>>
>
> It will. one of the guys in my EAA chapter lost a blade on his Tailwind.
> The prop was an "experimental" McCauley clip tip prop IIRC. The mounts
> broke completely, but the cowling, throttle cable and what not kept the
> engine on board. He deadsticked back to the field. The Navy called up
> asking f anyone owned the blade later that day. it had landed in
> someones back yard just missing the lady of the house as she was hanginr
> her laundry!
> It's happened many times over the years, in fact. There was one in
> england where the engine on a Navajo shed a blade, the engine came off,
> and the engine went over the top of the fuselage and took out the second
> engine. the guy succesfully deadsticked the airplane into a field..
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>


I was told that if the engine came out that you would probably be so far out
of CG you would crash tail first. So that surprises me that the Navajo made
it down under control.

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Matthew Speed" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:00:26 +0100, Stefan
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind
>>>>>of engine this is?
>>>>>http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>>>>
>>>> Looking at that picture it seems to me that it would much easier to
>>>> damage that engine with the blades exposed like that. Given the
>>>> rate at which turbine engines rotate wouldn't the engine be
>>>> subjected to extreme stresses if one of the blades were to be
>>>> damaged?
>>>
>>> I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get
>>> ripped out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it
>>> is good on any engine!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It will. one of the guys in my EAA chapter lost a blade on his
>> Tailwind. The prop was an "experimental" McCauley clip tip prop IIRC.
>> The mounts broke completely, but the cowling, throttle cable and what
>> not kept the engine on board. He deadsticked back to the field. The
>> Navy called up asking f anyone owned the blade later that day. it had
>> landed in someones back yard just missing the lady of the house as
>> she was hanginr her laundry!
>> It's happened many times over the years, in fact. There was one in
>> england where the engine on a Navajo shed a blade, the engine came
>> off, and the engine went over the top of the fuselage and took out
>> the second engine. the guy succesfully deadsticked the airplane into
>> a field..
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
>
> I was told that if the engine came out that you would probably be so
> far out of CG you would crash tail first. So that surprises me that
> the Navajo made it down under control.
>
>

Well, only one of them came off. the other just quit.
You're right, though .On a single you would have little chance. There
was a Stearman that the engine came off of and they did make it, or so
the story went.
The Navajo wasn't all that long ago. there must be some pics somewhere.


Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Stefan > wrote in news:156cb$4740457b$54487377
> :
>
>> I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
>> engine this is?
>> http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M
>>
>
> Yeah, it's the GE unducted fan from the late eighties. The idea was to make
> an engine that was more fuel effecient and quiter. AFAIK it was neither.
> The props were slightly supersonic and very noisy. A friend of mine saw it
> at an airshow around then adn thought it sounded like a Mustang.

I never got to see (or hear) it, but it was featured prominently on
company calendars when I worked at McDonnell Douglas. That same
airframe, earlier in its life, stars in a piece of video floating around
the web. A hard landing in a flight test caused the entire empennage to
break off. Here's a copy of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUUcxEOniz8

> G.E. Unducted Fan. Bottom line: it worked well but was too noisy. Read
> about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE-36

I seem to remember reading that it was so loud, that the ground crew was
near physical nausea from the level and nature of the sound.
--
Jim in NC

"Dave" > wrote

> G.E. Unducted Fan. Bottom line: it worked well but was too noisy. Read
> about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE-36

As far as the working well, the link you provided said it had very poor
efficiency.
--
Jim in NC

--------much snipped---------
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was told that if the engine came out that you would probably be so
>> far out of CG you would crash tail first. So that surprises me that
>> the Navajo made it down under control.
>>
>>
>
> Well, only one of them came off. the other just quit.
> You're right, though .On a single you would have little chance. There
> was a Stearman that the engine came off of and they did make it, or so
> the story went.
> The Navajo wasn't all that long ago. there must be some pics somewhere.
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>
I heard of a similar and long ago case in which the engine came off of a
"bathtub" Aeronca and the pilot managed to land it safely.

I suppose that the Aeronca would have been the easiest of them, but it's
still high up on the list of places and times that I am glad to have been
absent. I don't even want to think about the other two!

Peter

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> --------much snipped---------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was told that if the engine came out that you would probably be so
>>> far out of CG you would crash tail first. So that surprises me that
>>> the Navajo made it down under control.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, only one of them came off. the other just quit.
>> You're right, though .On a single you would have little chance. There
>> was a Stearman that the engine came off of and they did make it, or
>> so the story went.
>> The Navajo wasn't all that long ago. there must be some pics
>> somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
> I heard of a similar and long ago case in which the engine came off of
> a "bathtub" Aeronca and the pilot managed to land it safely.
>
> I suppose that the Aeronca would have been the easiest of them, but
> it's still high up on the list of places and times that I am glad to
> have been absent. I don't even want to think about the other two!
>

Well, the Aeronca probably floated down like a sycamore leaf!
It's gross was well under 1,000lb IIRC and the wing loading was very
low. They probably weren't under any kind of control to speak of..

Bertie

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>>
> I heard of a similar and long ago case in which the engine came off of a
> "bathtub" Aeronca and the pilot managed to land it safely.
>
> I suppose that the Aeronca would have been the easiest of them, but it's
> still high up on the list of places and times that I am glad to have been
> absent. I don't even want to think about the other two!
>

I remember a story, long ago, I believe in Flying magazine. Where I think a
training flight was involved in a mid-air. IIRC, it was a Cessna that lost a
very large amount of the left wing. I'm thinking to the strut, but maybe
just to the end of the aileron.

At any rate, the instructor immediately dove the aircraft for airspeed and
returned a short distance to the airport maintaining an airspeed of 140
knots plus, and full control deflection, and managed to land the aircraft.

Been a very long time, so I probably have many of the details wrong, but
perhaps someone else will remember as well. Anyone?

"Darkwing" < wrote

> I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get
> ripped out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it is
> good on any engine!

I think it's clear that it does happen, but it is also true that many
engines lose prop blades, and the engine stays with the airplane. I'll bet
many more stay, than depart.
--
Jim in NC

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>> I heard of a similar and long ago case in which the engine came off
>> of a "bathtub" Aeronca and the pilot managed to land it safely.
>>
>> I suppose that the Aeronca would have been the easiest of them, but
>> it's still high up on the list of places and times that I am glad to
>> have been absent. I don't even want to think about the other two!
>>
>
> I remember a story, long ago, I believe in Flying magazine. Where I
> think a training flight was involved in a mid-air. IIRC, it was a
> Cessna that lost a very large amount of the left wing. I'm thinking to
> the strut, but maybe just to the end of the aileron.
>
> At any rate, the instructor immediately dove the aircraft for airspeed
> and returned a short distance to the airport maintaining an airspeed
> of 140 knots plus, and full control deflection, and managed to land
> the aircraft.
>
> Been a very long time, so I probably have many of the details wrong,
> but perhaps someone else will remember as well. Anyone?
>
>
>

Probably happened a few times, but it happened to a guy I used to work for,
in Detroit City. His name was Chuck Weldon and he collided with a police
helicopter over the detroit river while he was on the ILS and in IMC. the
chopper was scud running up the river and it went in killing both cops.
Chuck lost the left wing outside of the left nacelle, the left fin and much
of the left stab. He firewalled the left engine and brought the right one
back and managed to do a skewed sort of approach and crash onto the
airport. they both walked away from it, but were arrested for manslaughter
and it actually went to trial! He got off, obviously ( the way he told it
it was just a rabid reaction by the Detroit Police, which is believable)
and he spent the next six months in court suing them for the loss of his
airplane, which he also won.
While this was going on, two of his other airplanes crashed on the same
night! One in Cleveland and one in Detroit. I think it was the one in
detroit where they accidentally switched off both mags with the crash
switch instead of turning on the heater at rotation. They went through two
houses but survived. The captain even went back to flying again after being
in a coma for six weeks.
They;re gone now, but they were known as Flight Express Cargo Chuck had
been one of the original FedEx pilots way back and had gone off on his own
to make his fortune with Flight Express. I think we had eight accidents,
Three of which were Chucks.
They were all in rhe mid to late 70s for thos morbid sorts that like to
look up stuff in databases.

Bertie
>

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Darkwing" < wrote
>
>> I was always told that the engine on a prop plane would probably get
>> ripped out of the mounts if a prop lost a blade so I don't think it
>> is good on any engine!
>
> I think it's clear that it does happen, but it is also true that many
> engines lose prop blades, and the engine stays with the airplane.
> I'll bet many more stay, than depart.


Not so sure. Most I've heard of either had the engine depart completely or
be left supported by the cowling or plumbing..


Bertie

john smith > wrote in
:

> Look for the Sean Tucker video where he took his niece for a ride in a
> Pitts. The prop separated from the crankshaft and Tucker landed it
> unscathed. The who time he is talking to his niece on the intercom.

that's a different thing altogether, of course.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Not so sure. Most I've heard of either had the engine depart completely or
> be left supported by the cowling or plumbing..

Sure, but you don't hear about the ones that turn out with no problems. If
they don't injure anyone severely, and don't tear up the equipment too
badly, they don't even end up with a report in the NTSB database, or calling
out the FAA.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Not so sure. Most I've heard of either had the engine depart
>> completely or be left supported by the cowling or plumbing..
>
> Sure, but you don't hear about the ones that turn out with no
> problems.

Yeah, yah do. I've heard of quite a few where the prop was shed
altogether,for instance. And it is always a problem if you shed a prop
blade.

If they don't injure anyone severely, and don't tear up the
> equipment too badly, they don't even end up with a report in the NTSB
> database, or calling out the FAA.

I wasn't referring to any database except my own. I've never heard of a
blade loss thiat didn;t result in sever damage to the airplane.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> john smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Look for the Sean Tucker video where he took his niece for a ride in a
>> Pitts. The prop separated from the crankshaft and Tucker landed it
>> unscathed. The who time he is talking to his niece on the intercom.
>
> that's a different thing altogether, of course.

A few years back, a 75 hr. brand-new PPL lost a prop, while flying a
Warrior near my home. The prop was found about 5 miles from the
airplane. Unfortunately, it happened at night, and he hit a house,
killing both occupants of the airplane.

From what I read in the investigation, the plane flew just fine without
a prop. The pilot made several turns during the controlled descent, and
received assistance from approach and other aircraft. As I remember,
the NTSB stated the oil coated windshield and night conditions as factors.

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> john smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Look for the Sean Tucker video where he took his niece for a ride in
>>> a Pitts. The prop separated from the crankshaft and Tucker landed it
>>> unscathed. The who time he is talking to his niece on the intercom.
>>
>> that's a different thing altogether, of course.
>
> A few years back, a 75 hr. brand-new PPL lost a prop, while flying a
> Warrior near my home. The prop was found about 5 miles from the
> airplane. Unfortunately, it happened at night, and he hit a house,
> killing both occupants of the airplane.
>
> From what I read in the investigation, the plane flew just fine
> without
> a prop.


It would do. Better than it would if the engine had just quit.
A fellow named Norris was flying a Cessna 150 without a prop a few years
back to try and get some definitive LD figures for CAFE.

The point was, if you lose a blade, the engine will almost certainly
come off it's mounts and may leave the airplane if there isn't something
else preventing that.

The pilot made several turns during the controlled descent,
> and received assistance from approach and other aircraft. As I
> remember, the NTSB stated the oil coated windshield and night
> conditions as factors.
>

Wel, your chances of putting down at night aren't too good, really.

They used to say "point your nose straight down and turn your landing
light on, if you don;t like what you see, turn your landing light off"



Bertie

There are just not that many places in the US where you can, with a
night time engine failure, just establish a glide and walk way from
the landing. The Great Planes of the US might offer the best chances,
but othewise if it's nightime, your chances are slim. It's a good
thing engines are pretty reliable.

Bertie, if you point the nose straight down (did your instructor hate
you?) don't bother turning on the landing light. At least you'll
confine the litter to a small area!

Tina > wrote in news:96bf29ac-d301-4c40-bfe5-
:

> Bertie, if you point the nose straight down (did your instructor hate
> you?) don't bother turning on the landing light. At least you'll
> confine the litter to a small area!
>
>



My instructors didn't tell me that, it's just a joke! Mind you there's many
a night flight I thought about it.


there was a BAC 1-11 that ran out of gas at night in bad Wx in Africa,
about 1988, I think. they deadsticked blind into the desert and even though
it wasn;t pretty , most walked away from it. I think it was Okada airlines,
which is probably the worst airline that has ever existed in this or any
other universe at any other time in the past present or future, but it
really wasn't the crew's fault they ran out of diesel.

Now, that should set the trap nicely.

Bertie

"B A R R Y"wrote..
>
> A few years back, a 75 hr. brand-new PPL lost a prop, while flying a
> Warrior near my home. The prop was found about 5 miles from the airplane.

So this plane apparently lost the complete propeller? Then it should be able
to glide just fine, as it did.

Anyone with a guesstimate on the number of this kind of propeller failure
vs. the kind where it loses one blade and consequently shakes the engine off
its mount?

Tina wrote:
> There are just not that many places in the US where you can, with a
> night time engine failure, just establish a glide and walk way from
> the landing.

This guy almost made a field and a small airport after ATC vectors.

Snowbird wrote:
> "B A R R Y"wrote..
>> A few years back, a 75 hr. brand-new PPL lost a prop, while flying a
>> Warrior near my home. The prop was found about 5 miles from the airplane.
>
> So this plane apparently lost the complete propeller? Then it should be able
> to glide just fine, as it did.

Yup. Overtorqued and broken bolts. The plane was a rental.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Snowbird wrote:
>> "B A R R Y"wrote..
>>> A few years back, a 75 hr. brand-new PPL lost a prop, while flying a
>>> Warrior near my home. The prop was found about 5 miles from the
>>> airplane.
>>
>> So this plane apparently lost the complete propeller? Then it should be
>> able to glide just fine, as it did.
>
> Yup. Overtorqued and broken bolts. The plane was a rental.


Oh you mean Coast Guard tight! Strip it and then back it off a 1/4 turn!

On Nov 18, 7:00 am, Stefan > wrote:
> I've just stumbled over this picture. Does anybody know what kind of
> engine this is?http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0537804&size=M

This was the engine that was going to be used on the 7J7 by Boeing.
The 7J7 was a developmental program for an airplane about the size of
a 727 that would have become the 777, but was canceled. Boeing later
started the 767-X program with a much larger airplane than the 7J7
that eventually became the 777 that is currently in production.

Dean

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:01:55 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> > wrote:
>
>>--------much snipped---------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was told that if the engine came out that you would probably be
>>>> so far out of CG you would crash tail first. So that surprises me
>>>> that the Navajo made it down under control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, only one of them came off. the other just quit.
>>> You're right, though .On a single you would have little chance.
>>> There was a Stearman that the engine came off of and they did make
>>> it, or so the story went.
>>> The Navajo wasn't all that long ago. there must be some pics
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>I heard of a similar and long ago case in which the engine came off of
>>a "bathtub" Aeronca and the pilot managed to land it safely.
>>
>>I suppose that the Aeronca would have been the easiest of them, but
>>it's still high up on the list of places and times that I am glad to
>>have been absent. I don't even want to think about the other two!
>
> There was a Vari-Eze that lost it's engine on takeoff about 10 years
> ago. He landed straight ahead. He said he had no idea from the
> handling that he'd physically lost the engine till he got out of the
> airplane.
>
> OTOH, there was Cherokee 140 that had it's cowling open on final. AC
> shifted way forward, he departed and spun in.

I doubt very much that was a CG issue. I'd say it was more a case of him
losing the plot because he was startled. That's happened to lots of
people over the years and they've landed noramlly, if a little rattled.


> Forward CG is easier to handle than aft.

True enough

Bertie

"Richard Riley" > wrote

> Nope. It says "Although, by virtue of its low Specific Thrust, the
> engine demonstrated an extremely low specific fuel consumption"

I guess I misread that.
--
Jim in NC