NationStates Jolt Archive

After several years of research, Relic aerospace scientists announced today that a working Shaftless Jet Turbine suitable for mass production has been made. Named the RelicAeroSpace Gran Fury Imperial, the shaftless, afterburning jet turbine is expected to begin phasing out the RelicAeroSpace Magnum Charger currently used in the Valefor 29a Air Superiority Fighter. This news is expected to have serious repercussions in the international aerospace community, as shaftless jet turbines have many advantages over the current central driveshaft jet turbines, the standard design which all jet engines thusfar have been based on. As project head Jeffrey Corbel puts it; "This is a big jump. The amount of power we see coming out of our Gran Fury Imperial is just the beginning of where we can take this new technology, and by the looks of things this technology will be the next wave in aerospace advancement."

A typical jet turbine has a shaft running down the middle of the engine that spins the blades, this has been the accepted general design since the creation of jet technology. There are, however, efficiency problems associated with such designs, up until now considered neccesary evils. For one thing, the shaft itself took up space in the engine, more specifically in the path of airflow, meaning air was forced to the sides of the engine, against the straight flow created by the spinning blades. The blades also had to be smaller because the shaft took up space, and the blades couldn't touch the sides of the engine, so overall they were getting much less area then they could; And in jet engines, the amount of air moved is what matters. The split airflow also meant that multiple combustion chambers had to be made, making the system even more complex.

Shaftless turbines eliminate all those problems by removing the shaft. Instead of being mounted outward from a spinning rod, the blades are mounted inward from a spinning ring. As a result, the blades are allowed to have the complete flow of air to work with, and all the combustion chambers can be eliminated and simplified into one. The whole system simpler and tougher than shafted turbines, and the power increase is marked.

As Corbel says,"In the same amount of space as the old Magnum Charger engine, which generated 75,000 lbs of thrust, our Gran Fury Imperial can get around 110,000 lbs of thrust. I'm surprised no one else had thought of this..."

Flight tests of the upgraded Valefor 29a Fighters will commence in several weeks. It is unknown whether or not the new engine or its related patents will be sold to the international community.

OOC: Diagram here (http://www.freewebs.com/bluebomber2/temporaryexplanantion.htm). Any questions, comments?

*tag*

i cant believe no one ever though of this

How does the power generated by the turbine get passed down onto the compressors?

Sure it could work for a turbojet but how would you pass power down onto the fan at the front of a turbofan?

ooc: There is a shaft that runs outside of the airflow, coming in contact with the rings that hold the blades along the way. Turbo fans already have a second shaft that leads to the front fan, so this really makes no difference.

It's not a bad idea... you'd just have to have whatever spins the blades on the outside of the engine, thus taking up more space. I also imagine there would be a whole different host of maintenance concerns with having such large rotating rings.

The fact that it provides more power means it can be made smaller to accomplish the same thing or more than a conventional design in the same space. Blades are much tougher than shafted design ones because they can all be a single piece joined in the middle, also replacing one ring is easier than replacing an entire turbine shaft or compressor assembly.

Flight testing will begin soon enough.....

What actually spins the ring, though?

*tag*

i cant believe no one ever though of this

Good, because somebody did think of it--or somthing damn close...Patent Record (http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6397577'.WKU.&OS=PN/6397577&RS=PN/6397577).

Blades are much tougher than shafted design ones because they can all be a single piece joined in the middle, also replacing one ring is easier than replacing an entire turbine shaft or compressor assembly.

Well, since the blades will be meeting in the middle at very different angles (forming a flattened 'X' shape cross-section at the center of the spoked wheel area), there won't be as much benefit as is thought. But the truth is also that individual blades on the old system can be replaced while a damaged ring as you have it might have to be completely removed and replaced. It may be easier to take out the ring but it's still a huge waste of resources and a larger strain on logistics using this method (as your supply chain would need to carry the whole array rather than just a single blade for many problems).

The fans on turbofans are run by the same shaft as the rest of the engine and thus it won't work with turbofans.

An important function of the fan is to aid in compressesion and thus efficiency of the engine.

Autonomous City-states: Refer to new diagram here (http://www.freewebs.com/bluebomber2/temporaryexplanantion.htm), like I said, there is still a shaft, but its kept out of the airflow where it was unneeded.

Western Asia: I'll bet thats not your patent :roll: . I thought of this without seeing anything similar beforehand though, so you can stop whining when I 'steal' extremely obscure technology; you didn't think of it, you have no say in it. But I have to correct you on your second assumption; first of all, they don't form a flattened x shape, they meet in basically a very thin shaft, the most aerodynamic shape possible in this situation. Single damaged blades on old systems can only be replaced half the time, many compressor assemblies are cast as single cone-shaped pieces with blades sticking out, which have to be replaced entirely when damaged. Furthermore, the blades on a shaftless design are several times more durable than conventional ones, because they are supported on both sides(on the ring and in the middle by other blades), making replacement much less common(without knowing the actual numbers, look at it as 1 ring for every 50 flights, compared to 5+ blades, logistically it makes more sense to have 1 big replacement after a long time rather than many smaller ones spread out, because supply lines can be cut)

General Aviation LTD: Alright, I'll admit I just realized I'm getting turbofans and turboprops confused, but a turbo fan is still quite possible, the external driveshaft just needs to reach a point of articulation where it can change angles. Also refer to new diagram here (http://www.freewebs.com/bluebomber2/temporaryexplanantion.htm)

Western Asia: I'll bet thats not your patent :roll: . I never said it was...I was responding to the "why wasn't it thought of before" statement. It took exactly five seconds to google search that result.

I thought of this without seeing anything similar beforehand though, so you can stop whining when I 'steal' extremely obscure technology; you didn't think of it, you have no say in it.

I wasn't "whining"...nor did I say that you stole anything. But engine and fan technology isn't "extremely obscure" it just isn't a popular pastime. I have never claimed it but that doesn't mean that I have no say (and I will now prove that)...but then again I didn't have anything to say to you about your claims on the design.

But I have to correct you on your second assumption;
It's not an assumption...you said it in your initial post, and I quote "As a result, the blades are allowed to have the complete flow of air to work with..." The "complete flow" would indicate that there is 100% airflow use as opposed to the design-with-central-airflow-plate that you're claiming. The diagram posted on your site shows the blades meeting at the center without a central plate. I was not assuming but going from the presented information...that information has now been amended which makes the comment outdated only by the updating.

first of all, they don't form a flattened x shape, they meet in basically a very thin shaft, the most aerodynamic shape possible in this situation. (see the above comment)

I just realized a problem with the design, however, as the lost air space isn't that important anywhere past the first set of blades (seeing as how the entire purpose of the blades before the combustion chamber is to compress the entering air)...which is why turbojet engines look like this:
http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/turbine/images/Jet____1.gif

The shaft gets bigger because it helps compress the air by doing so (using a combination of a smaller volume along with the push force of the fans)...and while it would be nice to increase the air going in, it might seem that such a new fan system would possibly benefit from the presence of a cone in the center (in spite of the costs at the front end). The combustion chamber is happy either way (since an Annular combustion chamber saves some length vs. the multiple and can-annular designs, some on this for the rest of you (http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/turbine/)) but would probably require more fuel or some compression chamber to make up for the loss of pressure/temperature without the compression cone. There might be other benefits that the shaftless design has that negate the use of a compression cone in the compression process but I don't know of them.

Single damaged blades on old systems can only be replaced half the time, many compressor assemblies are cast as single cone-shaped pieces with blades sticking out, which have to be replaced entirely when damaged.

Comparing old systems and cheap designs doesn't seem fair for a new system, vs. comparing the new shaftless to recent and new shaft-inclusive designs...but I'll let that be.

Furthermore, the blades on a shaftless design are several times more durable than conventional ones, because they are supported on both sides(on the ring and in the middle by other blades), making replacement much less common

There's a nonsequitur in there...since having a greater support doesn't necessarily mean protection from bird-strikes, environmental wear and tear, and heat-based degridation of the components...it just means that your outer edges will be stronger...and your inner sides will be weaker for most of the fans involved (since the length decreases in current gas turbine designs, the overall wear and tear by mass is greater on the new design as there are fewer long blades on the shaft-equipped design although it might be similar for the first two blade sets of many).

There might be some improvement in safety for those on the side of the engine if it were to explode but the increased inflexibility of the design might also mean that instead of passing birds (or other objects) through a flexible set of blades the design would force the object to stop or slow, exerting greater force on the entire blade structure vs. if it had just passed through.

Strength=/= durability.

(without knowing the actual numbers, look at it as 1 ring for every 50 flights, compared to 5+ blades, logistically it makes more sense to have 1 big replacement after a long time rather than many smaller ones spread out, because supply lines can be cut)

Well, since you'll have to stock multiple large replacements at every base operating such an aircraft to cover wear and tear as well as emergency replacement needs, you won't be saving any space, weight, or money. Having many light, small (relative) blades in stock as well as a handful of what are basically full engine replacements instead of many large, heavier (relative) rings of blades along with a handful of what are basically full engine replacements will save storage space (available volume of storage facilities), mass (transport costs reduced), and money (material and manufacturing costs of single blades vs. rings).

Personally, I don't see proof of the conceived benefit here. If one blade is damaged you'll need to replace a ring...so instead of having one blade set replaced slowly while allowing each blade to stand as much as that part can you'd be replacing an entire ring (-1) of perfectly good blades whenever a single blade fails.

Supply lines would not be shortened...simplified perhaps...but neither shortened nor lightened.

Perhaps a replacement fan (in a turbofan) vs. a replacement compressor would benefit from the novelty of this design (and that would probably also allow for a turbofan without an articulation system, while retaining the good qualities of the existing compressor system.

If you did install it on a turbofan, you would massivly reduce airflow thus voiding any possible gains.

And the shaft is shaped so it aids in compression. without a shaft you would need higly effective compressors and plenty of them.