Putting Together a Rolls Royce Aircraft Engine

[MikeD]

Not automotive but pretty cool nonetheless....

http://www.enginelabs.com/news/how-a-50 ... e-is-born/

[hoodeng]

Great video Mike. I learn something every time i see manufacturing or precision assembly performed ,video is great but seeing in the flesh is better ,it doesn't matter what it is .
What i learn is jigging ,machine practice ,metrology and why something is made in a defined order ,the part or machine being manufactured is not critical , the information learn't only at the cost of my time is immeasurable.
Who knows , it might be something in the background that twigs my interest ,the layout of a special tool board , an aligning jig set , anything.

When i have a chance to see someone else's machine shop or a manufacturing facility my eyes are on everything ,there may be a better way for me to do what i do.

Remember , "Good advice can be had for free, experience always cost money"

Cheers.

[hoffman900]

A few years old, but gets into the turbine blades: https://youtu.be/aFRdp1Js9Kc

The GE’s are every bit as sophisticated.

[1989TransAm]

When I was in A&P school we had to disassemble a J47 jet engine and then reassemble it and then run it up on the test stand. That was many moons ago.

[MikeD]

That second video is pretty intense also. Makes one appreciate how these things are put together. Lives are at risk....not like you can just pullover and stop if an engine lets go.

[tresi]

That second video is pretty intense also. Makes one appreciate how these things are put together. Lives are at risk....not like you can just pullover and stop if an engine lets go.

You could get stuck up there all night.

[ptuomov]

Not automotive but pretty cool nonetheless....

http://www.enginelabs.com/news/how-a-50 ... e-is-born/

Hypothetically, suppose I’d order 10,000 of those engines today to be delivered starting two years from now. Same functional requirements but they could change the design. How much do you think they’d quote me per engine?

[tresi]

I've worked on smaller turbine engines PT-6 and Allison 250's. It makes me wonder why the turbine wasn't made first. It can argued that it was, the Hero engine. I wouldn't give up all my piston pounder's for kerosene burner's but it was a fun part of my career. Glad I got to do it.

[hoodeng]

The exhaust turbine was tried in WW1 as a gasoline engine turbo charger , the turbine blades melted . It was the advent of improved materials that saw it reliably enter service .
Interesting , Allison turbo charged the V1710 of which the turbo was a sort of self compensating manifold pressure device ,,as atmospheric pressure with altitude gain dropped on the exhaust outlet ,back pressure reduced ,the turbine spun faster keeping the boost similar to sea level [a very loose description].
Whereas Rolls Royce with the 1650 Merlin retained two stage two speed superchargers and gained speed via rear facing exhaust stacks.
The Hero was more of a pure steam propulsion device,although correctly described as a jet. Frank Whittle and Hans Ohain probably made the biggest leaps forward in turbojet development.
The granddaddy of all exhaust turbine boosted and compounded [and complex] engines is the Napier Nomad.

Cheers.

[Belgian1979]

I believe the Germans were the first to build a turbine jet engine for their airplanes. Although it was not widespread since it was towards the end of WWII. Then allies got hold of the plans (among those of the V2's) and futher researched and perfected the design.

I always thought of the Rolls Royce Merlin as a great engine. I didn't quite understand why they had the crank driven supercharger and not a turbo, but as explained above, materials may not have been able to withstand the exhaust heat.

[hoodeng]

Some say Frank in England was first, others, Hans in Germany ,,but what was truly amazing was that both men [and enemies] were developing a technology in parallel with no collusion whatsoever ,both men came up with two different concepts for a similar outcome ,Frank used a radial [centrifugal] flow compressor and Hans used axial flow .
Both designs have their own advantages but the axial by far is the most common in aircraft today.
Rolls Royce considered the rear facing exhaust speed boost better than loss of it with the inclusion of a turbo charger.

Cheers.

[Truckedup]

I always thought of the Rolls Royce Merlin as a great engine. I didn't quite understand why they had the crank driven supercharger and not a turbo, but as explained above, materials may not have been able to withstand the exhaust heat.

It was their known technology. The dual stage supercharger on the Merlin was a fine piece of equipment but did cost 300 hp..The USA used turbo supercharging on all four engine bombers and two front line fighter aircraft....Controlling the boost in constant speed bombers wasn't too difficult, but very difficult in fighters who's engines changed speed and load often...The turbos were used to provide seal level air pressure to to the engine up to about 25,000 feet and a second mechanical supercharger provided necessary boot for power.

[ptuomov]

I always thought of the Rolls Royce Merlin as a great engine. I didn't quite understand why they had the crank driven supercharger and not a turbo, but as explained above, materials may not have been able to withstand the exhaust heat.

It was their known technology. The dual stage supercharger on the Merlin was a fine piece of equipment but did cost 300 hp..The USA used turbo supercharging on all four engine bombers and two front line fighter aircraft....Controlling the boost in constant speed bombers wasn't too difficult, but very difficult in fighters who's engines changed speed and load often...The turbos were used to provide seal level air pressure to to the engine up to about 25,000 feet and a second mechanical supercharger provided necessary boot for power.

Turbo is so obviously superior over belt driven super chargers for aircraft piston engines that it had to be tried and tested versus R&D project. With hindsight, probably the right choice as piston engine aircraft were done a couple years later.

Back in the day, pilots mattered, too. German pilot training and overall skill was from another planet compared to English and American pilots. They flew “high energy tactics” starting the Spanish civil war. Superior planes and superior pilots really showed up in the kill ratios for the first half of the WW2, until American logistics and cost accounting blocked out the sun with allied planes. The US manufactured approximately one hundred thousand airplanes in 1944 alone!

[Schurkey]

The US manufactured approximately one hundred thousand airplanes in 1944 alone!

The forecast for the second half of WWII was "Aluminum overcast"

I was hoping the video would be the assembly of a Merlin or similar. Still fun to watch.

[tresi]

Some say Frank in England was first, others, Hans in Germany ,,but what was truly amazing was that both men [and enemies] were developing a technology in parallel with no collusion whatsoever ,both men came up with two different concepts for a similar outcome ,Frank used a radial [centrifugal] flow compressor and Hans used axial flow .
Both designs have their own advantages but the axial by far is the most common in aircraft today.
Rolls Royce considered the rear facing exhaust speed boost better than loss of it with the inclusion of a turbo charger.

Cheers.

I believe the English invented it 1st but the powers thought it was a waste of time and the idea got pidgeon holed for several years.