You are on page 1of 8

3 spool

OK, so after a harrowing self teach on 3 spool engines I think I


have made a breakthrough.
Can someone confirm 2 things for me please?
1. Fan, IP compressor and HP compressor all powered by there own
turbine. Each is connected by its own shaft (therefore 3) and these
shafts sit inside one another?
2. An advantage of a 3 spool engine is that only one spool needs to
be spun by the starter. Question is which spool? I think it would be
the HP spool as it appears the smallest with probably the least
inertia.
Who would have thought I have an interview coming up!!?
Cheers all
WC
18th July 2007, 00:12

exeng

#2

Wheezy,

Mistrust in Management
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 461

Correct on both one and 2. However the fact that the


starter drives the lower inertia H.P. spool is an additional
benefit, but the main benefit is that each compressor spool
is better matched to the airflow so in theory there are
increased stall/surge margins over a twin spool engine.
Surge margins at different power settings are however
maintained by the use of engine bleeds and variable intake
guide vanes on both twin and triple spool engines.
A couple of disadvantages of triple spool engines (in
theory at least) are increase in weight, increased
complexity and therefore higher lifetime maintenance
costs.
Regards
Exeng

Yesterday, 11:15

#15

NutLoose

N1, N2 and N3 are the spools....... LP, IP and HP stages

Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I


should click here and order a
Personal Title

If you look at the other post above

Join Date: Feb 2006


Location: UK
Posts: 324

3 sections mean each section works closer to its optimum


N1 100% = 3900rpm
N2 100% = 7000rpm
N3 100% = 10611rpm
The RPM's are to do with speeds of the stages, the
optimum speed where a blade is most efficent is near the
speed of sound tip wise, so if you have a big blade such as
on a RB211 it will be running near the speed of sound and
if it just had one compressor, the smaller blades rearwards
at the compressor will not be running as near efficent,
having 3 separate stages the RPM's can vary and allow
each spool to run more efficently..... in an ideal world you
would run every stage independant, but the weight gain
would negate this.....
Incidentally on the RB199, the 2nd spool If memory serves
me correctly runs in the opposite direction to reduce the
forces of having all three compressors rotating in the same
direction.

3rd July 2007, 03:23

sudden Winds
Instead of being 'just another
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 128

#10

John Citizen
And what if youre a FO who happens to BE an instructor
and see the captain doing stupid things ?
Ive seen all kinds of stupidities and I have never said
anything unless safety was compromised or headed in that
direction. Ive seen captains forgetting to retract the speed
brake and the throttles accelerating and wondering what
the heck was going on, I ve seen people who dont like to
study and tell you to do things contrary to whats
written...nice to see their faces when you pull the book out
of your case and show them that theyve been screwing up
for a while, and worse, telling others to follow their not
recommended techniques.
LEM, the pilot flying next to you is not your copilot,
he/she is one more pilot that happens to have been hired
after you were, and if hes not undergoing instruction (and
youre not an instructor, which its obvious youre not)
make sure you intervine in his flight only when safety is an
issue, unless you want everyone to wish they could just
call in sick everytime they have to fly with you.

SW.

Chuffer Chadley
Over 150 posts! About time I
clicked here and ordered a
Personal Title.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 211

Quote:

Y
When my F/O questions my authority
our authority to do what?
Disregard the SOPs?
Get the operation into a potentially embarrassing (or
indefensible at an inquiry) situation?
Put the aircraft in danger?
Part of the job of the FO is to watch the Captain's blind
spots. Second pair of eyes and all that. One of the more
difficult duties is to occasionally rein him in when he starts
misbehaving. And yes, some Captains do.
Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to deviate from
the SOPs from time to time. However, I know that there are
some less responsible Capts who do so to show off, prove a
point, or just do it because they can. This can quickly
distract the FO, make his life difficult, and prevent him
effectively functioning as a useful part of the crew.
People will ask, airbus-commander, if you're ex-military. In
fact, with the attitude that seems to be on show here, I
strongly suspect you're not.
All the best.
CC

ChristiaanJ
Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I
should click here and order a
Personal Title

Quote:

Join Date: Jan 2005


Location: France
Posts: 311

ay for your own coffee, you sponger.


And of course you know who invented copper wire? Two
Dutchmen pulling on a cent.

True story. I was one of them.

Yesterday, 16:55

randomair
Instead of being 'just another
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Age: 21
Posts: 67

#5

Couldn't of asked for a better reply....well theres one stupid


thing already that a captain (i assume) has done.
"Your job (especially at the ripe age of 21) is to sit there,
shut up"
"You have no basis yet on which to make judgements of
people"
Dont really need to reply to that comment...but i will.
Although i have youth on my side being 21 i still have 3
years commercial jet experiance with 2 jet types and 5
years total flying. I'm fully aware this is not 30 years flying
experience, but it still gives me the grounding to be able to
identify good/efficient ways to operate an aircraft and not
such good examples.
You should appriciate that not every co-pilot flys for a
large airline, where the captains that you fly with have a
wealth of experience. Like yourself!
In my previous airline, if i stayed there i would be
undertaking command training as we speak on a jet
aircraft. So would it be my job to sit there and shut up???
And just because I would be a captain..does that mean i
wouldn't do silly things?
"adapt to different techniques"
This is exactly the reason why this topic is valid. Being a
co-pilot we continually have to vary the way we operate in
order to fit round the captains masterplan. It is these
different techniques that that we have to operate around,
that we can find questionable methods....Not necessarily
wrong but sometimes silly...and we can talk about them on
this forum...to the benefit of everyone.
"A few hundred hours do not make you an ace"
True.....neither does 2300hours with 2100 jet...which i
have.
Thought i just finish my post with an immature twist...just
like yours.

randomair

randomair
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by randomair
26th June 2007, 17:44

singleseater
Instead of being 'just another
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 37

#5

Obviously then it is complicated by the energy absorbtion


of the undercarraige, the pressure of the tyres etc. But as a
guide, in the 777, 600 ft/min is roughly equiv to 1.8g ( it
gets its knickers in a knot at 1.98 g hard landing warning
depending on what sort of a day it's having)

27th June 2007, 17:53

IGh
Instead of being 'just another
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 7

#9
FDR "G" versus IRU's "h-dot"

Question posed in top slot, by T-linton:


converting vertical speed to an impact g load?
Theres a FSF article that mentions this subject, LOAD vs
rate of descent:
From Stabilized Approach Avoiding Hard Landings,
http://www.flightsafety.org/pubs/fsd_2004.html
_Flight Safety Digest_, Vol 23, No. 8, August 2004; page
3:
The load placed on the landing gear increases as the
square of any increase in the vertical rate of descent. For
example, a 20 percent increase in vertical rate of descent
increases the landing load factor by 44 percent (1.2
square = 1.44). [Cites source as _Handbook for Naval
Aviators_.]
FDR Gs trace were used by airlines, but most test
engineers ignore that FDR G-parameter, and also ignore
the Pitot-Static parameters during flare in ground-effect.
[This Flight Test discipline seems apparent in the NTSBs
AAR on the MD80 test accident at Edwards (see below),
where their AAR states the h-dot (fps) from the flight
test INS, but never mentions the FDR G-data for that hard
landing accident.]

The h-dot was the preferred parameter during flight test;


but that item is mostly not available to current airline FDM
analysts [perhaps IRU h-dot should be recorded on the
DFDR]. During testing, the h-dot (from a test-INS or
-IRU or an earlier test-RA) parameter is instrumented and
recorded on the flight test data system. This h-dot
parameter was regarded as a more useful tool (much better
than the Gs) for analysis of flare and touchdown.
During flight test the harder landings were often targeted
for 10fps touchdown that sort of touchdown feels like a
hard landing to most airline guys (headsets fly-off at
impact).
An example (hard landing) that you can view on the web,
is the MD-80 flight test accident at Edwards [DC-9 Super
80 N980DC #1 test ship / 2May80]:
"... Douglas Flight test engineers were anticipating a
touchdown sink rate of about 8 fps. Design limit ...
10fps ... Test data showed that the aircraft actually touched
down at ... 16 fps." [AW112:24-5 My 12 '80]
From the NTSBs AAR 82-2:
at about 55 feet, the pilot "perceived" a slight increase
in the descent rate he reduced the thrust to idle at about
37 feet and that he began his landing flare at about 20 feet.
Based on his previous practice on this maneuver, the pilot
said that the flare required definite "...back elevator ...
maybe half the available travel" of the control column.
However, because he still "...had a perception of a slightly
higher sink speed," he applied more back elevator force on
the control column. The aircraft landed very hard, and as a
result, the nose fell through and the nose wheel tires blew
out. The pilot applied reverse thrust and wheel brakes,
stopped the aircraft, and then shut the engines down and
secured the aircraft. After he left the aircraft, the pilot saw
that the empennage had separated and was lying on the
runway. [AAR pg 2]
a flight test engineer, broke his left ankle when the
aircraft touched down.
The empennage separated from the aircraft at fuselage
station (FS) 1429, fell to the runway, and came to rest 18
feet right of the runway centerline and about 3,690 feet
beyond the landing threshold of the runway. The vertical
stabilizer and elevator were damaged when they struck the

runway.
The top and side of the fuselage between FS 520 and FS
540 were buckled substantially, and various other locations
on the fuselage sustained compression type buckling
damage. Similar 'damage, but to a lesser degree, occurred
at FS 1183 over the right cargo door and in the backup
structure of the nose gear. [AAR pg 6.]
From Analysis section, pg11 bottom, regarding the pilots
erroneous Pitot-Static instruments:
Because of the change in the position errors of the
airspeed and vertical velocity indicators as the aircraft
descended into ground effect, the pilot said these
instruments could not be relied upon for precise guidance
during the last 50 feet of the approach.
From AAR pg 13 top:
Based on INS vertical speed data, at main gear
touchdown, the sink rate was about 16.2 fps. The main
gear became airborne about 0.5 seconds after touchdown;
0.2 seconds later the nose gear touched down, and 0.4
seconds after the nose gear touched down the main gear
touched down again. The sink rate at touchdown exceeded
the aircraft's ultimate vertical speed limitation for landing
(12.25 fps) and initiated failures at the fuselage locations
described in this report.
= = = // = = = =
Heres a famous hard landing mishap (fatal), where the
CAB offered the old-fashioned G-trace data at touchdown.
In those days, the FDR was merely five fingers playing
etch-a-sketch on a roll of tin-foil. So the human analyst
reading the G-sketch could employ any sample-rate, or
sample-extremes of the G-trace yielding humaninvestigator induced bias into the AARs stated G- data.
From CABs AAR SA-388,
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
BOEING 727, N7030U
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
November 11, 1965
From AAR pg 6, Section 1.11, Flight Recorder
A stabilized approach speed of 123 knots was reached
at 7,800 feet with slightly less than two minutes to impact.
During the last 1-1/2 minutes of the approach the rate of
descent exceeded 2,000 feet per minute and averaged in

excess of 2,300 feet pet minute in the last minute. At initial


impact a vertical acceleration of +4.7-g occurred, and the
other three parameters apparently did not scribe for a sixsecond time period. Although the acceleration peaks
during the next several seconds reached total amplitudes of
-1 to +6s some aberrations did occur.
From AAR pg 7, footnote #6:
6 / The B-727 landing gear is stressed to withstand an
impact velocity of approximately 12.5 feet per second.
LoadMan
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by LoadMan

Pontius's Copilot
Instead of being 'just another
number' I could order a Personal
Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Up North UK
Posts: 33

Experimentation? ...
700fpm arrival on a concrete surface equates to 2.1g in a
certain long thin canadian twin turboprop. According to its
Flight Data Monitoring equipment. Allegedly.
...

!!

You might also like