Timeline for Do afterburners use excessive amounts of fuel?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2019 at 13:28 | comment | added | pjc50 | @Zeus Concorde did have afterburners and they were required for takeoff and pushing through the Mach barrier, after which they were turned off for supersonic cruise. | |
| Nov 26, 2019 at 8:57 | answer | added | 0scar | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAviation/status/1199025118195924994 | ||
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:33 | comment | added | jwenting | Define "excessive". Excessive assumes the same effect can be attained at a lesser cost, or the effect is unnecessary. Neither is the case with afterburning engines. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 11:09 | answer | added | Robin Bennett | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 0:30 | comment | added | Zeus | @user3528438, er, Concorde flew Mach 2 without afterburner 3 decades ago. Volker is right, the engine could 'simply' be larger. The limiting factor is the turbine temperature, which doesn't allow the mixture to be rich enough and 'simply' pump in more fuel without increasing the air flow (i.e. making the engine larger). | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 0:12 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @user3528438 But an engine could be larger, and even a solid fuel booster rocket would be an alternative, and has actually been used, I think. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 0:08 | comment | added | user3528438 | The reason to use afterburner than other alternatives is alternatives don't exist. You want a fighter to run mach 2 without using afterburner? Are you willing to wait for 3 decades for that? | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 23:32 | history | edited | Volker Siegel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removing assumption of supersonic flight
|
| Nov 24, 2019 at 23:20 | answer | added | John K | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 22:59 | history | asked | Volker Siegel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |