Has a fixed-wing aircraft ever been conceived, prototyped or built that features multiple turbines powering a single propeller? The concept of a twin-engine aircraft with a single propeller is intriguing to me. Picturing something like a Pilatus PC-12 with two engines under the hood and a single prop might have some advantages. I come from a fixed-wing background and know little about helicopters, but if something exists I suspect it is a rotor wing.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
11
-
8$\begingroup$ Aircraft, yes, as in helicopter. Airplane I'm not so sure. The Osprey can power both propellers with a single engine (the other way around). The only one I know of that actually does this with a PT-6 is the Soloy Dual-Pac $\endgroup$– Ron BeyerCommented Jan 23, 2017 at 2:46
-
1$\begingroup$ Wow I have to look into how the Osprey does that. That's nuts. $\endgroup$– ryan1618Commented Jan 23, 2017 at 2:51
-
1$\begingroup$ The obvious reliability problem with this is "what happens after a single engine shutdown". With a conventional twin aircraft, the answer is "usually, nothing very exciting". At least a helicopter can do an autorotation landing, unlike a plane. If you have to add a lot of complexity (and weight) to handle that scenario, the advantages may evaporate. $\endgroup$– alephzeroCommented Jan 23, 2017 at 5:07
-
1$\begingroup$ There would also be the regulatory issue of whether this counts as "single engine operation over water," which in general is only permitted if the plane can reach land at a location suitable for a forced landing. $\endgroup$– alephzeroCommented Jan 23, 2017 at 5:17
-
4$\begingroup$ Do you mean propeller or rotor? There's a non trivial difference. $\endgroup$– KorvinStarmastCommented Jan 23, 2017 at 23:06
|
Show 6 more comments
9 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
The LearAvia LearFan 2100 used two separate PT-6B to drive a single pusher propeller through a common gearbox.
LearFan 2100 in flight (picture source)
If you want to know why its official first flight date is December 32, 1980, read here.
LearFan 2100 engine arrangement (picture source)
This engine arrangement was the LearFan's eventual undoing when the FAA denied it a proper certification because of concerns that the single gearbox constituted a single point of failure.
answered Jan 23, 2017 at 5:56
-
8$\begingroup$ ... doesn't the propeller also constitute a single point of failure, then? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 8:41
-
9$\begingroup$ @immibis: Haha, good point. Yes, it does, but the FAA had more concerns with the gearbox. Propeller failure outside of ground contact is very rare; gearboxes, however, are a different story, especially when poorly maintained. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 9:22
-
4$\begingroup$ From the source (article in Popular Mechanics) it seems more that with few test flights they had already demonstrated excessive wear on the gearbox. FAA denied certification because they've seen it as signs of imminent failure, the single point made it only slightly worse. $\endgroup$– Agent_LCommented Jan 24, 2017 at 13:54
-
1$\begingroup$
"If you want to know why its official first flight date is December 32, 1980, read here.". "Here"'s link is dead, please fix if possible! $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 14:22 -
2$\begingroup$ @WilliamR.Ebenezer Thanks for letting me know. All I could do was to replace the dead link with another one which hopefully will last longer. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 17:44
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Well multi engine helicopters like the Bell 430 or the Westland EH101 do it all the time.
I don't recall any current production fixed wing aircraft using multiple engines to drive a single propeller, but the ill fated LearAvia LearFan used this propulsion arrangement, using two PT-6 engines to drive a gearbox connected to a pusher prop.
answered Jan 23, 2017 at 2:47
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Yes, see Soloy's Dual-Pac concept.
Image courtesy of Soloy
The Soloy Pathfinder 21 is powered by the Dual Pac PT6D-114A. It is essentially an extended and redesigned Cessna 208 with exactly what you describe: two PT6 engines geared to one prop hub. I understand that the project has not progressed beyond the prototype built.
Image courtesy of Soloy
The Dual-Pac was also tested on a DeHaviland DHC3 Otter platform:
Image courtesy of Soloy
Quoting from the Dual-Pac page:
Soloy Dual Pac – Twin Engine reliability with single propeller symmetry. The Dual-Pac was designed, patented and Certified by Soloy to safely combine the output of two independently operating Pratt Whitney PT6D-114A engines for a single propeller output. The system was developed with extreme redundancy so that single engine operation is not only safe, but able to be done intentionally under certain conditions.
The Ayres LM200 Loadmaster was a similar design concept, though a clean sheet design using a different powerplant and also ultimately unsuccessful for economic reasons.
See also the rotorcraft applications of the P&WC PT6T Twin-Pac, such as those that Carlo Felicione mentions.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
Well, there is the Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba engine.
It powered the Fairey Gannet
It wasn't a true single prop, but rather a contra-rotating prop (which amaze me).
Found a few more, some being single contra-rotating, others......multi-multi-engine?
Aircraft powered by the Allison T40
There is one example of the twin turbine to single shaft Allison T40 powering a single propeller aircraft...the Republic XF-84H
The thing was apparently as loud as the Tu-95, due to having a prop that spun at supersonic speeds on its outer edges. And the prop created a continuous visible shockwave.. Personally, I am not sure if you would classify this as an aircraft, or more of a shock/awe weapon.
-
1$\begingroup$ Well, the shockwave was much more audible than visible. Audible enough that people standing nearby got literally sick. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 11:46
-
1$\begingroup$ @PeterKämpf And strong enough to knock people over if they weren't careful. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 13:31
-
1$\begingroup$ Don't you mean a shockwave / awe weapon? $\endgroup$– VikkiCommented Mar 13, 2019 at 3:01
-
$\begingroup$ Interesting tidbit re T-40 --"The resulting T40 combined two Allison T38-A-1 power sections side-by-side with a common reduction gearbox powering contra-rotating propellers. Similar in layout to the Armstrong Siddeley Double Mamba, the T40 differed in that each engine drove both the forward and the rear propellers, unlike the Double Mamba, where each Mamba power section drove either the front or the rear propeller separately.[1]" Wikipedia on T-40 quoting "Kay, Anthony L. (2007). Turbojet History and Development 1930-1960 vol.2 (1st ed.). Ramsbury: The Crowood Press. ISBN 978-1-86126-939-3." $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 23:06
-
$\begingroup$ It appears that T-40 was always used to power a contrarotating prop system except in the case of the XF-84H which had a single prop. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 23:09
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
A similar concept was adopted on a bomber used by the German Luftwaffe in WWII. The bomber, named Heinkel 177 "Greif" was a four engine but had just two propellers since a pair of engines was mechanically coupled in each of the two nacelles. However coupling mechanically two engines on a single propeller revealed as a source of troubles (e.g. overheating occurred frequently on the rear engines) and the design proved to be unsuccessful. This probably explains why it has not been used any more since then.
-
$\begingroup$ Better use the He-119 - this one had two coupled piston engines driving a single propeller. But not turbines. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2017 at 18:38
-
$\begingroup$ Both examples are about equally good; the Greif satisfies the question twice (once on each wing)-- except for turbine / piston issue. Combine both together in same answer. I'm upvoting because it's interesting even though doesn't fully satisfy the question because not turbine. Also the same configuration was used in the Macchi MC 72 seaplane racer so that could be included as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V24_engine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_M.C.72 $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 19:43
-
$\begingroup$ Oops MC 72's engine was indeed two engines combined into a single shared drive shaft but it drove a pair of counter-rotating props. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2019 at 20:33
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Depending on how strict you are about "single rotor" The AH-64 Apache has 2 engines and one main rotor. From Wikipedia "American four-blade, twin-turboshaft attack helicopter"
-
$\begingroup$ As does the Black Hawk, both using the T-700. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2017 at 23:05
-
1$\begingroup$ And the Russian Ka-50/52...though they have a coaxial rotor setup instead of having a tail rotor. And the Mi-28.....heck....how many military helicopters out there today don't use a dual turbine arrangement.. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2017 at 23:11
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Kamov Ka-26 (1969, 816 built) is powered by two 325 hp (239 kW) Vedeneyev M-14V-26 radial piston engines mounted in off-board nacelles, connected by a transverse shaft which drives the co-axial rotors.
According to Wikipedia, the reciprocating engines, although more responsive than modern turboshafts, are relatively maintenance intensive. The Ka-26 is underpowered with its two radial engines, especially when used in cropdusting role, where excess payload is common. No other helicopter exists in the world that runs at constant 95% engine power for most of its flight regime. This leaves the pilot with little power reserve for emergencies. Due to frequent overloads, the interconnect shaft which joins the two engines is prone to breakage and requires frequent inspection.
NOTE An edit to the question makes this answer nonresponsive.
answered Jan 24, 2017 at 2:47
-
1$\begingroup$ Cut little thing. The wheel pants are a nice touch. I wonder how much of whatever's being crop-dusted the pilot ends up breathing? Wouldn't want to fly in it for anything, but, y'know, cute... $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 12:22
-
$\begingroup$ @BobJarvis with the main rotor downwash pushing the dispensed chemicals away from the craft, I don't think the pilot is hugely exposed. $\endgroup$ Commented May 16, 2019 at 9:55
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
The Fairey Rotodyne probably counts, depending on your definition of "single rotor".
In level flight it was essentially an autogyro, driven by twin turboprops on short wings, deriving a fraction of its lift from these and the rest from the undriven rotor.
To achieve vertical takeoff and landing, the rotors were spun by tip jets, fed from bleed air from the turboprops, augmented by fuel burnt in the tip jets.
Although it seems to have been technically successful both in lifting capability and speed records for rotorcraft, the tip jets made it unacceptably noisy at takeoff and low altitude, precisely where noise was most objectionable.
I wonder if bleed air alone could work nowadays (given higher pressure ratio turbines) to reduce the tip jet noise.
