10
$\begingroup$

It is seen that EGT are of the order of 600°C (What is a normal EGT range of a jet engine?) for aviation turbines and nearly the same for stationary turbines. Why can't high temperature exhaust gases are further harnessed like adding another stage in turbine section that extracts more energy?

In aviation turbines can't we just add another turbine stage like another low-pressure turbine mounted on another spool? For land-based gas turbines we can somewhat utilize these high temperature exhaust gases in Combined cycle but what about aviation engines?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Aviation! A general rule about aviation questions: Almost any question you ask starting with "Why can't..." will be answered with "Well, you can but it isn't done because...". Your best bet is to just ask "Why isn't..." or "Why don't we..." $\endgroup$
    – FreeMan
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 12:48

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14
$\begingroup$

It can be done, but the better specific fuel consumption does not compensate for the extra weight. We all know that aero engines have to be as light as possible. In land, stationary installations, where weight matters but little, regeneration, intercooling, and even combined-cycle (in electricity generation, using a gas turbine that drives an alternator, but with the exhaust gases generating steam for a steam turboalternator, for example...). The efficiency is very, very high, but the weight and bulk are considerable, too...

But it has been tried: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/allison-t78-2-turboprop-engine

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%201880.html

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ airandspace.si.edu article reads The basic principle of regeneration involved reclamation of turbine exhaust heat to increase the temperature of compressor discharge air, thus reducing the amount of fuel required for the most efficient engine operating temperature. — that's a different thing entirely $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ymb Different to what...? Part of the thermal energy of the exhaust gases is recovered and used to improve the sfc... It answers the question 'Why can't we extract more from exhaust gases in gas turbines?'... Of course we can, and there are engines where it's done... $\endgroup$
    – xxavier
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OP wants more turbines to absorb all the energy in the stream. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From Flying, June 1962 books.google.es/… $\endgroup$
    – xxavier
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 12:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another scheme, from 'Flight': [img]i.imgur.com/txT9gig.jpg[/img] $\endgroup$
    – xxavier
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 13:05
6
$\begingroup$

enter image description here
(Source)

Can't we just add another turbine stage?

In a turbojet, slowing down the exhaust (by adding more turbine stages) defeats the purpose of a jet engine.

And if you mean to use all the core's energy to run the fan in a turbofan, the outer bypass flow will diverge into the now low-pressure zone, causing drag, and might even cause flow reversal, i.e., air will be ingested from the back—causing a surge.

Also—at max power—a fan in a turbofan already runs at its most efficient speed, any faster and the gains will turn into losses.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure removing heat (the question) is equivalent to removing pressure (your key point). Do you have any reference to support your answer and provide a value for the lowest valid turbine outlet pressure to prevent a surge? $\endgroup$
    – mins
    Commented Apr 21, 2017 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ Enlarging the turbine would obviously be coupled with enlarging the fan and increasing the bypass ratio. The bypass ratio recently increased from 5–6 to 10–11. So what is the limiting factor for the bypass ratio? $\endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    Commented Apr 23, 2017 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Hi @JanHudec - If the aim is to accelerate more air, then more fuel will be added, whether it's to a larger engine or same engine with tougher materials. OP doesn't want that. On a related point, note the CFM56 variants, the higher the bypass for the same core, the lower the thrust. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Commented Apr 24, 2017 at 4:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .