Water tank in tail for afterburner of F105?
Jeremy Thomson
voice over explains is the 'Water tank for the afterburner'.
I've heard of water injection in turbojets & turbofans in the
cumbustor section.
I believe its used on the B52 & the Harrier, probably a bunch of other
aircraft too.
Havent heard of water injection used in the afterburner before.
I suppose it has much the same effect as injecting into the burners,
increases the mass flow, decreases temperature.
Did the video get it right, is there a water tank for the afterburner
on the Thunderchief?
Is this used on other aircraft, most likely types with the same engine
I guess.
Jeremy Thomson
B2431
most narrators in this sort of thing are hired for their voices not for their
knowledge.
My favorite over used piece of film is the B-24 with the flaming wing root that
snaps off. I have seen it used in many documentaries. I wonder where it
actually happened and how many, if any, successfully got out of that airplane.
Fox television isn't any better. According to a "War Stories" preview MOST 8th
AF aircrews never came back.
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
Longtailedlizard
>that
>snaps off. I have seen it used in many documentaries. I wonder where it
>actually happened and how many, if any, successfully got out of that
>airplane.
Dan,
The other one I often wonder about and see alot, it's gun camera footage from
a enemy fighter, its really close behind a B-17, being so close, and no
response (doesn't look like anyone firing back), he just picks apart the B-17.
I can only guess that the gunners are dead.
Ed Rasimus
The Pratt & Whitney J-75-P-19W powered the D and F(G) models of the
F-105. The "W" means that the engine had water injection. The water
was supplied from a 36 gallon tank and was controlled by a toggle
switch activated by the pilot (F/C/P only). Water was injected through
a spray ring located in the engine air inlet forward of the first
compressor stage.
Water injection added 2000 pounds thrust to the engine output, raising
it from 24,500 pounds to 26,500. It could only used when in
afterburner and only during takeoff roll, since the water tank was not
stressed for flight loads with water remaining on board. An
interconnect automatically dumped the water when cockpit
pressurization was selected.
Since the water could only be used during A/B operation it would be
easy to see how the video could state it was "for the afterburner."
Water injection was used on all combat loaded (max gross takeoff
weight) missions. Observers can see the effect of water during A/B
light--with only A/B, the tail flame looks whitish, when water
injection is selected, the A/B turns a more yellow color.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** Available at Amazon.com
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038
Ron
>it from 24,500 pounds to 26,500. It could only used when in
>afterburner and only during takeoff roll, since the water tank was not
>stressed for flight loads with water remaining on board. An
>interconnect automatically dumped the water when cockpit
>pressurization was selected.
>
>Since the water could only be used during A/B operation it would be
>easy to see how the video could state it was "for the afterburner."
>
>Water injection was used on all combat loaded (max gross takeoff
>weight) missions. Observers can see the effect of water during A/B
>light--with only A/B, the tail flame looks whitish, when water
>injection is selected, the A/B turns a more yellow color.
I did hear a story from a retired F-4/F-15 pilot about a F105, that had the
water tank filled with jet fuel instead. 105s were pretty scarce at that point
and the airman has never really even seen one before. He just thought that
tank was for fuel, haveing not even know what water injection was.
The airplane broke apart in half when the "water" injection was started.
Well at least that the story I he told me. Can anyone verify it? Military gets
its share of urban legends and tall tales too
Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance
Ed Rasimus
>I did hear a story from a retired F-4/F-15 pilot about a F105, that had the
>water tank filled with jet fuel instead. 105s were pretty scarce at that point
>and the airman has never really even seen one before. He just thought that
>tank was for fuel, haveing not even know what water injection was.
>
>The airplane broke apart in half when the "water" injection was started.
>
>Well at least that the story I he told me. Can anyone verify it? Military gets
>its share of urban legends and tall tales too
>
Very unlikely. The 105, like most jets, was "single point"
refueled--that's the big, high pressure nozzle that attaches to the
underside of the airplane and pumps fuel to all installed tanks.
There's no refueling tank-by-tank with a gas station style squeeze
nozzle.
The water injection required "de-ionized" water that was pumped from a
clearly marked and distinctive tank into its own clearly marked inlet.
Consider the scenario--how does this airman who "has never really even
seen one before" get on the flight line, unsupervised and make this
kind of error. Unlikely.
And, assuming he did, then what you have is JP-4 being blown into the
inlet air for compression until it is mixed with air and more JP-4, in
exactly the place where combustion is supposed to take place. Hardly a
recipe for structural failure.
Maybe let's change it to the airman filled the fuel tanks with LOX,
then when the pilot lit his last pre-flight cigarette....nahh, too
unlikely as well.
Dale
longtail...@aol.com (Longtailedlizard) wrote:
> Dan,
> The other one I often wonder about and see alot, it's gun camera footage
> from
> a enemy fighter, its really close behind a B-17, being so close, and no
> response (doesn't look like anyone firing back), he just picks apart the
> B-17.
> I can only guess that the gunners are dead.
Is this the one where you see hits on the fuselage then he works the hits out to
the left wing? If so it was taken from an Me-110 and if you look close you'll
notice the guns on the ball turret of the B-17 are pointed straight down...the
position used to enter/exit the ball.
--
Dale L. Falk
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
Chris Mark
>'Great Planes" has made a few errors. Most are in terminology. Bear in mind
>most narrators in this sort of thing are hired for their voices not for their
>knowledge.
>
True, but let's remember the narrators are reading from a script. Blame the
author of the script for errors, not the narrator.
I don't watch many of these TV "histories" because they seem so disjointed and
unfocused. Recently I did see one advertised as a history of ball turret
gunners. That sounded quite focused and so I tuned it in. The first few
minutes were pretty good, with interviews with a couple of ball turret gunners
and films of the training schools. But it seems after 10 or 15 minutes they
ran out of things to say about ball turret gunners and the rest of the show was
a hodgepodge of general references to the air war in northern Europe, even
dragging in the RAF, which, afaik didn't use ball turrets. It looked to me as
if they were merely recycling a bunch of loosely connected material (including
shots of Japanese fighters being shot down!) spiked with a few minutes of
original production.
So it's back to not watching this crap for me. I have other, more creative
ways to waste my time.
Chris Mark
George
I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
I understand the very basics of how a jet engine works but this aspect
is new to me.
Thanks
George
--
www.angelfire.com/apes/scramble
page last updated in October 2002
Forward offensive SPAM to u...@ftc.gov
Keith Willshaw
"George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
news:3E5D2924...@sendspam.git...
>
>
> I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
> answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
> How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
By cooling the intake air you increase the density and can stuff more of
it into the engine and use it to burn fuel. This technique was also used in
piston engines. It also helps reduce the NOX emissions and lowers
blade degradation which are major issues in terrestial applications
like electrical power plants.
Keith
Ron
>I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
>answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
>How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
>I understand the very basics of how a jet engine works but this aspect
>is new to me.
More mass out the rear I believe
Longtailedlizard
>to
>the left wing? If so it was taken from an Me-110 and if you look close
>you'll
>notice the guns on the ball turret of the B-17 are pointed straight
>down...the
>position used to enter/exit the ball.
>
Yeap, thats the one I was referring to. It would be nice to know that they did
exit for sure. Even more if they lived or still alive, track they down and
interveiw them about that experience.
I know most of you look down on the History channel, but I some much enjoy the
interveiws for those that were there.
I really enjoy when they are referring to some hugh battle, and they have a
some common sailor, dogface, or grunt. It puts it in a real perspective. (At
least for me)
I also enjoy when they have a former "enemy". The U-boat special had Erich
Topp.
The special they had on referring to the Atlantic Wall, they had the sons of
Montgomery, Rommel and Eisenhower. Boy, talk about a front seat to history.
I just find the people who were there, extremely interesting, and passing on
their personal veiws
John Mackesy
I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
I understand the very basics of how a jet engine works but this aspect
is new to me.
Thanks
George
--
The latent heat of evaporation of the water improves the adiabatic
efficiency of the compressor. Higher efficiency = more flow = more thrust.
John Mackesy
PosterBoy
"Chris Mark" <xmar...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20030226142421...@mb-mn.aol.com...
> I don't watch many of these TV "histories" because they seem so
disjointed and
> unfocused. Recently I did see one advertised as a history of ball turret
> gunners. That sounded quite focused and so I tuned it in. The first few
> minutes were pretty good, with interviews with a couple of ball turret
gunners
> and films of the training schools. But it seems after 10 or 15 minutes
they
> ran out of things to say about ball turret gunners and the rest of the
show was
> a hodgepodge of general references to the air war in northern Europe, even
> dragging in the RAF, which, afaik didn't use ball turrets.
Well, perhaps....
But I think a sufficient number of the RAF's Liberators used a ball
turret. And..
The naval counterpart..Fleet Air Arm...made brilliant use of the Grumman
Avenger. And the RCAF, at least, used the A-20...and even the B-18!!
You should feel grateful about the program "dragging in the RAF," don't
you think?
Cheers.
Wingedhoof
'80s -- circa 1982 -- to a transient F-105.
Ron
>From: winge...@aol.com (Wingedhoof)
>Date: 2/26/2003 7:11 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <20030226211105...@mb-fx.aol.com>
>
>I heard this same story. It reportedly occurred at Holloman AFB in the early
>'80s -- circa 1982 -- to a transient F-105.
Thats exactly how I heard it too. The guy I heard it from was at Holloman at
one time, and he said it happen there.
But I imagine I will take Eds word for it, since he has the F-105 experience.
Unknown
As far as piston engines go the cooling/denser air isn't really
that noticeable.
Most of the gain is caused by the 'derichment valve' cutting the
fuel flow down to near 'best power'. You can get away with doing
that because water is used to prevent detonation instead of all
that extra fuel.
-Gord.
Unknown
One that sounds unlikely but did happen was where a P-3 Orion had
the water injection tank filled with 'dry cleaning' fluid. They
lost all four at about rotate...I don't believe anyone was killed
but it was a most unimpressive takeoff apparently...
-Gord.
Unknown
BTW, ordered a book from Amazon.com today...
Couldn't resist Dan's appraisal :)
-Gord.
Unknown
>
> But I imagine I will take Eds word for it, since he has the F-105 experience.
>
>Ron
bunch of sense that some dilbert with that few clues would be
running loose around a flightline.
-Gord.
Ed Rasimus
>I heard this same story. It reportedly occurred at Holloman AFB in the early
>'80s -- circa 1982 -- to a transient F-105.
>
>
Given that additional bit of information, I now gain credibility as
more than just a worn out, feeble-minded old 105 driver. I was
stationed at Holloman AFB from July '81 to Jun '85, flying AT-38Bs
with the 435th TFTS in Fighter Lead-In.
I can say conclusively that there was no such incident at Holloman
circa 1982. A broken up F-105 would certainly have attracted a lot of
attention. For that matter, a transient 105 would have gotten my
interest. ("Thud Out" occurred on Feb 25th, 1984 IIRC.)
Gary Hine
You won't be sorry. I'm about halfway through it right
now and it's a truly excellent read.
The other day I was on the story about his first combat
mission at the point where his leader has just rolled
in on the target and Ed realizes he's forgotten to set
his weapons switches. I had to set the book down and
go do something and as I was away I got to thinking about
what I had been reading and wondering how big of a faux
pas that really was, and hoping I'd get a thorough
explanation when I got back to the book. I wasn't
disappointed. Setting weapons switches was explained
in detail - 2-5-2, right Ed ? Just the sort of arcana
we salivate over and you probably had to fight your
editor to leave it in.
Ed, I'm curious as to what ever became of the captain
who kept trying get you killed trolling for trucks on the
way back ? He survived his first combat tour but I can't
imagine him surviving another or a full career in tactical
aviation. If it's explained later in the book forgive me -
I haven't finished yet.
Gary
George
So is or was this technique used in other engines or just the 105?
Sounds like a good way to get free power.
Keith Willshaw
"George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
> > news:3E5D2924...@sendspam.git...
> >
> >
> >>I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
> >>answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
> >>How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
> >
> >
> > By cooling the intake air you increase the density and can stuff more of
> > it into the engine and use it to burn fuel. This technique was also used
in
> > piston engines. It also helps reduce the NOX emissions and lowers
> > blade degradation which are major issues in terrestial applications
> > like electrical power plants.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
> So is or was this technique used in other engines or just the 105?
> Sounds like a good way to get free power.
>
> George
>
Its pretty widely used on military turbojets and its
not free power it just allows a higher peak level
of output for a short period, typically on take off.
Keith
Tex Houston
"George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
> > news:3E5D2924...@sendspam.git...
> >
> >
> >>I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
> >>answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
> >>How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
> >
> >
> > By cooling the intake air you increase the density and can stuff more of
> > it into the engine and use it to burn fuel. This technique was also used
in
> > piston engines. It also helps reduce the NOX emissions and lowers
> > blade degradation which are major issues in terrestial applications
> > like electrical power plants.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
>
> So is or was this technique used in other engines or just the 105?
> Sounds like a good way to get free power.
>
> George
KC-135A also used water-injection, albeit without the afterburner
application restrictions described by Ed Rasimus. The water was drained if
the temperature was going to be below freezing, uploaded again when
temperatures rose. Finally internal heaters were installed in the tanks.
Some other aircraft used it too but the F-105 and KC-135A were the ones I
worked with. Some applications were a water-alcohol mix.
Tex Houston
Peter Stickney
George <do...@sendspam.git> writes:
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "George" <do...@sendspam.git> wrote in message
>> news:3E5D2924...@sendspam.git...
>>
>>
>>>I was rather hoping the question I'm about to ask was going to be
>>>answered before I risked asking a silly question.........here goes:
>>>How does this system work with water into the inlet adding extra thrust?
>>
>>
>> By cooling the intake air you increase the density and can stuff more of
>> it into the engine and use it to burn fuel. This technique was also used in
>> piston engines. It also helps reduce the NOX emissions and lowers
>> blade degradation which are major issues in terrestial applications
>> like electrical power plants.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>
> So is or was this technique used in other engines or just the 105?
> Sounds like a good way to get free power.
Sure. The J47s on the B-47E models used it, and some flavors of J33
in late model F-80s. And you couldn't possibly not mentions the B-52B
through G models, with wet J57s, and of course, the Steam Jet - The
KC-135A, from the Days When Man Could Burn Water. The turbojet
versions of the 707 and DC-8 (JT3Cs, usually, civil J57s) were often
wet, as well. (And some 707s and 727s on the run out of Quito and La
Paz (Way high up on hte Equator) had JATO bottles as well, just in
case.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Guy Alcala
<snip>
> The turbojet
> versions of the 707 and DC-8 (JT3Cs, usually, civil J57s) were often
> wet, as well. (And some 707s and 727s on the run out of Quito and La
> Paz (Way high up on hte Equator) had JATO bottles as well, just in
> case.
The mind boggles at what the insurance companies, let alone the FAA, would have to
say about civil JATO takeoffs (with passengers, or freight only?).
Guy
George
But is it current practice to design engines this way or are there other
methods of doing the same (or a silimar) thing?
Guy Alcala
Offhand, the only turbofan I can think of with water injection is the Pegasus used
by the Harrier. Water injection is sort of a bandaid. Turbojets often used it
because it gave a boost to takeoff power, without requiring the engine to be
oversized for cruise. Turbojets, especially the early ones, were gas hogs, so
achieving sufficient range while having enough power for takeoff often made water
injection a good idea. In other cases, it was the cheapest way to boost an
engine's thrust without major redesign. Turbofans generally have more than enough
thrust for takeoff, while still maintaining good cruise sfc and keeping things
simpler than using a water injection setup. So the B-52H, with 17,000 lb. thrust
TF33 turbofans, replaced the B-52G, with 13,750 lb. thrust (wet; 11,200 lb. dry)
water-injected J57 turbojets. The military power sfc of the TF33 is about 0.56,
that of the J57 about 0.80.
Guy
David Lesher
>Water injection is sort of a bandaid. Turbojets often used it
>because it gave a boost to takeoff power, without requiring the engine to be
>oversized for cruise. Turbojets, especially the early ones, were gas hogs, so
>achieving sufficient range while having enough power for takeoff often made water
>injection a good idea.
How about turboprops? I took a HP-8 out of MGGT for MZBZ. It had
water injection, needed because MGGT is so high....or so the Captain
told me.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Unknown
>Guy Alcala <g_al...@junkpostoffice.pacbell.net> writes:
>
>
>>Water injection is sort of a bandaid. Turbojets often used it
>>because it gave a boost to takeoff power, without requiring the engine to be
>>oversized for cruise. Turbojets, especially the early ones, were gas hogs, so
>>achieving sufficient range while having enough power for takeoff often made water
>>injection a good idea.
>
>
>How about turboprops? I took a HP-8 out of MGGT for MZBZ. It had
>water injection, needed because MGGT is so high....or so the Captain
>told me.
Same thing David...turboprops are merely turbojet engines driving
propellers basically. Little different than (very) high bypass
turbojet engines.
-Gord.
Matthew G. Saroff
In the 1930s, the Germans had some civil aircraft that
used the equivalent of Jato, though I think they were liquid
fueled (source Wings, the TV show).
--
Matthew Saroff
Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to msa...@123456.pobox.com (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Joe Osman
My dad had a water injection carb sitting in our garage.
When I asked him about it, he told me that he worked at an
airport right after WWII and was paid partially in avgas,
which required water injection to work in cars.
Joe
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Unknown
>
>My dad had a water injection carb sitting in our garage.
>When I asked him about it, he told me that he worked at an
>airport right after WWII and was paid partially in avgas,
>which required water injection to work in cars.
>
>Joe
>
-Gord.
AirplaneListings.Com
news:b3lcic$88$1...@selma.aspentech.com:
Isn't the added water the primary cause of so much black smoke from the B-
52s when they take off...??
--
Matt Lang
AirplaneListings.Com
AirplaneListings.Com
news:20030226165857...@mb-mb.aol.com:
I agree completely... There is the web site for the B26 Bombardier that is
absolutley fantastic if you like WWII history...
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer/
--
Matt Lang
AirplaneListings.Com
Mary Shafer
<info@airplaneListings._no_spam_Com> wrote:
>Isn't the added water the primary cause of so much black smoke from the B-
>52s when they take off...??
Nah. Our NB-52B smokes like that all the time and we don't use water
injection.
You want to see an airplane that takes off in a cloud of smoke and a
hearty "Hi-ho, Silver, away, please, just a little acceleration, come
on", you should have seen the XB-70.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Tarver Engineering
"Mary Shafer" <mil...@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:nr6o6vol56coufgas...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 06:48:06 GMT, "AirplaneListings.Com"
> <info@airplaneListings._no_spam_Com> wrote:
>
> >Isn't the added water the primary cause of so much black smoke from the
B-
> >52s when they take off...??
>
> Nah. Our NB-52B smokes like that all the time and we don't use water
> injection.
No.
> You want to see an airplane that takes off in a cloud of smoke and a
> hearty "Hi-ho, Silver, away, please, just a little acceleration, come
> on", you should have seen the XB-70.
Too dangerous.
John P. Tarver, MS/PE
Kirk Stant
If you have access to old TAC flying safety magazines, you might be
able to find and article about this incident. As I remember it, back
in the mid-70s a transient F-105 had it's water tank filled with waste
JP-4 instead of water. Cause of the mixup was Transient Alert's
unfamiliarity with the Thud by this time, and the fact that the
infrequently used water cart was the same type and color (!) as the
cart used to collect venting jetfuel from parked jets. Anyone who has
been around an F-4 that has been fueled with cool jetfuel then allowed
to sit in the sun knows what I'm talking about - it will really piss
out a lot of JP-4 when it heats up! This fuel is often collected in a
small wheeled tank.
So the scenario is: Young T.A. troop gets the word to water up the
Thud; instead of the dark green water cart he gets the dark green
waste JP-4 cart; Thud is topped off; everyone gets a big surprise when
the Thud driver plugs in his trusty J-75's AB on takeoff!
Pilot not hurt, Thud totalled (back end blew off?) - but by that time
it was not a big deal anymore, sad to say. Who knows, perhaps it was
on it's way to the boneyard anyway.
Obviously, training, weather, etc may have been contributing factors.
Possibly the Holloman Flight Safety Office may still have some records
of this event.
I'm pretty sure it's not an urban legend. If I'm wrong, stop by the
Arizona Soaring Association clubhouse at Turf Airport and I'll buy you
the first round!
By the way, there is a nice Thud on a stick at Seymour Johnson AFB,
next to an F-15E (supposedly a B or D with CFTs and fake LANTIRN, I
hear) and an F-4C or D.
Kirk Stant
F-4 IWSO
Holloman Fighter Lead-in student Nov 76 - Jan 77 (Pre-smurf days)
Walt BJ
lies behind the left intake. I understand they were all deactivated
when the newer model of the J33 (ISTR J33A-16)developed enough thrust
to where water was no longer needed. Anyway, as early as 1954 the
water wasn't available any more. Note that the water also increases
the mass of the exhaust thus the thrust developed, usually by about
10%. I have heard the tank space was also used in T33 target flights
coming in from Canada as a place to stash Crown Royal, in the bad old
days, of course. A cross-point screwdriver and patience was needed to
retrieve the precious cargo.
Walt BJ
