Homework check for On/Off Design of a Fixed Area Turbojet

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on analyzing the performance of a fixed-area turbojet engine under on-design and off-design conditions. The engine's on-design parameters yield a thrust of 103,826 N and a fuel consumption rate of 3.185 kg/s. When operating off-design at a Mach number of 0.3, the thrust and fuel consumption calculations are challenged by discrepancies in mass flow rates and densities between the two conditions. The user expresses confusion regarding the small area calculated for the turbojet and the resulting high mass flow rate of air in the off-design scenario. The thread concludes with a request for verification of calculations and logic from other forum members.
roldy
Messages
206
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


An ideal fixed-area turbojet is operated where \pi_c=15,M_o=0.8,T_o=260K, T_{t4}=2000 K, and P_o=20000 Pa. Mass flow rate of air processed by this engine at on-design is 100 kg/sec.

What will be the performance of this engine (thrust, fuel consumption) compared to the on-design conditions if it is flown at a Mach of 0.3 and at an altitude where temperature and pressure are 288K and 101325 Pa. Furthermore, the fuel throttle is set such that T_{t4}=1500 K at this off-design point. Assume that A_9 is varied to keep P_9=P_o.


Homework Equations


<br /> \tau_r=1+\frac{(\gamma-1)}{2}M_o^2<br />

<br /> \pi_r=\tau_r^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}<br />

<br /> \tau_c=\pi_c^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}<br />

<br /> \tau_\lambda=\frac{T_{t4}}{T_o}<br />

<br /> \pi_t=\tau_t^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}<br />

<br /> \frac{T_{t3}}{T_o}=\tau_r{\tau_c}<br />

<br /> a_o=\sqrt{\gamma{R}{T_o}}<br />

<br /> U_o=a_o{M_o}<br />

<br /> U_9=a_o\left[\frac{2}{\gamma-1}{\tau_\lambda}{\tau_t}\left[1-\left({\pi_r}{\pi_d}{\pi_c}{\pi_b}{\pi_t}{\pi_N}\right)^{-\frac{(\gamma-1)}{\gamma}}\right]\right]^{1/2}<br />

<br /> \frac{THRUST}{\dot{m}}=U_9-U_o<br />


<br /> \dot{m_f}h=(\dot{m_a}+\dot{m_f})C_p{T_{t4}}-\dot{m_a}C_o{T_{t3}}<br />


The Attempt at a Solution


So the givens for on-design analysis:

\pi_c=15

M_o=0.8

T_o=260 K

T_{t4}=2000 K

P_o=20,000 Pa

\dot{m_a}=100 kg/s

h=4.5 *10^7

C_p=1004

Solving for each variable I get the following:

\tau_r=1.128

\pi_r=1.524

\tau_c=2.168

\tau_\lambda=7.69

\tau_t=.829

\pi_t=.519

Re-arranging \frac{T_{t3}}{T_o} to solve for T_{t3} I get 635.83 K

a_o=322.65 m/s

U_o=258.12 m/s

Assuming unknown \pi{&#039;s}=1, then

U_9=1296.38 m/s

Solving for THRUST I get 103,826 N

And finally

\dot{m_f}=3.185 kg/s

Now for the off-design:

M_o=0.3

T_o=288 K

T_{t4}=1500 K

P_o=101325 Pa

h=4.5 *10^7

C_p=1004

For off-design we keep \tau_t the same value for on-design, so
\tau_t=.829

\pi_t=.519

Solving for each variable I get the following:

\tau_r=1.018

\pi_r=1.064

/tau_c=1.875

\tau_\lambda=5.21

T_{t3}=549.72 K

a_o=339.58 m/s

U_o=101.87 m/s

U_9=957.36 m/s

And now I need to calculate thrust but I need to find \dot{m_a} first.




Also I found what the area is using A_o=\frac{\dot{m_a}}{\rho_o{R}{U_o}} which came out to be .00504 m^2. This seems like a small area for the turbojet. Did I mess something up?

If I use this area value to find \dot{m_f} for the off-design analysis using \rho=\frac{P_o}{RT_o}=1.23 at this new pressure and temperature I get the mass flow rate of air to be 457.7 kg/s. Does this value make since? To me it doesn't because of the slower velocity in the off-design vs. the higher velocity in the on-design Then again the density for the on-design case is much lower than the off-design (.268 kg/m^3 for on-design).

The mass flow rate of fuel is then 10.04 kg/s. I would be grateful if someone could look over this and see if I made an error in logic or calculations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any takers on this?
 
I think you've confused "Other Sciences" with Aeronautical Engineering? I'll try to have your question redirected to a more appropriate forum.
 
Thank you.
 
Venus does not have a magnetosphere, so the Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) environment shall be much worse than in a LEO environment. Looking to the std radiation models for Venus, the standard radiation-hard space level electronic component with tested immunity LET = 85 MeV-cm2/mg seems not enough, so, for example, a 1cm2 Si die will suffer considerable flux above this level during a long mission (10 years for example). So, the question is, usually we are not paying attention to latch-up...
Due to the constant never ending supply of "cool stuff" happening in Aerospace these days I'm creating this thread to consolidate posts every time something new comes along. Please feel free to add random information if its relevant. So to start things off here is the SpaceX Dragon launch coming up shortly, I'll be following up afterwards to see how it all goes. :smile: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/
Thread 'SpaceX Starship development: 7th flight January 10'
Watch the progress live This is a fully stacked Starship (top) and Super Heavy (bottom). A couple of too-small-to-see cars near the bottom for scale, I also added a Saturn V and the Statue of Liberty for comparison. 120 meters tall, about 5000 tonnes when fully fueled. Twice the mass and over twice the thrust of Saturn V. The largest rocket ever built by mass, thrust, height, and payload capacity. N1 had the largest diameter.[/size] But its size is not the revolutionary part. It is designed...
Back
Top