Thrust vs Horsepower: Comparing Engines

  • Thread starter Thread starter rollingstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power Thrust
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the differences in how aircraft engines and other heavy equipment, such as ships and earthmovers, are rated, specifically focusing on thrust versus horsepower. Participants examine whether this distinction is based on convention or practicality, and delve into the implications of these measurements in various contexts, including performance comparisons.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants observe that aircraft engines are primarily rated in thrust while other heavy equipment is rated in horsepower, questioning the reasons behind this distinction.
  • One participant suggests that thrust and horsepower can be converted to one another, indicating that the context of use determines which measurement is more appropriate.
  • There is mention of bollard pull for tugs and tractive force for locomotives, with a participant noting that these measures allow for direct comparisons without needing to convert horsepower.
  • Another participant explains that the design of propulsion systems affects how horsepower translates to thrust, particularly highlighting differences between open propellers and nozzles in tugs.
  • A participant notes that jet engines produce thrust without a propeller and that thrust is a more practical measure for comparing jet engine performance.
  • One participant raises the complexity of the horsepower-to-thrust ratio, indicating that it varies with altitude and speed, although they express uncertainty about the details.
  • Another participant questions why horsepower depends on altitude, suggesting a misunderstanding of the relationship between horsepower, thrust, and speed.
  • A subsequent reply clarifies that the properties of air change with altitude, influencing the performance of engines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons for the differences in measurement conventions between aircraft engines and other heavy equipment. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the implications of thrust and horsepower in different contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the relationship between thrust, horsepower, altitude, and speed, indicating that assumptions about these relationships may not be fully resolved.

rollingstein
Messages
644
Reaction score
16
Why is it that aircraft engines are always (mostly?) rated in thrust whereas most other heavy equipment I can think of (e.g. ships, earthmovers, etc. ) is mostly spoken about in horsepower.

First, am I right in my observation. If so, is this merely convention? Or does it make more sense to speak of lb of thrust for a plane and hP for a ship?

I've heard of bollard pull for tugs or tractive force for locomotives but never the converse i.e. no one mentions the hP for a jet engine.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thrust and horsepower can be converted to one another. IMO, the use governs which number to use.

Bollard pull is a handy number to have because it allows for a direct comparison of the pulling capability of several different tugs without trying to convert HP. The layout of the tug's propulsion equipment (open propeller v. propeller in a nozzle) makes a difference in how much pull 1 HP is converted to. (For two tugs with the same HP, the boat with nozzles will generally produce greater bollard pull than the boat with an open propeller).

A similar situation occurs with aircraft. Reciprocating engines were customarily rated by HP. A propeller is driven by the reciprocating engine in order to convert the torque of the engine into thrust. The thrust generated depended on a number of factors: The size and number of the propeller blades, the shape of the blade, pitch angle, etc., so much so that it is impractical to quote a thrust number, especially since propeller thrust also depends on speed of advance of the propeller.

A jet engine is different, because it is designed to produce thrust without spinning a propeller. If a jet engine is bolted down on a test stand and put to max. throttle, it generates a lot of thrust but no work, because the jet is not moving. Once the jet starts to move, then thrust is being converted to work. If one wishes to compare the performance of several different jet engines, then thrust output is a handy measure.
 
It's extremely complicated, and I don't understand it myself despite being a former pilot and having studied jets enough to design on paper a fighter craft for a novel. Basically, the horsepower-to-thrust ratio changes according to both altitude and speed. A jet bolted to a test stand, running balls-out, produces no horsepower. That same engine, doing 3 Mach at 50,000 ft altitude is probably close to 1,000,000 horsepower.

edit: I see that SteamKing once again beat me to the punch. :redface:
 
Interesting. Why does it depend on altitude? Isn't hp = thrust x speed? Assuming level flight.
 
rollingstein said:
Interesting. Why does it depend on altitude? Isn't hp = thrust x speed? Assuming level flight.

Because the properties of air vary with altitude.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
70K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
31K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K