VTOL Jet Engine Aircraft and VTOL Jet Engine

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and design considerations of VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) jet engine aircraft, specifically in the context of a proposed ambulance aircraft. Participants explore the specifications of a hypothetical jet engine and its thrust-to-weight ratio, while questioning the differences between VTOL engines and conventional jet engines.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a design for a VTOL jet engine with specific thrust and weight parameters, questioning its viability and potential thrust-to-weight ratio.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about how a VTOL engine differs from a regular jet engine, suggesting that conventional engines are too heavy for VTOL applications without special materials.
  • A participant mentions operational data from various VTOL aircraft and questions whether the proposed design is for a model aircraft or a full-size drone.
  • Concerns are raised about the stability and smoothness of vertical take-off and landing with a single engine configuration on a high wing aircraft.
  • One participant cites the RR RB162 as the best lift engine produced, noting its thrust-to-weight ratio and challenges in achieving a ratio of 50, which they liken to rocket engine capabilities.
  • Another participant critiques the use of a jet engine simulator, suggesting that the results may not be experimentally verified and that material advancements have not significantly improved engine performance since the RB162.
  • Discussion includes the potential drawbacks of pure jet lift engines, such as high exhaust temperatures and structural inefficiencies, while suggesting that fan lift engines may offer better performance.
  • One participant argues that for short distances, conventional rotors powered by turboshaft or piston engines may be more economical and fuel-efficient than turbojet or turbofan engines.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of the proposed VTOL jet engine design, with no consensus reached on its viability or the best approach to achieving effective VTOL capabilities. There are competing perspectives on the efficiency and practicality of different engine types for vertical lift.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in current technology, such as the maturity of ceramic materials for engine components and the challenges associated with engine design, including efficiency losses due to structural configurations.

VTOL147
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
I am thinking about VTOL jet engine aircrafts like the following example (an ambulance).

ambulance.jpg


To be able to buid that kind of aircraft VTOL jet engines are needed. At the moment there are no VTOL jet engines available, but I have my own proposal:

vtolengine2.jpg


I have questions to jet engine experts. Is my design viable? Could the thrust-to-weight be over 50? What about a jet engine with following specs:

- thrust 8000 N (1800 lbf)

- weight 16 kg (35 lb), the thrust-to-weight ratio is 50

- height 300 mm (12")

- diameter 400 mm (16")

More: << Link to personal website deleted by the Mentors >>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
While not an expert on jet engines, I have gathered operational data on a variety of VTOL aircraft via radar and tracking video and on models in wind tunnels. From your size specifications are you designing jet propelled model aircraft or drone with VTOL capability?
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the PF. :smile:
VTOL147 said:
(an ambulance)
How does the air ambulance in your rendering take off vertically? With only one engine on the high wing, I'm not able to picture how it can smoothly and stably take off and land vertically...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, Vanadium 50 and russ_watters
Afaik, the best lift engine ever produced was the RR RB162, with a listed 18.75 thrust to weight.
Getting to 50 would be a massive challenge, that is getting to rocket engine territory.
Note the RB162 had a dry weight of about 280 pounds, about 10x heavier than your notional item and delivered around 5500 pounds of thrust, with very low fuel efficiency.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: David Lewis, Tom.G, anorlunda and 2 others
Can you all see the pictures?

If not here they are again:

[Unacceptable links redacted by the Mentors]

anorlunda said:
Here's a previous thread on this topic.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-must-vtol-engines-be-larger-than-normal-engines.790352/
I am unclear how a VTOL engine differs from a regular jet engine.

VTOL jet engine is designed only for lift and land the aircraft. Ordinary jet engine could do that but they way too heavy for that at least without special/expensive materials.

Klystron said:
From your size specifications are you designing jet propelled model aircraft or drone with VTOL capability?

berkeman said:
How does the air ambulance in your rendering take off vertically? With only one engine on the high wing, I'm not able to picture how it can smoothly and stably take off and land vertically...
There are eight VTOL jet engines in the air craft. The engines are for full size aircraft.

Throttle and possible pressurized air are used for take off and landing.

etudiant said:
Afaik, the best lift engine ever produced was the RR RB162, with a listed 18.75 thrust to weight.
Getting to 50 would be a massive challenge, that is getting to rocket engine territory.
Note the RB162 had a dry weight of about 280 pounds, about 10x heavier than your notional item and delivered around 5500 pounds of thrust, with very low fuel efficiency.

Afaik, RB162 was the only VTOL jet engine ever build but really newer used. It was tested with Dornier Do 31, but they didn't get it working.

RN162 was build at the beginning of 1060s. After that jet engines evolved a lot. Also materials have evolved.

I tested NASAs jet engine simulator EngineSim and I got T/W 75 with carbon fiber and ceramic option. Of cource this was without my design. I hope that my design would do more.
 
I honestly believe that the EngineSim is misleading you, as I do not think there is any experimental verification for the results. The numbers are probably right, but I suspect they reference unobtainium materials.

The RB 162 was indeed never put into service, but it was a state of the art design and metal technology has not advanced all that much since, the main temperature improvements have come with better turbine cooling and coatings. The limitation is still the compressor exit temperature, as components in that area are not easily cooled. Ceramics, which have been the hoped for solution, have not yet reached sufficient maturity to serve reliably.

Separately, the design you outline appears to have an annular intake, with the flow making 3 right angle turns to enter the combustor. There will be efficiency losses and it is a heavier structure than a straight through flow, so you must anticipate some big benefit from it that I do not see.

More broadly, a pure jet lift engine would be very hard to live with, the exhaust is more like a plasma torch than a hot wind, it melts the pavement. The Navy even had a hard time with the F35, even though the bulk of the lift is from a geared fan rather than the direct exhaust. A fan lift engine provides cooler exhaust and better mass flow, for very little extra weight.

Good luck in your efforts!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, Klystron and anorlunda
If your aircraft doesn't have to fly long distances, it is more economical and fuel efficient to use a conventional rotor (powered by turboshaft or piston engine) to provide the vertical lift. A turbojet or turbofan engine gives you a speed advantage that may not be big enough for short or medium distance trips to be worth the drawbacks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
New development: link
 

Attachments

  • mainassemblysection_small4.jpg
    mainassemblysection_small4.jpg
    11.3 KB · Views: 200
  • #10
VTOL147 said:
New development: link
Sorry, what's new about it? And is that your personal blog?

Thanks.

Update -- it is indeed his personal blog site, which is not an acceptable reference in the technical PF forums. Thread is done.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
Replies
17
Views
65K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K