top of page
Search

I've been having some intermittent internet drop outs due to the tremendous amount of rain we've been having all month. It's hot out there and even when it's not raining the air is heavy and wet. Now that I am a gentleman farmer I don't have to work in any weather so I don't but instead of playing guitar and learning Spanish, both are priorities, I have been getting started on Murder in the Airplane Factory and watching too much TV.


I generally watch too much bubble gum TV but I am also a WWII, Korea and Vietnam war addict. I've watched everything Hulu, Netflix and Amazon have in this genre and am tempted to start buying stuff but won't. It's nice to come across a documentary that has film clips I haven't seen before. I have also found some tv series from the Russian point of view and some Russian TV series about fighter pilots and ground soldiers on the Russian side. This period is "our history" and in 200 or 300 years people will be rewriting our history in broad terms that the average student can absorb. It is like us learning about European history of from 1066 to the 1800's. We have learned what scholars and, skeptically, governments want us to know about consolidation of modern empires, exploration of the new world, the war of Independence, critical race theory, the slavery period, Darwinism and so on. What will high school kids in 2320-2420 be required to learn about the 20th and 21st centuries? If history is any measure they will be learning what the governments and churches of the "victors" want them to learn.


But I am also very interested in empires and kingdoms. I am very interested in the whole concept of how some "wet tart in a lake" can touch a sword on someone and he becomes my king? I also have very deep convictions about why and how empires rise, exist and fall. Begging the question, "Are we entrenched in the downfall period of the "American Empire" and if so who rises? The Chinese? The Russians?" They seem to be the only viable candidates at the moment. I am not talking about Abortion Rights or The ERA amendment. I am asking, "Are we so distracted as a people, so sated with the internet, Starbucks, the Kardashians and tv, ignoring the incredible threat(?) that the ever expanding Chinese empire represents? How Dangerous Russia is right now? One thing for certain. As empires fall lots of civilians die. Instead of the 1,000s that died in middle ages wars, the 20 million or so that died in WWII, we now have the capability to wipe out billions in a major shift in empires. Is it inevitable?


For a while I watched a lot of series based on the Romans. Some comedy, some satirical and some semi-factual. I have long wanted to really know why and how the Christian church became so co-mingled with society and political events. I've also watched several of the "Church and Pope" genres describing early church activities. I was interested enough to download and read/scan several "scholarly" texts describing the history of the Catholic, Church of England and Episcopalian churches. The creation of the CoE and Episcopalian churches having deep "political" motives, arguably driven by politics, power and greed, nevertheless put the Papal church under pressure causing what I call disturbances in the evolution of the human condition. Of course much earlier than modern Christianity we know Judaism, Islam and Buddhism were well entrenched as humanity closed in on being able to record our oral and written "known" history.


I think we teach history all wrong and have thought so since I crammed US History into a summer school course in my Junior year of high school I spent 4 or 6 weeks, I can remember, cramming names and dates in my head so I could pass a test and move on to the next requirement for graduating. Clearly, as we accumulate more history, we have to drop some parts and condense so that the student can complete the requisite test taking in the fixed and limited time available.


I think that's wrong. History is a history of us. It should be more of a narrative of big events and it is extremely fascinating - way cooler than Narnia. It is about the human condition and why we do what we do. To understand the war of independence it is much richer to understand in teh context of why Marco Polo, Columbus Pilgrims and even the Vikings travelled around the world with intentions to stay and never go back, who paid for it and how that influenced the outcomes for the modern countries we know today.


It was only recently I was even aware that the Vikings spent hindreds of years sailing around the east coast of England attacking Ireland, Spain and eventually making raids on Italy than I ever suspected! I always had the impressions the Vikings toodled over to East England and made a bunch of shit show for a while basically stealing some silver and gold while wiping out vulnerable churches, raping a bunch of women and drinking lots of ale. That makes for fun lore, tv nd cartoons but the historical truth is dark, scary and tragic for the average middle and lower class people's. A raid on England did a lot of the Viking stuff, but they also sent a lot of Christian's home to become slaves - The history of one people enslaving other people is threaded throughout all of time.


The reason I didn't know more about this is because of the compressed nature of how I learned history. "OK. We gotta talk about Vikings for a but but basically they lost, England is England so it really doesn't matter." Well it does matter because the Vikings occupied great areas of Ireland, some areas of Scotland and huge part (really all of for a while) of England (before it was England) for like 400 years. They didn't just all get on their boats and go home - they are completely intermingled in their blood lines.


OK so ramble, ramble ramble. I am an American so in narrow-ish strokes I trace my ancestry on one side back through the Belgian area of Europe and on the other side back through Scotland and my geographical country population traces it's origin back through England so I am curious about what is England, where did it come from and why is it a wet bint can make a king?


I don't portend to be a history scholar but I can read and I can think and form judgements that work for me. To understand England I need to understand a little about Rome and early empires, a lot more about the motives for Christianity and in weaving archeological facts with written words one can develop a tapestry and draw their own conclusions. One must temper these findings with who "wrote" the historical texts and how much of of them are influenced by who wrote them - i.e. the winner always gets to write history from the winners perspective.


Two periods worth looking at first, just because that's my current jam, are England from about 850-890 and then England around 1200. This is only 300 years of history and a lot happened including a 20 year period where a Viking reigned over all of England, Norway and Denmark. But for a few twists of history, we all might be Vikings speaking Swedish. It is a dichotomy that sometimes I will say, "things change fast" and then realize that things didn't change fast.


If you google "Viking map of England" you will get a lot of different images. What's going on here? Well the Vikings started raiding and occupying in the 3 and 400s. The period I am interested in at the moment is about 850-1200 - That's "only" 350 years of a 900 year period when the Vikings were stomping around! Think about that time frame in context of the United States being about 250 years old. Our map has changed quite a bit since 1776 yet life in 1776 is pretty unrelatable to us from a practical standpoint. With pretty good recorded history we can't even agree on our declaration of independence and what the constitution says. How are we to understand life from 300-1200?


As Monty Python would say, "A Quick Intermission" to talk about why I started this and what I am reading to form my opinions. 1. It's raining and the internet has been intermittent. 2. I recently watched a series called, "The Last Kingdom." A fictionalized Story of King Alfred of Wessex covering up to the early 900s. "Vikings" and "Vikings:Valhalla" especially, fast forwarded a couple hundred years to highlight the period of Viking expulsion (a misnomer more accurately called unification of England), guys like Leif Erikson and the "creation" of modern unified England. 3. With the internet being intermittent I was spurred on to further read, Cambridge Medieval History Vol. 1-5 (4,000 pages with no pictures - LOL), Medieval Europe 395-1270 and History of the Middle Ages. While these texts cover all of Europe I am a good scan reader, largely skipping Franko and French history and slowing down on the thick chapters about Vikings and England.


Here is a map of the "big" Viking invasions from around 865-878, only a13 year period. Think about how long it takes to change the world at this time. Armies are basically on foot with some horseback, they have to walk everywhere, feed their army when they get there, survive winters and in between siege and capture forts and castles with axes, swords and spears. Where do these soldiers come from? Who is paying for this? What were my ancestors doing at this time? How did my line survive? Who were the peoples of Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland and East Anglia? Who were Franks, Celts, Saxons, Angles and so on and why are they here?



Here is a map of what things looked like in 878. King Alfred is recognized as the first King to make real inroads in uniting England into what England eventually becomes but his death around 899 allowed for 300 more years of turmoil before what I consider the modern English Kingdom in 1066. That's a story for later, but the 300 years of turmoil were a product of succession, invasion, alliances formed, alliances broken, intrigues and betrayals. It is also about kings and leaders. In each generation one either finds a strong unifying leader, or weaker leaders ripe for invasion and extinction. Alongside nationality/race, Viking vs. Saxon and so on, there is a church creating and converting people to Christianity as fast as they can. For now let's give Alfred his due as it is pretty clear from this map of his time what England was gonna look like. It represents, in my opinion the end of "paganism" whatever that is, we'll discuss later as Guthrum (a Viking) was a Christian. In fact there were purges of pagans throughout the latter parts of the 8th and well into the 9th century both in England and in Sweden, Denmark and Norway by both Saxons and Danes. Good bye Odin, Mars and the Norse Gods and hello Jesus!




Here's a map of King Canute's time. 1016-1035. A relatively peaceful and unified time. Canute (or Cnut) came to power when King Edward and he agreed on a divided England but subsequently Edward died and Canute basically took it all. Succession is always a very dangerous time. Of course Canute dies and in quick succession his son Harthacnut who died with no heir takes over. In the vacuum of his death, his half brother Edward the Confessor takes over making England again independent from the Scandinavian countries. Edward died without a successor in 1066 (familiar date?) and Edward's brother-in-law, King Harold takes the crown, "Hey! Who made you king of me?" and we are looking at some bad shit about to happen. Seems all these kings in the first 1000 years trace their blood back to one god or another coming out of the Dark Ages - each God choosing them individually to lead "their" peoples - To be real between like 300 and 800 there was a king about every 100 miles or so - Alfred and some of his predecessors kinda cleaned all that shit up by 900 - again a glib throwaway for like 900 years of history - LOL.. Anyway by 900 as long as that holy blood is passed down through you, you could have a claim at being king but you better have an army to back it up.


So William the Conqueror, a Duke in Normandy decides that he wants to be king, invades England in the battle Hastings in 1066 kicks ass and takes the crown.





Here is a map depicting England between like 1100-1200. I glibly say this is the extent of my interest because until the Pilgrims take off for the new lands in 1620-ish nothing happened except a few things like the Magna Carta, the Hundred Year's War and encompassing War of the Roses, the plague and the Crusades. To me that's all interesting and important but until 1620 the maps of France, England and Spain remain pretty much unchanged until we open the new world. People just kept dressing in fancier clothes and kept developing better and better weapons. Kingdoms were large enough to not have any real threat of collapse, or were they? The British Empire, where a kingdom occupies and suppresses an indigenous population, as empires had done since the Romans, basically failed in WWII, for largely the same reasons as the preceding empires. This is why it is important to understand what kind of empire the US is, what is happening, what will bring it down (if it is not failed already) and is there anything we can do to stop it.


I read a very deep quote last night. I can't recall it verbatim but basically, "The act of living is real, visceral and direct. The act of thought and debate is endless, hugely time confusing, worrisome and distracting."


We share the same needs as the serfs of 300BC, 500AD and 1800 AD. We need to eat, sleep, raise a family and hope to be productive. Things that happen "literally" like covid, economic downturns, inflation and joblessness impact 90% of us immediately and directly. That's a big reason in my opinion that it is hard to get a dialog about climate change going. Or why I don't care about oil running out as much as some. Or why starvation in Africa is not on top of my priority list. I am too busy surviving in my monkeysphere to worry about yours or the bigger picture. Sure, I should be worried about running out of oil in 2050 but the reality is that I'm gonna be dead. Sure the new coast of Florida might intersect Orlando and we'll lose Miami and everything up to about Tampa. Hey, my house is in Live Oak - I'm gonna die before I have to move - LOL...


Another thing I had an impression of was the Celts and Saxons crossing the English Channel and subsequent invaders having as great a difficulty as Hitler would have had if he tried it. I know it's not archeologically correct but the English channel especially the Thames were a little different 2,000 years ago and provided good inroads inland to London and Wessex. Populations were small and far between, there were no airplanes or artillery and one could sail 20 ships of 100 men, sail up to the back door of London, jump out and make camp for a whole winter before anyone had to swing an axe in response to the counter attack. It's comical that the safest place to be is in a fort or castle. There are three options, storm the castle and get wiped out, siege the castle and starve them out which takes too long, or taunt the egotistical king outta the castle and have a fair fight. It's comical time and time again the king in Winchester rushes out to battle and gets wiped out for glory of God, King and Wessex. It's also contextual to understanding why if you take Wessex, or York or any of the other big fortifications, you basically rule Wessex, Northumbria or whatever you are fighting over.


But again I digress, but I I am digressing here is a quick map to answer the questions of who were the Saxons Franks and Celts and how did they get there.




And for the inevitable question of who were they we close the loop back to the Romans. Here is what the Roman empire looked like around 200AD. The Romans had a pretty good run at world dominance, or at least the world that was known to them - LOL... Thank God we figured out the world is round. If it was flat this could have gone on endlessly like game maps in a video game. At least today we've defined all the territory available to contest - LOL...




It is the human condition of course that as our needs are safely met, and in middle class western society it largely is, that we have time to look outward at other societies but also look inward at how our society is being run and do we agree with how things are?


I'll explain in a future musing but as I read the tea leaves, empires fail because the get too big to govern. They possess and create less than they consume so they must expand, like a universe, until they start collapsing and then disappear into a black hole.


I started to turn into Nostradamus making predictions of what the world might look like in 300 years but I started to generate more questions than answers for myself and realized that aside from nationality, we must really understand more about how religion is going to play into things.


So I will close out here, take some lunch feed some dogs and reflect some. If you read this far congratulations. I am hoping it reads enjoyably and not arrogantly or didactically. We'll come back and dig around the Church V State thing some more as there is some stuff I wanna yeall at the internet about and get off my chest.








13 views2 comments

It's no secret that military aviation funds a lot of technology in the aviation business and that technology is applied to the commercial world. But the real driver of aircraft development was largely a guy named Juan Trippe, the founder of Pan American Airlines. In the 1930's commercial aviation in America was largely funded and subsidized by the US post office. Different airlines would be awarded a mail contract between certain cities and hauling people around really wasn't thought of much. Mail flying, and aviation was very dangerous in the 1930's as there were rarely any navigation aids, weather could be terrible and the planes were still being built from fabric and wood. Metal aircraft such as the Ford Tri-motor and later the DC3 the DC6 and the Boeing 314 would start to change all that.


But it was inevitable that people would be flying around in planes pretty soon. At a time when the great Zeppelins of Germany were landing in New York, America was still giving barnstorm rides and delivering the mail in surplus Jennies. America was pretty far behind the world.


Juan Trippe saw an opportunity to fly mail from Miami to Havana Cuba, which in 1934 was still a big deal and the fledgling PanAm was born. Trippe expanded his routes over time and eventually had about 2400 miles of routes around Central and the Northern part of South America and like all airlines the mail was subsidizing the carrying of passengers. European airlines were predominantly national airlines, fully funded by their governments to project influence around the world. By this time Air France, British Airways and especially Lufthansa were also starting to project power around the world and in Latin America. Trippe was able to convince the government that this was legal but largely in conflict with the Monroe Doctrine that held the Western hemisphere belonged to the US. We were also in the shadow of WWI where the Germans were not looked upon kindly and we were pretty isolationist. But he does convince the US govenment to raise postal rates for international deliveries making air expansion viable.


So fast forward. The US funds PanAm to do a lot of development and Tripp's next big thing is to go trans Atlantic with mail and passenger service. At the 11th hour the British, Germans and French - who held the intermediate lands on the 3 viable routes to Europe all put a kibosh on PanAm's Atlantic dreams. Trippe then had the Martin M-130 or China Clipper built and opened the air route across the Pacific through Hawaii, Midway, Wake and Guam to the Philippines at a time when no one thought it possible. The distance to Hawaii was about 2,400 miles and there wasn't a plane built that could fly that far until the China Clipper. The M-130 had a range of 3,000 miles but you still had to hit a tiny spec of land in the middle of an ocean for this to work. Concurrently radio navigation was developed and with land stations on the islands the age of the flying boat was born.





By the late 60's Pratt was well entrenched in commercial aviation. The B707 and the Douglas DC8 were powered by the P&W JT3 and the B737 and Douglas 727 were powered by the more powerful JT8. Both of these engines were successful military engines before going commercial. HOwever, none of these aircraft had the carrying capacity nor range that PanAm wanted. PanAm wanted a transpacific airplane. The other big players like American Airlines and Delta Airlines wanted something that would do the US coast to coast, US north to south and trans-Atlantic.


In those days the airplane maker contracted with an engine supplier and the engine maker was just like any other parts supplier on the airplane. Boeing selected P&W' s JT9 for the engine on the B747, Lockheed was developing the L1011 with the Rolls Royce RB211 engine and having lost the B747 bid, GE was contracted to the Douglas DC10 with the GE CF6 engine.


The B747 was immediately successful and still flies today. The "Queen of the Sky" is an icon in Aviation. But the airplane was big and the DC10 and L1011 were the right airplane domestically. The problem was there were 2 airplanes that were basically identical competing for the same business. The L1011 eventually disappeared along with Lockheed's presence in the commercial aviation field. Airbus eventually was formed as a 3rd airplane maker, again heavily subsidized by the governments involved, as Douglas started to wane due to the competition having financially gutted them. The DC10-10, DC10-30 and eventually the MD11 (a modern computerized airplane) were all successful but Douglas never could regain their place in American aviation, retreated back into military jets and eventually sold the commercial business to Boeing.


The math on jet engines is relatively straight forward. How much does it cost to build a new design engine, times how many airplanes do you think will be built, plus the spare parts you will sell over 20 years. Today the cost of designing and build a new centerline engine is about $1 billion dollars. When a new engine is proposed most companies are betting the farm on it.


It helps if you can adapt a current engine to cover multiple airplanes. GE proposed the 41,000 pound thrust CF6-6, the -6 suggesting a 6:1 bypass ratio, for the DC10-10. Later as the airplane got heavier the newer, more efficient and more powerful CF6-50 was fitted, the -50 suggesting 50,000 pounds of thrust. This engine was built for the fledging Airbus corporation who wanted to build a smaller twin engine jet called the A300, for high capacity and shorter European routes. Then GE had a brainstorm, went to Boeing and proposed fitting the GE engine on the B747. Like all airplanes of the time it was growing fast and needed more thrust. GE proposed that the customers would also like to have a choice on which engine they could have. GE's engines were performing well on the DC10 and the Rolls engine doing well on the L1011. Europe especially liked that Rolls Royce could get on the B747. Boeing agreed and it is reported that GE had to pay Boeing for the engineering costs to adapt the CF6 engine to the B747.


So it was done. GE was powering the the DC10-30, the B747 and the Airbus A300 with basically the same engine. Boeing also made a short version of the B747 called the SP or Special Purpose although a lot of us called it Fluf for "Fat Little Ugly Fucker." Other nicknames included Stupid Purchase, Short Plane and SFP or Short Fat Penis.


Qantas used this aircraft on the transpac route also called the Southern Cross route via SFO, Hawaii, Fiji. The B707 had been doing this route but the 707 only carried about 190 passengers while the SP carried over 300. The standard B747-200 carried about 480 passengers. With fewer passengers and weight, more fuel could be carried making these routes viable for the B747 while allowing Qantas, PanAm and United Airlines to carry more passengers per trip compared to the B707 and DC8.


Lufthansa also bought some SPs but JAL and ANA bought a bunch of them. Japan needed to move a lot of people around in a very small country. They didn't need so much the fuel range but the passenger capacity. The 747-SP for ANA had a special variant of the CF6-50 engine called the CF6-45. It was basically the exact same engine with a 10% detuning that would make it burn less fuel and last longer in service. Japan also used high density seating allowing up to 550 passengers to be crammed in like sardines on flights only lasting an hour or so.


Commercially, P&W was still the big dog with the B727 and B737 aircraft. In terms of engines sold and spare parts revenue the JT8D was a cash maker but GE had a good foothold in the business by the mid1970s and when I started working at GE the big deal at Ontario was the CF6-6, CF6-50 and the TF39 for the C5, all of which were being overhauled at GE's facility in Ontario.


If one is interested in the evolution of the engine competition I can highly recommend the book, "The Sporty Game." Not only does it explain how GE got on the B747 it goes into more depth on the people and the inevitable evolution where the engine became a separate competition from the airplane with different pricing and features. So that by the 90's an airline made a choice between say an Airbus A300 and a Boeing B767, largely similar airplanes, and then decides which of 3 engine makers they wanted on the airplane. The 80s became the heyday of air travel expansion and there was lots of money to be made. Freddy Laker, the DC10 and low cost flights to Europe allowed thousands and thousands of kids to backpack through Europe and basically invented the low cost/no frills airline. Additionally, overnight package delivery by FedEx founder Fred Smith along with UPS, DHL Airborne Express and others opened huge cargo airplane markets.


Here's a snapshot of the growth of the industry:





The CF6-50 - A single stage Fan provides core flow and bypass flow from one blade. A 14 stage compressor, 2 stage HP Turbine and a 5 stage LPT. The gearbox which houses fuel, oil and hydraulic pumps as well as the generators and engine control is moved to the bottom of the Fan case. This was the engine I learned my chops on.




18 views2 comments

To be able to make better sense of future chapters I am going to pause and interject some jet history that I only learned much later in my career. In 1982 I was still much a newbie on jet engines but was learning fast.


Original jet engines used a centrifugal compressor that was derived from turbo superchargers which needed to be very compact. However the fundamental rule of gas physics is how much air you can move through a pipe. The smallest diameter and area in a jet engine is between the compressor and the combustor and how much air you can push through that throat determines how powerful you can make the engine. The compressor, combustor and high pressure turbine make up what is called the gas generator or "core" engine. Efficiency and power come from compressing a lot of air tighter (compression ratio), lighting it and burning it efficiently and then extracting some of the heat energy through the turbine to drive the compressor.


The magic of a jet engine is not obvious unless one asks this question, "When you light off a bunch of jet fuel in a chamber, why doesn't it expand forward as well as backwards?" The answer is in the vane and blade designs. It's a lot more complicated than this but basically the area at the end of the compressor is smaller than the area at the end of the combustor and so the burning fuel takes the path of least resistance. Sometimes the airflow gets disturbed and the compressor will actually stall out, sometimes a fireball would come out the front. Compressor stalls are bad news.




The problem with the centrifugal compressor was that you could not get high pressure ratios and to induct more air you basically have to keep increasing the diameter of the impeller. Airplanes hate frontal area which means drag so the industry quickly went to an axial flow compressor. There are, of course, many successful centrifugal flow engines, primarily in the helicopter world where speeds are low and frontal area isn't as big a concern.


The initial jets were pure jets which is basically a gas generator accelerating a relatively small amount of air as quickly as possible. This gave the low frontal area needed and with after burner gave the thrust necessary to eventually break the sound barrier and beyond. But after-burning jets are terrible on fuel mileage so the idea came to add a second shaft, a second turbine and drive a small fan at the front that would bypass air around the engine. This is known as a low bypass engine. It gives acceptable fuel range at low speeds and can be put into afterburner for combat.


This is the configuration that is the standard today. You can see the original gas generator, it now has an axial compressor and a "fan turbine" (which is more commonly known as a Low Pressure Turbine, that has a concentric shaft going forward to drive a fan and low pressure compressor. How much air bypassing the engine is fixed and is known as the bypass ratio. Fighter jet engines are often in the 2:1 range.




Low bypass engines started in the 6,000 pounds of thrust area, quickly grew to 12-15,000 pounds and the latest low bypass engines are in the 25-30k range. Parallel to this was evolution to use turbojet engines on large transport aircraft. The epitome of piston technology is probably the Spruce Goose. It only weighed 300,000 pounds and was nearly as big as a B747 which amazing for it's time but it had 8 of the most complicated, and unreliable, piston engines in existence in 1947. Even WWII produced only the B29 which weighed in at 74,000 pounds.


Throughout the 50's and 60's there is a lot of large aircraft development. Primarily using pure jet and low bypass engines which resulted in a lot of weird airplanes. The most successful is probably the B52, first flown in 1955 and still flying today, it uses 8 Pratt and Whitney JT3 (later J57) engines in pods pods of 2. The B52 still only weighs about 180,000 pounds.


Pratt & Whitney, of course, was famous for its radial engines from WWII and quickly became the jet engine supplier of choice to the military, even though GE probably had more innovations than P&W ever did. GE was on some iconic helicopters, and of course the F86 but the High Bypass Fan changed the course of the game and especially commercial aviation.


GE decided that if a low bypass engine was good, why not use the gas generator to drive a huge fan and move lots of air at a slower speed, subsonic speeds. Thus was born the TF39, the first high bypass engine. The military chose the TF39 for the C5 Galaxy which first flew in 1969 and is still in service today. The TF39 had a 26:1 pressure ratio (high compression axial compressor), 8:1 bypass ratio (most air goes around the core engine) and produced 41,000 pounds of thrust.


The C5 has a gross weight of about 850,000 pounds which includes about 330,000 pounds of fuel and 240,000 pounds of cargo and can carry all that about 7,200 miles.


I forget the exact details but the core engine consisted of an axial compressor of probably 16 stages, each stage compressing the air more and more. There is an annular combustor replacing the can type combustors on early engines and a 2 stage high pressure turbine. The air is then expanded into a 6-stage low pressure turbine that drives the 1 1/2 stage fan. The short forward fan is also a low pressure compressor, delivering air into the high pressure compressor. The outer fan, which is behind the outer vanes drives a lot of air at a relatively low speed. Tip speeds are important as supersonic tip speeds are inefficient and aerodynamically unstable. Because there is no physical connection between the high and low pressure systems the core engine can run in the 16,000 rpm range while the fan and low pressure system is operating around 2,500 rpm.


With this evolution the stage is set for the next chapter in commercial aviation - The B747 and the great engine wars...




8 views2 comments

Thanks for submitting!

© 2022 original content created by Dan Deutsch. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page