Talk:Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593/Archive 1

Archive 1

NNPOV?

Some superlatives in here (but not too many), we have 'unique in aviation as the only afterburning turbojet powering a commercial aircraft' apart from the Kolesov RD-36-51 powered Tupolev Tu-144 perhaps? 'It was the world's most efficient jet engine'? The cited reference does not make this clear (if it was true). Concorde and the Olympus were technological marvels but we do need to keep things neutral. Have no references at the moment but will try to fix it eventually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was actually the worlds most efficient jet engine. The reason is that jet engines in general are slightly more efficient (per mile) at supersonic speeds than subsonic, and more than that the British engineers did the most work on tuning it (because they had to- the airframe was seriously unaerodynamic!!!!) I'll dig up the reference for it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It already is referenced. There's absolutely nothing wrong with quoting an expert saying something he is expert about.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I went to a lecture by one of the Concorde pilots and he said exactly the same thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference seems to be a TV programme script and I can't easily (therefore nobody else can) see where this fact is verified (in fact I didn't find it at all). Concorde service was discontinued due to high operating costs (maintenance and fuel), I grant that turbojets are relatively 'efficient' at high speed but we need to see verified numbers. Three replies in ten minutes indicates a defensive position on my justified comments. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hah! On the contrary, your very POV edit made me believed the fact wasn't referenced, without bothering to check I went off to add the reference, only to discover it already was. Then I was quite rightly annoyed at you wasting my time like that. Good luck with trying to persuade people that a technical expert quoted by a reputable source isn't correct on a fact firmly in their domain of expertise.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting side-note – the Olympus engines used in Concorde are also used (in a marinised form) in the British Navy's "Invincible Class" aircraft carriers. Indeed, they also have 4 of them! - It's a bit of a mind bender that these 2 utterly different vehicles share almost exactly the same propulsion. Here's some more detail; http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/aircraft-carriers/hms-illustrious/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.176.162 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is noted at Rolls-Royce Olympus, the engine that the 593 was developed from. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"the engine that the 593 was developed from" was surely a Bristol-Siddeley Olympus. I'm tired of Derby rewriting history. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was the Bristol Olympus – see here: [1]

It was actually the worlds most efficient jet engine. The reason is that jet engines in general are slightly more efficient (per mile) at supersonic speeds than subsonic – this is due to a thing called the Froude efficiency, which is why turbojets were chosen for Concorde rather than turbofans. Concorde was one of the few jet aircraft that spent most of its time at Mach 2 so the Froude efficiency became of greater overall importance. Propulsive efficiency is at its best when the forward movement of the aircraft exactly counter-balances the rearward exhaust stream from the engines, i.e., the airspeed exactly matches the speed of the jet exhaust, but in the opposite direction – the overall movement of the jet exhaust is zero compared to the external atmosphere. Because of the high-speed jet exhaust, turbojets are only really efficient at very high airspeeds.

This is why turbofans have taken over from turbojets for the majority of commercial airliners as they 'only' fly at around 500mph, and is also why the turboprop is still preferred for airliners that are not required to fly so fast, such as for feeder liners, which fly at around 250-350mph. Each of these different engine types is more efficient at the designed airspeeds intended for the aircraft. It's to do with how fast the air is moved backwards, and how much of it is moved.

This is why the early jet fighters were very inefficient as far as fuel consumption was concerned. Apart from the relatively primitive state of the art back then in terms of engine design, the early subsonic jet fighters only flew at speeds around 500mph. This meant that a large amount of the jet engine's power was wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Build numbers?

20 Concorde. 67 engines? Something isn't right somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems unlikely as they must have been a few test engines and spares, perhaps we should not use self-published websites as sources. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Another site (Concorde Heritage) which is still SPS but appears much more accurate and comprehensive, gives 67 plus four held as spare by RR for the production Mk.610, no numbers are given for the pre-production/flight test engines. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was reading this article and was about to make the same conclusion; 67 is not correct. It could be 67 of the final version of the engine as 14 x 4 = 56 engines. If the two production aircraft are counted, then 16 x 4 = 64 engines, allowing for 3 spares. The prototype Concorde and pre-production Concorde used a different version of the Olympus 593. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

World's most efficient jet engine?

Please see http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-AVT-150/EN-AVT-150-12.pdf

Referring to Fig 2 'overall efficiency against Mach' the Concorde comes out marginally lower than the SR-71 making the 593 the second most efficient jet engine or at best first equal. Does this seal it with a credible reference? I used to work at Patchway and am neutral BTW.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The SR-71's J58 isn't a turbojet at full speed, it's more akin to a ramjet. Although its efficiency is likewise high (high aircraft speeds just favour jet engine efficiency), it's not directly comparable as an engine type. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The ramjet idea is a very widely held view. It appears in forums, aviation web sites, even books. However, P&W (who made it), Lockheed (who installed it) and the operators (who flew it and maintained it) called it an afterburning turbojet with bypass bleed. Just knowing this and nothing more is enough to set the alarm bells off when you hear the R word.

I think it was the popular writers who gave it some ramjet mystique because they didn't understand how the engine worked, never mind the complete propulsion system. This is understandable because until the web made available the P&W patent (or 'Mach3.2 fix' if you like) and the YF-12/SR-71 Flight Manuals (which describe in detail the complete propulsion system airflows including the engine) it was a bit of a secret.

Since all the details are available now for everyone to read it's a brave person who thinks the above engineers didn't really know what the engine was, ie just an afterburning turbojet with a bit more compressor bleed than usual. Do you have a particular idea you are thinking of? Pieter1963 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of these engines have to be considered in conjunction with their inlet and exhaust systems, not just the engine core. The difference with the J58 is that at high speed, there's a substantial airflow around the engine (not just compressor bleed, it bypasses the compressor too). Any compression achieved in this airflow is just done by inlet spike, i.e. operation as a ramjet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The amount of nacelle bypass flow, which was about 1/3 of the total intake flow at cruise, was largely dictated by the requirements of the ejector nozzle where it appeared in lieu of metal parts. There was plenty of ram in the intake and lots of expansion in the propelling nozzle but all the fuel was burned in a turbojet.Pieter1963 (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at the proportion of thrust generated by each component. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean the 593 installation is also akin to a ramjet, just to a lesser degree with its lower intake thrust contribution, lower secondary flow, etc?Pieter1963 (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, because the Concorde installation doesn't pass air around the engine, as the SR-71 does. There is some spillage, but this is just to control shockwave position within the inlet ramp system. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the Concorde secondary flow was about 6% and exhausted at the final nozzle and the SR71 flow was about 30% and exhausted at the final nozzle what is the definition of ramjet action?Pieter1963 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thrust, not flow volume. Also what do you mean here by "secondary flow" in Concorde's sense? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The secondary flow was derived from the intake throat at the ramp bleed slot and passed through the engine bay exhausting in the dual stream secondary nozzle thus making it a similar configuration in principle to the SR71. Only the actual values were different. The part played by the secondary stream in the final nozzle was essential in defining high exhaust efficiency just as it was in the SR71.Pieter1963 (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thrust, not flow volume. Look at the large proportion of thrust generated around the inlet of the J58 at M3. I don't believe Concorde's inlet system generated anything like this thrust. It certainly had bleed from the ramps, and that may have exhausted at the nozzle (I don't know – I thought it went overboard in the vicinity of the inlet, but I've not checked). However this was not generating the same substantial thrust that it does in the J58, or in a ramjet (and don't forget, Bristol were pretty expert on ramjets at this period).

I have heard, anecdotally, that the Bristol 188 was intended to be developed with a moving spike system for generating thrust in much the same way as the J58. This was developed independently, as a purely UK invention, as the A12 was highly secret at this time and Bristol were unaware of it. Several high-speed British aircraft were being planned that could make use of such a system (see Tony Butler's books). Bristol's knowledge of ramjets showed that such thrust was available, useful and would be produced almost as a side-effect of such a high-Mach inlet system being based on a translating centrebody. In the end, the 188 was its infamous failure and never achieved its design speeds. As a result, one of the aspects of the program that was abandoned was this development work on inlet thrust from centrebodies. Concorde was a deliberately slower aircraft (the aluminium vs exotics choice) and so never required this, or had the speed to make it viable. As it (as a passenger aircraft) did need to avoid risk of compressor surges and the like, a more reliable (i.e. aerodynamically "well behaved") inlet system was needed, even at the cost of possible efficiencies, and so the 2D ramps were chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with everything you have said above. Good stuff.

Thrust, thrust and more thrust. Lots of thrust from the intake, even at SR71 speeds, doesn't allow us to use the word ramjet, only the word ram on its own. The words ram and jet can only be put together if fuel is burned in between the ram in the intake and the jet coming out the back. So to use the word ramjet in connection with the SR71 is only valid if you burn fuel in the air flowing around the engine in the nacelle.

The different thrust levels generated in the intakes of the Concorde, SR71 and ramjets are all generated in principle in exactly the same way, from the 'ram' in the intake or flight speed. This means the Concorde and SR71 installations were very similar in principle. No 'ramjet effect' for the SR71, just a bit more "ram' effect than the Concorde. Even the thrust from a ramjet intake is nothing to do with 'ramjet effect', just the 'ram' effect in the intake from the flight speed.Pieter1963 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ramjet, schmamjet. I'm not claiming particularly that the J58 was a ramjet, or that it was strictly "ramjet-like behaviour" that made it different. All I'm doing is picking up a very widely used term to describe the J58, as doing something that is not done by other turbojets, isn't done by Concorde, isn't done by turbofan bypass, but is done by ramjets. Call this what you like, argue over whether it's truly a ramjet or not, but there was thrust produced by the J58 inlet spike that was (AFAIK) unique to this engine (XB-70 I don't know about) and certainly wasn't produced by Concorde's inlets. This is why there is no logical inconsistency in saying that both the J58 and the Concorde 593 were both "the most efficient": their distinction is because they're subtly different types of engine installation, so one cannot take simple primacy over the other.

That said, I'm seeing compression by a static inlet system and I'm seeing heat added before the nozzle, so I'm not going to challenge "ramjet" either. Whether fuel was burned in this airflow or not is beyond my pay grade and clearance, but heat from that burning fuel was certainly transferred into the "ram" bypass flow. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to get on the same wavelength and help where I think I can – difficult to do when you're not face to face, hence the lengthy and good-natured discussion as we try to understand where we are each coming from. Luckily for me this last post of yours has supplied the key, namely that you were referring to the intakes only with 'it's more akin to a ramjet'. We got there in the end which is all that matters. However I'm still having trouble with your original statement 'The SR-71's J58 isn't a turbojet at full speed'. Never mind. We are not talking the same language unfortunately. Apologies.Pieter1963 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted my previous question. Hadn't read the statement correctlyPieter1963 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just looked up some numbers for cruise, B.Trubshaw's book, Concorde inlet 63%, engine 8%, nozzle 29%. Kelly Johnson paper SR71 inlet 56%, engine 17%, nozzle 27%.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure XB-70 intake thrust would have been right up there also with its 85-90% recovery,Jenkins and Landis book.Pieter1963 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone feels the need to include a superlative then simply stating that the Olympus 593 has more flight hours of supersonic operation than all the other engines in the world put together may suffice – that's probably true. Though where you'll find a reference for this I don't know.

Concorde Olympus 593 inlet system info here: [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, during its over 3-hour Mach 2 cruise, Concorde's Olympus 593's ran continuously at 100% dry power.

Concorde only needed about 2hr 20min at supercruise to cross from just off Long Island to just off Land's End or vice versa. The rest of the flight time was acceleration, deceleration and subsonic mucking-about at each end. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Most airline pilots would feel very uncomfortable operating their engines at, in effect, take-off (100%) power for extended periods, Concorde's however routinely did this every day for decades.

... most aero engines are time-limited on their take-off 100% rating, usually something like five or 10 minutes. The Olympus 593 reheat units were time-limited to IIRC 15 minutes continuous use. The 593 engines also had a 103% 'Contingency' rating usable for emergencies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Returning to NNPOV of many years ago

...and the statement that does not meet wiki standards "Installed in Concorde and while operating at Mach 2, Rolls-Royce engineers claimed that it was the world's most efficient jet engine." I propose replacing with "The overall thermal efficiency of the engine in cruising flight was about 43%, which was the highest figure recorded for any normal thermodynamic machine at the time"(1984)

This is a quote but we could replace ntm with turbojet if it reads better.Pieter1963 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A 1984 BBC QED documentary mentioning Concorde engine efficiency here: [3] The narrator is Anthony Clare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

References

revise "Design" section

This section should be specific to this engine, not a basic explanation of a turbojet. I have incorporated the details from "compression" section.

"but the thrust of the Olympus 302 rose to 30,610 lbf (136 kN)" removed as it has no meaning.Pieter1963 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Air Intake System

Regarding this recent modification, may this information in "Concorde Heritage" site be useful? Seems that "Concorde Heritage" was developed by experts in the Concorde project.PauloMSimoes (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 → Olympus 593 – WP:COMMONNAME; unnecessarily long article name and "Olympus 593" is not ambiguous. Also used in infobox -- intgr [talk] 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – Would go against long established engine article naming convention (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per Nimbus. While the Concorde article certainly has a strong case for ignoring the naming conventions in favor of common name, the engine isn't nearly as well known. - BilCat (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What?

 "A partial reheat (20% thrust boost)[3] was installed to give the required take-off thrust. It was also used for transonic acceleration from just below Mach 1 up to Mach 1.7; the engine supercruised above that speed and at cruise the thrust through the engine mounts contributed 8% of the thrust from the complete propulsion system.

I cannot decipher this statement, unless it means that each engine was producin only 8% of potential total thust, as opposed to 25% at max takeoff power. The way its written seems to suggest that the engines (or just each engine to be generous) is only producing 8% of the total thrust, while the other 92% of thrust is coming from some mysterious alternative source. The engines are the only source of thrust, and they contribute 100% of the total thrust at any given moment. It can also be interpreted to say that the engine mounts contribute this "8%" of thrust, which is clearly ridiculous; engine mounts contribute no thrust, they transmit thrust from the engines to the airframe. Likewise, they are the only means of transmitting the thrust, so it cannot mean that "8% of engine thrust is transferred through the engine mounts, while 92% is transferred some other way", which is yet another possible interpretation of this phrase. A phrase which can be interpreted in multiple ways is rarely a good thing in a technical article, especially when none of the things it appears to say make any sense. My guess is that it actually means to say "the Concorde can supercruise at only 32% of maximum rated power", although even that seems somewhat unlikely to me. Not impossible though. Breaking it down into 'percentage of total system thrust per engine' is just confusing to the reader, even if it was clearly stated: the Concorde is running at 32% total thrust; each engine is therefore also running at 32% thrust. Simple, easy to understand. I don't think the engine mounts need to come into it at all, unless you are going to explain how some of the thrust is transmitted otherwise, and i can't imagine how.

64.222.204.75 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's confusing. The statement was added in this edit

@Pieter1963: Can you explain what this means? -- intgr [talk] 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concur it's confusing. Although I certainly don't understand it, at high supersonic speeds, the inlet and exhaust of turbojet aircraft are said to contribute to the overall thrust of the engine, and I think that's what the sentence was trying to say. It apparently got mangled it the process of rewording the source in one's own words. The best thing to do is to consult the original source first, and go from there, or find another source to use. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The original source shows an Appendix VIIIb titled "Power Plant – distribution of thrust and drag" The diagram shows the powerplant consisting of intake, engine and propelling nozzle. It shows 63% of the thrust coming from the intake, 8% from the engine, and 29% from the nozzle. I took the liberty of adding the mount bit to explain how the 8% engine contribution gets to the airframe. I guess we should take it out as it's confusing, which is not what I intended. Then it will be verbatim from the diagram.

Since words seldom take the place of pictures I have found a copy of the diagram online. See post#12 in this forum https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/426900-concorde-engine-intake-thrust.html Post#5 quotes an explanation for saying "the engine only produces 8%" from a publication "The Concorde Air Intake Control System".

The terminology for a supersonic aircraft, eg the engine contributes only x% of the thrust" is normal. eg for an SR-71 Blackbird see Table 1 Propulsive thrust distribution at Mach 3+, inlet 54%, engine 17.6%, ejector 28.4%. ref AIAA paper "F-12 Series Aircraft Propulsion System Performance and Development".

If it's still confusing without mention of the mounts, and after reading the sourced explanation, let me know. Cheers.Pieter1963 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Engines on display

Just an observation, I believe that the engine listed as being at M-Shed in Bristol is now at the Aerospace Bristol musem at Filton. Can anyone fond a source to confirm this? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)