Author Topic: GPH in relation to WEP  (Read 913 times)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: GPH in relation to WEP
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2011, 02:26:30 PM »
dbl post...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline GNucks

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
      • VF-17 "Jolly Rogers"
Re: GPH in relation to WEP
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2011, 04:13:13 PM »
Wasn't it the water injection that caused the massive smoke output?

I've heard that on jets the water added "mass" to the flow which increased thrust.  Or was it used to cool?
That sounds pretty reasonable considering that's what you'd want in a jet.  I don't know about the smoke so I can't really speculate but it's plausible.  The Harrier uses water for hover and you definitely see smoke coming out of the nozzles when it's engaged. I don't know many specifics which is pretty clear to begin with and less so regarding jets the use of WEP or Water Injection in jets.

I read something about that when I was reading up on the water injection systems earlier. The water increases the mass being pushed out the engine which means more thrust. It also doubles its use by cooling to prevent or postpone overheating. Unfortunately the water thrown in with the combustion stifles or quenches it somewhat and some of the fuel doesn't get burned, and that's what explains the black smoke.

Rebel - Inactive
An amateur trains until he gets it right, a professional until he can't get it wrong.
vf-17.webuda.com

Offline Mystery

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
Re: GPH in relation to WEP
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2011, 05:43:28 PM »
An older but good basic primer on water/alcohol injection:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201007.html
No, no, no. That molecule is caffeine.