Images[edit]

The image in this article doesn't exactly show an afterburner, but rather the exhaust nozzle. Perhaps a more illustrative image demonstrating an afterburner in action, such as this one http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-14-Carrier-Launch2.jpg could be used instead?

added pics

The first image on the page shows the SR-71 without an afterburner. For an article about afterburners, wouldn't it be more logical for the first image to show a plane with an afterburner? --Scottie theNerd 08:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone indicate what the increase in thrust might be when adding the afterburner?

Diamonds[edit]

Could somebody knowledgeable add a section on why you get diamonds in an afterburner exhaust? Cheers, miterdale 11:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are caused by the exhaust gas velocity exceeding Mach 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Air Combat Link[edit]

The link to Air Combat leads to a redirect to a computer game. Presumably there is some better link?

Confusing[edit]

This is a well written article, but, I do not know much about aircraft (probably why I am looking at articles like this one), and this page is almost impossible for me to fully understand without doing a whole lot of background research first. I don't have a clue as to what some of the words in this article mean, so could someone please dumn it down a bit, for people who don't know much about aircraft. Thanks!

((Nosource autor|J58 AfterburnerT.jpeg))81.107.12.151 05:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((Nolicence autor|J58 AfterburnerT.jpeg))81.107.12.151 06:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Principle" section error[edit]

"Then while they [the gas] pass the turbine they expand at a constant pressure thus losing temperature."

When gases expand through a turbine they lose pressure and temperature. For an ideal turbine the process is isentropic i.e. happens at constant entropy, not pressure.

See the article on the Brayton cycle and look at the P-V or T-S diagrams for details - it is clear that the pressure does not remain constant through a turbine.

Generic name08 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, but in the text no reference is made to an "ideal" turbine, so the the text should read either

"Then while the gas passes the turbine, it expands at a near constant entropy, thus losing temperature."

or

"Then while the gas passes an ideal turbine, it expands at a constant entropy, thus losing temperature."

I know this is technical detail, but if there is any place that should be technically correct it's the encyclopedia, right? :)

And just to be thorough, you can read more about ideal and actual Brayton Cycles in Cengel YA and Boles MA, Thermodynamics - an Engineering Approach, McGraw Hill, 2006

Levraininjaneer (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)LeVraiNinjaneerReply[reply]

Examples of increase in thrust[edit]

Shouldn't there be actual examples (figures) for the net increase in thrust (in percent) when using re-heat on a few particular planes?

It's all very abstract without... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reheater[edit]

Reheater redirects here. however, a reheater is a very important, efficiency boosting heat exchanger in a power plant, should therefore be a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.253.51 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, we need to make sure that such an article doesn't already exist, or should exist, under another name, or as part of another article. - BilCat (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is Thermal power station#Reheater what you are talking about? - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reheat redirects here also. That is an alternate term for Afterburner. Maybe Reheater should redirect there instead (??). -fnlayson (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An afterburner is the device that provides reheat. One is the machinery (the afterburner), the other is the process (reheat). It's called 'reheat' because the air downstream from the combustion chambers/turbine is then again heated. It's called 'afterburning' because the air is heated again 'after' passing through the combustion chambers/turbine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.233 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, an afterburner is a specific example of a reheat system, the other (rarer) example being a reheated gas turbine, where there is a second combustion chamber between turbine stages - it's the turbine analogue of intercooling (the use of both would enhance the performance of a recuperator) but such a system would be prohibitively expensive to develop, so is very rare. The point though, is that a reheat system isn't necessarily an afterburner, so such a redirect should have some clarification.80.229.172.13 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Roll-Royce's Joe Holden the inventor of the afterburner?[edit]

I was watching a video on youtube [1] about an inventor called Joe Holden (who was born in 1930 so the age is about right) who said he invented the afterburner whilst he was an apprentice at Rolls Royce, I think this would be worth investigating and rolling into the article Back ache (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A 1957 Flight article by Hayne Constant with some info on early reheat development here: [2] Initial tests were in 1943-44 with a Power Jets W.1 and later a reheat Meteor I was flown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs re-writing, it has grown repetitive[edit]

and I am not sure the mention of the SR71 is appropriate - isn't that more of a ramjet than an afterburner? Midgley (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


XJ37[edit]

In the United States, there was an engine called the Lockheed L-1000, later designated the XJ37: It had an afterburner either from the outset or when the L-133 was proposed.

While the engine's designer, Nathan Price, had started working on gas-turbines as early as 1938; he wasn't working for Lockheed then (Lockheed, got interested in jets when they began working on a paper-project known as the L-133, which was aimed at overcoming compressibility effects: Supersonic flight in a dive at least, if not in level flight) but was during the L-133 development. While the engine was a failure, the idea was also being cooked up in the US 69.127.45.17 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

explanation[edit]

"the afterburner is, at its simplest, a type of ramjet" I believe this is a somewhat personal viewpoint and as such adds no value to the article. For example I would have said the afterburner is, at its simplest, a second combustion chamber. The reasoning for the viewpoint can be found in the referenced "Tailpipe Reheat" article and I think it is best left there for the serious reader rather than trying to use it in this Wikipedia article as an insightful one-liner. I propose deleting the statement.Pieter1963 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Design[edit]

"Older designs did not have a variable geometry nozzle but managed to operate well enough" I'll replace this statement as I don't believe it's true. Fixed nozzle running only lasted for the very first preliminary running, eg initial Solar I-16 testing. Also initial Derwent V testing ("Fast Jets - the history of reheat development at Derby" by Cyril Elliott). The Solar afterburners for the GE I-16, Westinghouse J34 (F6U and F7U), Allison J33/35 (F-94/89) all had 2-position eyelid nozzles ref SAE871354 "The First U.S. Afterburner Development".Pieter1963 (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenum Chamber Burning[edit]

That redirects here. "Similar to but not identical" is a nice narrative hook, but might one know the nature of the difference, please? PCB is from the Harrier articles. Midgley (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenum Chamber Burning uses fuel injected into a turbofan's cold bypass air stream from the compressors and then ignited, i.e., the bypass air, as opposed to using the heated core air from the turbine. On the BS100 a VTOL engine similar to the Rolls-Royce Pegasus, the reheat (PCB) was applied therefore to the cold front nozzles, rather than as is usual on other engines, using the combined streams in the hot (rear) ones - on both engines the front two nozzles normally ejected cold bypass air, whereas the rear two nozzles eject the hot stream from the engine core. On the BS100 reheat (PCB) was applied to the front cold air nozzles only. Few engines have the cold and hot gas flows separated in the manner of the Pegasus and BS100 so AFAIK PCB is not used in other more conventional types of turbofan. It really only existed to give greater take-off power and supersonic capability for the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 Harrier derivative.
PCB therefore is effectively reheat for a turbofan's bypass air only. Most normal reheated turbofans combine both bypass and core heated air, and reheat both.
BTW, it was called 'Plenum Chamber Burning' because the air in the front cold nozzles was already compressed and at a higher pressure than normal outside atmospheric pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New section on PCB now added to article here: Afterburner#Plenum_Chamber_Burning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PCB wasn't intended to be used for take-off in the P.1154, but rather only for high-speed flight. Using it for take-off would have flipped the aircraft over onto its back due to the thrust imbalance between the front and the rear nozzles, not to mention the problem of ground erosion and debris being thrown up by a supersonic exhaust stream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.110 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afterburner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead image[edit]

#1
#2
#3

Which image do you consider better as a lead image?

I would say the first one because it has a better angle and zoom-level for getting a clear view on the exhaust. However, BilCat reverted my edit since he thought the second image is better, though I do not see any qualities it has over the first image.

So, what do the users here think and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarrotrkux (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So why exactly do we need two images of the Typhoon's arse end on one page? And you clearly see the petals in #3, if it's that important to you, Andy. I don't really care which is in the Lead, but the OP needs to use some common sense when adding and deleting images, that he/she doesn't through out the baby with the bathwater is his campain to "balance" American images on Wikipedia. I removed the new Typhoon image (#1) party because it's so narrow vertically it makes a poor lead image, with the top of the tailfin cut off, in addition to being the second Typhoon image on the page. - BilCat (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By "see the petals" I don't mean "this illustrates the petals", so much as "the F-18 image is too hidden in heat shimmer". I don't particularly favour (or much like) either, but I'd be happy with the F-18.
For the rest of the article, there's plenty missing from the text, and image-wise too. It needs an eyelid nozzle, it needs a better view of nozzles and gutters (especially if both are discernibly distinct), the nozzle actuator rams, and a clear view con-div nozzle, such as the F100. We can't get one of the full-diameter Spey nozzles for the F-4K, but even the smaller nozzles for the service F-4K would illustrate some of the problems of fitting large reheat into airframes that weren't designed for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BilCat, the only time I actually replaced images because they were too one-sided was on a page about a diverse range of aircraft on which close to 90% of pictures were Lockheeds. In almost every other case I simply try to add pictures where appropriate. The reason I replaced the lead image here is because in my opinion it does not give a very good view of, well, anything other than the plane's right side due to the heat haze. After all, this article is about afterburners, hence an image that has a clearer view on the nozzle at the expense of the rest of the plane was sensible in my opinion. And I do not see what the issue is with me trying to choose a more international range of aircraft considering Wikipedia promotes a neutral point of view, and I do not believe you can deny that there seems to be a (perchance unintentional) bias towards American military hardware on a lot of pages, which is why I typically try to add Brazilian, Czech, Spanish, Chinese, German or what have you hardware if I add anything at all. That is entirely intentional, unmalicious, and in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Augmentor?[edit]

Aren't afterburners commonly called "augmentors" or "thruat aumentation" in some circles? I thought that was a common term used for them, trying to be neutral between "afterburner" and "reheater". Or perhaps is just that an AB is one specific TYPE of thrust augmentor, along with water injection. In the contexts I've seen it in, it seemed to use is a synomnym for afterburner. It cought to say something about this, as well as about the concept of thrust augmentation in general, and there should be a link from "thrust augmentor" or "augmentaion" to this page, or to SOMETHING. Right now they don't go anywhere.


Idumea47b (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they aren't. "Augmentor" isn't used (it's amazingly rare) and when it is used, it's a different device. An augmentor doesn't burn any additional fuel. What they do is more like a venturi, where a low-volume, high-speed stream (sometimes rocket exhaust) is used to entrain a much larger volume of air, so giving a better impedance match for typical vehicle velocities. The resultant higher-volume, lower-speed exhaust has the same energy as before, but is more efficient as a means of propulsion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Augmentor is often applied to a reheated turbofan jetpipe." ref. Gunston, The Development Of Jet And Turbine Aeroengines, p.52.
Jane's All The World's Aircraft even use all three terms in the same paragraph, "Afterburner...augmentor chutes...reheat fuel...augmentor fuel-flow...augmentor duct wall..".
Historical note on UK use of word: Whittle's aft fan ideas he called thrust augmentors. What he calls his No.4 augmentor had an afterburner behind the fan, although the fan was called the augmentor and the burner called reheat, ref his book "Gas Turbine Aerothermodynamics". Pieter1963 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflicting uses of "afterburner exit stagnation pressure" in same sentence[edit]

"In addition to the increase in afterburner exit stagnation temperature, there is also an increase in nozzle mass flow (i.e. afterburner entry mass flow plus the effective afterburner fuel flow), but a decrease in afterburner exit stagnation pressure (owing to a fundamental loss due to heating plus friction and turbulence losses).[citation needed]"

The same process shouldn't both increase and decrease afterburner exit stagnation pressure without any note on which there is more of. Obviously it's a net increase, as otherwise afterburners would be useless aside from the increase in mass flow (but at that point you may as well just squirt water backwards and you'd gain just as much thrust). I've rewritten the sentence in two ways that may be more correct with regards to stagnation pressure:

"While net afterburner exit stagnation pressure is increased by the combustion of fuel in the afterburner, some of the gain is offset by losses from friction, turbulence and fundamental loss due to heating. In addition to this increase in afterburner exit stagnation pressure, there is an increase in nozzle mass flow due to the injection of fuel.[citation needed]"

or

"In addition to the increase in afterburner exit stagnation temperature, there is also an increase in nozzle mass flow (i.e. afterburner entry mass flow plus the effective afterburner fuel flow), but a decrease in turbine exit stagnation pressure (owing to a fundamental loss due to heating plus friction and turbulence losses).[citation needed]"

I don't think the latter is correct, as the stagnation pressure shouldn't decrease at the turbine exit due to afterburner use.

I'm also not sure what the original author meant by "fundamental loss due to heating". Do they mean the loss of heat from conduction? This would decrease stagnation pressure at the afterburner's exit, but it's not directly "due to heating" but an increase in conduction due to higher heat at one side of the thermal transfer. Do they mean other inefficiencies inherent to burning stuff, such as noise? I'm not sure if this is a fundamental loss as much as a cycle efficiency issue.

It looks like the above misreads temperature for pressure so is not relevant as a query.Pieter1963 (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories