Re: Some Turbofan Questions

From:         petercoe@netcom.com (Pete Coe)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date:         05 Aug 96 23:32:59 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Steve Lacker <slacker@arlut.utexas.edu> writes:

>Graham Glen <Graham@irving.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <airliners.1996.1342@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Don Stokes
>>
>>Your quite right, I'm sorry I was going from memory rather than
>>checking. Series 1 & 2S Comets had Ghosts.
>>
>>>I don't believe the preferred engies were Conways -- they didn't turn up
>>>until the 707 era.  The RR engines proposed for for the Comet 1 were pure
>>>turbojets like the Ghosts; Conways are fans.
>>>I'm not sure about the Comet 4; they may have had Conways.
>>
>>No, they had Avons as well. Mk 117 (7,300lb st) for the series 2 Comets,
>>Mark 502 (10,000lb st) for series 3 and Mark 524 (10,500lb st) for
>>series 4. (I did check this time!)

>My 1989 issue of "Jane's World Aircraft" lists the Nimrod (military development
>of the Comet) as having Spey engines. Were the Nimrods built with Speys, or was
>this a re-engining operation?

The Nimrod, whilst based on the Comet is actually quite a bit bigger.
It's certainly longer and also has a double-bubble fuselage, whilst
the Comets' all had an oval one.  Apart from the need for a more modern
power plant, the Nimrods also probably needed more power.

I have a 1964 Jane's at home, so if you want the full data on the Comet
I can find it eventually.