The TR.5 Orenda was the second engine produced by Avro Canada: the first was the TR.4 Chinook which never saw commercial production. This is one of the few videos which doesn't have me asking, "What am I supposed to be looking at?:, and in particular, "Stop shaking the camera; I'm getting a headache". Good video.
A question in regards to efficiency of flow dynamics. I see separate compression chambers for each flame can. Compared to 1 compression core for all flame canisters, does this make a difference in efficiency? It's as if the air flow has to split up into different parts.
The best Canadian engine ever made is the PT6. Designed in the early 60s, still in production today, most popular turbine engine ever.
When the refugees came from Orenda to United Aircraft of Canada (Pratt and Whitney), they scoffed at this little engine that could. That is until they realized what these engineers did with such a small budget, and that the clearances and tolerances for the PT6 were far more demanding than even the Iroquois.
My father was there as the instrument maker creating that Orenda Iroquois engine. There is a wonderful book written by the Cheif engineer of the Iroquois project that should be in all libraries or on line.
Too bad I loaned it to someone.
John Armstrong was the author
The history of the Nobel Test Establishment is probably the name.
My dad was a nav on CF-100's with 440 AWFSquadron . Hearing this engine run somehow makes that connection for me , as I wasn't born yet when he was flying ! I served 21 yr.s in the CF as an aeroengine tech ( 1981-2002 ). To measure thrust on the Orenda , did you have an EPR gauge like the J57 Voodoo engine ?
For the flight Orenda engines, we have strain gauges that read thrust directly. If interested, there is a new turbine forum, that kicks these old engines around a bit. If you message AgengtJayZ, he can point you to it.
This is the Orenda 8 I'm talking about." The first real production model was the Orenda 8, which was the powerplant of the CF-100 Mk.3. This model was first flown in September 1952 and entered service in 1953.
Core engine for this industrial unit is the -14 (The -14 and -11 units are identical, -14 is for single engine Sabre, the -11 for twin engine CF-100) None of the OTF-3 industrial units were based on the -8 engines, that I know of.
Kerosene contains more energy per gallon than diesel, and the exhaust smells better, but the engine make the same power with both. It just uses a bit more diesel.
Power is limited by turbine temp, and fuel flow is whatever is needed to get the power until that temp is reached.
As noted in the info section, this engine is running on propane, so no smoke, and no smell in the exhaust.
I've heard that gas turbines can run on just about any flammable fluid. Forgive my ignorance, but I have always wondered what would happen if normal gasoline were used instead of a less refined petrochemical like kerosene. Would it run or just overheat the turbine section?
Ah, OK. So the volatility of the fuel influences efficiency but not thrust. I always wanted to work on these things... But I was stupid and gave up studying aerospace to persue a career in computing. You have a great job.
Part 2 of post "History of the Orenda Test Establishment at Nobel"
My father was the instrument technician at that establishment and I learned much about his job there from reading about the hazards of developing a turbine engine one blade at a time.
Fascinating reading even for those who weren't born there.
This book may be available from the Western Parry Sound District Museum or the Parry Sound Library. If it isn't it should be.
The "History of the Orenda Test Establishment at Nobel" by John L Armstrong Engineer in Charge ISBN 0-9680684-7-2 is a wonderful description of the development of the equipment used in the development of the Iroquois engine with many anecdotes, illustrations and photographs. It is surprisingly accurate and contains many insider stories.
I was given a little plate with Orenda on it by an engineer friend of mine that used to work at Avro. It looked identical to the one that guy was pointing at. I ended up donating it to a museum.
Thanks for the reply and I understand what you are saying but I was basing my comment on our own engines. I work for Rolls-Royce and all components are inspected in a similar manner to your own but component failure is always possible even from new. I must admit that its unlikely, as you have stated, but why take a risk? All our monitoring is done elctronically removing this risk.
P.S. Thanks for your sensible and informative reply. Usually get pointless ones from idiots.
In the Canadian natural gas booster stations, personnel work right beside the running turbine engines, day in and day out. We are only encouraged to leave the engine rooms, during start ups, but even that doesn't always happen. If an industrial turbine is built right, they're safer than a commerical flight 'cross country.
Yeah, You are right about the industrial engine aspect. Our industrial engines run for long periods of time too. As you know doubt know its generally at take off when Aero engines fail due to the violent increase in loads when accelerating.
Most of our industrial gas turbine work is done in Canada too. Seems thats the place to be for Industrial engines..!
Essentially, if anyone were to make an engine which they were not completely confident in the stability of, they would never get any customers. I would personally feel very safe standing where those guys are right there.
I guess it all comes down to one thing. The problems with Industrial Gas Turbines are quite different to those for Aero use. Industrial Engines don't have such a concern about weight so they can be made a little stronger and as such they are less likely to burst.
Nevertheless, I realise they have their own problems to deal with but I am not going to specify them as I come from the Aero side of things and don't have the experience with Industrial turbines.
No, really, if there's the slightest chance the engine is going to explode nobody would use it. That's a test engine, it's guaranteed to be completely new and undamaged parts. Every airplane malfunction crash in modern aviation history was the result of poor maintenance and/or incompetence.
Afraid I have to disagree with you there. The stresses in Aero Gas Turbines are very high and the need for minimum weight along with low fuel burn means that everything is on the edge. Failures can and do happen due to a number of unforseen factors but they are hardly incompetance. After all RR, GE & P&W get them so are you saying all of them are incompetant?
IMHO, I would say that all of the failures the OEMs experience with established, not experimental, engines are the result of mistakes in assembly, flaws in parts manufacturing, improper maintenance, or abuse in service.
The engineering is sound, and proven.
As I'm sure you know, when properly assembled, these things are in another dimension of power and reliablity from anything else.
The early Orendas had a problem with shock cooling in the compressor section, where if they were deluged with water (say, in a rainstorm) the compressor section would shrink and come in contact with the compressor rotors - as you can imagine it was pretty catastrophic. Several CF-100s were lost this way until a fix was made.
Fantastic work bringing an Orenda back to life. Now, if only we could do a couple of flight-certified ones to get Canadian Warplane Heritage's CF-100 Mk.4 back in the air!
The point is, if there was a discernible chance that something would go catastrophically wrong, it would be experimental, and they wouldn't be standing next to it. This isn't an experimental engine. If they've used an engine as much as they've used these without major incident, I'd happily walk right up to it.
Related info: all of the casings, shafts, disks, and major parts are essentially unchanged from the aero examples.
"Industrial" engines are different from the flying ones mainly by the deletion of systems, like fuel and oil pumps, electrical generators... all can be more easily supplied by stationary "off engine" equipment.
The only "stronger" casings I know of are for the RR RB211 DLE (dry low emission).
That combustor casing is inch thick steel, and weighs a couple tons.
Some more info. The Speys on ThrustSSC were from a British variant of the Phantom. Speys and Olympus engines powered many more things and most were British, not American.
Am enjoying your videos instead of going to bed. The list of engines you mentions brings back memories. I'm old enough to remember "can" combustors. Thanks for sharing.
The TR.5 Orenda was the second engine produced by Avro Canada: the first was the TR.4 Chinook which never saw commercial production. This is one of the few videos which doesn't have me asking, "What am I supposed to be looking at?:, and in particular, "Stop shaking the camera; I'm getting a headache". Good video.
MsJfraser 1 year ago
Thanx for the reply. The word annular sums it up. If I'm not mistaken, a PT-6 has the single annular combustor. As well as an AP Unit.
skyferret1 2 years ago
Almost all modern engines do.
AgentJayZ 2 years ago
A question in regards to efficiency of flow dynamics. I see separate compression chambers for each flame can. Compared to 1 compression core for all flame canisters, does this make a difference in efficiency? It's as if the air flow has to split up into different parts.
skyferret1 2 years ago
Short answer is yes, efficiency improves with one annular combustor.
Early engines had individual liners in individual combustors.
Then the "can-annular" design became popular, which has individual liners arranged in a circle inside a single combustor case.
The next step was to use a single annular liner inside an annular case.
One single annular combustor is more difficult to build, repair, and hugely more expensive to replace.
They cost around half a million US.
AgentJayZ 2 years ago
GreenOuts (Gringos) MF !!!!! ...... They sabotaged the project of the Canadians !!!!! For the best plane of his epoch......
jcfebles2081 3 years ago
This was the first engine produced by a new company that was called Orenda engines.
The NEXT engine they designed was the Iroquois... and that was the engine to power the Avro Arrow.
That engine was more than twice as powerful as the P&W J57... and it was cancelled along with the Arrow.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
The best Canadian engine ever made is the PT6. Designed in the early 60s, still in production today, most popular turbine engine ever.
When the refugees came from Orenda to United Aircraft of Canada (Pratt and Whitney), they scoffed at this little engine that could. That is until they realized what these engineers did with such a small budget, and that the clearances and tolerances for the PT6 were far more demanding than even the Iroquois.
Propsink 2 years ago
Good post. I've said that the PT6 is the small block Chevy of the turbine world...
But it's much more reliable.
AgentJayZ 2 years ago
@AgentJayZ
My father was there as the instrument maker creating that Orenda Iroquois engine. There is a wonderful book written by the Cheif engineer of the Iroquois project that should be in all libraries or on line.
Too bad I loaned it to someone.
John Armstrong was the author
The history of the Nobel Test Establishment is probably the name.
gragor11 10 months ago
My dad was a nav on CF-100's with 440 AWFSquadron . Hearing this engine run somehow makes that connection for me , as I wasn't born yet when he was flying ! I served 21 yr.s in the CF as an aeroengine tech ( 1981-2002 ). To measure thrust on the Orenda , did you have an EPR gauge like the J57 Voodoo engine ?
prsjoe 3 years ago
This is an industrial engine, but it is so similar to the flying version that some parts of an ex-flyer were used in rebuilding it.
But we don't measure thrust - we measure exhaust gas pressure in the restricted tailcone.
We use that to calculate equivalent hosepower.
This engine is now connected to a power turbine at a gas plant in Canada.
It made just over 10,000 Hp on this day.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
For the flight Orenda engines, we have strain gauges that read thrust directly. If interested, there is a new turbine forum, that kicks these old engines around a bit. If you message AgengtJayZ, he can point you to it.
aruju01 3 years ago
Hey, sorry to go a lil off topic, but can someone help me out? How is the compressor able to compete against the combustion pressure?
When the compressed air is ignited, wouldn't it force the compressor to spin in the opposite direction, due to the higher pressure?
treborly 3 years ago
The answer is simple:
Go take a look at a book, or even a website about these engines. one of the best is a book called "the Jet Engine" by Rolls Royce.
Great descriptions and loads of cool diagrams.
It's in most libraries.
The whole way it happens is counterintuitive, so you need to study it, but then you'll understand.
Better than having me try to explain it.
If I could i'd write a book, wouldn't I?
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Yep thats great lots of info.
This is the Orenda 8 I'm talking about." The first real production model was the Orenda 8, which was the powerplant of the CF-100 Mk.3. This model was first flown in September 1952 and entered service in 1953.
Orenda 8 - improved reliability, 6,000 lbf (27 kN)"
Saguanay 3 years ago
Sorry for being flippant. It sounds like you are more of an Orenda expert than me.
The only footage I have is of this particular engine.
I will see if I can find the old data tags from the flight engine donor we used.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Core engine for this industrial unit is the -14 (The -14 and -11 units are identical, -14 is for single engine Sabre, the -11 for twin engine CF-100) None of the OTF-3 industrial units were based on the -8 engines, that I know of.
aruju01 3 years ago
I must have missed it but what model Orenda is that and what airframe was it flown in?
One other question, you wouldn't have any sound clips / videos of an Orenda 8 running?
Saguanay 3 years ago
difference noted between kerosene and diesel running??
chrigui 3 years ago
Sorry for not responding sooner!
Kerosene contains more energy per gallon than diesel, and the exhaust smells better, but the engine make the same power with both. It just uses a bit more diesel.
Power is limited by turbine temp, and fuel flow is whatever is needed to get the power until that temp is reached.
As noted in the info section, this engine is running on propane, so no smoke, and no smell in the exhaust.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
I've heard that gas turbines can run on just about any flammable fluid. Forgive my ignorance, but I have always wondered what would happen if normal gasoline were used instead of a less refined petrochemical like kerosene. Would it run or just overheat the turbine section?
scrfce123 3 years ago
They can run on anything that burns.
With liquid fuel nozzles, diesel, kerosene, gasoline, motor oil, olive oil, everclear, paint thinner, liquid margarine... whatever.
The heavier stuff might make smoke, and cause carbon soot buildup in the turbine section... but it would probably be blown off in the 1000mph airflow.
With gaseous fuel nozzles ( bigger holes ), the engine will run on LPG, propane, methane, hydrogen, butane... whatever you got.
Gasoline fuel would just be expensive.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I assume that the more volatile the fuel the more thrust produced.
scrfce123 3 years ago
No, thrust produced is proportional to heat. And temperature of the turbine is the limiting factor.
Whatever the "energy density" or volatility of the fuel doesn't matter.
It's the heating of the air by burning fuel in it that makes it blast out the back. That's your thrust.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Ah, OK. So the volatility of the fuel influences efficiency but not thrust. I always wanted to work on these things... But I was stupid and gave up studying aerospace to persue a career in computing. You have a great job.
scrfce123 3 years ago
Part 2 of post "History of the Orenda Test Establishment at Nobel"
My father was the instrument technician at that establishment and I learned much about his job there from reading about the hazards of developing a turbine engine one blade at a time.
Fascinating reading even for those who weren't born there.
This book may be available from the Western Parry Sound District Museum or the Parry Sound Library. If it isn't it should be.
gragor
gragor11a 3 years ago
The "History of the Orenda Test Establishment at Nobel" by John L Armstrong Engineer in Charge ISBN 0-9680684-7-2 is a wonderful description of the development of the equipment used in the development of the Iroquois engine with many anecdotes, illustrations and photographs. It is surprisingly accurate and contains many insider stories.
Continued in the next post.
gragor11a 3 years ago
How much RPM this does?
maypepnecro 3 years ago
At the 0:48 mark in the video, it is running near full RPM, which is 7400 to 7800 rpm.
The rest of the video shows it idling at about 5500 rpm.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
I was given a little plate with Orenda on it by an engineer friend of mine that used to work at Avro. It looked identical to the one that guy was pointing at. I ended up donating it to a museum.
therealbeaker 3 years ago
That's the cover plate on the speed pickup, which senses engine rpm.
The early covers look like the one in this video, with a winged design and the words Orenda Canada cast into them.
Later ones just had the word Orenda.
Back in the day, and especially when a flying engine was decomissioned or scrapped, these covers tended to disappear quite often.
These engines once powered the CF86 sabre, and the CF-100 Canuck in the RCAF.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
... I mean the words Orenda and Avro.
But they were designed and built in Canada.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Even some of the industrial versions of this engine have been fitted with flat plates of aluminum to replace this missing cover.
The engine you see here does have some transplanted parts from former fliers.
The speed pickup cover is from a retired aircraft engine.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Surprised they were allowed to stand next to the engine while it was running!! If the fan blade failed they would have been seriously injured...
Bossman1959uk 4 years ago
It took a team of four technicians about six weeks to disassemble, clean, inspect, repair, refinish and reassemble this engine.
Every single blade and stator in the compressor and turbine sections were intensely scrutinized.
As an overhauled unit, it is considered fit to endure another TBO cycle. It is essentially new.
There is no fan on this engine, but I get your drift.
For an undamaged compressor blade to fail in a running engine... I have never heard of that happening.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
Thanks for the reply and I understand what you are saying but I was basing my comment on our own engines. I work for Rolls-Royce and all components are inspected in a similar manner to your own but component failure is always possible even from new. I must admit that its unlikely, as you have stated, but why take a risk? All our monitoring is done elctronically removing this risk.
P.S. Thanks for your sensible and informative reply. Usually get pointless ones from idiots.
Bossman1959uk 4 years ago
OK, now I understand.
I once also worked for a large company, licensed by RR and GE. The test cell alone cost over 20 million to build.
We don't have a budget like that, and we do a lot with a little.
What appears like risk is usually the most economical way to get it done.
We are all very cautious and aware of the potential for harm.
Like high-steel riggers on a skyscraper, we may appear to be pretty casual, but it's just a way to deal with the seriousness of the situation.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
TBO: Time between overhauls
Usually measured in thousands of hours, but typically several years of continuous operation.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
In the Canadian natural gas booster stations, personnel work right beside the running turbine engines, day in and day out. We are only encouraged to leave the engine rooms, during start ups, but even that doesn't always happen. If an industrial turbine is built right, they're safer than a commerical flight 'cross country.
aruju01 4 years ago
We may not put our engines in aircraft, but we are thinking of you, aruju01, when we put these things together.
We are careful to obsession, and pick over every detail many times.
Six weeks in the summer of '07, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week.
4 perfectionist technicians.
This engine was our only concern during that time.
No distractions.
No tolerance for error.
We confidently stand beside it at full power.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
Yeah, You are right about the industrial engine aspect. Our industrial engines run for long periods of time too. As you know doubt know its generally at take off when Aero engines fail due to the violent increase in loads when accelerating.
Most of our industrial gas turbine work is done in Canada too. Seems thats the place to be for Industrial engines..!
Bossman1959uk 4 years ago
I worked for three years at the only Canadian licensed RR overhaul facility I know of. You may know of "the independent alternative".
As you can see, I now work for the Truly Independent Alternative.
Stay tuned for an Avon test.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
I work in the UK on the Aero Engine side of things so I can't really comment on "the independant alternative".
Look forward to the Avon test.
Bossman1959uk 3 years ago
Essentially, if anyone were to make an engine which they were not completely confident in the stability of, they would never get any customers. I would personally feel very safe standing where those guys are right there.
sir3ntropy 3 years ago
I guess it all comes down to one thing. The problems with Industrial Gas Turbines are quite different to those for Aero use. Industrial Engines don't have such a concern about weight so they can be made a little stronger and as such they are less likely to burst.
Nevertheless, I realise they have their own problems to deal with but I am not going to specify them as I come from the Aero side of things and don't have the experience with Industrial turbines.
Bossman1959uk 3 years ago
No, really, if there's the slightest chance the engine is going to explode nobody would use it. That's a test engine, it's guaranteed to be completely new and undamaged parts. Every airplane malfunction crash in modern aviation history was the result of poor maintenance and/or incompetence.
sir3ntropy 3 years ago
Afraid I have to disagree with you there. The stresses in Aero Gas Turbines are very high and the need for minimum weight along with low fuel burn means that everything is on the edge. Failures can and do happen due to a number of unforseen factors but they are hardly incompetance. After all RR, GE & P&W get them so are you saying all of them are incompetant?
Bossman1959uk 3 years ago
IMHO, I would say that all of the failures the OEMs experience with established, not experimental, engines are the result of mistakes in assembly, flaws in parts manufacturing, improper maintenance, or abuse in service.
The engineering is sound, and proven.
As I'm sure you know, when properly assembled, these things are in another dimension of power and reliablity from anything else.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
The early Orendas had a problem with shock cooling in the compressor section, where if they were deluged with water (say, in a rainstorm) the compressor section would shrink and come in contact with the compressor rotors - as you can imagine it was pretty catastrophic. Several CF-100s were lost this way until a fix was made.
Fantastic work bringing an Orenda back to life. Now, if only we could do a couple of flight-certified ones to get Canadian Warplane Heritage's CF-100 Mk.4 back in the air!
rallymodeller 3 years ago
I think we have shown that S&S is the company that will put those engines in the air.
We have already overhauled a flight Orenda, and we have also done several industrial versions.
If you've got the Cf-100, we already have most of the Orenda engine parts to make it fly.
We have even requested the Malton boys to let us fix their Iroquois.
We can do that, because we've done that.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
My other video: "vintage fighter jet engine" is footage of the test of an Orenda type 14 which was taken out of, and put back into a Canadair Sabre.
Like I said... we can do that.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
The point is, if there was a discernible chance that something would go catastrophically wrong, it would be experimental, and they wouldn't be standing next to it. This isn't an experimental engine. If they've used an engine as much as they've used these without major incident, I'd happily walk right up to it.
sir3ntropy 3 years ago
Related info: all of the casings, shafts, disks, and major parts are essentially unchanged from the aero examples.
"Industrial" engines are different from the flying ones mainly by the deletion of systems, like fuel and oil pumps, electrical generators... all can be more easily supplied by stationary "off engine" equipment.
The only "stronger" casings I know of are for the RR RB211 DLE (dry low emission).
That combustor casing is inch thick steel, and weighs a couple tons.
AgentJayZ 3 years ago
Any vid of the Olympus tests?
Cheers... G
gchampi2 4 years ago
impressive
Saeedkachol 4 years ago
Some more info. The Speys on ThrustSSC were from a British variant of the Phantom. Speys and Olympus engines powered many more things and most were British, not American.
cageordie 4 years ago
This would normally be turning a power turbine attached to the thrust end.
douro20 4 years ago
Exactly. This engine is now installed to drive an electrical generator, via a power turbine attached to its exhaust.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
Am enjoying your videos instead of going to bed. The list of engines you mentions brings back memories. I'm old enough to remember "can" combustors. Thanks for sharing.
102trafalgar 4 years ago
Sweet. great job guys. be nice to see these in an Arrow one more time, but thanks for keeping the dream alive!
sobchuk 4 years ago
This engine was used in the CF-100 Canuck, and a few CF-86 Sabres.
It is the predecessor to the Iroquois, which powered the Arrow.
There is at least one Iroquois stored in Ontario, in "decomissioned" condition.
We have the facilities and abilities to repair it and return it to running condition.
We would like to be given that opportunity.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
My pleasure!
These engines are not all that common, but I hope we build another one soon.
They are straightforward, reliable, and very tough.
I also think they look great, with their individual combustor cases.
Reminds me of a 50's sci-fi rocket ship.
AgentJayZ 4 years ago
Thanks for posting this!
I am Canadian and love all things Arrow ;)
theslimeylimey 4 years ago