The Little Engine That Couldn't
The new Eclipse 500 lightjet will no doubt make a lot of customers happy
- By David Noland
- Air & Space magazine, November 2005
Cessna’s T-37 was dubbed “Tweety Bird” for its shrill Teledyne CAE J-69s.
USAF
(Page 4 of 6)
With $60 million in investors’ money, a board of directors studded with high-tech corporate heavyweights, and an exclusive deal with Williams for the EJ22, Raburn launched Eclipse Aviation in March 2000. Williams, citing the Eclipse deal, persuaded NASA to skip the FJX-2 flights in the V-Jet II. This enabled Williams to get its final GAP payment sooner and turn immediately to the task of transforming its test-cell tour de force into a viable FAA-certified engine.
Exactly how did such a little engine achieve such extraordinary performance? Officially, nobody’s saying. The Williams company, privately held and with a long history of military projects, is secretive about technical details. NASA and Eclipse people who worked on the project, bound by confidentiality agreements imposed by Williams, are likewise mum.
“I think I can tell you that the main reason for the engine’s light weight is the architecture,” says NASA’s general aviation champion, Bruce Holmes, referring to the configuration of a jet engine’s fan, compressors, combustor, and turbines. “But I’d go to jail if I told you what that architecture was.”
Holmes can rest easy. I managed to ferret out the FJX-2’s architectural secret anyway: Instead of the usual two compressors, it had three, each spinning independently at its optimum rotation speed on one of three concentric shafts and driven by its own turbine. Designers call this unusual configuration a three-shaft, or three-spool, engine (see “Spools,” above).
The giveaway is on the instrument panel of the original Eclipse 500. Most jets have two readouts: N1 for the low-pressure (LP) compressor/fan, and N2 for the downstream high-pressure (HP) compressor. The Eclipse had an N3 gauge, which points to the presence of a third, intermediate-pressure (IP) compressor. Ed Lays, a retired Williams engineer not bound by any secrecy agreements, confirms that the FJX-2 was a three-shaft design.
A three-spool engine can be very efficient. “It gives you a lot of flexibility in matching compressors and turbines,” says Burkardt (“Not that I’m saying the FXJ-2 was or was not a three-spooler,” he adds dutifully). However, a three-shaft engine is mechanically complex, with “bearings and seals out the ying-yang,” in the words of Teledyne CAE veteran designer Gerry Merrill. Only two three-spool engines have ever been certified for commercial use: the Rolls-Royce RB.211 family of airliner engines first certified in the ’70s, and the Garrett ATF3, a fearsomely complex and troublesome bizjet engine that flopped in the marketplace 10 years later.
The decision to abandon the simple, well-proven two-shaft configuration of all previous Williams fanjets set off controversy within the company. “Some of the guys who’d worked on the FJ44 didn’t have much confidence in the EJ22,” says Lays, who explains that one impetus for the three-shaft design came from Sam Williams’ son Gregg, then a Williams VP and now company president, who’d spent two years working with Rolls-Royce on the RB.211. “Gregg was hooked on three-spool engines back then,” Lays recalls.
The axial high-pressure compressor showcased at Oshkosh was also a departure for Williams, which had used centrifugal compressors in all its previous engines (see “Compressors,” p. 23). Other rumored design features-—compact in-line combustors, tiny integral accessories mounted directly on the main shaft—will not be revealed until next year, when a five-year NASA embargo on the release of FJX-2 technical publications expires.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »





Comments (4)
I presently have a experimental 4 seat twin jet sitting in my hanger with out a choice of jet to place on it. The empty weight is 1750. The EJ-22 also known as the FJ-22 by Williams would be the most excellent turbo fan with 800# of thrust and only weights 75# two of those to power my experimental and Spectre would be the "RIGHT STUFF". Williams has to certify the the FJ-22
specifically for the true 4 seat class of light jets.
SPECTRE
Posted by Richard Judge on June 7,2010 | 05:51 PM
After careful consideration of this chapter in the evolution of advanced light aviation what is dissapointing is not the failure of the EJ22. The failure of technical endeavors is as much a part of success as death is to life. However what is unethical is the forty million NASA paid into it. An unmistakable example of government loot from plunder being given to something for nothing in return. At a minimum, for our tax dollars, all of General Aviation should have access to Williams propriatary Fabrication Techniques and Program Data. We paid for it, we should own it.
Posted by Casey Vanderpool on October 28,2011 | 09:40 AM
If Honda did it with their HF 120 Engine why can't NASA pursue the same goal. That engine produces 2,000 pounds of thrust and weighs under 400 lbs.
It is a more practical solution to the light aircraft category. We don't require engines with lower thrust than 2,000 pounds as a practical Matter.
I have designed a VTOL light plane that could achieve the superiority in that industry with the Honda engine. GE is currently supposed to manufacture it for Honda. It would be the first light plane VTOL with a jet engine at the rear of the fuselage. My design does not require vectoring.
I prefer utilizing a jet than tilting propellers like the Osprey V-22. Propellers will soon become obsolete.
Posted by Miles Garnett on June 14,2012 | 01:02 PM
The T-37B's J69-T-25 turbojet engines were a licensed copy of the Teledyne/Marbore' IIC, which weighed only 358 pounds yet produced 1025 pounds of thrust. The little jet was an excellent primary trainer but was hard on the hearing because of its loud, high-pitched whine. A single J69 was used in the Tempco Pinto, another contender in the light jet trainer competition at the time. Although the Pinto proved to be too under powered for the task the Navy envisioned for it with the J69, re-engined versions using a GE J85 with almost three times the thrust and only about a twenty pound weight increase gave impressive performance numbers and outperformed the T-37. A version of the GE J85, the CF700 with an aft end fan section added to the basic engine, increased the power output even further to 4500 pounds of thrust with a total weight of only 750 pounds but reduced fuel consumption by forty percent. I wonder if the same results could have been obtained if the J69 had been fitted with a fan section to the exhaust. And I wonder what has become of all the J69 turbojet engines from the T-37s that were decommissioned by the Air Force.
Posted by D. Howerton on January 31,2013 | 01:03 AM