惰化系统两种不同引气方式比较  

Comparison of Two Different Bleed Air Ways in Inerting System

作　　者：薛勇[1] 张斌[1] 朱德轩[1] 周宇穗[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海飞机设计研究院动力燃油部,上海200232

出　　处：《航空科学技术》2016年第8期12-15,共4页Aeronautical Science & Technology

摘　　要：对发动机引气惰化系统及座舱引气惰化系统进行了分析介绍,并对这两种惰化系统的代偿损失进行了计算分析,结果表明,利用座舱引气来替代发动机引气作为空气分离器(ASM)的分离气源,虽然表面上增加了系统重量,但实际对于飞机而言,却可以降低系统的总燃油代偿损失约18.3%。就惰化系统而言,座舱引气方式优于发动机引气方式,它不但可以排除高温气体进入燃油箱的灾难性风险,增加系统在下降阶段的性能,同时能够显著的降低惰化系统对飞机的总燃油代偿损失。Introduced and analyzed the advantage and disadvantage of engine bleed air inerting system and cabin bleed air inerting system. Caculated the fuel penalties of these two kinds of inerting system, and found that although cabin bleed air inerting system would increase the system weight slightly, but the fuel penalty would be reduced about 18.3%, The author think cabin bleed air is better than engine bleed air for inerting system, not only in reducing the inerting system fule penalty , but also in reducing the risk of hot air enterting the fuel tank and increasing the system performance during descend.

关 键 词：惰化 空气分离器 引气 座舱 代偿损失 

分 类 号：V228[航空宇航科学与技术—飞行器设计] TQ021.4[化学工程]