Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The P&W J-57 Jet Engine  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28180 times:

The Pratt & Whitney J-57 was one of the most successful 1950s era jet engines built in the US. Approximately 26,000 engines, of all versions were built. The civilian designation was the JT-3C and was used on early model B-707s, B-720s, and DC-8s. The military version was used by the USAF, USN, and USMC. They were used on the B/RB-52A-G, KC/EC/RC/C/NC/NKC-135A,D,G,Q, and N, F-100A-F, F/TF-102A, A/EA/ERA-3A-D, B/EB-66B-D, F/RF-101A-F, A-4C-J, A/EA-6A-D, and other US military aircraft.

The engine came in afterburner (reheat) and non-afterburner versions. On "heavies" (B-52 and KC-135 versions) it was available with water injection to increase take-off rated thrust (TRT). Water injection was used for the initial 2 minutes of take-off, but there was also a "dry" TRT available for take-offs not requiring water injection. The water was "demineralized water", that was not suitable for drinking, alcohaul was not used in the J-57.

TRT was limited to 5 minutes of continous operation, after that, military rated thrust (MRT) could be used for 30 minutes. Normal rated thrust (NRT) could be used continously.

The J-57 was a pure turbo jet, it had no fan section, but was later modified with a low bypass fan section and that version was designated as the TF-33 for military engines or the JT-3D (and JT-8D for the improved version) versions are still in use today on a lot of different airplanes, including the B-52H, KC-135E, E-3A-C, B-707, DC-8, B-737-200, B-727-200, DC-9, MD-80 series, and others. Another derivitve engine that came out of the J-57 was the TF-30 used on the F/FB-111A-G, and the F-14A/B, as well as many other fighters.

On airplanes like the KC-135A/Q and B-52F/G the J-57 produced around 11,600lbs of dry thrust for a fully cowled engine. The addition of water injection added about 800lbs of additional thrust for a total of about 12,400lbs.

In the KC-135A/Q we used 640 gallons of water during the 2 minutes water injection was used, the B-52 used 1280 gallons, as they had twice as many engines. In the KC-135 the water added 5,600lbs to the weight of the airplane. Water injection could be used, in the KC-135 only, down to 20 degrees F. This water was heated in the water tank, in the KC-135 through the use of 8 5KW heating elements. The water had to be heated to a minumum of 60 degrees F (15.6 degrees C) if the outside temp was 40 degrees F, or less to keep the water from turning into ice. The B-52 did not use water below 40 degrees F.

The J-57 was a "constant thrust engine". It could deliver it's full range of dry thrust between minus 40 degrees F and C to plus 100 degrees F (37 degrees C).

It was a very tough engine, compared to todays engines, and handled FOD very well. But it was very noisy. A heavy weight KC-135A using water injection was the loudest airplane in the USAF inventory (the B-52 had sound baffels in the tail pipes). At wet TRT, it generated up to 165 db!

108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 28189 times:

And there are a lot of J57s still in use today. Sam operates a lot of them. Iworked for a company that made fuel nozzles for them, and the AF bought several million dollars in parts a few years ago for them.

User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 28175 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
But it was very noisy. A heavy weight KC-135A using water injection was the loudest airplane in the USAF inventory (the B-52 had sound baffels in the tail pipes). At wet TRT, it generated up to 165 db!

At McGuire AFB, whenever a KC135 on takeoff, used water injection, the whole base would shake. I'm serious. Even when they were taking off from RWY6, over 3 miles away from my barracks, the building would shake.

During my first year at Torrejon AB, our GCA was located in an old AN/GPN-14 unit located roughly midfield, just 100 ft off the rwy. When the KC's took off on water injection, it felt as if the San Francisco eartquake was going on all around you!



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 28168 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 2):
At McGuire AFB, whenever a KC135 on takeoff, used water injection, the whole base would shake. I'm serious. Even when they were taking off from RWY6, over 3 miles away from my barracks, the building would shake.

During my first year at Torrejon AB, our GCA was located in an old AN/GPN-14 unit located roughly midfield, just 100 ft off the rwy. When the KC's took off on water injection, it felt as if the San Francisco eartquake was going on all around you!

Yes, it would do that. The J-57 was the true sound of freedom, and it let you hear it, from miles away.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28162 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):

Great topic! Basic question if you please. Since I'm not a science type person, the injection of water to increase thrust has always seemed counter-intuitive to me since it would seem to have the effect of lowering the operating temperature of the engine (I've always understood the Law of Thermodynamics as indicating that to increase efficiency one must increase the temperature difference between the source & receiver. Do I have that right?). What causes the extra thrust? Superheated steam?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7928 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28155 times:

It was the J57 that made the B-52 possible in the first place.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28138 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
What causes the extra thrust? Superheated steam?

Without getting into a long mechanical engineering post here, the water is defussed (atomised) into the inlet and the combustion chamber (just foreward of the burner cans).

As we all know, water does not burn. But what it does is drasticly increase the air flow density, and add additional oxygen as the water evaporates. This is basicly what gives all water injected engines the additional thrust, increasingly dense air flow and added oxygen.

Since the water is mixed with the air flow, and not contained in a pipe or boiler, it can never become superheated steam. The atom sized droplets boil off and vaporize as soon as they reach 212 degrees F (100 degrees C).


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28118 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
It was a very tough engine, compared to todays engines, and handled FOD very well. But it was very noisy. A heavy weight KC-135A using water injection was the loudest airplane in the USAF inventory (the B-52 had sound baffles in the tail pipes). At wet TRT, it generated up to 165 db!

Why they put sound baffles in B-52B-G and not put in the KC-135A? Would a J-57 powered B-52 with out sound baffles been that bad on noise?


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28111 times:

I know I just replied to this post but I just now remembered a J-57 story. It was the summer of 1994 and I was just coming home from a camping retreat and our bus past by this USAF or reserved base near Riverside. I do not know if it was March AFB or not, Anyway a KC-135 took off from a runway next to us. I do not know if it was an A or E model but all I can say is that sucker was Loud!!!! Almost everybody was talking about it.

PS: This was no small bus ether, this was one of those 40 ft 10 wheel Crown Supercoach. I know this have nothing to do with the post but I just wanted to add it.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28106 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 7):
Why they put sound baffles in B-52B-G and not put in the KC-135A? Would a J-57 powered B-52 with out sound baffles been that bad on noise?

The B-52B through E model grossed out at a max gross weight of 450,000lbs, the F and G models grossed out at 488,000lbs (I left out the H model since we are talking about J-57 engines). The had 8 J-57 engines, with dry thrust ratings between 10500lbs and 11600 lbs, plus another 800lbs for water. This gave them a thrust to weight ratio of 5.35:1 for the B-52B-E and a thrust to weight ratio of 5.25:1 for the B-52F/G (all dry thrust ratings).

OTOH, the KC-135A/Q grossed out at 297,000lbs but only 4 J-57 engines, with a dry thrust rating of 11600lbs. This gave the KC-135A/Q a thrust to weight ratio of 6.4:1, more than 1 lb heavier than the B-52 per pound of thrust.

Sound baffles did make a slight reduction in engine thrust, and the B-52 could afford this slight thrust reduction, the KC-135 could not. The KC-135A/Q was grossly underpowered.

So the USAF and SAC accepted the noiser KC-135 rather than even a slight reduction in thrust.

BTW, aeronautical engineers (in the 1950s) used a maximum safety margin of 1 lb of jet engine thrust pushing 6.6 lbs of airplane. As you can see the KC-135A was very close to that margin. Engineers of today use no more than a 4:1 thrust to weight ratio.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28098 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Without getting into a long mechanical engineering post here, the water is defussed (atomised) into the inlet and the combustion chamber (just foreward of the burner cans).

As we all know, water does not burn. But what it does is drasticly increase the air flow density, and add additional oxygen as the water evaporates. This is basicly what gives all water injected engines the additional thrust, increasingly dense air flow and added oxygen.

Since the water is mixed with the air flow, and not contained in a pipe or boiler, it can never become superheated steam. The atom sized droplets boil off and vaporize as soon as they reach 212 degrees F (100 degrees C).

I sort of disagree. We used alcohol/water injection in Metroliners that was hooked to the SRL computer and it was for hot and high performance-like, say, 90 degrees in Denver.

The stuff was premixed, the alcohol was to keep it from freezing, and it had to be distilled deionized water.

So you'd start cramming the power to it and when the EGT hit the limit the alcohol injection kicked in like a boot in the ass. The EGT would drop about 100 degrees right now, which meant you could cram more power into it before you reached the temp limit.

See, compressor air temps in a turbine are related to OAT and the latent heat of air. If you reduce the volume by a factor of 10 (10:1 compression) the temperature increases by about a factor of 10. So as the OAT goes up, CD temp goes up, but the thermal limit of the engine parts remains the same, thus, less power can be developed because there's less margin.

Now...cool that intake charge with water and alcohol, you get a cooler and thus denser charge, and you get more temp margin to use developing power..


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 28098 times:

From what I undersatnd about those engines that use water/alcohol, you are correct.

The USAF F-105 had an engine that used that stuff.

On P&W J-57s EGT was important, just as it is in any jet engine. But power is determined by EPR on Pratts (I believe GE uses N2 RPM). On a 70 degree F day, and field elevations up to about 2000', you could produce an engine pressure ratio of about 2.25 to 2.4 to get maximum thrust. Adding water gave you an initial EPR of 2.83, then it went to 2.85 after about 40 knots for maximum thrust. Thus you actually got more thrust (800lbs in the case of the J-57) from the water.

Your water and alcohol mixture dooes something similar, but with the addition of cooling your engine. The J-57 did not need such cooling.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3396 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 28083 times:

What I find most astonishing is how long the engines of the 1950s last. They certainly are extremely polluting and noisy as hell, but some of them are still in service today:

The J79 still powers F-4s around the world, the JT3D also is still used, just to name two engines of that age.

When you bear in mind that only 10 years earlier, the average lifetime of a Jumo engine was probably 20 hours, that is a remarkable fast development.


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 28063 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
What I find most astonishing is how long the engines of the 1950s last. They certainly are extremely polluting and noisy as hell, but some of them are still in service today

A testament to the professionalism and dedication of the maintenance crews. I know that sometimes it is taken as a stereotype, but the maintenance crews are the true unsung heros of aviation.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5607 posts, RR: 45
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 28058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 7):
Why they put sound baffles in B-52B-G and not put in the KC-135A?



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Sound baffles did make a slight reduction in engine thrust, and the B-52 could afford this slight thrust reduction,

The reasons may have been more operational than consideration for the neighbours.
I read many years ago that the huge flaps on B-52s were susceptible to damage from the acoustic pressure & vibrations of the engines, hence on many missions B-52 would take off with light fuel loads and reduced thrust and re-fuel soon after to minimise acoustic damage.
The baffles may have been another attempt to alleviate this issue.

Disclainer.. the above may be dimmed by the fog of time but it is what I recall reading.


REgards



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 28064 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
From what I undersatnd about those engines that use water/alcohol, you are correct.

The USAF F-105 had an engine that used that stuff.

On P&W J-57s EGT was important, just as it is in any jet engine. But power is determined by EPR on Pratts (I believe GE uses N2 RPM). On a 70 degree F day, and field elevations up to about 2000', you could produce an engine pressure ratio of about 2.25 to 2.4 to get maximum thrust. Adding water gave you an initial EPR of 2.83, then it went to 2.85 after about 40 knots for maximum thrust. Thus you actually got more thrust (800lbs in the case of the J-57) from the water.

Your water and alcohol mixture dooes something similar, but with the addition of cooling your engine. The J-57 did not need such cooling.

Interesting...so was the J57 temp limited or power limited or fuel limited? In other words, would you max out EPR with EGT to spare, or or would you hit your EGT limit first, or would the poor dear not be able to pump any more fuel into it?

I've seen all three things on Garrett turboprops....I suspect the newer engines ran em hotter....we used ITT on the earlier Garretts and max continuous was 923 deg. Celsius...


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 28055 times:

KC135TopBoom,

I agree with everything you said about the J-57 undoubtedly the three or four best jet engine ever built. However, you omitted the F-101 which used the J-57.

However, you did make a couple of errors in your list of aircraft that used the J-57. The B-66 used Allison J-71's, the A-4 used either the Wright J-65 or the Pratt J-52 and the E-6 also used the J-52.


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2517 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 28017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anybody have a sound clip or video clip of a J-57/JT-3C? I have been searching for years but cant seem to find anything. I'm sure there's footage out there. The closest thing I found was a DVD called London Heathrow in the 60's where 707s and DC-8s are taxiing. It makes a mean taxi sound if anything!

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 12):
The J79 still powers F-4s around the world, the JT3D also is still used, just to name two engines of that age

It is quite amazing. The NK-8 and AI-20 engines from the USSR were made a little bit after that and are still running strong as well.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 27980 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Without getting into a long mechanical engineering post here,

BTW, thanks for the explanation. Mystery solved for me at least!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 27966 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 17):
Does anybody have a sound clip or video clip of a J-57/JT-3C? I have been searching for years but cant seem to find anything. I'm sure there's footage out there. The closest thing I found was a DVD called London Heathrow in the 60's where 707s and DC-8s are taxiing. It makes a mean taxi sound if anything!

Yeah, bit all the recording engineers were seen running from the scene with blood running out of their ears.....they're that loud....painful, actually.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 27945 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
or the JT-3D (and JT-8D for the improved version)

What was changed to turn the JT-3D into the JT-8D?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
A heavy weight KC-135A using water injection was the loudest airplane in the USAF inventory

I find it hard to believe that it was as loud as an afterburning B-58.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 27912 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 16):
the E-6 also used the J-52.

I do not like correcting people, but as a 707 fan I just had to make a exception on this one. The the EA-6B use two J-52, but the E-6 use four CFM-56. The EA-6B Prowler is a carrier based electronic jamming plane, the E-6 Mercury is a Boeing 707 300 base plane that works with ballistic missile submarine.

Please! Foregive me if I come off as a jurk.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12058 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 27878 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 15):
Interesting...so was the J57 temp limited or power limited or fuel limited? In other words, would you max out EPR with EGT to spare, or or would you hit your EGT limit first, or would the poor dear not be able to pump any more fuel into it?

Yes, normally you would max out EPR well before EGT, unless you developed an engine problem, or fire. Pumping enough fuel to the engine was never a problem. Each main wing tank had two pumps (as did all of the fuel tanks that had pumps, the wing tip reserves and the upper deck tank were gravity drain only), plus each engine had its own engine driven boost pump.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 16):
I agree with everything you said about the J-57 undoubtedly the three or four best jet engine ever built. However, you omitted the F-101 which used the J-57.

I'm missing some of my gray matter cells.

However, you did make a couple of errors in your list of aircraft that used the J-57. The B-66 used Allison J-71's, the A-4 used either the Wright J-65 or the Pratt J-52 and the E-6 also used the J-52.

Now, where the hell are those gray matter cells? Yes, both of you are correct. Sorry for the mis-information.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 17):
The NK-8 and AI-20 engines from the USSR were made a little bit after that and are still running strong as well.

Yes, there are a few great Russian designed engines types, from the 1950s that are still running and doing a good job. The NK-8, like the J-57, was the basic design for several derivitives that came later.

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 20):
I find it hard to believe that it was as loud as an afterburning B-58.

During MITO (Minimum Interval Take Off, 12 seconds and 6 seconds), at Edwards AFB, testing of the KC-135A behind the B-58A, the KC-135 easily drowned out the noise of the Hustler. Of course the B-58 was lead because it accelerated a lot faster than the KC-135. BTW, MITO test were conducted on all SAC type aircraft except the U-2 and SR-71. SAC crews were required to fly MITOs twice each year, once in daylight, and once at night.

The normal MITO interval for a KC-135 behind a FB-111 or a B-58 was 6 seconds. Behind another KC-135 or a B-52 was 12 seconds. An FB-111 or B-58, if caught behind the KC-135 in the take-off formation had a 15 second interval (but could increase that to 30 seconds, if needed).


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 27857 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 21):
I do not like correcting people, but as a 707 fan I just had to make a exception on this one. The the EA-6B use two J-52, but the E-6 use four CFM-56. The EA-6B Prowler is a carrier based electronic jamming plane, the E-6 Mercury is a Boeing 707 300 base plane that works with ballistic missile submarine.

Please! Foregive me if I come off as a jurk.

Believe me I don't think your a jerk. I made a mistake I should have written A-6 (not E-6).

One of the problems with a.net is that people make statements that are not true and no one corrects them. If I see a mistake I will point it out, and you should too.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 27846 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 23):
One of the problems with a.net is that people make statements that are not true and no one corrects them. If I see a mistake I will point it out, and you should too.



Quoting 474218 (Reply 23):
Believe me I don't think your a jerk.

Thank you , and in a nice way, I will start pointing out mistake.  Smile


25 N231YE : I agree. I made the mistake of watching a TF-33 powered KC-135 takeoff at the Phelps-Collins CRTC (now Alpena ANG base, I believe) from a distance of
26 747400sp : I agree, In 1996 I was at LAX and I herd this loud plane, but I could not see it. Then here come Air Force two( VC-137) about to touch down. I could
27 Sovietjet : The JT-3D makes a very nasty screech whereas the JT-3C as I imagine makes that and an enormous roar as well.
28 Post contains images N231YE : Very true, the particular KC-135 I heard was built in 1958, so it did have J-57's at the time of its manufacture, and was later re-engined with the T
29 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Or even earlier, the early DC-8s and B-707s, and B-720s used water injected JT-3C, the cilivan designation for the J-57. Ahhh, those were the days.
30 Post contains images 747400sp : I seen some pictures of those JT3-C powered 707 and DC-8. Those where some smokers!
31 747400sp : It just hit me! What if the reason TF33 powered aircraft are louder than JT-8 power aircrfts, is due to the fact that most aircraft that used TF33 hav
32 Post contains links and images N231YE : I should add too, that re-enforcement bands were built into the fuselage between the wings and the horizontal stabilizer on the KC-135. This was becau
33 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the entire tail section of a KC-135A fell off on a Castle bird in the early 1960s, with the loss of the entire crew. The "belly band
34 Spacepope : I was under the impression that the KC-135D was a TF-33 powered version, as they were at least untill recently still in service at Forbes Field with t
35 KC135TopBoom : Yes the KC-135D is now a TF-33 powered airplane, but even when it carried J-57s, it still had the same designation. There were only 4-5 KC-135Ds. I t
36 Post contains images B52murph : This is a great topic! One of my fondest aviation memories (from 16 years ago now...) is standing on the road off the end of rwy 34 @ Pease AFB when
37 Post contains images Moose135 : A total of 4 KC-135Ds - they started life as RC-135As, but were decommissioned into tankers. Due to the large number of differences, they got a new d
38 N231YE : No problem, I have a book on Boeing aircraft and I remember reading over it once before...very interesting
39 Texfly101 : I grew up about a 1/4 mile from the runways at McCoy AFB during the 50's and 60's. It was a SAC base then, no commercial traffic, and the 306th flew B
40 KC135TopBoom : When McCoy AFB, FL closed in the early 1970s, I was at Plattsburgh AFB, NY. We got their KC-135Qs. We also got some of the KC-135As from the 99th at
41 747400SP : Interesting fact about the J57. Did anybody know that the J57 was originally design as a very powerful 10000 to 14000 hp turbo prop called the T57. Th
42 N231YE : I read about that in an Aviation Engine encyclopedia I used to have. The T57 was supposed to be a strait-through "barrel" turboprop, that being it ha
43 L-188 : Yup they where with the 168th ARW up at Eilson AFB. They went to R models in 1995. Didn't the D's get converted for overflights of Russia in accordan
44 KC135TopBoom : I thought only the OC-135Es can do the overflights. I also thought the KC-135D was so unique, that it kept the same designation when it was re-engine
45 B52murph : I'm not so sure the D-models have ever been re-engined with F-108s. Quoting "KC-135...More than Just a Tanker by Robert Hopkins...".... "...During 19
46 Spacepope : Or -Ds... It's hard to tell though when they fly overhead. Absolutely no external difference between the D and E, except for serial number. The TF-33
47 KC135TopBoom : The KC-135D can be determined, externally, from other KC-135s. It started out in life as the RC-135A, and had an aft hatch on the bottom of the aircra
48 Spacepope : I should have clarified then... No external difference when viewed from at least 1000 feet underneath!
49 KC135TopBoom : Opps, sorry
50 Post contains images 747400sp : I made a mistake, the J-57 was base on the 10000 hp T45 which was originaly going to power the YB52. The 14000 hp T57 was built for the C-132. So the
51 Post contains images Lehpron : It is possible they were designed with a near-endless supply of funding and resources so they are closer to being better than if the same engines wer
52 KC135TopBoom : I think it is more of a case of less understanding of engineering and a different time period. Materials and designs of the 1950s were much more stou
53 747400sp : Like I said before, I think I have heard a J57 in person, but just in case the KC-135 I heard was an E model instead of an A model. I would like to kn
54 KC135TopBoom : No the J-57 did not whine, or scream, like the TF-33 does. It was a very loud crackling roar. During wet T/Os (using water injection), there was a LO
55 Post contains images Moose135 : Here's an old Air Force photo I downloaded ages ago that I use as my desktop from time to time (can't find it on-line anywhere right now)
56 KC135TopBoom : Ahhhh there she is. What a great and beautiful airplane, thanks Moose135. That looks like a B-52G in the background, with the 1980s war paint scheme.
57 Post contains links Moose135 : Sorry, I saved the picture from the Air Force photo gallery at www.af.mil years ago (probably in the late 90's) and I've had it bouncing around betwe
58 Post contains links Lumberton : Here's the link to Pratt & Whitney Classic Engines: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/about_history_classic_j57.asp Veritable gold mine of data for the J57
59 747400sp : Man I wish I was in the USAF back in those just to see cool sites like that in person. Looks and sound like KC-135A was beast(in a good was of corse)
60 KC135TopBoom : You also need to know how hard the J-57, and other turbojets were on your ears. By the time I retired, I had a 25% loss of hearing in one ear, and a
61 Ex52tech : The J-57-59s on the 135A, had 1/3 of the water injected into the intake, and 2/3 injected into the combustion chamber. The intake water raised the air
62 Ex52tech : We had a test cell at Grand Forks back in the 80's that wasn't an "offical" test-cell. It was a converted storage building that they put a portable te
63 Ex52tech : What you have stated is true.......but. The Fuel Control had a water pressure bellows inside of it, and when it sensed water pressure it would increa
64 Post contains links Sovietjet : I think this video has a rare sound clip of a J75, which I have heard is similar in noise to a J57. Maybe someone more knowledgable can chime in. http
65 Mohavewolfpup : is this the engine bolted onto 707's/727's that commonly had flame outs/backfires? I forgot what it was, but some people on here reported seeing those
66 Post contains images Dougloid : You'd have to go a good deal farther than Mexico.
67 StealthZ : Pretty sure any 727 you find will NOT have CFM-56 engines, likely have some kind of hush kit installed but no CFM-56.
68 Mohavewolfpup : oh okay, I thought I had heard some got the CFM-56 bolted on? or was that later 737's? do I have to go to a arab country for the 727? :p stupid clean
69 StealthZ : Later 737s. -300 onwards were built with CFM-56 There are still 727 flying in US, Australia etc but mostly as freighters or private jets
70 Ex52tech : Sorry you didn't get to fly in the three holer. That is one of the strongest, most overbuilt, reliable airplanes ever built. I don't think I ever mea
71 Xv408 : Some 727s got converted with RR Tays, maybe that is what you have seen. As regards EPR and TGT, as the outside air temp rises, the balance shifts fro
72 Blackbird : In regards to that video of the F-8U-III Super-Crusader/J-75 Video: I had a feeling that the J-75 was designed for Mach 3+ speed. -Andrea
73 KC135TopBoom : Not really, Champion Air, a charter airline still flys B-727-200s from DFW and IND to Mexico. The J-57-59WB on the KC-135A used a constant "wet" EPR
74 Ex52tech : Your right about Champion Air's 727s......forgot about those guys. The EGT limit on the water wagons was 610 degrees C. I remember the test cell limi
75 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : What base were you at? I flew the KC-135A/Q at Plattsburgh AFB, NY, Pease AFB, NH (two assignement), Castle AFB, CA (two assignments), and Carswell A
76 Sovietjet : Anybody have video clips or know where to get video clips of the old NASA B-52. AFAIK it had J-57s and flew until 2004 so someone out there MUST have
77 Post contains links StealthZ : A few here.. http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/B-52/index.html Cheers
78 Ex52tech : GFAFB otherwise known as El Forko Grande. Siberia USA, Grand Forks. Woke a bunch of people like that one night with a G model BUFF, and the complaint
79 KC135TopBoom : LOL. I have been in and out of the Forks a few times. Spent about a week there one night.
80 Ex52tech : The only base that I went to that was more boring was Minot. I took every TDY I could to get out of North Dakota. Could never get orders out of there
81 Prebennorholm : Huh, not entirely correct. The "father" of the JT8D was not the J-57, but the J-52, but still a P&W product. The J-52 was (I think) first used on the
82 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The J-57 entered service in 1951, the J-52 didn't enter service until 1955, and was axial flow, duel compressor engine like the J-57 was. The J-52 was
83 Ex52tech : I was under the impression that the J-75 was a J-57 on steroids. The P&W designation for the J-52 is JT-8A.
84 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, making it a derivitve of the JT3C. The fanjet version of the JT8A was the JT8D. But, all of these P&W engines can trace their liniag
85 Blackbird : The J-75 was a scaled up J-57. As a result, it had a higher mass-flow, and increased thrust... it seemed to have a higher turbine inlet temperature wh
86 KC135TopBoom : That is correct, the fastest airplane the J-57 was installed in were the Mach 2 F-100 and Mach 2.25 F-101. Both airplanes had panels inside the inlet
87 Blackbird : The KC-135 could do 0.95? I thought the 707's had a nasty mach buffet once they got much past their normal 0.884 - 0.887 mach maximum. I didn't know t
88 KC135TopBoom : That is true for the B-707-100/-200, but the KC-135 did have a slightly different wing. Yes, the KC-135A/Q could do .95 Mach, that is the speed they
89 Blackbird : KC135-TopBoom I kind of had a hunch the F-100 could do Mach 2 clean, but I figured the F-101 could have reached Mach 2.4 (at least I thought the F-101
90 KC135TopBoom : I completely forgot the F-102 was so fast. I think you are right, and yes, the F-101B could do Mach 2.4, but the "A" and "C" models were 2.25 mach je
91 KC135TopBoom : Blackbird, welcome to my RU list.
92 Blackbird : Thank you. I'm honored. Andrea K
93 Ex52tech : Ah guys.......I hate to be a jerk here, but the F-100 would barley go Mach 1, and the F101 had a top speed of a little over 1,000mph, which puts it i
94 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : It seems we were all a little off with the F-101. http://www.elite.net/castle-air/f101b.htm But, Ex52tech was right on with the F-104. http://www.eli
95 SCAT15F : Hi all, Just to note, the fastest aircraft powered by the J-57 was actually the Vought F-8U2 (F-8D) Crusader. It had a top speed of mach 1.9, or appro
96 Blackbird : Nonsense SCAT, the J-79 had a higher turbine inlet temp than the J-57! Andrea K
97 Post contains images SCAT15F : Well, I'm standing by the data: multiple book references, and I have asked a former F-4 and F-104 pilot to confirm the mach 2.2 limit, which he did.
98 Arrow : A little trivia. The J-79 was used in the first five examples of the ill-fated Avro Arrow in the late 50s because the intended engine -- the new Oren
99 Post contains images SCAT15F : Interesting! Do you have any data about the Iroqois? cheers
100 Areopagus : No recording can do justice to a real jet engine, of course. The J-75-powered F-105 was amazingly loud just cruising by a few thousand feet overhead.
101 Post contains links Arrow : This website will help. http://exn.ca/FlightDeck/Arrow/words.cfm?ID=19990628-64 If you do a google on "Avro Arrow" you'll find dozens of sites dedica
102 Post contains images SCAT15F : Arrow- Thanks, great info!
103 KC135TopBoom : Well, both the J-57 and J-75 could take more damage than the eirlier J-47, or later J-79, and keep running. But, all that really means is these engin
104 Blackbird : Reply 90 -- KC135TopBoom (I put some of the quote in bold to highlite it) I'm just wondering why after you made this statement regarding the F-102A's
105 Connies4ever : The pre-production Arrow Mk 1s used the J-75, not the J-79. See "Arrow" by Milberry et al. It weighed about a ton more than the Iroquois, produced le
106 Blackbird : KC135TopBoom, I'm just wondering why the contradiction AVKent882@hotmail.com
107 Arrow : Oops. Correct. Thanks for straightening me out. My father (who was an engineer on the Arrow project) would be ticked off at me for that.
108 Blackbird : The J-79 has a higher turbine temp than the J-57 right? How does it compare to the J-75? Andrea Kent
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The P&W J-57 Jet Engine
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fighter Jet Engine Life posted Fri Nov 14 2003 19:47:21 by Learpilot
What's The Most Produced Jet Fighter? posted Sat Nov 30 2002 01:43:32 by FlagshipAZ
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp
Whatever Happened To The Aerospike Engine? posted Wed Jul 5 2006 09:28:45 by Okelleynyc
Jet Noise, The Sound Of Freedom... posted Sat Apr 8 2006 07:09:23 by Maiznblu_757
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp
US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor posted Tue Jan 3 2006 22:28:24 by Keesje
Russia X-555: The Future Of Star Wars & ICBMs posted Mon Jun 6 2005 03:27:56 by AirRyan
"A Deal For Jet Fighters Opens The Door To India" posted Sat Apr 16 2005 23:06:00 by STT757
Lajes, Portugal & The Usaf posted Wed Mar 2 2005 20:02:25 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format