Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Fires Up F135 Engine  
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6394 times:

Story




Airliners.net Moderator Team
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6372 times:

"The engine was started using the F-35’s Honeywell-developed integrated power package (IPP), a combined starter/generator, electrical power supply and environmental control system that saves space and weight."

That's pretty cool that they've been able to integrate all those bulky systems into one.

40,000lbs of thrust is pretty impressive too, too bad it's only single engine though.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 615 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6280 times:

I think its awesome that they got 40K lbs of thrust out of one little jet engine. That is an awesome pic as well they got of the AB!

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6164 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 2):

Yeah, pretty amazing. P&W must be guaranteeing reliability for the USN to opt for single engine. BTW, P&W has upped the rating to 43k! Amazing.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6078 times:

Not surprising. Most engines in aviation are de-rated from the get-go.

-Check


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

The tail section sure does look bulky compared to say an F-16.


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 5):
The tail section sure does look bulky compared to say an F-16.

Yes it is. The side-effect of twin vertical stabs and internal weapons carriage methinks.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 3):
Yeah, pretty amazing. P&W must be guaranteeing reliability for the USN to opt for single engine. BTW, P&W has upped the rating to 43k! Amazing.

How does that engine compare in size to the F110 or the F100 engine; both used in the F-16? Could the F-16 employ it? Would the F-15E be able to accommodate it?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 23 hours ago) and read 5673 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 7):
How does that engine compare in size to the F110 or the F100 engine; both used in the F-16? Could the F-16 employ it? Would the F-15E be able to accommodate it?

Nope, the fan diameter on the 135 is too big. Even if it would fit, the plumbing and wiring modifications would make it prohibitively expensive.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5424 times:

Quote:
full-afterburner test three days later during which the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan generated almost 40,000lb of thrust.

A turbofan afterburner that can actually (and finally) generate more thrust than each of Concorde's engines. I'm curious of the specific stats for it.

Any efficiency gain on Concorde has got to be a sign of something. Big grin



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5412 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 9):
A turbofan afterburner that can actually (and finally) generate more thrust than each of Concorde's engines. I'm curious of the specific stats for it.

There are others out there that came around much before this. The most impressive, I think, is the Russian NK-321... it puts out 55000lbs of thrust in afterburner. (Its found on the Tu-160 long range supersonic bomber)


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5254 times:

The F-135 Puts out 43,000 pounds of total thrust ( on a test stand) according to internal USAF and P and W documents in pocession with me !

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5235 times:

Man! I wish the F-135 was in serves with the USN today. Could you just think how much that engine would shake a carrier flight deck.  Big grin

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5223 times:

With the slowing of the JSF program, that would be a long while yet.


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

If they ever decide to build an uprated B-1B (what would they call it? B-1C? B-1B2? B-3?), I would imagine they could use F135's to power it, at four per aircraft.

User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 14):
If they ever decide to build an uprated B-1B (what would they call it? B-1C? B-1B2? B-3?), I would imagine they could use F135's to power it, at four per aircraft.

They're never going to "build" an uprated version... they might make rolling improvements through the aircraft's service life, but not any brand new airframes.

The truth is, we're more likely to see the next major bomber be an unmanned platform, than something along the lines of an upgraded B-1B. It's the "way of the future."

Anyway, out of curiosity, why do you think the 135s are a good choice for upgrading the B-1B?

-UH60


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5176 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
Anyway, out of curiosity, why do you think the 135s are a good choice for upgrading the B-1B?

Greater thrust and the most advanced engine of its type.

The B-1B's engines are around 30,000 lbs. of thrust each.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 15):
They're never going to "build" an uprated version... they might make rolling improvements through the aircraft's service life, but not any brand new airframes.

That's why I said "if". I don't disagree with you that it'll probably never actually happen.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 5174 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16):
That's why I said "if". I don't disagree with you that it'll probably never actually happen.

What can I say. We're being slowly kicked out of the cockpit.  Yeah sure

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16):
Greater thrust and the most advanced engine of its type.

The B-1B's engines are around 30,000 lbs. of thrust each.

But I think it would be the same case as the F-16. As mentioned above, the two airframes are simply not compatible and would take such a high level of reworking the plumbing/airframe/etc... it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

I'd venture to say we're more likely to see the re-engining of the B-52 than the re-engining of the B-1B. And we all know how long we've been asking, "When are those B52s gonna get re-engined?"  bored 

-UH60


User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

Quote:
The first F-35, aircraft AA-1, has been returned to the hangar at Fort Worth in Texas for installation of the final flight-qualified components, with a first flight now expected between mid-November and mid-December. “We think we will this year, but the real answer is we will fly when the aircraft is ready,” says Pearson.

Does this mean this engine test took place in Fort Worth? Is that where final assembly of the F-35 will take place? I should know these things, but unfortunately, I do not.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 18):
Does this mean this engine test took place in Fort Worth? Is that where final assembly of the F-35 will take place? I should know these things, but unfortunately, I do not.

You are correct, Ft. Worth is the final assembly point for the F-35.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 14):
If they ever decide to build an uprated B-1B (what would they call it? B-1C? B-1B2? B-3?), I would imagine they could use F135's to power it, at four per aircraft.

The concept is "B-1R" and it calls for using the Raptors F119 engines. As to whether or not it will ever get done...

Link

Quote:
The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[3] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine. Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and F-22 engines. Its new top speed — Mach 2.2 — would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23 are alternative proposals.

Additional enhancements would include network-centric capabilities, air-to-air engagement, active electronically-scanned array radar, improved defensive systems, and opening up existing external hard points for conventional weapons.




[Edited 2006-10-14 07:32:43]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

^^ Excellent information, MCIGuy. Very much appreciated.

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4696 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4694 times:

The JSF faces another challenge on two fronts.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...push+cooperation+approvals+in.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 20):
The FB-22 and YF-23 are alternative proposals.

Huh?

FB-22 can understand (obviously stretched/modified) but a "straight" YF-23? I thought development of it was curtailed when it lost out to the YF-22?



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4647 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
The JSF faces another challenge on two fronts.....

Interesting that Australian committment isn't mentioned. Does this mean the door is slowly coming ajar for a Raptor purchase? One can only hope.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
25 Post contains links DEVILFISH : I think your hope may start fading away. DID reports that Defense Minister Nelson had announced that the Australian Government had given "First Pass"
26 MCIGuy : " target=_blank>http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ Not to mention the Senate reinstated the foreign sales ban on the Raptor a couple of months ago.
27 TSV : Hope always exists with projects like these as there are intrinsically many ways they can fail.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Fires Up F135 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...
F-35 Engine Manufacturer Change posted Tue Feb 7 2006 17:30:44 by RichardPrice
F-15 Engine Question? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:08:08 by Venus6971
US Senate Approves Selling 100 F-35's To Turkey posted Thu Nov 9 2006 11:30:01 by Wing
Orion Instrument Display Mock-Up posted Sun Oct 1 2006 01:04:41 by AerospaceFan
Beijing Secretly Fires Lasers To Disable US Sattel posted Fri Sep 29 2006 08:04:41 by NWDC10
Aidc Ching Kuo - A Twin Engine "Falcon?" posted Sun Sep 3 2006 10:27:57 by DEVILFISH
F-15 Re-engine For Supercruise posted Sat Sep 2 2006 23:20:31 by EBJ1248650
Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless posted Wed Aug 16 2006 14:44:55 by RAPCON
German Army Will Up-grade Their CH 53s posted Thu Aug 3 2006 07:23:03 by Columba
Video Of A400M's TP400-D6 Engine posted Thu Jul 27 2006 20:20:04 by RAPCON

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format