DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4664 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.
Galaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4572 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!
The C-5 may be a FRED, but once you learn the ins and outs of it, the C-5 Galaxy is a awesome plane!
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4456 times:
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 873 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
Not surprising. Most engines in aviation are de-rated from the get-go.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2821 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4177 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
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1818 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3993 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?
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3965 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.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3704 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)
Bringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 864 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3546 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 !
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3027 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3527 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.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3473 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.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3469 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?
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3468 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.
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3466 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.
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?"
N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3457 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
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3373 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.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3332 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...
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.
TSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2939 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 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1919 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3975 posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
