User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:58 pm

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!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:28 pm

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.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:58 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:11 am

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:45 am

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 avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8029
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:47 am

It was the J57 that made the B-52 possible in the first place.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:06 am

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).
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:10 am

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?
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:33 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:48 am

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.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:03 am

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..
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:20 am

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.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:46 am

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.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:40 am

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!!!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:19 am

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!
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:36 am

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...
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:57 am

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.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:23 pm

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.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:54 am

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".
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:37 am

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.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:06 pm

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.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:33 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:48 pm

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).
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:32 am

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.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:06 am

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
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:03 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
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!

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 500 feet (152.4 metres). I swear I heard static in my ears as it passed by full-throttle, like the staic on a television station that won't come in. After it left, I was temporarily deafened.

Anybody who thinks the JT8D is loud has not experienced the JT3D/TF-33.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:52 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 25):
Anybody who thinks the JT8D is loud has not experienced the JT3D/TF-33.

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 not believe it, I did think 707 was that loud!

I was taking to a B-52H pilot about his aircraft. He told me that on take off if you are to close to a Buff you will go deaf. After watching a video of a Buff taking off on flightlevel350 I believe him, My ears was hurting just listening to that video.

I wish I cold have herd a J-75/ JT4-A powered 707.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 25):
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 500 feet (152.4 metres). I swear I heard static in my ears as it passed by full-throttle, like the staic on a television station that won't come in. After it left, I was temporarily deafened.

The funny thing about TF-33 powered KC-135 or KC-135E, they do not military engines. They are KC-135A re-engine with ex-TWA and I believe Pan Am and American 707 engine. So the same TF-33 you hear on a KC-135E uses to tear it up at civilian airports everyday.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2558
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:27 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 25):

The JT-3D makes a very nasty screech whereas the JT-3C as I imagine makes that and an enormous roar as well.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:10 am

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 27):
The funny thing about TF-33 powered KC-135 or KC-135E, they do not military engines. They are KC-135A re-engine with ex-TWA and I believe Pan Am and American 707 engine. So the same TF-33 you hear on a KC-135E uses to tear it up at civilian airports everyday.

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 TF-33.

And people around here (KCLE) whine about noise when a 737NG takes off, imagine a 707 a few decades ago  hissyfit 
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:13 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 28):
And people around here (KCLE) whine about noise when a 737NG takes off, imagine a 707 a few decades ago

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.
 Smile
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:48 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
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.

I seen some pictures of those JT3-C powered 707 and DC-8. Those where some smokers!  Wink
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Aug 03, 2006 1:10 am

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 have four or more engines.

Do an body know how loud a C-15 an aircraft with four JT8 was?
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:15 am

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 because the J57s were so loud, that without these bands, the airframe suffered sonic fatigue.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frische Michael



Although this KC-135 has since been re-engined with TF-33 engines, its days of J57 power are still visible. If you look at the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer, you will see these bands that I am referring to.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:55 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 32):
This was because the J57s were so loud, that without these bands, the airframe suffered sonic fatigue.

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" mod took until 1970 to complete the entire fleet of over 750 C/KC/RC/EC-135A/Qs that were flying around, at the time.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3249
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:38 am

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 the Kansas ANG.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:15 am

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 34):
I was under the impression that the KC-135D was a TF-33 powered version

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 thought they were all flying with the AKANG now, in Alaska.
 
b52murph
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:21 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
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.

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 the base was still active and the 509 AREFS still had their KC-135As. One launched from rwy 16..it was a warm June day and that sucker took ALL of the 11,318 ft rwy to get off the ground. I can still feel the vibration from that launch to this day. At least KPSM is still home to the R-models of 133 AREFS/NHANG and that fine airline we call Pan Am.  stirthepot 


Quoting 747400sp (Reply 26):
was taking to a B-52H pilot about his aircraft. He told me that on take off if you are to close to a Buff you will go deaf. After watching a video of a Buff taking off on flightlevel350 I believe him, My ears was hurting just listening to that video.

I worked B-52Hs as a mx officer @ Minot AFB from `96 to `99--they were loud, but not as loud as that A-model tanker. Also worked B-1Bs @ Elllsworth AFB...now with all four jets on AB, those have got to be as loud or louder than the old tankers.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 32):
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 because the J57s were so loud, that without these bands, the airframe suffered sonic fatigue

I'll be  idea  I've probably looked at over 100 different tanker tails at several different bases both growing up and since I've been in the USAF....always wondered what those were for, but never bothered to ask. Thanks!
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2618
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
There were only 4-5 KC-135Ds. I thought they were all flying with the AKANG now, in Alaska.

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 designation. Got to fly all of them back at KGUS, home of the odd-ball tanker  Wink
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting B52murph (Reply 36):
I'll be    I've probably looked at over 100 different tanker tails at several different bases both growing up and since I've been in the USAF....always wondered what those were for, but never bothered to ask. Thanks!

No problem, I have a book on Boeing aircraft and I remember reading over it once before...very interesting
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:52 am

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 Buffs out of there for rotations to Nam. Between them and the 135's, it was the loudest flightline I've ever been around. When I was in college there in 1969, I lived in a trailer that was directly on final for the N-S approach, about a mile from the runway. Everytime a Buff came in on final, forget what was on the TV. You couldn't hear it nor see it as the trailer just shook and vibrated from the sound. But I did love seeing them come and go. What a purposeful aircraft, a warbird in every sense of the word. One experience I can still remember vividly was the first time I saw a U-2. It was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They flew their missions out of McCoy. The takeoff was a spectacular display of the bird leaving the ground and then going straight up until it was out of sight. As 10 year olds, we would sneak into the ready room canteen to cadge chili dogs. I always looked on with admiration at the crews sitting there in their flight suits, waiting for the claxon. Those 50's and 60's military jets will always have a place in my aviation heart for sure. Great thread, thanks KC135TopBoom
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:15 am

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 39):
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 Buffs out of there for rotations to Nam. Between them and the 135's, it was the loudest flightline I've ever been around.

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 Westover AFB, MA, when it closed at the same time (actually Westover became a AFRB).
 
747400sp
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:38 am

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. The T57 was going to power the YB-52 before the USAF decided to go all jet. P&W was still going to build the T57 along side of the J57, for the 500000 lb Douglas C-132 Globemaster III. But the T57 was cancel and that caused the C-132 to be cancel.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:59 am

Quoting 747400SP (Reply 41):
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. The T57 was going to power the YB-52 before the USAF decided to go all jet. P&W was still going to build the T57 along side of the J57, for the 500000 lb Douglas C-132 Globemaster III. But the T57 was cancel and that caused the C-132 to be cancel.

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 had no reduction gear, and the propeller would have been directly attached to the shaft. The T57 was a giant turboprop, as it was supposed to have 15,000SHP (Shaft Horsepower), a giant number compared to today's turboprops of only 1,500-4,000SHP.

But thanks for bringing that up, 747400SP, it is a very interesting historical insight on the development of the J57.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:14 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
There were only 4-5 KC-135Ds. I thought they were all flying with the AKANG now, in Alaska.

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 accordance for the SALT treaties afterwards?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:52 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 43):
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 accordance for the SALT treaties afterwards?

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-engined with F-108s.
 
b52murph
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:02 pm

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:13 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
Quoting L-188 (Reply 43):
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 accordance for the SALT treaties afterwards?

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-engined with F-108s.

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 1989-1991 all four KC-135Ds had their J57s replaced with TF-33s and were transferred to the Alaska ANGs 168 AREFS.....They have all since been reassigned together at Forbes Field KS with the 190 ARW"

Barring a very recent change, the 190 ARW @ KFOE still operates JT3D equipped KC-135Es....
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3249
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:52 am

Quoting B52murph (Reply 45):
Barring a very recent change, the 190 ARW @ KFOE still operates JT3D equipped KC-135Es....

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 engined tankers are still pretty damn loud though.

Question: If the D was to be re-engined with F108s, Would they get the -R suffix, or would they move on to V or W or whatever is next in line?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:22 pm

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 aircraft, to assist in crew bail out, if needed (it is on the bottom of the fuselage, to the right of the boom). Like all other C/KC-135s, it also has a bail out capability through the crew entry hatch, next to the nose landing gear. Both escape hatches have a spoiler that can be extended to make bailing out safer for the crew.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3249
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:32 pm

I should have clarified then...

No external difference when viewed from at least 1000 feet underneath!
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The P&W J-57 Jet Engine

Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:22 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 48):
I should have clarified then...

No external difference when viewed from at least 1000 feet underneath!

Opps, sorry

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alomar and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos