Forum: Technology

Can the tech people on this forum enlighten all of us on the above.
I will start it with the comparison below.

F119 - USA
Weight: - 1772 kilogram [3,900 lb]
T:W ratio of 9:1 - [Wet thrust 155KN].
Length: 5,160 millimeters [203 inches]
Diamaeter ????
Assigned Life ????
Cost $15m - can anybody tell us.
THE Al-41F-1 - (117) - Russia
Dry weight of -1420 kilogram - [3,100lb]
T:W ratio of 10.5:1 [Thrust - around 150Kn]
Assume 4,000hour Assigned life similar to "117S".
Cost: Guess $4-5m - about $1m higher than 117S?
Please add any others e.g. European Engines.

Dimensions of the AL-31F are:
Length: 4,990 meters (196 inches)
Diameter: 905 millimetres (35.6 inches) inlet; 1,280 millimetres (50 inches) maximum external
The new "117" has to be the same or smaller from all reports.

What is the best balance. High T:W+less durability+lower cost or Lower T:W-greater durability +high cost.

F-16.net Sponsor

That's the name of the game. Now days I think the best balance is the most thust and durability for the $$$$$$$$$. Money is the key. I bet you could get 50,000 lbs out of a F-119 but not for long. If you could buy a new engine every flight it would be all about max thrust vs full burn. Some Russian aircraft have had to use engines like this in some cases. They would run them at max power but the engines burn up. I think I like the Eurofighters "War time thrust" mode. Run them cool most of the time but when it counts hit the little red button. I don't know if there's really a little red button or a "V-max" swtich like the Eagle. They may have something else I don't know. I like the idea though. I hear the F-135 has made 50,000+ lbs thrust. I hope they do something like this. 43,000 lbs for day to day and 50,000 lbs when it counts. Save money and get a hotrod. New cars are doing this by turning half the motor off when cruising and when you firewall it you get full power. My Two Cents

TSFG

One might guess an Al-41F-1 will cost slightly more than $4m in the future. That is a next-gen high-tech monster. Many times, the company advertised prices are outdated and still float around the net sustained by enthusiasts.

Still your question is a relevant one. With regards to US manufactured engines alone, it is a relevant cost-effective analysis to make, e.g. future F-414 EPE vs the standard engine... or upgraded F110 engine variants vs the standard GE-129, etc.

It will come down to the customer willing to justify and spend a little more on O&S and accept a little less reliability, plus a bit more up-front acquisition cost.

Quote:

[quote="geogen"]One might guess an Al-41F-1 will cost slightly more than $4m in the future.

I agree $5m+ for the next generation[$3.5m past contracts]pressed the submit button too quickly. With better engine life and thrust they will cost more for sure.
The main reason I put this up is most people knock Russian military engines on the basis of "engine life"and disregard there weight advantage,cost advantage and simplicity. All good points.
Keep them cheap, simple,powerfull,light weight and easily changed over - the Russian philosophy.
Asked a Russian why the diesel engines on there APC's blew smoke - there tractor engines do not. His answer "That engine will run on heavy diesel, distilate, kerosene, petrol, peanut oil ++?- a compromise- can be maintained by the crew- worked for us in WW2 against the Axis with the best so we stay with it." They always have reasons. Lasting- A sound Volga taxi that had done 4.3million kilometres with 3/4 ring changes? Obviously good base engineering. Quality- A 25+ year old kitchen clock- 4inches round- went for about 9 days and kept good time on one wind.

[quote="rkap"]Can the tech people on this forum enlighten all of us on the above.

Where are all the Tech types??? on the above.

Forum: Technology

The Balance - Engine life, engine cost, engine weight