| Author |
Message |
|
thestealthfighterguy
|
 Posted: Dec 16, 2011 - 08:11 PM
|
 
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Sep 15, 2011 - 02:18 AM
Posts: 254
Location: Your six-O-clock
|
|
JetTest wrote:
Similar core, not exactly the same. Bigger fan and inlet case, as well as fan duct. No such part as an "engine case".
Yep, Sorry I been building my WV stroker motor. It has a "engine case".
TSFG |
_________________
Stealth, so the bad guys don't know your there till they start blowing up. Have a nice day!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2012 - 11:38 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 12:51 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2168
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
thestealthfighterguy wrote:
I've been reading up on the thrust to weight of the newer jet fighter engines.
Rafale M88-2= 18,000 lbs thrust/ 1,978 lbs = T/W 9.1
Eurofighter EJ-200= 20,250 lbs thrust/ 2,180 lbs = T/W 9.3
Raptor F-119= 35,000 lbs thrust/ 3,900 lbs = 9.0
F-35 F-135= 43,000 lbs thrust/ 5,400 lbs =7.96
The F-135 has a very low T/W of only 7.96 to 1. This is lower than some engines built in the 70's and 80's. Why?
This also seems low because it has a inlet temp of 3600 deg. F vs. only 2871 deg and 2700 deg for the M88 and the EJ-200.
What gives? Whatever help you can give would be great. Thank you.
Where did this magic chart come from? Where has anyone ever publicly indicated the F135 weighs anything specific? Last I knew the weight of the engine was still c|@$sified.
No mention on any of PW's pages:
http://www.f135engine.com/proven-tech/e ... cter.shtml
http://www.pw.utc.com/products/military/f135.asp
Our friend J@ne'$ still cites the F135's weight as c|@$$ified as well, though the F135 weight is cited as 'in the 4300lb class' at their site.
If the F136 was suppose to be plug-n-play with the F135 the weights should be almost identical. Otherwise serious weight & balance issues would have been encountered moving from one type to the other.
The F135-PW-600 (as a whole propulsion system) had a 'not to exceed weight' of 6504lbs. My comments on that topic here.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-11547.html
Again, numbers at this point can be VERY misleading (for reason) when it comes to performance. No need to lay all the cards out for public (and foreign competitor/opposition) consumption.
For that matter many of the F119 specifications are still c|@s$ified too.
Keep 'em flyin' 
TEG
(edit - typo repair) |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
sirsapo
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 02:10 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 03, 2009 - 10:40 PM
Posts: 32
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
|
| I would also doubt that the F135 has a turbine inlet temperature of 3600 degrees Fahrenheit. Its probably more in the ballpark of 3600 Rankine, which would put it in the level of technology of the F119... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 02:34 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2168
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
sirsapo wrote:
I would also doubt that the F135 has a turbine inlet temperature of 3600 degrees Fahrenheit. Its probably more in the ballpark of 3600 Rankine, which would put it in the level of technology of the F119...
I'd say Fahrenheit, as the F100-PW-229's TET runs ~2500*F which is around 3000*R
Our friend J@nE'$ says the F135's "HPT rotates at speeds exceeding 15,000 rpm, generating 47,725 kW (64,000 shp) from gas at just over 1,649°C (3,000°F), cooled by air supplied at 538°C (1,000°F) from the HPC.
That would be a TET of 3459.87 degree Rankine (or 1922.15 kelvin)
Keep 'em flyin'
TEG |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
alloycowboy
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 05:21 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Oct 26, 2010 - 09:28 AM
Posts: 467
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
|
Who the heck uses Rakine any more??? Some of you might find this interesting. It's a map of countries that still use the British Imperial system.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
popcorn
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 06:27 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 1179
Status: Offline
|
|
alloycowboy wrote:
Who the heck uses Rakine any more??? Some of you might find this interesting. It's a map of countries that still use the British Imperial system.
The US and Burma sure make an odd couple.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 06:20 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 3321
Location: California
Status: Online!
|
Don't forget Liberia  |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2011 - 08:35 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2168
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
alloycowboy wrote:
Who the heck uses Rakine any more???
I believe gas-turbine engineers use Rakine as it's more related to their operations. (or at least they DID use it when jets were born)
I remember having to convert *R to *F during my early days as an 'engine guy' on 1960s PW turbojets.
If memory serves, there was a chart in the back of our Technical Order to convert the 3 temperature scales to each other. *F / *R / *C
The Pratt & Whitney / UTC Aeronautical Vest-Pocket Handbook - AKA "Little Blue Book" also has a *F / *R / *C conversion table.
 TEG |
_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
fiskerwad
|
|
Posted: Dec 19, 2011 - 12:15 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Nov 13, 2004 - 07:43 PM
Posts: 592
Location: 76101
|
|
alloycowboy wrote:
Who the heck uses Rakine any more??? Some of you might find this interesting. It's a map of countries that still use the British Imperial system.
So why did I have all those metric wrenches out while putting a water pump on my wife's Ford Explorer? 
Next they will be wanting a metric equivalent for time.
fisk |
_________________
Mipple?
|
|
|
|
|
|
delvo
|
|
Posted: Dec 19, 2011 - 01:49 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 - 05:06 AM
Posts: 219
Status: Offline
|
|
fiskerwad wrote:
Next they will be wanting a metric equivalent for time.
They wanted to, but the committee couldn't agree on whether a year should have 100 days or 1000. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pecker
|
|
Posted: Dec 19, 2011 - 03:48 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: May 03, 2008 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 99
Location: USA
Status: Offline
|
|
alloycowboy wrote:
Who the heck uses Rakine any more???
Anyone in the gas turbine industry with a vested interest in calculating compressor and/or turbine efficiency but doesn't want to use Kelvin......
Efficiency calcs require the use of absolute scales of temperature, either from the outset or through intermediate conversions.
Convert F to R by adding 459.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
