Forum: F-35 Engine

F-35's engine will have 43,000 lbs of thrust.



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Sep 08, 2006 - 09:54 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 02, 2006 - 01:14 AM
Posts: 1170

Status: Offline
The F135-PW-100 engine will have 43,000 lbs of thrust with 28,000 lbs available without reheat.

This is no longer rumor. This is an official Pratt & Whitney release.





http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12791.zip
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 24, 2013 - 12:30 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 03:16 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1908

Status: Offline
Impressive to say the least! Really, almost as much power as the twin enignes of a F-15A/C Eagle! (i.e. F-100-PW-100's & 220's) WOW Not Worthy

Speaking of rumors.............the F-136-GE-100 will make something on order of 46,000lbs! Man the F-35 critics aren't going to like this.............. Doh
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 03:24 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1908

Status: Offline
Man it makes 28,000lbs on Military Power alone....................makes you wonder if supercruise isn't possible after all?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
asiatrails
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 06:41 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Aug 30, 2005 - 03:11 AM
Posts: 865

Status: Offline
Interesting. The pressure ratio is lower than the F110-GE-129 which has:

Max. Power at Sea Level (Lb.): 29,000

Overall Pressure ratio at Maximum Power: 30.7
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:41 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 02, 2006 - 01:14 AM
Posts: 1170

Status: Offline
Basically two things determine thrust -- mass air flow and presssure ratio. What this means is that the mass air flow of the F135 is higher than the F110, and the difference in thrust between the two is smaller than the difference in air flow.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Raptor_One
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:53 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM
Posts: 1092

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. A variety of factors determine an engine's thrust output... and that's not taking into account the aircraft it's installed in. Overall pressure ratio and mass flow rate are by no means the entire equation. That would, for example, ignore temperature ratios. If you've ever done engine cycle analysis, you would understand that things are not this simple... not by a long shot.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 04:10 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 02, 2006 - 01:14 AM
Posts: 1170

Status: Offline
Raptor_One wrote:
I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. A variety of factors determine an engine's thrust output... and that's not taking into account the aircraft it's installed in. Overall pressure ratio and mass flow rate are by no means the entire equation. That would, for example, ignore temperature ratios. If you've ever done engine cycle analysis, you would understand that things are not this simple... not by a long shot.


It is primarily so. Temperature ratios affect the pressure ratio, but in the end the temperature of the exhaust doesn't matter thrust wise -- even though achieving the same thrust with less airflow and higher pressure ratios means having a higher temperature ratio. The only things that matter are how much air is going in the engine and at what pressure that ar is coming out the back! The only things that make thrust are volume and pressure. For a given nozzle area, they determine exhaust mass and exhaust velocity and those are the ONLY things that matter as to how much thrust you make.

How efficient fuel wise, how hot the exhaust plume is, etc are other matters that concern an engine. But thrust is thrust.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
asiatrails
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:17 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Aug 30, 2005 - 03:11 AM
Posts: 865

Status: Offline
Raptor, you are corect. My intention was not to start a debate on cycle decks; all I intended to indicate was that the current system is within existing operational parameters and it should be possible to grow the engine.

Thrust growth with an existing envelope always happens; if you are at the current edge of what is possible it costs a lot more and takes a lot longer to grow.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 08:32 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613

Status: Offline
Corsair1963 wrote:
Impressive to say the least! Really, almost as much power as the twin enignes of a F-15A/C Eagle! (i.e. F-100-PW-100's & 220's) WOW Not Worthy

Speaking of rumors.............the F-136-GE-100 will make something on order of 46,000lbs! Man the F-35 critics aren't going to like this.............. Doh


Yeah that's impressive - until you consider that the prototype F135 installed in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 52,000lbs max afterburner.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 08:38 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613

Status: Offline
Corsair1963 wrote:
Impressive to say the least! Really, almost as much power as the twin enignes of a F-15A/C Eagle! (i.e. F-100-PW-100's & 220's) WOW Not Worthy

Speaking of rumors.............the F-136-GE-100 will make something on order of 46,000lbs! Man the F-35 critics aren't going to like this.............. Doh


That's actually a disappointment. A couple years ago a RR program manager type (who'd likely been sucking down some extra strength peyote) was quoted in AvWeek as saying the F136 would produce 56,000lbs of thrust.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
idesof
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 09:31 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: May 29, 2006 - 11:59 PM
Posts: 637

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Yeah that's impressive - until you consider that the prototype F135 installed in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 52,000lbs max afterburner.


Where did you get those figures? Never heard of them myself. Never heard of a protoype engine producing more thrust than the production version.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 09:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1613

Status: Offline
idesof wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Yeah that's impressive - until you consider that the prototype F135 installed in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 52,000lbs max afterburner.


Where did you get those figures? Never heard of them myself. Never heard of a protoype engine producing more thrust than the production version.


Airtime Publishing. I believe it was in their "Superfighters" book although it might have been in one of their issues of International Airpower Review. In either case the dry thrust is easy to verify- just go look up the lift off weight of the X-32. Also keep in mind that bending the airflow 90 degrees isn't exactly the best way to maximize your efficiency. Oh, one more thing, the X-32 and X-35 used different versions of the F135. The one in the X-35 was about the same as today's production version.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Raptor_One
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 10:02 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM
Posts: 1092

asiatrails wrote:
Raptor, you are corect. My intention was not to start a debate on cycle decks; all I intended to indicate was that the current system is within existing operational parameters and it should be possible to grow the engine.

Thrust growth with an existing envelope always happens; if you are at the current edge of what is possible it costs a lot more and takes a lot longer to grow.


I wasn't referring to your basic quoting of figures. There's nothing wrong with what you posted (unless it's actually factually inaccurate Smile).
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
JCSVT
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 10:51 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 19, 2006 - 10:39 PM
Posts: 74

Status: Offline
That's about where I expected it to be.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Shonuff
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2006 - 11:09 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: May 10, 2005 - 01:14 PM
Posts: 37

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Impressive to say the least! Really, almost as much power as the twin enignes of a F-15A/C Eagle! (i.e. F-100-PW-100's & 220's) WOW Not Worthy

Speaking of rumors.............the F-136-GE-100 will make something on order of 46,000lbs! Man the F-35 critics aren't going to like this.............. Doh


Yeah that's impressive - until you consider that the prototype F135 installed in the X-32 produced 34,000lbs dry and 52,000lbs max afterburner.


The book Lockheed Stealth also quoted the dry thrust to be around 34,000lbs.

Maybe the 40000lb max thrust is to throw off possible rivals?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic