| Author |
Message |
|
dwightlooi
|
 Posted: Sep 08, 2006 - 09:54 PM
|
 
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 942
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Sep 07, 2008 - 1:01 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 03:16 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 659
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 
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..............  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 03:24 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 659
Status: Offline
|
| Man it makes 28,000lbs on Military Power alone....................makes you wonder if supercruise isn't possible after all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
asiatrails
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 06:41 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 663
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dwightlooi
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:41 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 942
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raptor_One
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:53 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1089
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dwightlooi
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 04:10 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 942
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
asiatrails
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 07:17 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 663
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 08:32 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 965
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
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..............
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 08:38 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 965
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
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..............
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
idesof
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 09:31 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: May 29, 2006
Posts: 640
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 09:36 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 965
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raptor_One
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 10:02 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1089
|
|
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  ). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCSVT
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 10:51 PM
|
|
|
Frequent Poster
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Posts: 74
Status: Offline
|
| That's about where I expected it to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shonuff
|
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2006 - 11:09 PM
|
|
|
Regular User
Joined: May 10, 2005
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
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..............
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
