Forum: F-35 Lightning II

See: <a href="news_article1985.html">Mighty F-35 Lightning II engine roars to life</a>

40K pounds! Astonishing. But I personally think the Raptor has even more power. Assumption only, data still classified... Sad

Will these engines ever be available for other fightes, say Viper and Eagle?

The F-35 Lightning II lights its afterburner during a ground test at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, on Monday afternoon, September 18th. The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter, producing 40,000 pounds of thrust.

F-16.net Sponsor

I hope so! I'd love to see a Viper with 40,000 lbs of burner!

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

I hope so! I'd love to see a Viper with 40,000 lbs of burner!

The block 60 is not that far away

Bad a$$!!

I have a video of the first AB engine run in AA-1, 25 MB and probably not in the public domain (yet)

soon, grasshopper....

renatohm wrote:

40 thousand pounds!! Astonishing. But I personally think the Raptor has even more power. Assumption only, data still classified... Sad

Will these engines ever be available for other fightes, say Viper and Eagle?

Yeah it's astonishing- until you read that the prototype F135 in the X-32 put out 52,000lbs in full afterburner. After that it's a massive let down. Crying or Very sad

Raptor_DCTR wrote:

I hope so! I'd love to see a Viper with 40,000 lbs of burner!

And after you put the new intake on it it would look like the X-32 Shocked

The F135 moves quite a bit more air than a F110. And that's just the beginning of the changes.

This engine will never be put in an F-16 for this reason, it won't fit. It's a massive engine that you couldn't believe unless you saw it.

sferrin wrote:

Yeah it's astonishing- until you read that the prototype F135 in the X-32 put out 52,000lbs in full afterburner. After that it's a massive let down. Crying or Very sad

Too bad... Is the prototype really abandoned or will some of it's stuff be used in the near future? (Sorry if OPSEC restraints applies to this question)

@Happy_Gilmore
Thanks for the clarification! But it might be used in other planes, say B-1R, F-15, maybe even the BUFF? Size restraints do not aplly on these cases, maybe only for the F-15, I guess? (Again, sorry if OPSEC restraints apply)

Wait, I thought they didnt use the F135 in the X-35.

If so, and it did put out 52,000lbs, then why dont we see that now?

skrip00 wrote:

Wait, I thought they didnt use the F135 in the X-35.

If so, and it did put out 52,000lbs, then why dont we see that now?

Varients of the F135 were used in both the X-35 and X-32. The X-32 used dry power only for VTOL and the engine was sized accordingly. 34,000lbs DRY and 52,000 max afterburner. And it had thrust vectoring like the F-22. As for why you don't see that now you'd have to ask the DOD.

renatohm wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Yeah it's astonishing- until you read that the prototype F135 in the X-32 put out 52,000lbs in full afterburner. After that it's a massive let down. Crying or Very sad

Too bad... Is the prototype really abandoned or will some of it's stuff be used in the near future? (Sorry if OPSEC restraints applies to this question)

@Happy_Gilmore
Thanks for the clarification! But it might be used in other planes, say B-1R, F-15, maybe even the BUFF? Size restraints do not aplly on these cases, maybe only for the F-15, I guess? (Again, sorry if OPSEC restraints apply)

Now, I seriously doubt this 52,000 lb. number some of you have been writing about. However, if it relates to the STOVL X-32, then that engine can in no way be compared to the engines one can mount on an F-35. It is more like a Pegasus with afterburner than an F100 or F110. Can't be mounted in an F-35. Won't fit, period.

Now, remember that the F136 is waiting in the wings. Shades of the great engine war between the F100 and F110. The Pentagon tried to kill the F136 this year but Congress restored its funding. My guess is that once the GE baby is ready to go, it will outperform the P&W just like the F110 did the F100.

Happy, size restrictions do apply to engines you can mount on an F-15 or B-1. The engine bays are sized for engines in the F100 / F110 class. Even if you could mount new engines on those airplanes, I seroiusly doubt the USAF would allocate its very limited resources to that effort.

As for the BUFF, I think someone has been reading WAY too much Dale Brown lately. Wink

I heard a rumor (and it may be only that) that the B-52 fleet may be reengined with 4 GE CF6s (747 engines). It would be the same number of engine pylons, just four less engines. I'm just not sure how the ground clearance would be.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

TC wrote:

I heard a rumor (and it may be only that) that the B-52 fleet may be reengined with 4 GE CF6s (747 engines). It would be the same number of engine pylons, just four less engines. I'm just not sure how the ground clearance would be.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Hehehehe... that's what Dale Brown's "Megafortresses" had. 4 CF6s. People shouldn't sell Dale Brown short. His fiction could easily become reality, and has in at least one case. Storming Heaven had planes crashing into airport terminals and eventually government buildings in Washington D.C. (I forget which ones at this point). That book was published in 1994!!!

idesof wrote:

Now, I seriously doubt this 52,000 lb. number some of you have been writing about.

Doubt away. I'm sure you've discovered by now how much weight your opinion carries around here. It's not too hard to do the math. The X-32 lifted off on DRY thrust. That was around 34,000lbs. The varient in the X-32 was also pushing a LOT of air which means the disparity between dry and afterburning thrust is going to be relatively large. Last but not least why don't you do a little research on the problem? I can direct you to the 52k figure easily enough. Airtime Publishing's International Airpower Review. The issue with the big writeup on the X-35 and X-32.

idesof wrote:

However, if it relates to the STOVL X-32, then that engine can in no way be compared to the engines one can mount on an F-35.

Of course it can be. They were both varients of the same engine.

idesof wrote:

It is more like a Pegasus with afterburner than an F100 or F110.

Have you ever SEEN a Pegasus? Close the valves leading to the posts on the X-32's engine and you pretty much have an F135 with a LONG afterburner.

idesof wrote:

Can't be mounted in an F-35. Won't fit, period.

Well you wouldn't need the posts so you could leave those off. Install a shorter afterburner without the valve to close it and you've basically got an F135 as seen in the X-35. Yes, yes we all know there are detail differences so the one in the X-35 can drive the lift fan a bit better and the one in the X-32 has greater airflow because they needed so much dry thrust (which translated into the greatly increased max thrust with afterburner engaged) but they are varients of the same engine. Bottom line is who cares if it doesn't fit? That was never the subject. All that was ever said was the published specs on the F135 pale in comparison with those of the F135 used in the X-32. Which they do.

idesof wrote:

Now, remember that the F136 is waiting in the wings. Shades of the great engine war between the F100 and F110. The Pentagon tried to kill the F136 this year but Congress restored its funding. My guess is that once the GE baby is ready to go, it will outperform the P&W just like the F110 did the F100.

No doubt because it says GE on the side Rolling Eyes

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

40,000 pounds of trust!