Forum: F-22A Raptor

checksixx wrote:

Mush...I thought flameholders had to do with keeping the internal cumbustion of the engine stable...am I wrong or is it simply a different term when dealing with mil engines?

A flame holder in this context (i.e. past all the moving parts of the core of the engine) holds the flames that ignite the fuel to make the... ummm... afterburner. A professor of mine once compared the flame holder's purpose to that of someone's hand cupped around a match or lighter flame in the wind. The flame holder makes it so that the mass flow coming out the back of the turbine doesn't blow out the flames used to ignite the raw fuel you're dumping into the nozzle for AB operation.

Anyway, you're way too sensitive about people questioning your information and/or sources. I find it strange that Mushmouth had to be the one to answer a few simple, yet direct questions. Had you not been so busy being offended, perhaps you could have presented you case more logically. As for radar blockers in the tailpipe... maybe they are the flame holder assembly. Perhaps it serves a dual purpose, hence why it looks so unusual.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Just as you said and Mush already answered...so I'm not sure why your posting but here goes...apparently in military afterburning engines this is the case, but hold on sport! What I was referring to is very well explained at this link and it in simple terms...http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine.htm/printable

So my question that you quoted above was being to sensitive!!?? I thought it was just a question, sorry. My case more logically??! A little bit ago it was because I didn't sound like an engineer. Now it just needs to be more logical? Maybe I'm not the one who's to sensitive?? Anyways like I said...the quote you posted of mine was not in any way, shape or form directed at you and it was answered. Thanks anyways...Check

checksixx wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

That's the first seemingly authoritative posting to contradict the claim that these devices are radar blockers. Care to list your source and put the debate to rest? Please don't take offense to my asking you for the source of your information either.

Forgetting that there was NO evidence what-so-ever that they were quote 'RADAR blockers', Mush, this is clearly what you were talking about in your PM....LoL...Oh and don't forget to prove your existence, post your blood type and a genetic picture of your DNA so we can be 99% sure of what your talking about...... Rolling Eyes

You've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder, don't you? You just want people to take your word for it? They might if your delivery was more authoritative, descriptive, informative, etc. Unfortunately, you didn't come across that way in this thread. I don't know you from Adam, so unless you convince me with your words that you know precisely what you're talking about, I'm going to question you on where you got your information. Apparently you don't know that much about engines (that's not an insult... don't get offended), so why should anyone take your information at face value when it comes to what these devices are or are not? You didn't actually know what they were to begin with, remember? You apparently found out later what they were from Dozer, but you continued to force people to take your word for it.

The way you quoted Dozer is suspect too. He wouldn't be suspect if he chimed in himself in this conversation, but the way you quoted him left much to be desired. I had to question you about the context of your private conversation with Dozer because of the way you quoted him. You didn't even say something simple like, "I just PM'd Dozer over at such and such a forum and had him take a look at some of the pictures posted in this thread. He said that the white spokes attached to the black circular piece in the center are the flame holders." Again... the issue is with the way you convey information. A lot of, "Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. And don't you dare question me on any of what I'm telling you!" Guess what... you don't convince anybody you know what you're talking about by telling them you know what you're talking about. You convince people you know what you're talking about by sounding like you know what you're talking about and, whenever possible or seemingly necessary, backing up your statements with decent references that most anyone could get access to themselves to confirm what you're saying. Getting pissy when someone questions your statements (for good reason no less) is not necessary.

Last edited by Mushmouth on Apr 04, 2007 - 06:20 PM; edited 1 time in total

Hahaha!! Can't we all get along. Laughing

To clear up any futher questions about the flameholder, it's does not have anything to do with blocking radar. My source are my T.O.'s, my F.I's, my reps, and the fact that I order these things, now how much they cost, no what material they are made of that can withstand that amount of heat and I can go on. Oh, and I do got one in my garage that is scrape metal that I have approval to have. That's enough said right there without compromising my position. I take no offense. Everybody is intitled to their opinion or what they want to believe. It's like telling a kid there's no Santa. Even with facts and proof, if he wan't to believe there is a Santa he still will. If there are radar blockers on the aircraft, the last place it would be is deep in the exhaust where it would be prone to cracking and high wear. It would be somewhere on the aircraft. Like the F-117, nothing on that engine makes it stealth. It's all airframe.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

You've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder, don't you? You just want people to take your word for it? They might if your delivery was more authoritative, descriptive

,...etc..yeah, yeah (edited for length)

Thanks Dad...I have no chip on my shoulder and have repeatedly said that anyone is free to think what they think. Again, you took something I posted for Mushmouth in reference to a PM he sent me as a slam against you. It was meant as a joke between us and if you took offense to it, I appologize. Now move on.

checksixx wrote:

Just as you said and Mush already answered...so I'm not sure why your posting but here goes...apparently in military afterburning engines this is the case, but hold on sport! What I was referring to is very well explained at this link and it in simple terms...http://travel.howstuffworks.com/turbine.htm/printable

So my question that you quoted above was being to sensitive!!?? I thought it was just a question, sorry. My case more logically??! A little bit ago it was because I didn't sound like an engineer. Now it just needs to be more logical? Maybe I'm not the one who's to sensitive?? Anyways like I said...the quote you posted of mine was not in any way, shape or form directed at you and it was answered. Thanks anyways...Check

Sorry... perhaps logical wasn't the right word. No... you don't sound like an engineer or, for that matter, someone who knows a lot about gas turbine propulsion in general. This is why I questioned a lot of what you had to say. And yes... it was obvious from the context of this whole debate that we were talking about the flame holder which ignites the fuel dumped directly into the engine's nozzle aft of all the moving/rotating components. Yes... obviously the combustion chamber has flame holders too, but the combustion chamber is forward of the turbine section and not at all visable when looking a the engine directly from the rear through the nozzle opening. So there was no ambiguity which flame holders we were talking about here.

Hey Check and Rapt, we'll ahve some drinks and laugh about this when I get back to the states huh?!?! Cheers

Hold up Raptor... There are no flameholders in the combustion chamber. Different concept.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

God, how many trolls does it take to ruin a thread! MOVE ON MAN! I already said I wasn't an engine expert. I already asked the question to Mushmouth and I already got the answer. YOUR PATHETIC ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT ME FOR SOME REASON HAVE NO MEANING! I freely admit I'm not an expert. I posted that which you quoted above with the link to describe what I had been referring to. I'm not going to ask you what you do for a living because you must be an aeronautical engineer that designs turbine engines or something....I REALLY DON"T CARE! As far as what the MAIN topic was in the thread...I can tell you FOR A FACT, from a security standpoint, there is NOTHING that would concern us in having anyone take a picture up the a$$ end of the Raptor.

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Mushmouth wrote:

Hey Check and Rapt, we'll ahve some drinks and laugh about this when I get back to the states huh?!?! Cheers

If you get to the Langley area PM me and I'll buy ya a drink! Beer

Elite Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Mushmouth wrote:

Hold up Raptor... There are no flameholders in the combustion chamber. Different concept.

Mush...I think Raptor One was referring to the link I posted, which I must assume, would be more in reference to a commercial turbine engine although instead of explaining the difference, he just wanted to yell at me about it. As a matter of fact, I don't think Raptor One is confused at all about what your referring too.

Check

Last edited by Mushmouth on Apr 04, 2007 - 06:36 PM; edited 1 time in total

I'm from Richmond so I will be there in May bro!! Thumb

Yeah I saw the link. Definitely heavy's cocept. I wonder how much longer this thread is gonna go? Very Happy

Mushmouth wrote:

Hahaha!! Can't we all get along. Laughing

To clear up any futher questions about the flameholder, it's does not have anything to do with blocking radar. My source are my T.O.'s, my F.I's, my reps, and the fact that I order these things, now how much they cost, no what material they are made of that can withstand that amount of heat and I can go on. Oh, and I do got one in my garage that is scrape metal that I have approval to have. That's enough said right there without compromising my position. I take no offense. Everybody is intitled to their opinion or what they want to believe. It's like telling a kid there's no Santa. Even with facts and proof, if he wan't to believe there is a Santa he still will. If there are radar blockers on the aircraft, the last place it would be is deep in the exhaust where it would be prone to cracking and high wear. It would be somewhere on the aircraft. Like the F-117, nothing on that engine makes it stealth. It's all airframe.

Is this information you're providing F-22-specific and/or F119-PW-100-specific or are you making an educated guess based on your knowledge of similar AB turbofan engines? Don't get me wrong... what you posted sounds resonable enough to me. But I don't make up my mind on something until I'm confident of the source(s) and associated references. I don't want you to compromise your position of course (whatever that means). As for the radar blocker debate, this thread was the first I ever heard of such technology. I'll have to research it a bit more before speaking further on it. Like I said... perhaps the radar blockers were designed to be integrated into the flame holder ring itself. It's not fair to say that they wouldn't put something like that in the nozzle of an engine designed to fit into a stealth aircraft. Not fair at all. Again, maybe, just maybe the radar blockers and the flame holder were cleverly integrated into one single component. It might explain why the flame holder looks so unlike any other flame holder I've seen in an AB turbofan. Then again, it may not. Don't just dismiss what other people have said in this thread. You never stopped to consider that both parties may be right and wrong and the same time?

Mushmouth wrote:

Hold up Raptor... There are no flameholders in the combustion chamber. Different concept.

Hehe... yeah, I don't remember learning about something specifically called a flame holder within the combustion chamber. I've always associated flame holder with afterburner. The combustion chamber was just the "burner"... it did what it did. Smile

I am familiar with the concept of burner cans though. In that link posted, apparently burner cans can be referred to as flame holders as well. Go figure. Hehe.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Backing home without stealthiness?