Forum: F-22A Raptor

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust while the Raptor's combat take-off weight is "just shy of 65,000 lbs." Well, about as authoritative a source as you can get to reveal the actual thrust of the F119, beyond the "35,000 lbs. class" one usually reads in "official" documentation. That's a pretty impressive 1.14-to-1 thrust-to-weight ratio at take off, and almost 1.35-to-1 at combat weight, assuming some 10,000 lbs. of fuel consummed (out of an estimated total of 20,000 lbs.). By way of comparison, an F-16 Block 50/52 will be taking off on an air-to-air mission at about 33,300 lbs. take-off weight, assuming 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders, two 370 gal. drop tanks, one ECM pod and full internal fuel. That's a .88-to-1 thrust-to-weight ratio. Assuming it enters combat with 4,000 lbs. of fuel remaining after having dropped its tanks, the Viper will still have only about a 1.15-to-1 thrust-to-weight ratio, what the Raptor's is as take-off fully loaded. Wow...

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Very impressive indeed.. Just add HMD and -9x... and Bam! Total dogfight package, par excellance.

Who wouldn't support perhaps 100 additional tranche 2 Raptors, at cost of about 200 F-35s (from 1,750 USAF orders)???

Wink

65000 lb? That's almost 20 t. That's the heaviest fighter of its size!

Scorpion82 wrote:

65000 lb? That's almost 20 t. That's the heaviest fighter of its size!

You mean almost 30 metric tons. It is only slightly heavier than the Flanker, while carrying substantially more internal fuel and all of its armament internally as well. Depending on variant, it also produces between 10,000 lbs. to 20,000 lbs. more thrust.

Obamanite wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

65000 lb? That's almost 20 t. That's the heaviest fighter of its size!

You mean almost 30 metric tons. It is only slightly heavier than the Flanker, while carrying substantially more internal fuel and all of its armament internally as well. Depending on variant, it also produces between 10,000 lbs. to 20,000 lbs. more thrust.

Argh sorry I totally confused the calculation. I took feet instead of lb. So the weight given is the NTOW I guess.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 895 Status: Offline

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Whoa

Can you explain that a little more? I'm having trouble getting my head around that one.

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Did they happen to mention how many hours they could get out of that F100-232 at those power levels? My guess is that wasn't within normal operating parameters.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 895 Status: Offline

Guysmiley wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Did they happen to mention how many hours they could get out of that F100-232 at those power levels? My guess is that wasn't within normal operating parameters.

3?

I don't know. Go here and start at "That Engine Guy"'s 2nd post.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ght=36+500

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 895 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Whoa

Can you explain that a little more? I'm having trouble getting my head around that one.

which part, the 37k or the double supersonic thrust?

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 634 Status: Offline

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. ...that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

sferrin wrote:

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-(PW-)232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Guysmiley wrote:

Did they happen to mention how many hours they could get out of that F100-(PW-)232 at those power levels? My guess is that wasn't within normal operating parameters.

37K from an F100 is a lot to be certain, but with an F119 fan on the front of it there is much more air running through the compressor and augmentor. If you can squeeze that much from a "modified" F100 back in the early 1990s then 37,000 from the F119 seems a little skewed considering it has a much more advanced compressor and turbine, not to mention it is slightly larger. I would agree with sferrin concerning the unquoted thrust levels of the F119 at MIL power and supersonic speeds.

Lets not forget a big PW4090 is certified at 91K of thrust for take-off, but it's exhaust velocity is not very fast and could not be used at F119 type speeds. To go supersonic without an afterburner, your engine's exhaust without afterburner must be traveling at high supersonic speed. Apparently the F119 can do this much better than a stock F100. Two Cents

The PW-232 was first known as the PW-229IPE (Increased Performance Engine) and then the PW-229A (Advanced)

The PW-232 borrowed heavily from the F119's fan technologies by increasing compressor efficiency and flow. With this extra flow you could 3 different things to the basic PW-229.

1. Drastically increase power and maintain maintenance intervals
2. Increase power a small margin and increase maintenance intervals likewise
3. Keep constant power over the former and almost double maintenance intervals.

Option 2 was what was quoted most of the time - 32K thrust with a 6K cycle life interval on most major modules. (Remember F100s are modular)

From a unclassified report/book...

Quote:

F100-PW-232

This is a growth version of the F100-PW-229. The F100-PW-232 is not
currently in the Air Force inventory but could be used in U.S. Air
Force or foreign F-15E and F-16C/D aircraft. Existing F100-PW-229
engines can be modified to this configuration by using kits that are
available from Pratt & Whitney.

The primary enhancement over the F100-PW-229 is a redesigned fan.
This fan provides up to 10 percent higher airflow through improved
aerodynamics, and does so at a higher efficiency (Kandebo, 1996a
and 1998b). This new fan can increase the thrust of the engine or can
extend the engine’s hot section design inspection interval from 4,300
total accumulated cycles (TACs) to 6,000 TACs by lowering the
maximum turbine inlet temperature by approximately 120oF while
maintaining the F100-PW-229’s maximum thrust level. In addition,
the second and third stages of the new fan are integrally bladed,
meaning that each stage’s rotating blades and rotor (disk) are a single
piece. These one-piece bladed disks (blisks) reduce the engine’s part
count, reduce weight and aerodynamic losses, and eliminate each
rotor blade’s traditional dovetail attachment roots, thereby
precluding the common problem of cracks forming in the blade’s
root. The fan’s first-stage blades are attached to their disk in a conventional
manner “to allow easy field replacement” of blades due to
FOD or bird strike (Colaguori, 1998). In addition, the fan’s rotor
blades have lower aspect ratios (the blades’ radial length divided by
axial length) than the corresponding F100-PW-229 fan blades, making
them sturdier and, therefore, less susceptible to damage from
bird strike or FOD.

Also an article from Bill Sweetman...

Quote:

P&W is proceeding at full speed on its improved F-16/F-15 candidate,
the F100-PW-229A. A design verification engine will be tested in
mid-1999, assembly of a final qualification prototype will start
next June, and the engine should be fully qualified in mid-2000 for
deliveries in the last quarter of the year.

The company's goal has been to develop an "increased thrust,
affordable and exportable engine", according to program manager Bill
Gostic. The principal change to the PW-229A engine, which is the end
product of a development process that started in 1989, is an
entirely new fan based on F119 technology. It includes a tougher,
FOD-resistant first stage, and wide-chord blisk second and third
stages. Aerodynamic improvements make it possible to eliminate the
moving inlet guide vanes, and the fan is more efficient than the
current design and handles more airflow. In a new F-16, the PW-229A
will run behind the larger `big mouth' inlet which has been used on
F110-powered aircraft.

Fuel efficiency
Greater efficiency means that the engine produces more power than
today's PW-229 at the same temperatures. The PW-229A produces 142kN,
about 10% more than today's engine, when installed in an F-15 or a
big-mouth F-16. It will be slightly less powerful in an existing
F-16 and could run to 165kN with unrestricted airflow. The engine is
more fuel-efficient than today's engine, thereby extending the
fighter's range.

The new fan module is longer than the unit which it replaces, so P&W
has shortened the augmenter to keep the overall engine length
constant. The PW-229A, like its GE rival, is designed to accept a
conventional nozzle, an all-axis vectoring nozzle, or an ejector
nozzle with reduced IR signature. Because the PW-229A fan has fewer,
larger blades than the PW-229, and has fixed guide vanes, the new
engine is no more costly to manufacture than the current product.
Some F119 technologies - such as composites and the hollow-blade
blisk first stage - have not been incorporated, saving money and
retaining sensitive technology in the US.

The fan and augmenter are being offered for retrofit to PW-229
engines, with similar benefits in terms of lifetime. Adding the new
fan would eliminate one major depot-level overhaul from the engine's
service cycle, and P&W estimates that the USAF would realize a net
US$250-US$300 million saving by retrofitting its F-15Es and F-16
Block 52s.

Sadly the PW-232 disappeared from PW's web-site about the time the Raptor came under cuts.

Guess PW didn't want congress to know an F-15 or F-16 could super-cruise in formation with a Raptor with "newly kitted" PW-232 engines... Rolling Eyes

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

sferrin wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

Whoa

Can you explain that a little more? I'm having trouble getting my head around that one.

which part, the 37k or the double supersonic thrust?

The double supersonic thrust. Again, Whoa Shocked

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 634 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

Can you explain that a little more? I'm having trouble getting my head around that one.

A jet engine’s exhaust velocity must be faster than the intake air and air surrounding the aircraft. (Or the thrust becomes negative - AKA drag). Intake velocity is dependent on how fast the aircraft is moving and how the intake handles it. Air must be subsonic to be ingested by a jet engine's compressor. (If it's not moving the compressor must have the ability to suck it in without stalling.) An aircraft also has drag as it moves along, there must always be a net positive increase in exhaust velocity. (moving air super-heated by fuel traveling faster than the intake air and outside air). Not only does the exhaust air need be equal to or above aircraft velocity, but powerful enouth to overcome drag as the aircraft moves at speed. Acceleration of a jet aircraft will "fade out" when the exhaust velocity of the engine cannot overcome drag and keep it's exhaust gas velocity above the aircraft's speed.

Now in a nut-shell. A Raptor's motors at M1.5 must be exhausting a stream of gasses that is well above M1.5 with sufficient power to push that much weight/drag along at M1.5.

Consider the original F100-PW-100 of the F-15 made about 15K thrust at a stand-still AKA "static" in 1970. The F100-PW-232 of the early 1990s made 21K at MIL "static." This equates to about a 30% INCREASE of MIL thrust. If the "newer" engine was only flowing 10% more air, it must be exiting the exhaust at a higher velocity to gain the full 30% increase in thrust. This added "high-speed thrust" would be perfect for a M1.5 "super-cruise".

Figure the PW-232 makes 30% more MIL thrust than the PW-100, now think about how easy a WHOLE NEW engine design would be able to achieve double the amount of thrust at MIL power.

Read up on some of the F119 development history and the DoD programs that funded it. Some key words of the programs were "100% increased trust" or "50% lower fuel-burn."

Makes for some exciting reading for "an engine guy" Wink

Help you clear things up for you Tinito?

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 895 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

which part, the 37k or the double supersonic thrust?

The double supersonic thrust. Again, Whoa Shocked

It was from an old AvWeek article but that's what they said. Like The Engine Guy said it has to do with exhaust velocity and airflow. The airflow figure I've heard for the F119 is 335lbs/sec compared to ~270 or so for a -229 and since more is going through the core and the core is running hotter (even the F135 doesn't run as hot as the F119- a cost saving measure) it'll geet more "oomph" at high speed per pound of airflow.

sferrin wrote:

Obamanite wrote:

Interesting. I was just watching Showdown: Air Combat in the Military Channel and host Maj. Paul "Max" Moga came right out and said that the F119 produces "37,000 lbs." of thrust

Not quite as impressive as it sounds. An F100-232 was run up to 37,000lbs+ back in 1992. The impressive part with the F119 is it apparently produces TWICE the thrust of an F100 at supersonic speeds in military power.

That's because in many ways, although technically a turbofan, the F119 behaves more like a turbojet at supersonic speeds. It is, as has been said of the F404, a leaky turbojet.

Just look at the so-called F-16/79. Although the J79 engine it used generated only 18,000 lbs. of sea-level static thrust in afterburner, compared to about 24,000 lbs. for the F100, it actually performed better at supersonic speeds than the F100.

So yes, the Raptor really becomes a star performer at supersonic speeds, and why its supercruise speed is closer to Mach 2 than Mach 1.5, which was the target supercruise speed for the ATF program but which was far exceeded both by the YF-22 and YF-23. Unfortunately, though, GE's F120 was not chosen, because that engine, IMO, would have been even more impressive as a so-called "variable-cycle" powerplant. That engine could actually alter its bypass ratio, and could go from behaving like a turbofan at subsonic speeds, to behaving like a turbojet when supersonic. It was judged, however, to have been a higher risk engine than the PW. It should be noted, though, that the GE-powered YF-22 and YF-23 could supercruise considerably faster than their PW-powered counterparts. That being said, I have been very impressed at the reliability of the F119. It has had none of the very serious teething problems that the F100 had when first introduced into service. In fact, it is more reliable now, at this early stage in the program, than either the F100 or F110 ever were. Hats off to Pratt for making a great engine.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Definitive thrust rating for F119 37,000 lbs.?