GE F136

All about the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the (cancelled) General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

cobzz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 12:56

Unread post18 Jul 2009, 17:21

Offline

cywolf32

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 12:04
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2009, 17:51

Thanx cobzz, muchos gracios...
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7356
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Jul 2009, 18:26

duplicate
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2302
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post18 Jul 2009, 19:11

Corsair1963 wrote:BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?

:wtf:
Why would you want to do that? The US DoD has only committed to the F135, why sell out our Raptors so that foreign governments can buy GE engines?

If they want it, they should fund it.

Congress has already sunk $2.5B on the F136 but the DoD has canceled (or tried to stop finding it) 4x now! How much $$ has any other 'partner' country spent on funding the F136?

So we're going to spend around $3.4B total on an engine that may never be used by the USAF, Navy or Marines, that could purchase 40 or so F-35s or another 20 Raptors?
The F136 team does confirm, however, that funding shortages and shifting program schedules have forced it to reprioritize initial service release (ISR) targets. "We've moved it up for CTOL [conventional takeoff and landing] to March 2012, and Stovl [short takeoff and vertical landing] has gone out to the right to around March 2013," says the team. The change to the Stovl target reflects the fact that no F136-powered F-35s are earmarked for the earlier production Lot 4 batch around that time. "They didn't need it until 2013, and we didn't have the money anyway," it adds.

..all of this spending on an engine that won't fly until 2012!?! If everyone thinks an 'alternate engine' is so important, then why aren't we buying F-32s w/F136s and F-35s w/F135s? Isn't a grounding condition with the airframe or software going to be just as bad as a 'serious engine issue'?
:shrug:
The mentality just doesn't fit. If we need to have different engines, to keep risk lower or price lower, why don't you need to buy 2 of anything else 'just in case'? Avionics? Software? Actuators? Ejection Seats? Airframes?
Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

Beazz

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 465
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 19:19

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 02:48

BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?[/quote]

Not according to Obama. He has threatened a veto if money for the F22 OR the F136 engine is in the defense bill.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4037
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 03:22

That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?

:wtf:
Why would you want to do that? The US DoD has only committed to the F135, why sell out our Raptors so that foreign governments can buy GE engines?

If they want it, they should fund it.

Congress has already sunk $2.5B on the F136 but the DoD has canceled (or tried to stop finding it) 4x now! How much $$ has any other 'partner' country spent on funding the F136?

So we're going to spend around $3.4B total on an engine that may never be used by the USAF, Navy or Marines, that could purchase 40 or so F-35s or another 20 Raptors?
The F136 team does confirm, however, that funding shortages and shifting program schedules have forced it to reprioritize initial service release (ISR) targets. "We've moved it up for CTOL [conventional takeoff and landing] to March 2012, and Stovl [short takeoff and vertical landing] has gone out to the right to around March 2013," says the team. The change to the Stovl target reflects the fact that no F136-powered F-35s are earmarked for the earlier production Lot 4 batch around that time. "They didn't need it until 2013, and we didn't have the money anyway," it adds.

..all of this spending on an engine that won't fly until 2012!?! If everyone thinks an 'alternate engine' is so important, then why aren't we buying F-32s w/F136s and F-35s w/F135s? Isn't a grounding condition with the airframe or software going to be just as bad as a 'serious engine issue'?
:shrug:
The mentality just doesn't fit. If we need to have different engines, to keep risk lower or price lower, why don't you need to buy 2 of anything else 'just in case'? Avionics? Software? Actuators? Ejection Seats? Airframes?
Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG



Sorry, I believe we are talking "Politics" here. Not the merits of having or not having a second engine for the F-35.


In short the States that would produce the F-136 and its components want that work. With the Senators and Congressmen from said states doing everything it there power to keep the project. (i.e. F-136)


BTW I to have often expressed the need for the "European JSF Members" to fund the F-136. As it clearly is not in the overall interests of the US Military.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4037
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 03:27

Beazz wrote:BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?


Not according to Obama. He has threatened a veto if money for the F22 OR the F136 engine is in the defense bill. [/quote]


As I said we are talking Politics. Obama will likely have to compromise on some points just like the Senate and Congress.............



So, is it going to be the Raptor, F136, or some other big ticket item?


Its worth noting that the while the US may not be interested in a second engine for the F-35 per se. (i.e. F136) Many of the JSF Partners may.............Which, are important to the Program.

Oh, the world of Politics.... :wink:
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2302
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 03:40

Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, I believe we are talking "Politics" here. Not the merits of having or not having a second engine for the F-35.

In short the States that would produce the F-136 and its components want that work. With the Senators and Congressmen from said states doing everything it there power to keep the project. (i.e. F-136)


Yes I believe we are, bad politics! :mad:

Don't you think that the Raptor program work supports many more US Citizens' paychecks in more states than the F136 does? Why do you think Congress is trying to save it too? If you cut F135 production in PW facilities through the states, isn't that bad too? PW is already loosing about half the F119 contracts it was expecting.

You're robbing one program to save the other already. (Less F-35's for the US to pay for an engine we don't want)
BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?

Then the thought "Let's not buy any more Raptors for our Air Force, so we can develop an engine for a foreign air force..."

:slap: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4037
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 03:46

That_Engine_Guy wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Sorry, I believe we are talking "Politics" here. Not the merits of having or not having a second engine for the F-35.

In short the States that would produce the F-136 and its components want that work. With the Senators and Congressmen from said states doing everything it there power to keep the project. (i.e. F-136)


Yes I believe we are, bad politics! :mad:

Don't you think that the Raptor program work supports many more US Citizens' paychecks in more states than the F136 does? Why do you think Congress is trying to save it too? If you cut F135 production in PW facilities through the states, isn't that bad too? PW is already loosing about half the F119 contracts it was expecting.

You're robbing one program to save the other already. (Less F-35's for the US to pay for an engine we don't want)
BTW Its possible the F136 could go ahead. If, Congress gives up the Raptor. :?

Then the thought "Let's not buy any more Raptors for our Air Force, so we can develop an engine for a foreign air force..."

:slap: TEG



Again, I wasn't discussing the merits. More to the point...........the POLITICS. :?

Remember, everybody is fightning for there share of the pie. With nobody looking at the big picture. Expect maybe the President, Secy of Defense and Service Chiefs. :wink: Plus, Levin and McCain......... :salute:
Offline

cobzz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 12:56

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 06:15

In 2005 the British Government granted Rolls Royce £650m in RLI to fund the F136, in addition to the 2.5 billion $ they gave previously to the F-35 programme as a whole. You also do realise that having two engine options lowers your per-frame purchase costs due to competition, right? In short, the US committed to including a Rolls Royce produced engine when the UK government signed their MoU. As for Obama saying it's F-22 or F135, well, if so, then he's a moron. 'Nuff said.
Offline

underhill

Banned

  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2008, 17:09

Unread post19 Jul 2009, 13:04

P&W is behind schedule and over cost. So is JSF. It would be a little easier for both if they had the money from the F136, so it only makes sense to award P&W a monopoly. Then we'll never know how much a 5 per cent thrust bump would have cost for the F136 - we'll jut pay P&W whatever it costs, and everyone will be happy.
I'm a troll/fol-de-rol/And I'll eat you for my supper
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post25 Nov 2009, 20:46

I searched but couldn't find the answer.

Will this engine, and aircraft, be "flyby wire" for the throttles like they are for the flight control surfaces? I'm only familiar with the standard throttle...cables...boost actuators...more cables, and finally rack and pinion on the engine type designs. The Canadian Air Force is still stuck in the 80's.

:roll:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 20370
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 Nov 2009, 21:49

FADEC engine control and monitoring mentioned at end of this video (17Mb .FLV):

http://www.fighterengineteam.com/f136_explore.html
_________________

FADEC article here: http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Article ... 36561&p=32
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4037
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Nov 2009, 22:04

Really, both GE and P & W Programs have had problems. So, are we to trust just one of them to the most important fighter program in decades? (if ever)

I think not....
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2302
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post25 Nov 2009, 23:58

To answer pushoksti's question - "Will this engine, and aircraft, be "flyby wire" for the throttles like they are for the flight control surfaces?"

Yes the motor and aircraft will use fly by wire. The F-35 uses a BAE Systems' "active stick and throttle"

The F-35 has an "all electric flight control system for movement of primary flight control surfaces" being flaps, tailerons and rudder. They will use a new electrohydrostatic actuators. "EHAs would eliminate the need for separate hydraulic pumps and tubing, simplifying aircraft layout and improving safety and reliability."

So not only is the aircraft fly by wire, but also 'power-by-wire' controls! :cool:

Here is some information concerning the F135's controls.

Hamilton Sundstrand is prime contractor for the ground-breaking PHM health-monitoring and self-diagnostics systems. The intention is that PHM, a new acronym which will become important (meaning Prognostics and Health-Monitoring), will automatically take account of any in-flight fault, or incipient fault, adjust engine operation and inform the pilot, and in real time transfer data to the aircraft's home base. Thus, any replacement components will be ready for retrofit as the aircraft lands, with the engine pronounced fit again (the plan is) in about 15 minutes, which is said to be a 94 per cent improvement over present times. Of course, that is based on the replacement of externals, not such items as turbine blades.

PHM will make use of electrostatic and other sensors to monitor such parameters as debris generation, vibration, blade health and lubricating-oil quality. The suite of sensors will constantly monitor approximately 500 data streams, which will be integrated with the F-35's own systems. The complete PHM system has been developed in partnership with NASA Ames, which created vital data-fusion algorithms, NASA Dryden and NASA Glenn, with flight development to be carried out with a C-17. As noted previously, the aim is to predict the need for inspection or parts-replacement, so that, via a satellite link, the airbase or aircraft carrier knows the engine health before the aircraft returns from its mission.


Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

EDIT - added photo.
Attachments
EHA.jpg
Test EHA from a NASA program.
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests