F-35B will have the most complex single engine for a jet

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

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 19:48

Raise your hand if you think the F-35B will have the most reliable engine for a single engine jet fighter, as promised.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 20:42

Reliability relative to what?
Offline

Shaken

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 01:52

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 20:51

So what single engine fighter do you believe is blessed with the most reliable engine? The MiG-21 perhaps?
The early F-16/F100 years weren't marked by stellar reliability and I don't imagine the JF-17 and J-10 are setting any records. I don't know how the various Dassault products fare, but I honestly suspect the current F-16 versions are somewhat more reliable than the M2000 (because they get a lot more debugging and overall investment due to the larger number in service and successive growth).

I predict there will be several engine-related incidents over the first ten years of service and much hyperbolic press coverage will accompany them. (Twin-engine advocates will crow that the predicted doom has arrived across many a forum.) Then we WILL see the most reliable single-engine fighter engine deliver on its promise reliability. Any new engine takes a little bit of time to get the last kinks worked out, but both Pratt and GE have delivered successively more reliable engines year after year. I see no reason to think the F135 will break that trend.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 20:57

What matrix, no other jet driven lift fan system in production?

-Single engine jet?
-Compared to recent (modern manufacturing) or ever?

Please provide more definition for your question.
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 21:27

I meant in relation to other single engine jet fighters. The F-35B adds lots of lovely complexity:
* All that gearing and ductwork.
* Highly weight constrained.
* Using all sorts of brand new processes and materials.
Offline

tacf-x

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 21:31

It will be far more reliable than the XFV-12A for sure! ;)
Offline

thestealthfighterguy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 252
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 01:18
  • Location: Your six-O-clock

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 21:49

hcobb wrote:Raise your hand if you think the F-35B will have the most reliable engine for a single engine jet fighter, as promised.

Your poll dosn't have a yes so I guess it can't be. TSFG
Stealth, so the bad guys don't know your there till they start blowing up. Have a nice day!
Offline

velocityvector

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2009, 04:21
  • Location: Chicago

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 23:27

It depends. How good are the engine maintainers in service with your particular country?
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post29 Dec 2011, 23:44

hcobb wrote:I meant in relation to other single engine jet fighters. The F-35B adds lots of lovely complexity:
* All that gearing and ductwork.
* Highly weight constrained.
* Using all sorts of brand new processes and materials.


After the development is completed about Block 3.0? The steady-state production should be optimised. Those planes, at that time, will experience IHMO greater reliability than previous single engine fighters. This is enhanced by the new maintenance system "Autonomic Logistics Information System" (ALIS) and Computerized Maintenance Management System which can download and analyze the inflight records from each system. Those A-799 "gripes" (nothing found) can now be identified as "which" loose connection that only occurs above 7gs, etc.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 01:33

hcobb is right, we should stop developing all new technology!


Image
Offline

Code3

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 117
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2008, 02:45

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 05:44

hcobb...is there a reason you won't let anybody vote "yes"?
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 06:49

hcobb...is there a reason you won't let anybody vote "yes"?
The absence is tongue in cheek, really.

I personally have grave doubts about how well the F-35B will work, once the Marines get it down in the mud and the gravel.

Surely the same service can not be proudly stating both of these things:

The Marines are planning to use the F-35B from "unimproved surfaces at austere bases" and are preparing landing spots with "special, high-temperature concrete designed to handle the heat from the JSF".
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24392
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 08:06

Some of the issues described by hcobb above are overstated. There are quite a few threads on this forum describing how USMC intend to use their F-35Bs both ashore and afloat. Simply put no aircraft does well down in the mud and gravel. So what gives there? The reporter suggesting 'heat issues' for concrete was repeating the self praise of the concreter. That heat issue has been covered in the vertical landing threads. The F-35B heat/exhaust environment is similar to the AV-8b, which is well known to the Marines. They know how to deal with it - even if some find that difficult to understand.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 08:43

@ hcobb... Because the F-35B has a 450 NM combat radius vs the AV-8B's 300 NM combat radius it is not going to need as austere basing very often. Their aren't very many places in the world that are more then 800 KM away from a paved runway.
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post30 Dec 2011, 09:40

Really should have had some "yes" answers in this poll (even if the "yes" came with some caveat's)! :roll: I agree with Shaken and alloycowboy all new technology will have it's "teething" phase, but I believe the F-35A & C will prove to have a good single engine track record. And the F-35B will be light years beyond the AV-8 Harriers once they get all the kinks worked out of the lift fan doors, auxiliary air inlets, etc. see http://www.aviationweek.com/media/image ... taway.html
Last edited by FlightDreamz on 31 Dec 2011, 01:39, edited 1 time in total.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Next

Return to F-35 Engine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests